{{featured_button_text}}

It has always struck me as strange that a narrative about genocide — Noah and the ark — should be employed as a children’s story.

As the other boys and girls in Sunday school focused on the cuteness of the rescued animals, I remember thinking about the mass of humanity desperately clawing to get into Noah’s boat. This exposed an early tendency to see the glass half empty — particularly when it contained so many floating corpses.

Now I understand that all the best stories have sharp edges of tragedy and danger.

Michael Gerson mug

Michael Gerson

Even so, the story of Noah is an odd curricular choice for young children. Fresh off the boat, according to the biblical account, he plants a vineyard, gets drunk and lies naked in his tent.

This is a source of consternation to Noah’s sons, who don’t want to see the dark side, much less the backside, of their father. So they cover him with a handy duvet.

Rabbinic and early Christian scholars — figuring that there must be more to the story than meets the eye — postulated that adultery, rape or castration were somehow involved. But there is an application closer at hand.

I thought of drunk, naked Noah while reading the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2019 American Values Survey. In its pages, white evangelical Protestants are fully disrobed. And it is an embarrassing sight.

Consider the matter of immigration. Republicans who are WEPs are the most likely group to say that immigrants are invading America and changing its culture. More than 90% of WEPs favor more restrictive immigration policies. They support the policy of family separation at the border more strongly than other religious groups, and more strongly than Americans as a whole.

How have we come to the point that American evangelicals are significantly crueler in their attitude toward migrant children than the national norm? The answer is simple enough. Rather than shaping President Trump’s agenda in Christian ways, they have been reshaped into the image of Trump himself. Or, more accurately, they have become involved in a political throuple with Trump and Fox News, in which each feeds the grievances and conspiracy thinking of the others.

You have free articles remaining.

Become a Member

Register for more free articles.
Stay logged in to skip the surveys.

The result has properly been called cult-like.

For many followers, Trump has defined an alternative, insular universe of facts and values that only marginally resembles our own. According to the PRRI poll, nearly two-thirds of WEPs deny that Trump has damaged the dignity of his office.

Ponder that a moment. Well over half of this group is willing to deny a blindingly obvious, entirely irrefutable, manifestly clear reality because it is perceived as being critical of their leader. Forty-seven percent of WEPs say that Trump’s behavior makes no difference to their support. Thirty-one percent say there is almost nothing that Trump could do to forfeit their approval. This is preemptive permission for any violation of the moral law or the constitutional order. It is not support; it is obeisance.

An extraordinary 99% of Republican WEPs oppose the impeachment and removal of the president — which probably puts me in the smallest political minority I have ever had the honor of occupying.

If Donald Trump survives the impeachment process, and somehow wins a second term, many explanations will be offered. It may be that the Democratic Party went too far left, or picked a nominee with a glass jaw, or couldn’t swim against the political tide of a good economy.

But there will be one reason behind all of these reasons: Because evangelicals lost their taste for character, and gave their blessing to corruption. And this grand act of hypocrisy would mark them for a generation.

The reform of evangelicalism is probably the work of men and women of a rising generation, who have significantly different views and values from their elders. About two-thirds of young white evangelicals believe that immigrants strengthen the country. Their approval of Trump is significantly lower. Time will work in favor of sanity.

But we should not underestimate the cultural trauma that many leaders of the religious right have inflicted. It is in the order of things that a younger generation should challenge the views and values of its parents.

It is a source of cynicism and social disruption when an older generation betrays civilizing values in full sight of its children. Many evangelical leaders now lie drunk, naked and exposed.

Be the first to know

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson can be reached at michaelgerson@washpost.com.

7
1
1
0
0

(106) comments

new2Lax

Homey, the reason I get so many reading my posts is of what they learn, every time an issue comes up you nothing about it or just plain deny it. I told you about Krugman and his predictions, it was practically common knowledge and I am tasked in referring you to things that are common knowledge. Ronan Farrow’s book on what And how Hillary Clinton reacted to his investigation intoHarvey Weinstein, again a source that is easy to find. Because you are unaware of facts means they are not true in your world, more than likely why your shocked when informed. Quite frankly, you are learning while reading my posts.

oldhomey

new2, your 9:03am post is akin to our great president, who loves to tell us "people are saying . . . " and "lots of people are saying . . . ", then tells us what he imagines or hopes we believe people are saying when nobody is saying it at all. You can't just cite your interpretation of what you think some source said, you have to accurately quote the source. I have learned much about you reading your posts, I agree. It is not very flattering information about yourself that emerges.

new2Lax

Then you are welcome to stop reading them but like I have said so many times, this is where you get informed. You usually concede to my point or you deny it out right or have not heard or seen anything about said issue. I’ll give you some examples, the most recent was comments on the little rat Paul Krugman and his predictions about a Trump Administration and his involvement with the Enron debacle. You know little about the consequences of the FBI, DOJ, CIA, with regard to the bias and discipline of the leadership in these agencies and why they were disciplined to begin with. It’s like it didn’t happen in your view. Ronan Farrows book explains the involvement of Hillary Clinton and NBC’s attempt to cover up the Harvey Weinstein debacle and you never heard of it. Denying it doesn’t make it go away. Killing the messenger does’t make it go away. Presenting facts may mitigate the issue somewhat and that’s what most want to see and hear on these posts.

oldhomey

Yes, new2, reading you is an excellent source of finding out what the latest Fox News and Breitbart talking points are.

new2Lax

You love reading my posts because you feel so good about knowledge you can share with others. I wonder if you are aware of the Flynn controversy in which the government has admitted to the fact someone other than Peter Strzok recorded the final draft of the 302’s, 30 changes made that were or were not in the original notes, all changes removed were favorable comments to Flynn. For example, the original notes taken reflected that Strzok did not think Flynn had lied or was lying to them, somehow this was taken out of the final draft and not by Strzok. Lisa Page also made changes to the 302’s that she had no involvement in Flynn’s interview. I was just curious if you even heard this.

oldhomey

Most of us when we dredge up obscure information we think makes some sort of point would have the decency of citing our sources, new2. You seem to be back in that parking lot by yourself, throwing drunken haymakers at nobody as you stagger and reel in some shuffling fantasy that you dwell in.

new2Lax

Homey, how come you don't know these things. I like the proposal by Warren and Durham Dec 16th 2016 regarding failure to divest all your assets and making it an impeachable offense if you don't. That was a hoot. Several other Democrats got in on that fiasco as well. Al Green and Maxine Waters had the decency to wait a month or so.

new2Lax

As you can read in the article, impeachment was discussed even prior to the election.

new2Lax

I had to get this from Wikipedia, if this is not a good enough source, let me know, there are plenty more. Wikipedia just sounded good.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation

Jump to search

This article is part of

a series about

Donald Trump

President of the United States

Incumbent

·

·

·

·

·

Death of al-Baghdadi

·

·

·

·

·

·

[show]

Controversies involving Russia

[hide]

Business and personal

Business career (The Trump Organization ·

The Apprentice ·

wealth ·

tax returns)

·

Books ·

Eponyms ·

Family ·

Foundation ·

Golf ·

Honors ·

Legal affairs (Stormy Daniels)

·

Nicknames ·

Racial views ·

Residences ·

Social media ·

Veracity

Various people and groups assert that U.S. president Donald Trump has engaged in impeachable activity both before and during his presidency,[1][2] and talk of impeachment began before he took office.[3][4] Formal efforts were initiated by Representatives Al Green and Brad Sherman, both Democrats, in 2017, the first year of his presidency.[5][6] On September 24, 2019, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi announced that six committees would undertake formal impeachment inquiries after reports about controversial interactions between Trump and the country of Ukraine.[7]

Grounds asserted for impeachment have included possible violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign dignitaries; alleged collusion with Russia during the campaign for the 2016 United States presidential election; alleged obstruction of justice with respect to investigation of the collusion claim; and accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017. Since the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during 2017 and 2018, the likelihood of impeachment during that period was considered by all to be low.[8][9] A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the House by a 58–364 margin.[10] The Democrats gained control of the House in 2019 and launched multiple investigations into Trump's actions and finances. Speaker Nancy Pelosi initially resisted calls for impeachment. In May 2019 she indicated that Trump's continued actions, which she characterized as obstruction of justice and refusal to honor congressional subpoenas, might make an impeachment inquiry necessary. An increasing number of House Democrats and one Republican were requesting such an inquiry.

Protesters calling for impeachment on the day of Trump's inauguration

In December 2016, Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, Chris Coons, Ben Cardin, and Jeff Merkley introduced a bill that would require the president of the United States to divest any assets that could raise a conflict of interest, including a statement that failure to divest such assets would constitute high crimes and misdemeanors "under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution".[3] Vanity Fair characterized this as a preemptive effort to lay the groundwork for a future impeachment argument.[3] Concerns had previously been expressed that Trump's extensive business and real estate dealings, especially with respect to government agencies in other countries

martian2

to use wikipedia as proof is laughable. anyone can doctor that up to say what they want.

oldhomey

new2, have you gone completely daft? You are acting like a drunk spinning around by yourself in a parking lot, throwing hay maker punches in a heroic battle when nobody else is present.

new2Lax

Sometimes facts will have a person like yourself think someone presenting them must be crazy but then you do a little research and concede the fact, this guy must be a crack HR guy or something like that. Self analyzation is a good thing and can be helpful, continue your treatment as more facts will be coming. Or some more hay maker punches will be landing. You make it sound like I may be another Walter Mitty.

oldhomey

Yes, new2, or something like that. Reading you, I can just hear your mind at work: "Ta pocketa pocketa pocketa."

new2Lax

You can see how Democrat run states deal with the poor and homeless, an illegal would do much better. They have a much better chance of getting an illegal to vote for them.

new2Lax

Martian and Homey, you got to do your own research. You should do the research and prove me wrong. You are both typical Democrats, wanting someone to prove their innocence instead of you proving their guilt. Is this just me or was this tried with Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing. Right until proven wrong, I told you what that little rat said and what others have said about impeachment, research it. Failing to prove your point, you lose. That’s the only reason you read my posts, it’s a short way of finding out what’s really going on. You missed commenting on Krugman’s being paid 50, 000 dollars for being on the advisory board of Enron. That’s important because it was the largest financial disaster in American history. Putting stock in an economist participating in an event like that is note worthy. Readers want to know who and where and who you are sourcing. Maxine Waters was whaling on “peaching “ Trump as early as the moron in Texas, Al Green. By what has been uncovered in the leadership of the FBI, CIA and DOJ, it was the insurance policy that was to be put in effect to get an impeachment. So yes, it started pre election. Much of this has already been uncovered and is being dealt with but there is much more coming.

martian2

gee nutty newt, I really don't care what books you read or want to comment on. This column is about Evangelicals and Trump. Krugman and Waters and whoever else happened to write a book doesn't interest me. So a few people talked impeachment before Trump was in office. So what, same was done to Obama. Trump gave them all fodder for their impeachment talk when he openly asked Russia for help during the election. Only an idiot would do that. You and D may say it was a joke, I don't remember anyone laughing, especially Trump. He brought it upon himself, so let him stew in it. He has no one else to blame, and neither do you.

oldhomey

Well, new2, in the case of the Deep State FBI, CIA and DOJ, let's put it this way -- you say it has already been uncovered, but you offer no evidence. I can be patient. We will wait for it to come out and all the other evidence you say is also coming. Will we have to wait until the next election for these revelations? Or will they be as elusive as the tax returns Trump promised would be released as soon as "the audits" are completed? I can't wait. The anticipation of all this is killing me. I am almost certain I will be dead before we see these revelations you promise and we see Trump voluntarily open his tax history And my doctor says nothing is seriously wrong with me. Will we wait just as long for you to say you were wrong?

new2Lax

When dealing in facts, I can not be wrong. True, you may be dead before you see Trumps tax returns but this is just something you would like to see, it has never been mandatory.

Keeping Trump off as a candidate in California didn’t seem to work according to the courts. I thought Rachel Maddow released this months ago, just before her ratings tanked. I guess you haven’t heard or read this yet but you will, James Comey FBI was fired and was referred for criminal charges by the IG, Andrew McCabe fired for lying, Peter Strzok FBI was fired lying and inappropriate behavior, Lis Page resigned, DOJ Bruce Ohr demoted. Going forward look for criminal charges to be filed against these folks James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, misleading FISA court and inappropriate behavior.

oldhomey

Okay, new2, I will be looking for them. And looking . . . and looking . . . and looking . . .

oldhomey

By the way, new2, I think perhaps you missed one of my posts down below that I had so wanted you to respond to. I don't mean to suggest that in fact your facts might be wrong, but, what the hell, I will suggest it anyway. Here is that post again. Please respond to it:

oldhomey Nov 1, 2019 9:45pm

The Dow was at about $27,000 today, new2. In February. 2017, when Trump inherited the continuous economic expansion that began with Obama, the Dow was about $21,000, and the market was up at that time for the past 12 months by +5.36%. Pretty good numbers Trump inherited, but he and you have never credited Obama for creating this remarkable growth period, and in fact Trump is gambling with our future by not using the good times to pay down the debt created by the bad times the GOP left us in back in 2007. Where do you get your numbers from, new2? What is this 50 percent business? And by the way, would you PLEASE cite the evidence that you continually tell us is out there showing how the Democrats began planning for Trump's impeachment the day he was elected.

new2Lax

Homey, I don't dislike you, I don't know you. Your just an idiot. I'm just guessing here but I'm pretty sure you know nothing of Hillary Clinton's refusal to be interviewed by Ronan Farrow unless he stop his attack on Harvey Weinstein. Read this guys book and see what he has to say about NBC and Hillary Clinton. They attempted to get him to stop his investigation into Harvey Weinstein, I suspect this calls in to question her and women's rights groups.

oldhomey

Perhaps you could quote those key excerpts from Farrow's book in which Clinton tried to stop Farrow from investigating Weinstein, new2. I know she put him off when he asked to interview her for his foreign policy book, which he was researching at same time he was investigating Weinstein. I am not sure why, but eventually she did give him the interview. She wasn't the first out of the gate to condemn Weinstein's behavior, either, but she did condemn him. I am always amused by your random suspicions, new2. It certainly is worth giving some thought that this episode with Ronan Farrow by Hilary now calls into question the objectives and honesty of women's rights groups. Perhaps a bit more than a split second after cogitating, however, it seem pretty unlikely. Have you ever considered using your suspicious nature to question the far more explicitly dishonest Donald Trump?

I am, by the way, SO relieved that you don't dislike me. I have tried so hard to get on your good side, but after these several years I have yet to find a good side to you.

new2Lax

If I counted on your attempts to find anything out based on your knowledge on these posts, I’ll be waiting a long time but thanks for trying. It’s always nice to have someone like you try and get on my good side but your not there yet. You seem to disagreed with Farrows assessment of Farrow’s book on NBC and Hillary Clinton, could you see anyway she could have avoided disowning her close relationship with Weinstein, there was no way out. If this isn’t true, I’m wondering why no slander suit or maybe she isn’t as vindictive as everyone knows she is.

oldhomey

You don't have to write for a long time, new2. You just have to cite your sources. If you are right, I will acknowledge it. If you are wrong, you should acknowledge it. It's not difficult. When you are wrong, I or somebody else on here usually provides you with ample evidence of your mistake. That is why you get so many answers to your posts. You are almost always wrong and wrong-headed, to boot.

new2Lax

Homey, yes I do think Mother Theresa would support Trump’s supporting religions of all denominations. I remember you saying how Trump is setting the country up for a big financial disaster, I don’t see it that way but this is a perfect opportunity to take precautions to avoid this disaster. Remove your funds from the clutches of the markets, dive into real estate, treasuries, bonds or what ever you think is better than where you are. This is the time to move, not wait for something to happen and then complain and say I told you so. Let me know so I can be prepared as well. The thing is, by the time something is happening at the rate we are going you should have made enough to with stand the down turn. But I would suggest to heed what Paul Krugman said, the market would drop thousands and NEVER recover.He was one of the left’s brightest and he can explain his involvement with bringing about one of if not the biggest financial disasters in American history. Right now you would have to have the markets go down over 50% to break even.

oldhomey

Perhaps you could direct me to that Paul Krugman column in which he said the market would never recover, new2. He certainly is skeptical, if not downright cynical, about Trump, a man whose businesses went bankrupt six times, and his brash conduct in overseeing the economy. Perhaps you could also cite some evidence that Trump is a tireless campaigner to support religions of all denominations. He certainly is showing a great deal of disdain for the U.S. Constitution, which is the bulwark of freedom of religion, so many of us (though I would not dare include crank among us) are worried that Trump, who shows no religious inclinations or, for that matter, ethics of any sort, will protect anybody who has an opinion opposite his. And, while I am AWFULLY touched by your concern over my financial well-being, you will be relieved to know that the guys who manage my financial investments recently had me shift heavily into bonds. It was not so much them predicting doom in the markets, but me and my wife getting older and needing to protect what we have from market gyrations. And getting back to Krugman, perhaps you can offer us (though I do not include crank in the collective "us") the story in how Krugman caused the 2007 market meltdown. That should make interesting reading. And, while you are at it, you have STILL not offered any evidence that you have when you keep harping that the Democrats started plans to impeach Trump as soon as he was elected. Get busy, old boy. You have a lot to answer to.

new2Lax

Well, let’s start with just a few of Paul Krugman’s predictions, Politico 11/09/2016 written by a Adam Cancryn. Now comes the mother of all adverse effects and what it brings with it, a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. So we are probably looking at global recession with no end in sight.

NYT’s IV 9th, 2016, Krugman predicts the market will never recover it really does look like President Donald Trump and the markets are plunging , when might we see them recover-never.

Krugman appearing on Bloomberg 2017, there will be no return to 3% growth under the Trump Administration.

Feb 2017, Krugman predicts res session in 2017 or 2018.

Investors Business Daily 12/29/2017.

Check this one out it gives the opinion of 6 or 7 left wingers,

Erick Zitwwitz, Chief Economist at the IMF.

Larry Summers, Simon Johnson at MIT.

Ben White Politico

Real Clear Politics, May 2nd, 2019

Fake News: The Post Trump Economic disaster.

Mark Cuban, markets will tank under Trump.

oldhomey

Well, new2, I will concede, for once, that Krugman made the rather silly remark that the market will never recover, but it was in a sort of offhand, conversational way that he used to express his concerns:

"If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

"Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation with the world’s most important economy would be very bad news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in, eight years after the great financial crisis.

"It’s true that we’ve been adding jobs at a pretty good pace and are quite close to full employment. But we’ve been doing O.K. only thanks to extremely low interest rates. There’s nothing wrong with that per se. But what if something bad happens and the economy needs a boost? The Fed and its counterparts abroad basically have very little room for further rate cuts, and therefore very little ability to respond to adverse events.

"Now comes the mother of all adverse effects — and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks."

All the seeds that he said he feared were being planted were planted. The economy is not a switch to be turned on and off like your living room lights, it is an organic, long-term proposition sort of like an ocean liner. Once on course, it is hard to stop it and turn it around. And the course that Trump has our economy on right now is feared by most economists for the long-term, not just Paul Krugman.

new2Lax

This may help you understand where Trump is on Religion, I suspect the notion Evangelicals support Trump overwhelmingly means nothing to you but this latest announcement at this UN speech may help-.

Trump announces religious freedom initiatives during UN speech

Maegan Vazquez

By Maegan Vazquez, CNN

Updated 4:02 PM ET, Mon September 23, 2019

Now the meltdown I'm would refer you too is Enron. Paul Krugman was paid 50,000 dollars as a consultant to Enron's advisory board, it was America's largest financial debacle ever. Need a time frame here, 1999. Krugman wrote many explanations about this and they were taken as a joke.

The first impeachment talk was from Boyd Roberts who formed the impeach Trump PAC in Fb. 2017, it was talked about in Jan2017 but came to fruition in 2017.

Then you had Richard Blumenthal in May of 2017,

Al Green later in May of 2017.

Then Maxine Water in June 2017

Then August King June 2017

Then Eric Swalwell June 2017

Then Brad Sherman June 2017

martian2

unless you provide the actual web site nutty newt, you are not providing any proof. Someone talking of impeachment means nothing, anyone can talk all they want, still a free country. The same was done to Obama, so what. So you have no proof of what Krugman said or anyone else, and I doubt anyone cares.

new2Lax

Now that the market has increased 50% under Trump's economic policies and you have taken steps to ensure the safety of your funds, I suspect you don't think these were ill gotten gains from this tyrant. If you did, I'm sure your not seriously thinking of keeping the gains. That's kind of like participating in the corruption don't you think. The move into bonds is a little early though. Just a side note here, there is so much negative stuff on Paul Krugman I suggest you look into what they are. This is a big reason why he is not around much anymore, never see him on TV at all. Another thing on impeachment talk and when it started, there is so much more out there just look up when the impeachment talk on Trump started, there's reams of it.

oldhomey

The Dow was at about $27,000 today, new2. In February. 2017, when Trump inherited the continuous economic expansion that began with Obama, the Dow was about $21,000, and the market was up at that time for the past 12 months by +5.36%. Pretty good numbers Trump inherited, but he and you have never credited Obama for creating this remarkable growth period, and in fact Trump is gambling with our future by not using the good times to pay down the debt created by the bad times the GOP left us in back in 2007. Where do you get your numbers from, new2? What is this 50 percent business? And by the way, would you PLEASE cite the evidence that you continually tell us is out there showing how the Democrats began planning for Trump's impeachment the day he was elected.

oldhomey

new2, dang it! I KNOW you are always right, because you told the rest of the world that you are always right, and who could disbelieve a crack HR man for a Fortune 300 company. But I saw some anomalies that are possibly misunderstandings on your part, or even -- God forbid! -- mistakes in your 6:38pm post. I called your attention to them. Couldn't you please answer me and restore my faith in your infallibility?

oldhomey

new2? Far be it from me to say that an upstanding citizen who is always right might have in this instance been wrong. Are you hiding now, afraid to answer me?

johnnybragatti

Way too funny , Newt2 and the dee-bagger trading opioids? What else could it possibly be? No sweet folks could be that unknowing. Does the deebag really have daughters?

I doubt the living s___ right out of it., since he can never mention anything, in regards to them. Probably a good thing. Newt2 "s kids ? Oh my God ,still working on their degree from Mendota State, Madison ,Wisconsin? No surprise there. Truest words in history? The fruit never rolls too far from the tree. Certainly is exact in this situation.They both seem to have the perverted attitude of a typified Trump-Humper. Pretty easy to figure out. Also pretty sad.They need a change.

oldhomey

Michael Gerson leaves me in awe. Few political observers are as powerfully insightful as he is. He never writes a bad column, even the ones I find myself disagreeing with. This column today is absolutely brilliant.

DMoney

I'm not an Evangelical, so can't speak from direct experience. But one must look at the past administration to see what might have sparked such a change or fanatical-ism. People who take religion to the extreme are "extremists", regardless of what faith they belong to. But they are still Americans, still have rights, still have a vote, still have a role to play. When a president demonizes them, flaunts the opposite of their belief system, questions their establishment, minimizes their concerns and beliefs in spite of others--what do you expect? I'll use the rainbow lights on the white house example again. The message there was inconsiderate of millions upon millions of people who fundamentally disagree with homosexuality. While their view isn't necessarily "correct"--it DOES matter and SHOULD matter to the POTUS. Enough at least to not publicly disregard it in the most visible and forceful way possible. Take a little blame liberals--you helped create the current environment.

oldhomey

My, D has to fall back on his openly gay bashing opinion as though it is evidence to back his argument that Obama was a religion-bashing president. I have never seen that accusation made before. But D is the most informed, most politically sophisticated regular poster on these boards, so I expect he has a lot of evidence other than that AWFUL, horrible incident in which he directed a rainbow of lights to be played upon the side of the White House. I am unable to remember the urgent, desperate, pathetic cries of pain from persecuted, embattled Christians who felt assaulted by this dastardly display. In fact, I don't even remember the display, so I guess my memory has erased itself in this instance to spare me of the continuing pain. Now, just what is it that you want to blame liberals for doing? Forcing Trump to be the quirky creep that he is, making him to behave as he does? Do you ever fear that your manhood is being questioned and challenged, D, forcing you to take this skrewy stance you take?

DMoney

Google it. Google his remarks on Trayvon Martin and Micheal Brown. That makes me racist too I guess. He was extremely passionate and active in promoting causes he believed in that were very decisive in society. Look what the result was--Trump. That's all the proof required. The response to the wonderful 8 years of Obama--the legacy--was Donald Trump. I was and still am embarrassed for Obama. What a kick in the nuts.

martian2

gee D, I didn't know Trump was running against Obama, here I thought Obama had two terms and couldn't run again. I thought the election was between Hillary and Donald, guess I was wrong. So Obama was passionate about racism, and the violence that stemmed from racism. I guess presidents should stay away from hard and divisive causes. That darn Abe Lincoln should of never sign that emancipation thingy either I suppose. Presidents are to stay away from tough societal problems because they are divisive. Well if that don't beat all, here I thought it was their job to uphold the constitution, even the part that says "all men are created equal." Well I am glad D has set me straight on that.

PhysicsIsFun

I suppose your usual source of deep research into complex political and social topics, your dictionary, was not available to you at this time. Please give us more of your incredible insights. You are so full of hubris it is sickening. Then of course that is just opinion and speculation on my part.

DMoney

Trump was the response to 8 years of Obama. All the validation of my views needed.

DMoney

Martian, it's hard to spend time on you, as your "rebuttals" are mind-numbingly wrong and misguided. First, Abe Lincoln did all he could to avoid taking an active role in the slavery issue prior to the war. After war started, and many thousands died, he issued emancipation as a war goal--rightfully. That wasn't a social issue and to compare it to one is disrespectful.

martian2

prior to the civil war, Lincoln was not in office, so yea he didn't get involved in the slave issue, he didn't have the power yet. Trump was not the response to 8 years of Obama. Remember now 3 million more votes went to Hillary than Trump. So are you saying the majority of voters approved of Obama? The truth is Trump was the result of the electoral college, not a true democratic victory. Trump is the result of lies, Russian interference, hate mongering, a poor campaigner in Hillary, and pandering to the worst instincts. And you fell for it. Obama will be remembered as a president passionate about justice and equality, two things in the constitution the president is suppose to fight for. And to say a ban of rain bow lights on a tree brought about extremism and partisanship is so preposterous, its hard to fathom anyone coming up with that conclusion. Your reasoning is skewed and disingenuous. You seem to align with the passionate hate like Trump has, for anyone different than you and wanting equal rights. Lincoln also fought like h*ll for the 13th amendment to the constitution, something you like to say can't or won't be done. Perhaps it was divisive and therefor he should of avoided it. Leaders lead, and fight for those things that really matter to the well being of all people. Society often has growing pains as a result, but in the end is better off, provided the hate mongers listen and learn along with the rest of us.

oldhomey

I hate to challenge somebody who is so astute about politics and geopolitical issues as you are, D. May I humbly suggest that Trump was not the result of Barrack Obama" That the Trump presidency is the result of the singular, one-issue campaign of an extreme right wing group represented by the Heritage Foundation that wanted to reverse Roe v. Wade? That it is doing this by grabbing control of the Supreme Court by installing right wing ideologues as justices? So they adroitly built a strange political amalgam of right wing fundamentalist protestants, pro-life Catholics. They then pretended to speak for an embittered working class whose livelihoods for the last 40 years were lost to a corporate culture that saw quick profits by shipping our factories and all the intellectual property they contained to cheap labor nations, without regard to the people whose work and middle class membership were lost. This has been building up for at least 40 years. Obama had little to do with it, other than the racist overtures Trump made to white supremacists, first by embracing the Obama birth fiction, then by openly courting white supremacists. You seem to be more of a rube than I would have thought at first.

DMoney

We aren't a true democracy, so it's irrelevant. Thank God for the electoral college. If it wasn't for that, a handful of big city burgeois socialists and/or lifetime handout class would have determined the president. You want civil war? Do away with the electoral college.

DMoney

Oldhomey--is this another one of your "facts" that I ignore? Sounds like a far-fetched pipe dream conspiracy theory to me.

oldhomey

Perhaps I am a hopeless conspiracy theorist, D. I would say you may have me pegged, but crank and his off color imagination might have a field day with that idiomatic expression. Anyway you are free to point out anything that I said that was not factually true. I will await your response while hiding under my bed, scared stiff that they're all out to get me.

oldhomey

So you were embarrassed for Obama and felt kicked in the nuts by him for his support of gay rights, Trayvon Martin and his comments on the Ferguson shooting. And you only deal with "facts" you tell us, and you demand facts in debate. Try these facts on for size, D.

I, for one, was angered by making Michael Brown a martyr in the Ferguson shooting, and I am still angered about. He was out of control, and the shooting was to my mind justified. I disagreed with Obama's initial reaction, which was a call-out for sympathy, calling the incident "heart-breaking". Not exactly the kind of temper tantrum that we expect out of the White House these days. But wait! There's more! Obama later felt he had been too rash and said something never said by Donald Trump, admitting he was sorry for his earlier statement: "When Ferguson happened, there was a gap between how quickly we could pull together a police task force, recommendations. And so in that lag, it feels as if I haven’t spoken to the moment as effectively,” he said. “I suspect that if I were to do it over again, there might be something I could say that would’ve crystallized it more effectively. But Ferguson—the case itself was tougher because people didn’t know what was going on exactly. In some ways the [Eric] Garner case in New York was clearer because you had on videotape exactly what had happened.”

At the conclusion of the murder trial in the Trayvon Martin case, Obama at a press conference made an impassioned plea for more sensitive treatment of race in this country. He did NOT try to rebut the outcome of the trial, as you seem to want people to believe. He opened his heart in a way few presidents have ever done, and something you can be sure you will never see the present White House occupant do. This is a small excerpt from that press conference:

"The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case -- I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

"There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often."

That Obama, D. What an embarrassment to our nation and our manhood. I can see now why you have such high regard for Donald Trump. But be careful around Trump. With him, you better be wearing a high tensile steel crotch protector at all times.

DMoney

Divisive*

martian2

do away with the electoral college and you will have a civil war! that is hillariously stupid D. Too many liberals in the country so we have to fix the elections in favor of a minority. Oh what a great way to run a country. If the tables were turned your head would spin and you would be clamoring for a real democracy. Get real and be honest for once.

DMoney

"Clamoring for a real democracy" would be changing our system of government. If you don't think changing our form of government--ie a REVOLUTION--would spark conflict, you get real.

new2Lax

You make Trump look like Harvey Weinstein and Harvey was supported by your candidate for President Hillary Clinton.

oldhomey

Now that you mention it, new2, Trump is at least equally as bad as Harvey Weinstein in lack of morality and arrogance regarding his power. And the fact that Weinstein voted for Hillary was not her fault, it was his right. Nobody can control who happens to like them. Look at the poor Washington Nationals. It turned out Trump was a fan. At least his fellow fans let Trump know they were no fans of him. And now, admit it, new2. You actually are a big fan of me, right? By the way, would you please provide some evidence that the Democrats started preparing to impeach Trump as soon as he was elected, as you keep harping on?

martian2

gosh again with the rain bow light display!! OMG D you are a piece of work! So presidents should pander to and be careful not to offend those who want to discriminate against fellow Americans because of their sexual orientation. I thought gays have equal rights too D. Why not carry it further and pander to the white nationalists and KKK. They should matter too, in your narrow view of the world. So the rainbow display started the whole extremists in the WEP. Not sure how that demonized anyone, or minimizes anyone, thought it was an attempt to make some think twice about their prejudices and bring people close together. Guess not according to D. Guess Kennedy shouldn't have ordered school integration in the south using the Nation guard, that might of offended someone. Guess Johnson shouldn't have signed the civil rights bill, someone like D might of got offended. Gosh you are something.

Jobaba

Excellent column. If you think about the obvious contradictions in their lives, it must be horrible to have to twist your beliefs. This goes for all trump supporters who believe they are moral and patriotic citizens. These are all people who are wandering, lost, with no firm convictions to ground them. It is probably no wonder that rather than have decent arguments they choose to deny anything counter to their world view. I firmly believe that living a life of inner conflict adds to their anger and ability to hate.

PhysicsIsFun

" Well over half of this group is willing to deny a blindingly obvious, entirely irrefutable, manifestly clear reality because it is perceived as being critical of their leader." No truer words have ever been spoken. He means you Newt, Dmoney, et. al.

DMoney

Ok, like what? Give me one "blindingly obvious, entirely irrefutable, manifestly clear" fact. Surely, you can do that and watch me choke on a response.

PhysicsIsFun

Why bother? It would be like trying to describe a painting to a person who has been blind since birth.

DMoney

You can't come up with one.

oldhomey

You have been provided that evidence countless times in the news and in the comments of people on these boards, D. You think you can deny it as mere "speculation". So I, for one, will not take the time to cut and paste some of the copious evidence that you will try to shrug off with a sniffy, ill-placed disdain. I imagine others here feel the same as me.

DMoney

I've been "provided" endless opinion and speculation. Not facts. You can't provide any. It's an excuse.

oldhomey

Keep your eyes open, D. I and others will be providing the facts in the future as we have in the past, but now I, at least, will try to call to your attention that you have been provided an actual fact, even though you will try to shrug it off as an opinion. Your entire position on the Obama administration driving the right wing so mad that it elected the likes of Donald Trump is certainly devoid of any factual reasoning in any sense of the word. You got offended by his support of gay rights? That is on you, not on him. You got huffy because he actually spoke out against violent attacks on blacks by bigots? He bent over backwards to NOT put his thumb on the scales in any of the nation's business to favor African Americans. But you attack him for standing up for racial justice. Where are your facts when you make these intemperate accusations?

DMoney

Where are my facts on these topics? That's funny. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty of murder of Trayvon Martin. It was determined without a reasonable doubt that Martin violently assaulted Zimmerman and was in his legal rights to use a weapon in defense. This is the outcome in a court of law, and it's factual. You call it racial bigotry. Micheal Brown violently assaulted a police officer after being stopped for stealing from a convenience store. The vast majority of eye witnesses, most of them black, sided with the story from the police officer. You call it racial bigotry.

Careful you don't lose more credibility than you already have. You need to go re-educate yourself on what facts are. It's not your incorrect, wild fantastical opinions.

DMoney

Never once have I said I was offended by support for gay rights. I support gay rights. I would hang a rainbow banner in my front yard if there was some local cause. It's not about what I find worthy or offensive. But it's a fact that many millions of Christians across all demographic groups in this country are not tolerant of the open advocacy of homosexuality. 99% of them keep their views and biases to themselves. That's their right to feel that way. Just like it's the right of a gay person to advocate gay rights. For the president to publicly side with one group at the complete abandonment and disregard of another is a travesty. And if you don't think that had an impact on evangelicals, you are crazy.

martian2

omg, you keep digging a deeper hold D. Even with the rainbow light display people can still be against gay rights. People can be against civil rights for minorities too. People can be pro Nazi too. Its still all legal. Is it right and moral, does it promote justice and equality? Hell no it doesn't. You say people should keep their opinions to themselves and be quiet. That is not how society functions or evolves into a more humane society. My gawd where do you come up with such ideas. Freedom of speech allows people to express their opinions, its their right. As long as it doesn't incite people into harming others or disturbing the peace. I doubt the ban of rainbow lights disturbed anyone's peace, except yours. You said yourself we are not a theocracy, religion does not dictate what we as a society can talk about or be passionate about. You keep contradicting yourself. IN the 19th century religion was used to justify slavery, preachers in the south quoted the bible and twisted its meaning to justify it. I guess we should go back to the slave days cause lots of the so called religious felt justified in their hate for blacks. You are on the wrong side of history again.

DMoney

If the argument is "Trump has damaged the dignity of his office", I disagree, because I for one have never considered the office of the presidency as dignified. I know I'm far from alone in that sentiment. What Trump HAS done, is be honest and direct about it. I will never blindly trust and support a politician. Neither should you. That's a principle this country was founded on--distrust of the establishment. So give me a President that doesn't hide who he is, for better or worse. There's no "wrong" in that--it's my opinion vs. yours.

martian2

wow D. You never considered the office of president as dignified, now why is that? What in the world has Trump been honest and direct about, you never say. If you follow his tirade of daily tweets you can clearly see he has tarnished the office, that once was held in high regard by most Americans. Or do you just ignore the craziness he shows and call it being "direct." You say you never blindly trust a politician, but every day you show that you do. You contradict yourself again. The principle of this country was founded on distrust, well that is partially true. That is why there is checks and balances, and that is why congress has a constitutional duty to hold people in government accountable for their actions. And that is exactly what they are doing now with impeachment hearings. So we have a president who doesn't hide his ugly hate filled self and shows it off often with his lack of self discipline, and you think that is just great. I prefer a president with maturity, civility, and one that uses his good and compassionate side of his personality to govern. To each their own, but you can have this moron of a president whose daily lies have set new records. You must be proud.

Needforchange

Honest and Trump do not belong in the same sentence. What’s the Lie total up to now? 12K+?

DMoney

He is who he is. All of the faults and flaws and imperfections are plainly visible and known. That's what I'm referring to.

oldhomey

D declares boldly "I will never blindly trust and support a politician" on these very same boards that day in and day out he comes on to blindly trust and support the worst, most corrupt, inept, ill-prepared president in the history of the republic. I suppose he could make the argument that Trump is not a politician. I would agree. But people who are unfamiliar with the political process, the law, the Constitution and ethical behavior should never be president. I have Donald Trump tas Exhibit A to support me on that statement.

DMoney

I have the Constitution of the United States as Exhibit A that specifies in Article 2, section 1 the requirements to be POTUS. Trump meets the requirements. End of that conversation.

martian2

meeting minimal requirements is something any idiot can do. If you want the most qualified and able person for the job, dig a little deeper, think a little harder. Of course that takes more work to do that, and more intelligence.

oldhomey

That is not the conversation, D. The conversation is that Trump is or is not the most unsuitable human being ever to preside in the White House. You get on here day in and day out arguing that he is superbly suitable. I and others come on here day in and day out and lay out the evidence that he is the worst, most corrupt, unethical, ill-prepared person ever to be elected president of this country.

DMoney

Lies. I have never said he's superbly suited to be president. I've witnessed little to no factual evidence that he has failed at his presidency. I'm still waiting on some facts that would change my mind. If anything, it could be argued that he really hasn't done much. But as a conservative, that's fine by me.

DMoney

And I'll tell you: if your idea of "facts" are what you gave above regarding Trayvon Martin and Micheal Brown--Ill be waiting an extremely long time because those were genuinely laughable. Not only was that complete speculation, it wasn't even widely popular opinion. And that was after your conspiracy theory on why Trump was elected. You aren't even in the same hemisphere of facts.

oldhomey

Well, D, unfortunately for you, I took your challenge and Googled Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown vis a vis Obama. I knew you were wrong going in, but I could not remember the facts. I found them, and they are in another response higher up in this string. I hope it wipes the laughter off your face.

DMoney

Nope, not even close. He admitted he jumped the gun on his race baiting, anti-police comment. And then he just couldn't refrain from tying racism into a self-defense case where racial bigotry had absolutely no role. He was wrong, he angered millions of Americans by these comments who saw it as a diminishment of the judicial system and our values for gun ownership and self defense. The rest of his comments were putting makeup on a pig. He shouldn't have gone there and shouldn't have indirectly accused Americans of being racists when the criminal was the kid who assaulted a man.

oldhomey

So Obama's initial response to the Ferguson shooting was that it was "heartbreaking", and you find that to be race-baiting? And you have the gall to defend what Donald Trump tweets day in and day out as being harmless? You and I are on a completely different scale of standards. I am sure you are comfortable with the standards you set for yourself. They seem more than a bit low in my estimation, however. Not, of course, that you would care what I think.

DMoney

Yes. The only person it was "heartbreaking" for was the police officer, who was violently assaulted for doing his job and protecting the community, which then turned on him and labelled him. "Heartbreaking" that another thug in another part of the country violently attacked a man who had to resort to using a gun as self defense. What's "heartbreaking" is the fact that people like this have it in their heads that it's ok to assault people. It's "heartbreaking" that the POTUS wouldn't say that. Instead he'd paint a picture of race, which lets the true people to blame off the hook for their violent actions.

oldhomey

So now you are taking the position that Obama would not condemn assault, battery and violence toward police, D? I have given you chapter and verse on these two incidents, and it does not match up with what you are saying. You talk about how factual you are, but you offer no facts, and I have offered them. You are bloviating, not making a reasoned argument. And you are not even 40 years old yet. A bloviating young guy.

DMoney

He has one comment/sentence in regards to police and the judicial system. He has an entire monologue about how we need to be sensitive to race. He took the assault of two people who acted in self defense and made it about race. In other words, he made the perpetrators the victims.

oldhomey

Ahem. D. What more did you want to hear Obama to say about the judicial system? Did he mock it? Did he condemn it? Did he praise it effusively? What more did you want him to say? What he did want to say is that this teenage kid was walking down a street one night minding his own business in a completely legal and legitimate way as anybody walking down a public way does. But he was black and an armed, self-appointed neighborhood vigilante who had no portfolio that would give him the right to stopped the kid and started giving him a fifth degree. It escalated. It ended in tragedy for the kid. It did not need to happen. The doofus with the gun has since repeatedly shown publicly that he is a doofus in all ways. Do not try to make him look like an heroic victim.

DMoney

He was violently and relentlessly assaulted! Him being dumb or insensitive does not warrant a vicious and violent attack. He was justified and appropriate to defend himself and the court agreed. Trayvon Martin got what he deserved, and while it's a tragedy he was raised to use physical force-- were lucky to live in a place where we don't have to be at the mercy of someone who wants to physically harm us. Obama's take infuriated many people including me. Making it an issue of race is racist. He brought it up. Martian could have been white or Mexican or Asian--irrelevant.

oldhomey

He was armed and following a 17 year old kid trying to go home from a 7-11. He was complaining in a call to a dispatcher about the kid being a "d*mn punk" getting away. Getting away from what? The dispatcher told him to quit following the kid, but he ignored that and got out with his semiautomatic and flashlights and followed the kid. The kid asked him, logically, "Why are you following me?" The kid lost it and our armed he-man did not know enough to back off, and the kid knocked him down and jumped on him. The guy knew he was getting a beating, so he shot the kid. You tell me who was in the right and who was in the wrong. It is all black and white to you. Everything is. What a blessing for you. You don't have to think, and you never do.

johnnybragatti

No kidding for sure,evags are the most unholy next to Satan himself. T hey almost make Trump-Humpers ,like doosch-bag,crank rikki and the Newt-nude2 look like choir girls. These are among the lowest forms of life on the planet. Liars ,thieves ,losers all their miserable lives and getting worse every day. Ever seen a trump sign in someone"s window? You can probably guess the mentality. They believe lying is OK.

new2Lax

You mean like you can keep your current health plan and doctor, those kind of lies. Evangelists needed to be updated somewhat and Trump was just the guy to do it, he used the same tactics to change many Obama supporters to win the election. The guy is brilliant and here you are trying to run down the Evangelists and former Obama supporters, they all must have seen the writing on the wall, you just didn’t get the message, no harm done, Trump won the election. You have to have the skills to attract those from the opposition party. You must remember the media and Democrats said the polls were 93% in their favor and there was NOWAY Trump could get 270 electoral votes. This will go down as an historical event for the next 100 years. Our guy pulled it off.

oldhomey

new2, I challenge you. Make up a list of things you think Obama lied about. I will make up a list of whoppers that you and I and the rest of the world know that Trump has launched. Which list do you think will be the easiest to assemble? Mine. You will have to struggle to find just a few entries for yours, and most of those will range from debatable to patently false in content.

new2Lax

The lie Obama knowingly told about American people being allowed to keep their current health care plan and doctor started with him. I know because Obama lied, this should not be a predicate for Trump but I guess he got the impression it was okay as Democrats didn’t see it as a problem. Now of course the shoe is on the other foot. I do believe because Obama lied set the stage for was is acceptable and now you have a problem with it, knowing you can’t un ring a bell.

I’m sure Mother Theresa would not have sued the Little Sister’s of the Poor and she would cling to her religion, so, yes she would be with Trump and Evangelists.

I’m not sure but didn’t the market hit another record a couple times this week. I think it may be because the China trade deal is moving ahead, what do you think. I noticed Gerson made mention of the booming economy, you and he separate at this point. Your probably wondering how the jobs number is out of site today. Another bit of news, the numbers just out on Warren’s Medicare for all, 52 trillion, I’m starting to feel the Bern at 34 trillion. Both of these clowns want to rid the country of employer based insurance, how’s that going to fly, of course Warren’s plan will not raise taxes on the middle class.

oldhomey

new2, this is getting pretty tiresome. The only "lie" you continually cite as Obama having made in eight years as president is his mistake in saying all people could keep their doctor of choice under Obamacare. Many could and did, but some could not. Obama later acknowledged he was wrong and apologized. Trump has lied, according to latest tallies, 12,000+ times in less than three years in office. Has he ever admitted he was wrong and apologized? Not even once, that I can recall. He may not be the perfect liar, but it is perfectly clear that he thinks he can get by on wholesale lying, and you seem to agree with that.

And, typically, you seem to be terribly confused about who is suing whom in the Little Sisters of the Poor case.

The Little Sisters of the Poor filed a complaint against the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate in 2013. They joined a many other religious charities and colleges that claimed the law placed a burden on their free exercise of their religion.

A three-member panel of judges on the Tenth circuit of the federal appeals court ruled that the Obama administration has came up with a sufficient accommodation for religious organizations like the Little Sisters: If they object to providing insurance coverage to employees who want to buy birth control, organizations can sign a two-page form stating that objection. That’s it—from there, the administration will arrange for a third-party provider to make sure the employee can get coverage.

Of course, in a nod to D, I can only speculate on this, but I have a feeling if she were alive today during the Trump era we would see her on the U.S. border with Mexico, but she would not be campaigning in support of building a useless wall and the separation of migrant children from their parents. I think she would be campaigning against the terribly unethical, ignorant cruelty of the Trump administration.

The rest of you 10:14am is the usual Fox New talking point palaver that I will not waste my time on. By the way, have you come up with that evidence of the Democrats starting the impeachment process against Trump as soon as he was elected? You keep saying that is true, but you and other right wingers who keep harping on that never have shown it to be true.

DMoney

In a nod to your speculation, Oldhomey, I'd agree on Mother Theresa's stance. Thing is, she wouldn't be a citizen of the US. She would have no constitutional requirement to protect the interests of the people of the US as sworn by Oath. She would not have to protect and defend our sovereignty. So her opinion, as respectful and well-placed as it might have been, would be irrelevant. As would your speculation on her opinion.

oldhomey

Since that is your position, D, that Mother Theresa would have been an unwelcome agitator in business she had no business in, let me ask you this: What would you think of a president of the United States going to a foreign power and asking that foreign power to help that president to be elected or re-elected? How would that make you feel about the sovereignty of our nation, when a president is asking a foreign nation for personal favors that could alter the results of an American election?

oldhomey

D? Why are you not responding to further speculation about foreigners trying to interfere in our nation's business when they have no right to do so?

DMoney

Please provide the factual proof that Trump asked a foreign government for assistance in getting reelected. You can't because it doesn't exist at the moment. You can find third-hand speculation on a conversation about asking for an investigation into apparently shady dealings involving the vice president of that time. It has nothing to do with 2019-2020. If you are suggesting it does--YOU are making that connection. That's your opinion, not a fact.

martian2

either you are incredibly stupid D, or just blinded by your fanaticism. REad the transcript, and comprehend it. My guess you aren't that stupid, but your never ending loyalty prevents you from knowing fact from fiction.

oldhomey

I am afraid, martian, your use of fanaticism is right in regard to D. It is useless to point to the facts with him, or to refer him to his own right-wing opinion writers like Rich Lowry, who admit the phone call revealed quid pro quo. D will have none of it. He also thinks Obama saying he found the shooting in Ferguson to be "heart-breaking" was an inflammatory message of a black president slamming a racist gauntlet. And that when Obama expressed a deeply thoughtful, soul-searching examination of American race relations from the point of view of a black human being and parent, D took it as an attack on liberty and as an insult to all good Americans who own guns and want to protect their families. It is a scary demonstration of fanaticism by a person who should know better. It is prompted by Donald Trump, a man who by the hour seems to be trending more and more fascist, and people are following him fanatically.

martian2

D accuses Obama of provoking millions of Americans when he spoke about Travon or other killings of blacks that were uncalled for. The fact is that person who killed Travon was told by authorities to stand down, let the real police handle it, not some wanna be. Many times our judicial system gets things wrong. Guilty go free at times, and innocent get convicted. That doesn't mean the verdict is always FACT. sometimes we will never know what the real facts are. but I know one thing, standing up for the dignity of gay people is something I am proud Obama did it. You must not like Pence huh D? He likes to get on his high horse of moral superiority and bash the dignity of gay people over and over. Yet you say nothing about that. As the old saying goes, all that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. And you are living proof of that.

DaisyL

Couldn't agree more....Amen to this article.

martian2

" Because evangelicals lost their taste for character, and gave their blessing to corruption. And this grand act of hypocrisy would mark them for a generation." Beautifully written and absolutely true!

new2Lax

It was almost biblical, I was overwhelmed. You should know you can’t trust an Evangelical, Mother Theresa, Little Sisters of the Poor etc. Monsters, the lot of them. Church, care for the poor, feeding the poor, missionary’s, nonsense, all of it and they don’t pay taxes, I see your point.

martian2

comparing WEP to caring for the poor or Mother Theresa is comical. Thank goodness we have some people who are willing to help the poor and do other good in the world cause you can't trust the GOP to actually help. I see your point Newt.

oldhomey

Do you honestly think Mother Theresa would side with Trump and his white evangelical followers, new2? How preciously devout of you.

DMoney

Irrelevant. This country isn't a Theocracy.

martian2

newt is that one that brought it up. He thinks Mother Theresa was an Evangelical protestant, along with the little sisters. He is a little mixed up as always.

oldhomey

D, if Roe v. Wade gets overturned because of the fanaticism of the right wing and its co-opting of the evangelicals, we will in fact be a theocracy. We enjoy religious freedom, but no religion should be allowed to impose its beliefs on everybody else.

DMoney

Roe vs Wade isn't being overturned any time soon. Hate to burst your bubble.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.