Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Liberal Media Won't Shame Me Out of Voting Again for Trump - Michael Brown

  1. #1
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1

    The Liberal Media Won't Shame Me Out of Voting Again for Trump - Michael Brown

    I have no desire to defend the worst of President Trump's tweets. Or the ugliest of his words. Or the most inappropriate aspects of his behavior. And I have no idea whether he understands what it means to be a Christian or if he ever reads the Bible.

    But in 2020, if it is Donald Trump vs. any of the Democratic candidates, I would vote again for Trump in a heartbeat. And the liberal media will not shame me out of my vote.

    As I wrote before, I will not play the game of renounce Trump to prove my Christian witness.

    When the president embarrasses me, I'll say so.

    When I find his words or actions offensive, I'll make that known.

    Won't March to the Beat of Critics
    But I will not dance to the tune of the liberal media or march to the beat of the critics, nor should you.

    First, you will never appease your ideological enemies. Until you renounce your larger, conservative convictions, you will still be branded a bigot and a homophobe, a hater of women, and more.

    True, on a personal level, I might get some liberal airtime if I were to say today, "As an evangelical leader, I am deeply disappointed in the behavior of President Trump and will not vote for him in 2020."

    But I guarantee you that I would still be hated by those same liberals for my views on abortion and homosexuality. I would still be considered a dangerous transphobe for standing against transgender activism. I would still be vilified as a small-minded hater for affirming the authority of Scripture.

    Trump or a Radical Liberal?
    Second, there is a clear endgame these critics are playing when they shame evangelicals who voted for Trump. They want him to lose the next election. They want one of their own in the White House.

    They couldn't care less about hurting our evangelical witness. In fact, they're the ones who helped create and drive the narrative that, "No true Christian could ever vote for Trump!" (For the sensitive Christian reader who struggles with some of the president's words and actions, ask yourself this question: Do liberal media pundits who mock our Christian values really care about our witness? Do you really think they want to help us be more effective in sharing the gospel with others? Really?)

    The goal of the liberal critic is simple: Diminish support for Trump, increase support for one of his opponents. Period.

    And for me, the choices are simple, given the likely scenario in 2020: 1) Sit out the election, 2) vote for a radical liberal, or 3) vote for Trump. And to sit out the election (by the millions) is to guarantee the election of a radical liberal.

    Not Blind to the President's Shortcomings
    "But," the critic asks, "how can you possibly vote for Trump? He's such a vile character. He is so crude with his insults. He's nasty, and he's divisive, and so much more that is unchristian. How can you vote for him?"

    To be perfectly clear, I am not blind to the president's shortcomings. During the primaries, I was one of his most vocal conservative detractors. (See this video we put out in November, 2015 titled, "Why Evangelicals Should Have a Problem with Donald Trump." We never took it down for the sake of integrity and honesty. That is how I felt at that time.)

    Right before the 2018 elections, I wrote a book titled, Donald Trump Is Not My Savior (and I did this as a Trump supporter.)

    So I am hardly blind when it comes to our president's faults. And I have never been comfortable with evangelical leaders defending Trump as if he were a paragon of Christian virtue.

    But that's the whole point. He is not our Savior. He is not our moral champion. He is not our spiritual leader. As I've said before, the Savior gets my life. The president gets my vote. There is no comparison between the two.

    Although I personally did not believe the president's recent "go back home" tweets were racist, I was not happy with them either. Nor was I happy with the "send her home" chant at his North Carolina rally. Or with the way he recently responded to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

    A Legacy of Life
    But I am thrilled with how he has transformed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with his appointees, resulting in a major pro-life victory against Planned Parenthood.

    I am thrilled that, back in March, the UK Guardian could run a headline stating, "Trump's legacy: conservative judges who will dominate US law for decades." Or that, in April, the Hill could state, "Donald Trump has secured the future of our American courts."


    More recently, an email from First Liberty's Kelly Shackleford announced that, "Over the past week, the U.S. Senate confirmed five more judges to the federal bench. These five confirmations are an important milestone that bring the total number of the President's-appointed judges to 130.

    "For the first time in this administration, we have more confirmations (130) than vacancies (129)."

    This legacy will far outlast Trump's mean-spirited tweets or ill-advised words.

    In the same way, when it comes to the economy, if it's Trump vs. a socialist, he has my vote. The same when it comes to religious liberties. Or standing with Israel. Or pushing back against radical LGBT activism.

    Trump gets my vote, and the liberal media won't shame me out of it.

    As for my testimony as a follower of Jesus, watch my life and actions. Listen to my words. Examine me closely, then come to your own conclusions.

    And then ask yourself this question: If we can save the lives of babies who would have been slaughtered in the womb, do you think they will care if the man who helped save them was sometimes vulgar and crude? And do you think they'll find us unchristian if we voted for him?

    https://stream.org/liberal-media-won...-voting-trump/

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to fuego For This Useful Post:

    A.J. (07-27-2019), curly sue (07-26-2019), FireBrand (07-27-2019)

  3. #2
    I have zero issues with Mr Trump winning a second term. I’m not too ashamed to admit liking the Democrats throwing another tantrum and run on the safe places.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to FireBrand For This Useful Post:

    Femme* (08-03-2019)

  5. #3
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by FireBrand View Post
    I have zero issues with Mr Trump winning a second term.
    ZERO.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to fuego For This Useful Post:

    FireBrand (07-27-2019)

  7. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post

    When the president embarrasses me, I'll say so.

    When I find his words or actions offensive, I'll make that known.
    But the problem, as I see it, is that you rarely hear conservative Christians (CCs)
    criticizing Trump. I can understand voting for him (lesser of evils principle) but
    I can't understand remaining silent in the face of his horrible, immoral words and
    actions.

    My belief is that politics has become so partisan, that CCs feel that they have
    to not only vote for Trump, but embrace him, because to do otherwise would
    be to signal implicit support for the other side.

  8. #5
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by njtom View Post
    But the problem, as I see it, is that you rarely hear conservative Christians (CCs)
    criticizing Trump. I can understand voting for him (lesser of evils principle) but
    I can't understand remaining silent in the face of his horrible, immoral words and
    actions.

    My belief is that politics has become so partisan, that CCs feel that they have
    to not only vote for Trump, but embrace him, because to do otherwise would
    be to signal implicit support for the other side.
    The same can be said about the other side. They'll scream racist at Trump for doing what their own did recently (Bernie Sanders said about the same things about Baltimore not long ago). The whole thing looks like a bad sitcom to an outsider who knows a few details more than the European media bothers to tell.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    fuego (07-30-2019)

  10. #6
    In my view, CCs (and LCs) should advocate for positions that are in accord with
    their opinion of how their religious beliefs should impact public policy.

    One can do this without becoming beholden to a particular politician, political party,
    or political entity (community, tribe, nation-state, etc.).

    Once you decide that in order to advance your particular policy agenda, you're going
    consider yourself "aligned" to a person, party, or political entity, then you tend to
    "buy in" to all of that entity, including the policies and behaviors that you would
    otherwise strongly disagree with. And because this kind of alignment leads to
    an "us vs. them" attitude, you also tend to oppose, even hate, all things and people
    associated with "the other side".

    So if Sen. Sanders says something racist, then I ought to condemn it without qualification,
    regardless of the fact that I like his "Medicare for All" plan. (I actually don't like the
    plan, but that's another matter.)

  11. #7
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by njtom View Post
    In my view, CCs (and LCs) should advocate for positions that are in accord with
    their opinion of how their religious beliefs should impact public policy.

    One can do this without becoming beholden to a particular politician, political party,
    or political entity (community, tribe, nation-state, etc.).

    Once you decide that in order to advance your particular policy agenda, you're going
    consider yourself "aligned" to a person, party, or political entity, then you tend to
    "buy in" to all of that entity, including the policies and behaviors that you would
    otherwise strongly disagree with. And because this kind of alignment leads to
    an "us vs. them" attitude, you also tend to oppose, even hate, all things and people
    associated with "the other side".

    So if Sen. Sanders says something racist, then I ought to condemn it without qualification,
    regardless of the fact that I like his "Medicare for All" plan. (I actually don't like the
    plan, but that's another matter.)
    I'm more concerned about the fact that senator Sanders is a vocal anti-Christian.

  12. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    I'm more concerned about the fact that senator Sanders is a vocal anti-Christian.
    From the Southern Baptist Convention, 1998, still applicable today:

    Resolution On Moral Character Of Public Officials

    Governing authorities are not themselves exempt from the rule of law and must submit to the nation’s statutes, rather than mocking them.

    Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.

    We, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 9-11, 1998, in Salt Lake City, Utah, affirm that moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God’s people, when choosing public leaders.

    http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/773/r...blic-officials

  13. #9
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Bill Clinton and Donald Trump chased a lot of women and that might affect their work as President, for instance. How about someone who is a vocal anti-Christian, how would that affect his work as President, especially in relation to that specific group (serious Christians) ? Take a look at this exchange :

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...d-to-be-about/

    According to Bernie Sanders people who believe that non-Christians aren't righteous people before God are per definition hateful. That already defines evangelicals as a hate group.

  14. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by njtom View Post
    From the Southern Baptist Convention, 1998, still applicable today:

    Resolution On Moral Character Of Public Officials

    Governing authorities are not themselves exempt from the rule of law and must submit to the nation’s statutes, rather than mocking them.

    Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.

    We, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 9-11, 1998, in Salt Lake City, Utah, affirm that moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God’s people, when choosing public leaders.

    http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/773/r...blic-officials
    did they say that with a straight face?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can avoid major, expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Porsche. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in surprise expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.