Porn Stars, Playmates, and Christian Politics

[The Grand Nudger]

A fool and his money are soon parted, Vor.

(they haven't scrubbed that out of magic book, yet, have they...? )

[Crossless2.0]

I'm old enough to remember the early Christian political movement HATED President Carter despite his being one of them. (actually, he was better at it than they were and I think that hurt him too). 

Ah, that takes me back to the good old days, when a Presidential candidate could cause a minor uproar by admitting to Playboy that he had 'committed adultery in his heart' by occasionally looking at other women lustfully.

We've come a long way, Baby!

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's hard to take people seriously when in one breath they defend 'traditional marriage' and in the next defend a guy who has had 3 wives.  (Am I talking about Newt or Trump?  Hint: It's both!)

It's hard to take people seriously who argue for gender fluidity, polymory, and alternative lifestyles criticize people for not living up to the traditional principles they profess. Sure, their not hypocrites, just unprincipled perverts.

[Jackalope]

A lot of social justice type groups are like that. They go out and protest, and write books, and tell those who disagree with them that they're wrong and bad, etc. I used to be Facebook friends with a liberal atheist woman who was always posting preachy shit on her Facebook and condemning those who she didn't feel were doing things right or whatever. It doesn't have to be a religious group.

Of course, people like that exists across the spectrum. Judgmental people are judgmental. I just find it odd that a group such as Trump-supporting evangelicals would shackle themselves to such a person, particularly as it related to the primaries. The man is a scumbag. Why him? Why not Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, or any of the other guys who's values at least align closer to their own? I can understand the general election, with the choice being seeing Hillary elected, or Trump, to them I imagine that staying away from the polls was only a slightly less bad option than voting for Hillary, but the GOP primaries have me baffled.

[Divinity]

It's hard to take people seriously who argue for gender fluidity, polymory, and alternative lifestyles criticize people for not living up to the traditional principles they profess. Sure, their not hypocrites, just unprincipled perverts.

It's hard to take people seriously who don't know the difference between 'they're' and 'their'.

Also funny how you bring up principles, when you and your ilk support fucking child molester Roy Moore.  It's okay if you fuck kids, as long as you've got the church's backing to take down same sex couples.  You'll turn a blind eye to it as long as you get to hate on same sex people.  Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

[Anomalocaris]

@Anom.

IKR?

Had it attached itself to the dems, it would have at least attached itself to a group that is more closely aligned with it's purported values and was in demographic ascent.  IDK why they decided to attach their religion to politics so overtly in the first place..but even more confusing is the fact that they chose the wrong horse.

The purported value of Christianity was, is, and will be ever more so, a smoke screen for the cult to gain and keep converts.

[Catholic_Lady]

A lot of social justice type groups are like that. They go out and protest, and write books, and tell those who disagree with them that they're wrong and bad, etc. I used to be Facebook friends with a liberal atheist woman who was always posting preachy shit on her Facebook and condemning those who she didn't feel were doing things right or whatever. It doesn't have to be a religious group.

Of course, people like that exists across the spectrum. Judgmental people are judgmental. I just find it odd that a group such as Trump-supporting evangelicals would shackle themselves to such a person, particularly as it related to the primaries. The man is a scumbag. Why him? Why not Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, or any of the other guys who's values at least align closer to their own? I can understand the general election, with the choice being seeing Hillary elected, or Trump, to them I imagine that staying away from the polls was only a slightly less bad option than voting for Hillary, but the GOP primaries have me baffled.

You and I both, CD. I don't get it. I don't get how he ever got as far as he did in the first place, much less won the primaries.

The one theory I've heard is that a lot of people (those who voted for him in the primaries) were just over the "PC culture", having words like bigot and racist tossed around, being demonized for being more conservative, etc etc. It made an atmosphere of "us verses them". A lot of people felt alienated and just sick of it. And to them, Trump kind of represented the opposite. It was different and new. The "other side" hated him the most, so perhaps conservatives saw it as the biggest eff you to their opposition and kind of a way to get back at them.

[Crossless2.0]

Of course, people like that exists across the spectrum.  Judgmental people are judgmental.  I just find it odd that a group such as Trump-supporting evangelicals would shackle themselves to such a person, particularly as it related to the primaries.  The man is a scumbag.  Why him?  Why not Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, or any of the other guys who's values at least align closer to their own?  I can understand the general election, with the choice being seeing Hillary elected, or Trump, to them I imagine that staying away from the polls was only a slightly less bad option than voting for Hillary, but the GOP primaries have me baffled.

You and I both, CD. I don't get it. I don't get how he ever got as far as he did in the first place, much less won the primaries.

The one theory I've heard is that a lot of people (those who voted for him in the primaries) were just over the "PC culture", having words like bigot and racist tossed around, being demonized for being more conservative, etc etc. It made an atmosphere of "us verses them". A lot of people felt alienated and just sick of it. And to them, Trump kind of represented the opposite. It was different and new. The "other side" hated him the most, so perhaps conservatives saw it as the biggest eff you to their opposition and kind of a way to get back at them.

So . . . cultural resentment. Got it.

[Anomalocaris]

It's hard to take people seriously when in one breath they defend 'traditional marriage' and in the next defend a guy who has had 3 wives.  (Am I talking about Newt or Trump?  Hint: It's both!)

It's hard to take people seriously who argue for gender fluidity, polymory, and alternative lifestyles criticize people for not living up to the traditional principles they profess. Sure, their not hypocrites, just unprincipled perverts.

It’s hard to take a moron seriously who is so besotted with self righteousness that he could blather histrionic indignation at his cult being called out for hypocrisy for not adhering to value it claims to be core merely because his critics do not share those so called values.

[Divinity]

So . . . cultural resentment. Got it.

It's politics of Spite.  Anything to piss off the other side.  Imagine the freakout they'd have if it was responded in kind.  They'd be shitting themselves silly if the other side did things solely to spite them.  Because there's a lot of easy way to spite them.