He’s a boor. He’s a bigger liar than Bill Clinton but less clever about it. He’s less ethical than Hillary and more narcissistic than Obama. He is the embodiment of every ridiculously bad stereotype of unethical capitalist greed that ever was, and sadly many people are proving that stereotype by falling for him. #NeverTrump
In 1968 the Yippies nominated a pig for president as a joking expression of their disaffection with the political process. His name was Pigasus. Why do I have this weird feeling of deja vu?
Zaphod Beeblebrox became president of the universe because the presidents job is not to weild power but to distract attention away from those in power.
I think you will find it was Rubio who failed the decency test there. He brought it up and made the insinuation based on Trumps small hands. Trump, with good manly banter, did what all remotely masculine men do and responded… and it was a fairly mild response. He responded simply by saying that, “there’s no problem.”
Rubio made a joke weeks earlier and did not bring it up in the debate. That was all Mr Trump.
Maybe Rubio should not have gotten in the mud with Trump but if you think he brought the mud to the party you are insane. This ridiculous insulting and name calling started with one orange man.
One orange man… Love it. The clip I saw of the debate on Thursday had the moderator mentioning a list of things Rubio had said followed by Trumps reply.
I watched the debate. Rubio did not bring it up. The moderator asked about the hands comment and then Trump decided just to start talking about his penis. I was watching it with my son. It was sort of awkward.
By the way, Trump has been calling names and making fun this whole campaign. He called Rubio a little man and mocking him for sweat and water (pull up the youtube). He mocked Cruz as a nasty guy and teased him for his (very noble) filibusters. He called Carson a child molester and mocked his personal story. He was merciless with Bush calling him low energy and bad at what he does. Trump used the word “p@ssy” and has dropped the F bomb multiple times. Rubio finally decided to fight fire with fire and did a little mocking as well.… Read more »
Christian, I dont think Rubio started anything. But even if I did think that I don’t think that would make me insane.
All televised American political debates are playground mud slinging. It’s how these men communicate, especially when there’s a camera pointed at them. My interest is how the media chooses to spin these moments for the sake of sensational headlines.
My point is that we have never seen discussion of penises in a national debate before. It is a new nadir that symbolizes how far the conservative movement has fallen. And I think that is clearly and obviously Trump’s fault and Trump’s fault alone. If he was not running, this would not be happening.
He’s the Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack, showing up to undress the corrupt National Republican Party, Romney plays the role of Judge Smales to a tee!
ashv
8 years ago
Judge as you would be judged. Seeing a Reformed pastor from Idaho take on the outlook of an atheist psychologist leads to me diagnose this as the early symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
It used to be that a preacher’s top priority was to glorify Christ in all things. Those days are gone. These days, the preacher’s top priority is to let Mr. Goldberg know that you’re one of the goodwhites, and despite all your bluster about Jesus and taking every thought captive and tearing down strongholds, he’ll get no trouble from you.
What Trump should have done is quip about Rubio’s quip in a way that pretends to not even see the double-meaning. That he didn’t know that must mean that he’s a ‘loser” With just a moment’s thought, here is what I came up with — “Well, I suppose it’s true that I have somewhat small hands; some have even said that I have stubby fingers. Be that as it may, as I understand it, it is generally men who are more impressed by the length of a person’s fingers, whereas women are more impressed by their girth. So, if the… Read more »
LittleRedMachine
8 years ago
I’m a little surprised that Doug Wilson, as good as he is at metaphors, has not picked up on the whole perfect picture that Donald Trump is painting for us. Our national political system is a joke. It is a farce. It is the tower of babel on the Potomac. These ‘debates’ and the ‘democratic’ ‘process’ are also a joke. The National Republican party is a ruse and a farce. The whole image of Donald Trump walking into these oh-so-revered and respected debates and processes and giving irreverent answers to a fellow Howard Stern slut/journalist is priceless. Sorry that Ted… Read more »
The problem is that he’s destroying the village to save it. He’s not just going to destroy the establishment and the system, which deserve it, he’s destroying the stuff worth having, too.
It seems to me that many christians are being tempted to lean on a kind of unfortunate moralism regarding Trump. All the talk about pride, power and philandering is pretty standard sin. I just can’t picture the disciples writing off Agrippa with the phrase, “Ah, but is he a Christian?” A political leader is to use the sword and execute true justice. Sure, a devoted saint would be wonderful but let’s not lose focus. Here is what keeps me from writing Trump off… If I were Kim Davis or a florist or a baker and I were dragged to court… Read more »
Saying that Trump is better than Clinton is like saying that Mussolini was better than Hitler – it might be true but it will not cause me to support mussolini. I plan to vote third party. Gary Johnson is way more conservative than Trump.
I saw the interview in which he referred to himself as a Christian. In the next breath he admitted that he had never felt that he needed to ask for forgiveness. That struck me as a very honest thing to say from a man who was clearly out of his depth and doesn’t really know what a Christian is.
Milo Yiannopoulos also sincerely considers himself a Christian. So I am ready to call both men missguided but not necessarily insincere.
That strikes me as a man who so badly doesn’t get it that he can’t even fake it. If he admitted to any sense of needing forgiveness we might suspect he was lying (or we might not think that) but at least we’d know he wasn’t clueless when it coms to the subject of what Christians actually believe. The other possibility is that his ego is so bloated that he can’t bring himself to even pretend to admitting wrong, error, or frailty, even if he thinks the pretense would work to his advantage.
I find it appallingly clueless on the most critical of matters, or appallingly egotistical. Really, does a person even need to be a Christian to have *some* sense that they need to be forgiven for something by someone? There is nothing about Trump that says to me “nice change”.
David, I am really struggling with your position here. You find Trump interesting because he makes no effort to conceal his egoism. Are you suggesting that there is nothing wrong with being a rogue as long as he is an open rogue? And how do we know that even the displays of candor are not an elaborate con, orchestrated to fire up the base?
Jilly, Yes I do prefer open rogue to fake and deceptive humility. Of course, that does not mean I like their roguishness. Just that I like authenticity. Its a Pharisee thing. I would rather a tax collector. Yes, his candor could be a con just as much as Rubio’s charm might be. The reason I hesitate to believe it is a con at this stage is that he has upset all the right people ( media, elite politicians, etc) and is being favoured by Hispanic yoga teachers, female attorneys and even your occasional college muslim. If the main stream media… Read more »
Hi, David. One of my problems with Trump is that I honestly have no idea how he would judge a moral issue on a particular day, and I don’t think he does either. It is hard to credit him with a principled objection to gay marriage when he is clearly just fine with adultery. I don’t sense any set of firm moral principles at all. I don’t think a president has to be Christian. But he should not be a hypocrite. He should not pander to evangelical voters as if he shares their beliefs and core values.
Hi Jilly. See my comment below to Bethyada about his idea of Christianity. He seems to wear his Christianity like many Americans, using it as some kind of historical cultural badge. Kinda like people who refer to America as a Christian nation as opposed to an Islamic one. I am under no illusion. He is a hedonist and a pagan. He also has some really strong principles. He has never allowed his children to drink or smoke or take drugs, he is opposed to the drug trade and has strong principles regarding immigration. He has also said in an interview… Read more »
Refreshing ain’t it? Though I fear for his physical safety if he gets much further. The biggest problem I have with Trump is the likelihood of fabricated mischief leading to violence by the elite if he gets in and civil chaos from the mobs if he doesn’t.
It’s refreshing that a guy has so few core principles that when he flies by the seat of his pants, his message can’t stay consistent for the space of a single debate?
Flying by the seat of his pants is not his problem; it’s not having actually thought about anything in a principled way such that he knows what he thinks from moment to moment.
The candor might be refreshing, but I cannot understand why the fact that the content of his candor is almost *always* a negative reflection on his character, reliability, and temperament does not outweigh the candor itself.
The most evil tyrants in history were pretty candid, too. That wasn’t really a mark in their favor, or at best, it was a tiny little positive in a sea of negative.
When I say candor I am referring to things like his attitude towards immigration or America’s borders and American’s financial problems. I’m not referring to the unnecessary remarks he makes about Rubio’s body odor.
I probably haven’t read or listened to enough of Trump to see the contradictions you may be referring to. The little I have seen on issues like immigration and taxation have seemed to me to be fairly consistent throughout his campaign.
No, I don’t mean that. On the subject of why he is being criticised, however (as far as this thread goes), I am having trouble finding anything specific.
If people object on moral grounds, well I think we could all dredge up something to disqualify all of the candidates. So, leaving that aside…. which of his positions do people object to?
I think he would probably be safe enough. But he probably shouldn’t go swimming alone on Melbourne beaches! Did they ever figure out what happened to Harold Holt?
No, I would not call that refreshing. I do fear though that manufactured civil unrest is almost inevitable if he goes much further. I can’t imagine the elites letting him in their White House.
That may happen, what with the republicans crying about how he ruined their party. There’s also the possibility unmanufatured civil unrest if the elites don’t take him out.
“Saying he is “just fine” with adultery is a bit like saying that I am
just fine with drugs because I smoked some pot in high school. It’s too
sweeping.”
Cheating openly on each wife with the succeeding ones and continuing to be unrepentant about it at the age of 69 is hardly comparable to something you did a few times as a kid, decades ago.
You really want to spin everything as positively as possible. Everybody does that with the people they like, but you have to work a lot harder at it than most.
First up, Trump brought up penis size in the debate. No one else in the debate did that. Second, Trump has been calling names and making fun this entire campaign. He called Rubio a little man and mocking him for sweat and water (pull up the youtube). He mocked Cruz as a nasty guy and teased him for his (very noble) filibusters. He called Carson a child molester and mocked his personal story. He was merciless with Bush calling him low energy and bad at what he does. Trump used the word “p@ssy” and has dropped the F bomb multiple… Read more »
Rick Davis
8 years ago
Am I the only one would would pay good money to see the candidates in a debate where they were required to adhere strictly to the rules of medieval scholastic disputation? It’d be great to see them having to exchange ideas instead of insults.
Sure, as long as we’re all aware that most things that get called “medieval punishments” today are really either modern punishments from the 1600s or were simply made up by museum owners in the 1800s to draw in more visitors.
Heck, I’d settle for having debates at all, modern or medieval. What we have now is essentially the Jerry Springer show, political version. Even when they’re acting with some dignity, it’s not a “debate” in any sense, it’s a serial interview with the interviewees addressing one another’s answers. I think the last time I can remember anything even halfway resembling a debate was in the 80s.
LittleRedMachine
8 years ago
the most appealing thing to me with Trump is his foreign policy. Our country is dripping with blood, both via abortion-on-demand as well as our overwhelmingly amoral foreign policy. Since HW Bush, we have blindly supported the Bill Kristol idealogical commitment to war and we have tainted our whole country and by extension Christianity with zeal for war, destruction, and debt. When Trump said he would approach the Israeli / Palestinian conflict as a neutral, he got my vote. That is exactly the kind of approach we should take. Cruz and Rubio both flipped a gasket and sounded like shills… Read more »
His approach to Syria is one I agree with. Marco and Hillary have both said we should establish a ‘no-fly-zone’ over Syria and if that means shooting down Russian aircraft, well so be it. Insanity.
He’s a boor. He’s a bigger liar than Bill Clinton but less clever about it. He’s less ethical than Hillary and more narcissistic than Obama. He is the embodiment of every ridiculously bad stereotype of unethical capitalist greed that ever was, and sadly many people are proving that stereotype by falling for him. #NeverTrump
And they’re investing their hopes in him to overthrow the establishment. I just. don’t. get it.
In 1968 the Yippies nominated a pig for president as a joking expression of their disaffection with the political process. His name was Pigasus. Why do I have this weird feeling of deja vu?
Zaphod Beeblebrox became president of the universe because the presidents job is not to weild power but to distract attention away from those in power.
I think you will find it was Rubio who failed the decency test there. He brought it up and made the insinuation based on Trumps small hands. Trump, with good manly banter, did what all remotely masculine men do and responded… and it was a fairly mild response. He responded simply by saying that, “there’s no problem.”
Stop making sense.
Facts don’t matter.
Trump’s the bad guy.
PERIOD.
Yes, let’s get back to the gross generalizations and platitudes so I can get a well-timed “You go, girl!” on this thread.
Rubio made a joke weeks earlier and did not bring it up in the debate. That was all Mr Trump.
Maybe Rubio should not have gotten in the mud with Trump but if you think he brought the mud to the party you are insane. This ridiculous insulting and name calling started with one orange man.
One orange man… Love it. The clip I saw of the debate on Thursday had the moderator mentioning a list of things Rubio had said followed by Trumps reply.
I watched the debate. Rubio did not bring it up. The moderator asked about the hands comment and then Trump decided just to start talking about his penis. I was watching it with my son. It was sort of awkward.
Presidential material he is…
Did they ask about boxers or briefs?
Ahh, THOSE were the days, eh?
By the way, Trump has been calling names and making fun this whole campaign. He called Rubio a little man and mocking him for sweat and water (pull up the youtube). He mocked Cruz as a nasty guy and teased him for his (very noble) filibusters. He called Carson a child molester and mocked his personal story. He was merciless with Bush calling him low energy and bad at what he does. Trump used the word “p@ssy” and has dropped the F bomb multiple times. Rubio finally decided to fight fire with fire and did a little mocking as well.… Read more »
Christian, I dont think Rubio started anything. But even if I did think that I don’t think that would make me insane.
All televised American political debates are playground mud slinging. It’s how these men communicate, especially when there’s a camera pointed at them. My interest is how the media chooses to spin these moments for the sake of sensational headlines.
https://youtu.be/5JAvoDgMusY
My point is that we have never seen discussion of penises in a national debate before. It is a new nadir that symbolizes how far the conservative movement has fallen. And I think that is clearly and obviously Trump’s fault and Trump’s fault alone. If he was not running, this would not be happening.
He’s the Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack, showing up to undress the corrupt National Republican Party, Romney plays the role of Judge Smales to a tee!
Judge as you would be judged. Seeing a Reformed pastor from Idaho take on the outlook of an atheist psychologist leads to me diagnose this as the early symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
It used to be that a preacher’s top priority was to glorify Christ in all things. Those days are gone. These days, the preacher’s top priority is to let Mr. Goldberg know that you’re one of the goodwhites, and despite all your bluster about Jesus and taking every thought captive and tearing down strongholds, he’ll get no trouble from you.
Sometimes a meme is just a meme.
What Trump should have done is quip about Rubio’s quip in a way that pretends to not even see the double-meaning. That he didn’t know that must mean that he’s a ‘loser” With just a moment’s thought, here is what I came up with — “Well, I suppose it’s true that I have somewhat small hands; some have even said that I have stubby fingers. Be that as it may, as I understand it, it is generally men who are more impressed by the length of a person’s fingers, whereas women are more impressed by their girth. So, if the… Read more »
I’m a little surprised that Doug Wilson, as good as he is at metaphors, has not picked up on the whole perfect picture that Donald Trump is painting for us. Our national political system is a joke. It is a farce. It is the tower of babel on the Potomac. These ‘debates’ and the ‘democratic’ ‘process’ are also a joke. The National Republican party is a ruse and a farce. The whole image of Donald Trump walking into these oh-so-revered and respected debates and processes and giving irreverent answers to a fellow Howard Stern slut/journalist is priceless. Sorry that Ted… Read more »
The problem is that he’s destroying the village to save it. He’s not just going to destroy the establishment and the system, which deserve it, he’s destroying the stuff worth having, too.
It seems to me that many christians are being tempted to lean on a kind of unfortunate moralism regarding Trump. All the talk about pride, power and philandering is pretty standard sin. I just can’t picture the disciples writing off Agrippa with the phrase, “Ah, but is he a Christian?” A political leader is to use the sword and execute true justice. Sure, a devoted saint would be wonderful but let’s not lose focus. Here is what keeps me from writing Trump off… If I were Kim Davis or a florist or a baker and I were dragged to court… Read more »
Saying that Trump is better than Clinton is like saying that Mussolini was better than Hitler – it might be true but it will not cause me to support mussolini. I plan to vote third party. Gary Johnson is way more conservative than Trump.
David, Trump claiming he is a Christian despite the fact he manifestly is not is enough for any Christian to refuse to give him any support.
I saw the interview in which he referred to himself as a Christian. In the next breath he admitted that he had never felt that he needed to ask for forgiveness. That struck me as a very honest thing to say from a man who was clearly out of his depth and doesn’t really know what a Christian is.
Milo Yiannopoulos also sincerely considers himself a Christian. So I am ready to call both men missguided but not necessarily insincere.
That strikes me as a man who so badly doesn’t get it that he can’t even fake it. If he admitted to any sense of needing forgiveness we might suspect he was lying (or we might not think that) but at least we’d know he wasn’t clueless when it coms to the subject of what Christians actually believe. The other possibility is that his ego is so bloated that he can’t bring himself to even pretend to admitting wrong, error, or frailty, even if he thinks the pretense would work to his advantage.
That’s what has my interest. He does not seem to be faking it. I find that a nice change.
I find it appallingly clueless on the most critical of matters, or appallingly egotistical. Really, does a person even need to be a Christian to have *some* sense that they need to be forgiven for something by someone? There is nothing about Trump that says to me “nice change”.
David, I am really struggling with your position here. You find Trump interesting because he makes no effort to conceal his egoism. Are you suggesting that there is nothing wrong with being a rogue as long as he is an open rogue? And how do we know that even the displays of candor are not an elaborate con, orchestrated to fire up the base?
Jilly, Yes I do prefer open rogue to fake and deceptive humility. Of course, that does not mean I like their roguishness. Just that I like authenticity. Its a Pharisee thing. I would rather a tax collector. Yes, his candor could be a con just as much as Rubio’s charm might be. The reason I hesitate to believe it is a con at this stage is that he has upset all the right people ( media, elite politicians, etc) and is being favoured by Hispanic yoga teachers, female attorneys and even your occasional college muslim. If the main stream media… Read more »
Hi, David. One of my problems with Trump is that I honestly have no idea how he would judge a moral issue on a particular day, and I don’t think he does either. It is hard to credit him with a principled objection to gay marriage when he is clearly just fine with adultery. I don’t sense any set of firm moral principles at all. I don’t think a president has to be Christian. But he should not be a hypocrite. He should not pander to evangelical voters as if he shares their beliefs and core values.
Hi Jilly. See my comment below to Bethyada about his idea of Christianity. He seems to wear his Christianity like many Americans, using it as some kind of historical cultural badge. Kinda like people who refer to America as a Christian nation as opposed to an Islamic one. I am under no illusion. He is a hedonist and a pagan. He also has some really strong principles. He has never allowed his children to drink or smoke or take drugs, he is opposed to the drug trade and has strong principles regarding immigration. He has also said in an interview… Read more »
“What you see as flip flopping I see as someone who is flying by the seat
of his pants, untethered by carefully planned speeches and unscripted.”
This gets at my main objection to Trump, he is running on a platform of little to no self control.
Refreshing ain’t it? Though I fear for his physical safety if he gets much further. The biggest problem I have with Trump is the likelihood of fabricated mischief leading to violence by the elite if he gets in and civil chaos from the mobs if he doesn’t.
It’s refreshing that a guy has so few core principles that when he flies by the seat of his pants, his message can’t stay consistent for the space of a single debate?
Flying by the seat of his pants is not his problem; it’s not having actually thought about anything in a principled way such that he knows what he thinks from moment to moment.
When I say refreshing I am not meaning his values or core principles. I mean his candor.
The candor might be refreshing, but I cannot understand why the fact that the content of his candor is almost *always* a negative reflection on his character, reliability, and temperament does not outweigh the candor itself.
The most evil tyrants in history were pretty candid, too. That wasn’t really a mark in their favor, or at best, it was a tiny little positive in a sea of negative.
When I say candor I am referring to things like his attitude towards immigration or America’s borders and American’s financial problems. I’m not referring to the unnecessary remarks he makes about Rubio’s body odor.
I think candor is being confused with hubris and vainglory so overwhelming that the candidate, unlike normal people, sees no need to try to hide them.
I probably haven’t read or listened to enough of Trump to see the contradictions you may be referring to. The little I have seen on issues like immigration and taxation have seemed to me to be fairly consistent throughout his campaign.
You mean you are tirelessly defending a guy without even knowing about why he is being criticized?
Yes, he has said some good things. The point is that saying a couple of good things do not outweigh being a terrible person and a dangerous candidate.
No, I don’t mean that. On the subject of why he is being criticised, however (as far as this thread goes), I am having trouble finding anything specific.
If people object on moral grounds, well I think we could all dredge up something to disqualify all of the candidates. So, leaving that aside…. which of his positions do people object to?
I think he would probably be safe enough. But he probably shouldn’t go swimming alone on Melbourne beaches! Did they ever figure out what happened to Harold Holt?
No. He must have upset someone powerful though.
“Refreshing ain’t it?”
If you call starting world war 3 refrrshing…
No, I would not call that refreshing. I do fear though that manufactured civil unrest is almost inevitable if he goes much further. I can’t imagine the elites letting him in their White House.
That may happen, what with the republicans crying about how he ruined their party. There’s also the possibility unmanufatured civil unrest if the elites don’t take him out.
“Saying he is “just fine” with adultery is a bit like saying that I am
just fine with drugs because I smoked some pot in high school. It’s too
sweeping.”
Cheating openly on each wife with the succeeding ones and continuing to be unrepentant about it at the age of 69 is hardly comparable to something you did a few times as a kid, decades ago.
You really want to spin everything as positively as possible. Everybody does that with the people they like, but you have to work a lot harder at it than most.
You are right about that. It’s an uphill battle. I would love to see him come to Christ. It would be wonderful.
Well, no, actually. Rubio brought up size. Trump just refused to let Rubio get away with doing it slyly.
You knew that Trump was coarse, but a supposed advantage of Rubio was that he was not. Supposedly. Oops.
First up, Trump brought up penis size in the debate. No one else in the debate did that. Second, Trump has been calling names and making fun this entire campaign. He called Rubio a little man and mocking him for sweat and water (pull up the youtube). He mocked Cruz as a nasty guy and teased him for his (very noble) filibusters. He called Carson a child molester and mocked his personal story. He was merciless with Bush calling him low energy and bad at what he does. Trump used the word “p@ssy” and has dropped the F bomb multiple… Read more »
Am I the only one would would pay good money to see the candidates in a debate where they were required to adhere strictly to the rules of medieval scholastic disputation? It’d be great to see them having to exchange ideas instead of insults.
No. I think that would be brilliant.
If they broke the rules, could we inflict medieval punishments?
Sure, as long as we’re all aware that most things that get called “medieval punishments” today are really either modern punishments from the 1600s or were simply made up by museum owners in the 1800s to draw in more visitors.
Let’s have at least one debate where they shut off the mic after 2 minutes and one mic at a time is on.
Heck, I’d settle for having debates at all, modern or medieval. What we have now is essentially the Jerry Springer show, political version. Even when they’re acting with some dignity, it’s not a “debate” in any sense, it’s a serial interview with the interviewees addressing one another’s answers. I think the last time I can remember anything even halfway resembling a debate was in the 80s.
the most appealing thing to me with Trump is his foreign policy. Our country is dripping with blood, both via abortion-on-demand as well as our overwhelmingly amoral foreign policy. Since HW Bush, we have blindly supported the Bill Kristol idealogical commitment to war and we have tainted our whole country and by extension Christianity with zeal for war, destruction, and debt. When Trump said he would approach the Israeli / Palestinian conflict as a neutral, he got my vote. That is exactly the kind of approach we should take. Cruz and Rubio both flipped a gasket and sounded like shills… Read more »
So when you say foreign policy you mean his policy on Israel.
that’s one example.
His approach to Syria is one I agree with. Marco and Hillary have both said we should establish a ‘no-fly-zone’ over Syria and if that means shooting down Russian aircraft, well so be it. Insanity.
So what about Russia, China, Europe?