Not that it's fundamental to your essay, but your reference to King David is wrong. His adultery was after he had been king for at least seven years, so people didn't rally around him in spite of that. I don't remember any notable cases of him lying, by the way, and would be grateful for the reference.
He's a particularly bad example, I think, for the essay, in that God praises him, and often, but not for his military prowess. I've never detected even a whiff of an "He's an SOB, but he's π°πΆπ³ SOB" attitude towards him.
The God that evangelicals believe in has to be the center of everyone's attention all the time, has to be constantly praised, and flies into a rage when anyone doesn't submit to him. Gee, I wonder what they saw in Trump.
One of the charms of being on the left is that you donβt have to tell the truth. You can lie and be reasonably sure the media will not call you out. A few examples.
1. Obama lied about the event in Ferguson. An honest president would have said βDarren Wilson was entirely innocent and Michael Brown was a violent criminal thugβ. What he actually said was βwe donβt have enough evidence to indict Darren Wilsonβ. In real life, Obamaβs own Justice Department (Eric Holder) found that officer Wilson was entirely innocent vs. the lie of βwe donβt have enough evidenceβ.
2. The new Florida law restricting sex education in K-3 education has been repeatedly called the βDonβt Say Gayβ law. In real life the legislative language has no references to βGayβ or even sexual preference. Has this restrained the left from lying about the new law? Of course, not.
3. βRace has no biological basisβ is a religious cult dogma on the left. The fact that it is not true has had almost no impact.
4. We even have people lying about the (never-happened) βMuslim Travel Banβ. Does the fact that no such ban was ever proposed, restrain lying? Of course, not.
"By proposing to ban all Muslims from entering the country". That's an overt lie. Trump never proposed any such thing. Don't lie. You will be caught and you will be shamed. Trump tried to impose limits on entry from some Muslim-majority countries (because of problems in those countries). Obama imposed essentially the same restrictions.
We have updated the text to include a link corroborating the claim that Donald Trump once proposed a 'total and complete shutdown' of Muslims entering the United States.
Sorry, but you loose. The Trump travel restriction were on countries. There was never any religious test. You are just make stuff up. The so-called "Muslim Travel Ban" affected 7 countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen. North Korea and Venezuela). Last time I checked Venezuela and North Korea are not Muslim-majority countries.
"The travel part of Trumpβs order does target the same seven countries that were singled out with a law Obama signed in December 2015.
The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they canβt use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.
The law was soon expanded by Obamaβs Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agencyβs announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law."
I have to agree on Brendan on this one. As the link shows, he did propose just that in 2015 on the campaign trail. He implemented something else as president, but that is not at issue.
Sorry, but you loose. The author used the word 'propose', not the phrase 'called for'. Lets take a look at the actual text. The author wrote 'By proposing to ban all Muslims from entering the country'. That of course, never happened. Just left-wing mythology. Campaign rhetoric is obviously more important than the actual Presidential policy. Everyone knows that Trump's campaign statements produced huge outrage, but his actual policies as President were widely applauded.
Trump literally says "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
It is absolutely accurate to say that he "proposed to ban all Muslims from entering the country . . .during the Republican primaries when evangelicals disconnected from churches proved to be one of his most reliable demographic blocs." As we can see with our own eyes, that is exactly what he did.
Sorry, but you loose again. The Politico article is titled "Donald Trump calls for 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims' coming to U.S. " (https://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-shutdown-of-muslims-216504). The author used the words 'By proposing to ban all Muslims from entering the country'. That of course, never happened.
If a Christian does not attend church regularly and is not familiar with the teachings of the Christian bible is that Christian an Evangelical? How many people who consider themselves Evangelicals voted for Trump with the belief that he is an imperfect tool of God? Perhaps, there are people who consider themselves Christians with right-wing agendas much like there are people who consider themselves Christians with left-wing agendas. I won't use the terms "conservative", "progressive" or "liberal" for their agendas since that would imply adherence to conservative, progressive, or liberal principles.
Not that it's fundamental to your essay, but your reference to King David is wrong. His adultery was after he had been king for at least seven years, so people didn't rally around him in spite of that. I don't remember any notable cases of him lying, by the way, and would be grateful for the reference.
He's a particularly bad example, I think, for the essay, in that God praises him, and often, but not for his military prowess. I've never detected even a whiff of an "He's an SOB, but he's π°πΆπ³ SOB" attitude towards him.
The God that evangelicals believe in has to be the center of everyone's attention all the time, has to be constantly praised, and flies into a rage when anyone doesn't submit to him. Gee, I wonder what they saw in Trump.
One of the charms of being on the left is that you donβt have to tell the truth. You can lie and be reasonably sure the media will not call you out. A few examples.
1. Obama lied about the event in Ferguson. An honest president would have said βDarren Wilson was entirely innocent and Michael Brown was a violent criminal thugβ. What he actually said was βwe donβt have enough evidence to indict Darren Wilsonβ. In real life, Obamaβs own Justice Department (Eric Holder) found that officer Wilson was entirely innocent vs. the lie of βwe donβt have enough evidenceβ.
2. The new Florida law restricting sex education in K-3 education has been repeatedly called the βDonβt Say Gayβ law. In real life the legislative language has no references to βGayβ or even sexual preference. Has this restrained the left from lying about the new law? Of course, not.
3. βRace has no biological basisβ is a religious cult dogma on the left. The fact that it is not true has had almost no impact.
4. We even have people lying about the (never-happened) βMuslim Travel Banβ. Does the fact that no such ban was ever proposed, restrain lying? Of course, not.
"By proposing to ban all Muslims from entering the country". That's an overt lie. Trump never proposed any such thing. Don't lie. You will be caught and you will be shamed. Trump tried to impose limits on entry from some Muslim-majority countries (because of problems in those countries). Obama imposed essentially the same restrictions.
Hello Peter,
We have updated the text to include a link corroborating the claim that Donald Trump once proposed a 'total and complete shutdown' of Muslims entering the United States.
Kind regards,
Brendan
Sorry, but you loose. The Trump travel restriction were on countries. There was never any religious test. You are just make stuff up. The so-called "Muslim Travel Ban" affected 7 countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen. North Korea and Venezuela). Last time I checked Venezuela and North Korea are not Muslim-majority countries.
Quote from "The seven nations identified in Donald Trump's travel ban were "identified by the Obama administration as the seven most dangerous countries in the world in regard to harboring terrorists."" (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/)
"The travel part of Trumpβs order does target the same seven countries that were singled out with a law Obama signed in December 2015.
The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they canβt use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.
The law was soon expanded by Obamaβs Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agencyβs announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law."
I have to agree on Brendan on this one. As the link shows, he did propose just that in 2015 on the campaign trail. He implemented something else as president, but that is not at issue.
Sorry, but you loose. The author used the word 'propose', not the phrase 'called for'. Lets take a look at the actual text. The author wrote 'By proposing to ban all Muslims from entering the country'. That of course, never happened. Just left-wing mythology. Campaign rhetoric is obviously more important than the actual Presidential policy. Everyone knows that Trump's campaign statements produced huge outrage, but his actual policies as President were widely applauded.
There is no need to rely on any secondary sources. We can all see for ourselves what he said at Mount Pleasant, South Carolina on December 7th, 2015:
https://youtu.be/Dz2wn3iPDNg?t=39
Trump literally says "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
It is absolutely accurate to say that he "proposed to ban all Muslims from entering the country . . .during the Republican primaries when evangelicals disconnected from churches proved to be one of his most reliable demographic blocs." As we can see with our own eyes, that is exactly what he did.
Sorry, but you loose again. The Politico article is titled "Donald Trump calls for 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims' coming to U.S. " (https://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-shutdown-of-muslims-216504). The author used the words 'By proposing to ban all Muslims from entering the country'. That of course, never happened.
If a Christian does not attend church regularly and is not familiar with the teachings of the Christian bible is that Christian an Evangelical? How many people who consider themselves Evangelicals voted for Trump with the belief that he is an imperfect tool of God? Perhaps, there are people who consider themselves Christians with right-wing agendas much like there are people who consider themselves Christians with left-wing agendas. I won't use the terms "conservative", "progressive" or "liberal" for their agendas since that would imply adherence to conservative, progressive, or liberal principles.
The horror of right-wing collectivism