President Trump

I think that position is a reasonable one, but I find (in my experience with friends, coworkers, family, and having spent part of my life as one myself) evangelicals lead far more with emotion than reason.

Faith (and being taught to believe in something unquestioning) effects how one perceives the world IMO. I don't mean that to sound judgmental or condescending. Honest. Faith in God, spirituality, or of something greater is a beautiful concept and I would not want that to ever be broken for someone. But in that, somewhere, I believe is a spider's silk of a fragile and wavy line that can easily bend to the pressing fluid currents of society. Or, inversely, to one's own biases.

Faith in a higher power is so strong that I am now questioning using the term "higher power" as opposed to simply typing "God." And I've not been a practicing Christian since probably before college. Even still, that is a well of gravity that always pulls at me, as technically removed from that life as I am today. My point is though, once taught to place faith into something that scientifically cannot be proven, then that ...method(?) may very well influence how we view other, more observable and measurable experiences. Faith-based healing is very much alive and well (hm. Is that an unintended pun?), and practiced. Side-stepping from religion, anti-vaxxers have faith in their perception that vaccines may cause harm. Granted that is not religious based, but it is a low-hanging example of how faith in one's belief can sway us to turn away from counter arguments that do not fit our expectations, assumptions, and to a lesser, morbid extent, hope that we are right.

That line falls somewhere between faith (which again is such a wonderfully precious thing) and arrogance. I am always fascinated by how often one mistakes arrogance for faith, and for how easy it is to attribute to our egos that, that should be reserved for God (if you believe in God). This is a very weird modeling that I see play out.

We learn through societal observations. We witness some action, we retain memory of that action, we then recall and replay that action, modeling (now for others) what we have learned and practiced in a constant cycle: learning and teaching and learning. I see so often individuals practice the learned behavior of placing confident faith into God, but then modeling that same level of faith into one's self as if to imply, "I have absolutely faith in God; therefore, I have absolute faith in myself and my other beliefs." That stance is undisciplined, and ironic to me in that once any of us step into that trap of believing in our own biases and assumptions of society, it is so very easy to convince ourselves that we are right simply because we project our faith onto our own self-righteousness. That effectively perpetuates the original misstep, and on we go unquestioning our views or avoiding honest self-reflection.

As long as one can justify a stance, then that is really all it takes. "Infidelity? Arrogance? Blasphemy? Well, those are acceptable because what I believe to be most important is the single wedge issue of the unborn! (as an example)" Just maintain faith that one topic takes priority over all others, and that your believe is absolutely right (because how can you possibly be wrong?), and there will never be a need to back-step from any position. I mean, you have faith. One doesn't just question faith.

Hell and good intentions and all that.

Anyway. My apologies for going knee deep in text all for a one-line trigger One thought led to another and to another and so it began. Again, I agree that your post would be a reasonable, face-saving, position (if I read you right?). I just very much doubt most will question anything enough to ever consider it an option mostly for what I comment on above.

Also, I have to vent my longer winded thoughts from time to time, else people here might think I'm an idiot peppering these forums with my random ribbings when I'm bored.

*in through the nose; out through the mouth*
*in through the nose; ...out through the mouth*

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

No worries.

My opinion is that pretty much everyone makes decisions the way you're describing, evangelicals are just less likely to try to rationalize it. But hey, maybe that itself is a rationalization. Even though I'm not evangelical (maybe I am definitionally, but I find it has a modern connotation that narrows the functional definition considerably).

Anyway, I think the evangelicals making excuses for Trump are just falling into run-of-the-mill political tribalism. When you combine people's opinions on Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, it's pretty amazing how many principles turn out to be highly contingent.

Pretty much. Yup.

The way I look at it: you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.

We need a peaceful North Korea, and Trump may be the only person who can deliver that (or maybe he won't).

The point is: Neville Chamberlain may have been a very nice guy... but sometimes, depending on who or what you're dealing with, a nice guy may not be what you need right now.

Its not really compareable because north korea isnt a superpower like germany was at the time

Hey, could be.

It's also possible what he's doing is totally reckless, significantly increases the chance of a nuclear war...and still works out for the best, anyway.

There's not a lot of precedent for this stuff.

Not crazy as Hitler was as well.

North Korea objectives appear to be clear: they want to preserve their dynasty in power. Getting nuclear weapons and showing then off was a way to show that in the event of a war the costs on South Korea and on the US would be catastrophic. Hence inducing the US and South Korea or negotiate. Now they already achieved some conclusive peace talks and I guess NK hopes that they will be able to get a formal peace treaty with the US. In this way their regime is preserved from the next couple of decades at least.

Hitler was a very different case. He took power with the objective of executing a massive war of aggression and imperialistic expansion over Europe and had as primary objectives the extermination of foreign ethnic groups in Europe to make up space for German colonists. He was aiming for a world war and genocide from the very beginning of his government. Hitler is pretty much an isolated case in modern world history: over the past 200 years I think Hitler was the only person who actually tried to do something like imperialistic wars of aggression on foreign powers. He basically though he could be a modern version of Genghis Khan. Nobody in the UK suspected that he would be as crazy as he turned out to be, not even the German generals expected him to be that crazy (as they were already traumatized by WW1).

I think thats all right. I would like to mention also how nuclear warfare wasn't as prevalent in WWII especially earlier on, allowing Hitler to be much more aggressive during fighting. In turn this is just another point that Germany during WWII is a completely different beast and IMO not all that compareable.

Not that I oppose it, but boy, do you guys know how to go off on an unintended tangent. More power to you!

My only point was perhaps only Trump could attract Un to the table (and maybe "only Nixon could go to China" let's see what kind of tanget THAT produces!).
See my former post a couple days back for the reasons why Trump might be the U.S. President most attractive to Un.
Or perhaps that's wrong - all that really matters is the outcome and we'll have to wait to see what happens.

I've still yet to see evidence that Trump got Russia to hack the DNC.

Or that Assad committed a gas attack on his own citizens.

Or that Kevin Spacey is a rapist.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

Sooo, I saw this article by Vox, celebrating the end of Obamacare's individual mandate and I thought to myself: "Wow, Vox is actually going against their partisan narrative that changing Obamacare in any way will murder hundreds of thousands of people?"

Then I read this:

OF-****ING-COURSE, partisans will walk back anything if it means taking a stab at the opposition.

Here's the same damn writer fear-mongering in other articles:

Vox is such a transparent pile of ****.

You’re only having that thought now?

If TRump didn’t constantly shoot himself in the foot I’d love this man. Good job on keeping your word and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. Was a shmuck job

__________________

Do you feel like if he did have something to do with it that he'd just tell us? I mean, he literally says just about anything that seemingly pops into his head. I kinda feel like he'd just tell us.

As far as Assad goes... do you ever watch Jimmy Dore?


Award Winning Journalist Debunks Douma Gas Attack w/Carla Ortiz





"The offer is on the table..." Ah government.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

No, I feel like due process requires a preponderance of evidence, of which you have none.

Hey, how 'bout that, you stumbled upon a legitimate criticism of Trump. I knew you could do it.

what's that got to do with Trump

__________________
letterboxd

You're not debating the points, you're just smarting off and trying to make fun of another member. If this is your rebuttal, then you lose the debate.

So I guess that's a no then. Is this how you talk to everybody? I guess we had a little dust up in the past. Can we move on? You seem like a smart guy capable of doing so. I'm interested in your thoughts on my first question.

What's Trump got to do with movies?

First off, the mental image of Powdered Water debating anything is in and of itself a comedy.

Secondly, I have challenged Powdered Water multiple times at length in this very thread to substantiate their claims and they have consistently failed to do so. And in this case, Powdered Water isn't even making a point. They are, in your own words, "making fun" of the target of their criticisms (Trump).

The irony here, which I didn't even point out, is that if Trump's lack of a filter is to be exploited to gather evidence against him, then it is telling that he hasn't admitted to being a Russian butt-monkey yet.


The only other way I can conceive of you feeling this criticism of me is justified is if you feel I've failed to elaborate on my specific objections to the video he posted. The fact is, I don't object to the video. I feel it highlights a genuine criticism of Trump and the legacy media which I have been alluding to for months on this very thread and in particular with my arguments with Kaplan, who also has consistently failed to substantiate their various claims.

No.