The Democratic Party has moved too far to the left.

[Dill]

(11-26-2019, 06:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ahh, you're typing a lot of words again. There's a very good chance there have been worse characters than Trump occupy the Oval Office; it's just we are more transparent than we have been any time in the past.

An argument with supporting quotation.  A standard held to.  Not a sound bite.  Yes, a lot of words. And here are more.

There is not a very good chance there have been worse characters than Trump serving as president. Until Carter, probably all US presidents were racist, sexist, and homophobic. Washington had slaves. But because the nation has changed, we don't hold Trump to 18th-19th century standards.  If he has slaves, we'll judge him more harshly than Washington.  If respect for the Constitution and rule of law is the standard, the most like him was Jackson. If integrity of character is the standards, probably Johnson--the first to undergo an impeachment inquiry.  NO ONE in the 20th-21st century comes close.

As I have said many times before, defending Trump ALWAYS involves lowering standards of competence and ethical behavior.

Continuing that theme to respond to a couple of points you addressed to Hollo:

1. The "God uses bad men" argument undercuts the message of Jesus and any basis for serious Christian policy. If there is a (Christian) God Who does use bad men, He nevertheless does not tell His flock which ones are really accomplishing His purposes. There is no good theological reason to believe that Christians can combine support for someone like Trump with an effort to live like Christ. Where they have tried in the past, the results have not been good. In any case, in 1776, the US broke with god-appointed rulers in favor of representative government. Let's keep that precedent.

2. "No president can be a saint." This false either/or is another muddle of standards.  If a police officer is caught extorting the people he is supposed to protect, or a banker bankrupts his bank, or a teacher lies constantly about historical and political events, or hospital administrator replaces competent nurses and doctors with non-professionals less likely to resist "shadow" administration, or a minister mocks a disabled person and brags about grabbing P--we don't just shrug and say "we can't expect people to be saints." There are real world consequences, which generally involve removing said persons from the positions of trust clearly beyond their capacity.

When a "leader" in the highest office in the land rolls virtually ALL the above-described bad behavior into ONE individual, and someone argues for acceptance of the new status quo because we can't get "saints" and God works through bad men, that is for sure :



What makes challenging Trump more fearful than tolerating/accepting him for people claiming to be conservative and Christian? There is certainly precedent for that in Christian political philosophy, but it is precedent grounded in feudal, not liberal, ideals.