Alternate Presidential Candidate for #NeverTrump supporters Denny Burk, Russell Moore, and the ERLC

It's no secret that some high-profile Southern Baptists are pushing evangelicals toward a #NeverTrump position. Among the more aggressive top-tier influencers (especially among younger evangelicals) stand Denny Burk and Russell Moore, both Southern Baptists, both #NeverTrump members, both employees at entities owned by the Southern Baptist Convention--The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission respectively. Many Southern Baptists think their posturing toward #NeverTrump to be either misguided or unstudied. Below is one response to the third-party, write-in candidacy both Burk and Moore have recently promoted.

First, let's consider our presidential political landscape for a moment.

While, all things equal, it's hardly difficult to make a strong case as to why Donald Trump makes an unsuitable representative of Reagan Republicans, political conservatives, and traditional evangelical concerns, it becomes next to impossible, at least from many evangelicals' point of view, to make a case at all against Donald Trump when he's the only viable option to soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I've said often in conversations that knowing what we actually know about Ms. Clinton's political record is why we can be reasonably confident that what we don't know about Mr. Trump's positions can be cautiously but decidedly discounted. Clinton will definitively take this country in a far, Leftward swing in only four years--not to mention two terms in office--a swing from which we may not recover for generations to come.¹ High-profile leaders like Burk and Moore know this to be true. Thus, we're almost on the same page here.^1a

But the tragic irony is, both Burk and Moore are now encouraging voters toward either a third-party, a write-in, or, in some cases, forget voting at all in November. For them, some things are more important than politics--a good conscience.

In the end, Burk and Moore's #NeverTrump party is willing to bet their chips on either a) Clinton will not be nearly as bad as she's been described; or, b)  a third-party candidate or write-in will somehow miraculously save the political day (not to mention their troubled conscience).    

Well, there's good news for Russell Moore, Denny Burk, and all #NeverTrump evangelicals out there!

A hopeful candidate who desires to kickstart a third-party exists!

Finally, a candidate #NeverTrump evangelicals like Burk and Moore can sink their teeth into and push for president of the United States.

Freed at last!²

So, there's no need to write-in or stay home come November.

 

Introducing...

 

Wiley Drake for President 2016

Mr. Drake's platform precisely meets Burk and Moore's core complaint about neither Republican nor Democratic nominee's acceptability for president. From the introduction to the platform for a Wiley Drake Administration:

"A new Godly party is urgently needed today because the leaders of the two existing parties, Democratic and Republican, have deserted the principles and traditions of our nation's founding fathers. Both of the existing parties have become the proponents of big government, crushing taxation, dictatorial federal power, waste and fiscal irresponsibility, unwholesome and disastrous internationalism, compromise with our nation's enemies, and authoritarian regimentation of the citizens of this Republic. Control of the government, under the domination of these two existing parties, has left the hands of the people our government was created to serve."

In addition, no moral scandals so far as we know have plagued the longtime Southern Baptist pastor. Thus, lying, gambling, womanizing, among other moral flags that have driven Burk and Moore to an incorrigible #NeverTrumpNorClinton position can hardly apply to Dr. Drake.

So, here's Burk and Moore's opportunity to promote, for president, one who fits their criteria to be President of the United States.³

 

¹Interestingly, here's a vdeobite I watched after I made the claim of not being able to recover from a Leftward shift a Clinton presidency would involve:  

^1aI say "almost" because Burk suggests we're not certain Clinton would be a worse president than Donald Trump! Here’s my response to Burk.

²I originally had this statement immediately after: "Freed at last from a #NeverTrumpNorClinton ticket-trick the Devil himself apparently pulled on our sovereign God while asleep on the job!" I chose to take it out since the very first comment was not about whether Wiley Drake is a suitable candidate as POTUS for Burk and Moore; rather it questioned what the statement meant. Sheer distraction. So I thank the commenter "Chris" for bringing it up.

³please know I'm in no way "poking fun" at Reverend Drake. He is certainly fulfilling his duty as an American citizen in running for president if he's so inclined. Would I recommend voting for Drake as POTUS? I would not, for the very same reason I would not tell people to stay home on election day in November. A vote not cast in November 2016 pragmatically implies at least a larger window for Hillary Clinton to become the 45th POTUS, while a vote for Drake would undoubtedly produce similar results for Clinton. Furthermore, I'm inclined to think Burk and Moore's rhetoric about a "third-party" candidate is just that--rhetoric...empty rhetoric. There's no real seriousness to it. Perhaps I'm wrong. Time will tell...

 

Comments

[Chris]

"Free at last from a #NeverTrumpNorClinton ticket-trick the devil apparently pulled on our sovereign God while was asleep on the job!"

What are you trying to say by that comment?

Also, Trump is not going to beat Hillary. The millions of Republicans who voted for Trump ensured that Hillary will be in office, because they did not pick a viable candidate. Why would someone want to vote for a bad canidate when you are sure they won't win?

There have been times when I had to hold my nose when voting for a candidate. But voting for Trump goes beyond holding my nose to checking my conscience. It's just not worth it. There is a limit to what I will do to stop Hillary getting into the White House. Voting for Trump goes past that limit.

[peter lumpkins]

"But voting for Trump goes beyond holding my nose to checking my conscience." Granted. How about Wiley Drake?

[Lydia]

Hey, no problems with "Mark Driscoll for Pastor"!

[Chris]

Peter,

As you might expect, I do not know much about Wiley Drake. I might agree with you that he may not be the best candidate. I would definitely vote for him before Trump and Hillary.

I don't need a candidate to be a pastor or even a Christian. I understand the idea of choosing the lesser of two evils. But with the assumption that Hillary will win either way, I'd rather choose neither evil and keep my conscience free on this issue.

I'd gladly vote for a third party candidate. I do not know of a remotely serious one to vote for. This is the opportunity you'd think they had been waiting for though.

[peter lumpkins]

As for your question Chris, see footnote 2. Thank you. I want no distractions from the question on the floor; namely, is Wiley Drake not a suitable and acceptable candidate for #NeverTrump members like Denny Burk and Russell Moore?

[Lydia]

I am just a tad confused on how they are categorizing moral/ethical behavior when it comes to Clinton/Trump and deciding which reprobate is the worst.

Of course we have the added problem of whether the majority of people actually care about social/moral issues over the economic pro blem of a seriously shrinking middle class. (It is much easier to control financially struggling people)

[Lydia]

Oops. I will stay on topic. How about #whynotwylie for the #NeverTrump SBC leaders?

[Mary]

It's just a tad hypocritical for the men who had no problems with Driscoll's misogyny and pornovisions and who even at this moment are debating whether the Holy Spirit actually inspired Paul to use profanity in the Scriptures to just declare what is "good conscience"

[peter lumpkins]

I think Lydia is on to something with #WhyNotWiley !!

[Chris]

Peter,

I am impressed by your willingness to remove distractions, brother.

I think part of the issue with Trump is that many evangelicals readily say "no" to Hillary but then readily support someone who may be worse than her (definitely morally). I think this is why Moore is so anti-Trump.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary, I fully agree. Those speaking about following a "good conscience" need to reveal to us exactly what they mean. After all, while our conscience should not be outright discounted, neither can it become the non-negotiable factor in making informed decisions. It is fallen, you know (and for many Calvinists, it remains entirely depraved and deceitful).

Perhaps even more than considering "conscience," would be to personally consider what exactly am I allowing to take place in this country if I forfeit my opportunity to stop Clinton from becoming president.

That is, rather than focusing on some sort of inner self-appeasement by "soothing" one's conscience, so to speak, how about thinking about loving one's neighbor, loving one's children and grandchildren, preserving our constitutional liberties, and protecting American borders from terrorist invaders by voting for the best person available who will hopefully make those things happen?

Hence, to sit back, glibly claim Trump and Clinton are both unacceptable, and if one votes at all, one will vote for an impossible-to-win candidate which will "sooth" an alleged troubled conscience is supposed to be superior to #VotingTrump in what specific way?

Frankly, I don't think my #NeverTrump Christian friends can sufficiently answer the question.

[Lydia]

Chris, Moore is anti Trump because the establishment is and he gets media attention. His big issue is now racism. It used to be Patriarchy but that does not get you in the NYT. Never mind SBTS named a college after a pro chattel saver as late as 1994 which did not bring one protest from Moore. Neither did the portrait of pro slaver Broaddus the trustees gave him. (Did they buy it with pew sitter money?)

Moore is not an ideologue standing on principle. Can you say Driscoll? He is an opportunist. It is so blatent, it takes my breath away what you guys have to ignore to defend him!

[Chris]

Yes, a conscience can be a non-negotiable factor. Our conscience represents our understanding of right and wrong, to violate it is to choose to do wrong and thereby sin. Our conscience is not perfect, but violating your conscience is always sin because you are doing what you believe to be wrong.

Trump is an impossible-to-win candidate. But even if he could win, it won't be by my vote.

[Chris]

Lydia,

What is amazing to me is that you and others here attack the godly man and defend the ungodly man.

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia:

I think Chris and others have "conscience" confused with EGO.

WHY NOT WYLIE? He meets the criteria of Moore and Burke to the tee.

If they can't go with Wylie, their whole argument is moot.

[Lydia]

"What is amazing to me is that you and others here attack the godly man and defend the ungodly man."

What "godly" man did I "attack"? What "ungodly" man did I "defend"? Can you be more specific?

[Lydia]

Scott, they have not made a case why one reprobate is worse than the other.

This is a movement that promoted and partnered with Driscoll and Mahaney so I am not convinced their argument extends beyond, "because we say so".

[Lydia]

Scott, they have not made a case why one reprobate is worse than the other.

This is a movement that promoted and partnered with Driscoll and Mahaney so I am not convinced their argument extends beyond, "because we say so".

[Mary]

Chris, my "conscience" tells me that if Trump were proAmnesty, pro BLM etc etc Moore would have no trouble endorsing him. It's all about the politics. There's a Moore quote floating around where he states the future of the SBC is about embracing "diversity" Think about that one for a minute. The future of the SBC isn't Jesus but making sure you embrace "diversity" a purely crass political statement.

[Chris]

Scott,

What I am describing is clearly conscience, not ego.

The argument against Trump does not fail if Moore does not automatically support the first candidate you mention. That does not follow. Moore does not have to support anyone officially. He can still be against Trump for good reasons.

[Chris]

Lydia,

The point of your side of the argument in part seems to be that Moore should support Trump. He's good enough to be President at least when compared to Hillary. So you are defending the ungodly Trump.

Clearly, you are attacking Moore (a godly man).

These kind of discussions remind me of listening to political partisans who can see nothing good in anything the person in the other party does. Even the good they do is bad. I think it is the same for some of you. Whatever Calvinists do will always be evil. Calvinists can only think, desire, do evil. Even the good Calvinists do is evil. You hold to a radical depravity in Calvinists only.

I think that is really sad. It shows a type of blindness that seems to flow from a desire for justness and rightness that has been twisted.

[peter lumpkins]

"The point of your side of the argument in part seems to be that Moore should support Trump. He's good enough to be President at least when compared to Hillary. So you are defending the ungodly Trump."

Lydia is perfectly capable of answering a question to her but I'd like to give it a shot.

First, my view would be Russell Moore should not be supporting/unsupporting ANY candidate for office for the simple reason that's not his job. The ERLC is supposed to assist churches in understanding issues affecting them. Moore has personalized it by campaigning unilaterally against Trump. #NeverTrump, remember?

Second, I have no reservations whatsoever in defending an "ungodly Trump" an "ungodly Clinton" or an "ungodly whoever" against hyper-critical Christians who think it's their duty to pick out who is godly and ungodly for other Christians to embrace or shun respectively. Indeed just last week I "defended" both Trump and Clinton from an absurd analogy posted on a TGC blog comparing Trump and Clinton to Hitler and Stalin. Mindless Christian critics do not get a pass even when they're criticizing either unbelievers or "ungodly" people.

[Mary]

Chris you declaring Moore a "godly man" doesn't make it so. This so-called "godly man" has supported Mark Driscoll when people like you dismissed all criticism of Driscoll as just "anti-Calvinism" The blindness is this idea that every critique is "anti-Calvinism" People warned about Driscoll for years and were dismissed as "haters" People continue to warn about Mahaney. If Moore were such a "godly man" he would have manned up at some point and admitted to being horribly wrong in his support of Driscoll. So would a whole bunch of other people. The church is in more danger from men like Mahaney and Driscoll than a conMan like Trump. There's the world and then there's the church. Christians don't have a hope of influencing the world when men like Moore who should be guarding the flock are propping up wolves like Driscoll and Mahaney. Moore loves him some political correctness but he wouldn't dare to go after "the annointed" wolves in the church unless it becomes politically expedient for him to do so.

[Chris]

"First, my view would be Russell Moore should not be supporting/unsupporting ANY candidate for office for the simple reason that's not his job."

I can understand that position. Did you call out Richard Land for his comments on various political candidates such as Mitt Romney? Or is this only an issue when Calvinists do it?

"The ERLC is supposed to assist churches in understanding issues affecting them."

I think who is our next President and who evangelicals support for president definitely affects churches.

"hyper-critical Christians who think it's their duty to pick out who is godly and ungodly for other Christians to embrace or shun respectively"

That sentence describes some of what goes on here in the blog posts and comments.

"Mindless Christian critics"

So bent against Calvinists that you call them mindless. In your view, a Calvinist cannot just be wrong or off-base. They have to be mindless. I imagine that you are disappointed when you read an article by a Calvinist that you mildly agree with.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

You wrote, "What is amazing to me is that you and others here attack the godly man and defend the ungodly man."

Question: How is what we're doing here amazingly different from what Russell Moore and Denny Burk are doing there?

[Chris]

Peter,

Because Moore and Burk are pointing to legitimate reasons why Trump is bad. He is an immoral person and a bully to such a level that it is hard to imagine a Christian voting for him. Maybe, you disagree but that is an understandable thing for a Christian to say and think.

You almost treat Moore and Burk worse than they treat Trump. Moore can point to actual words and things Trump has done as morally wrong. You guys "read" Moore's heart and motives, and decide he is evil, inconsistent, and a liar.

[Chris]

Peter,

Maybe, I am taking a trip to crazytown here, but I'd love to see you say something good about a Calvinist (backhanded compliments don't count). Sure, you disagree with their theology. You may disagree with how they do some things. But do you see any good in anything they do?

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Below are responses to your claims (your claims are embolden):

Because Moore and Burk are pointing to legitimate reasons why Trump is bad. First, while Burk may be in a more amenable position to do so, Moore is not. It’s not his job to point out the bad in politicians. It’s his job to work with officials already elected, both good and bad, and represent the entire Southern Baptist Convention in D.C. More importantly, your claim assumes there's no legitimacy in pointing out the bad in Hillary Clinton, which many of us believe is worse than the bad in Trump.  

He is an immoral person and a bully to such a level that it is hard to imagine a Christian voting for him. Maybe, you disagree but that is an understandable thing for a Christian to say and think. Perhaps. But character is only one criteria for the leader of a freedom loving democratic republic. What many of us cannot stomach is a leftward stacked SCOTUS, stronger pro-abortion laws, a threatened 2nd amendment, more ObamaCare, etc etc which is what a Clinton White House promises us. So, yeah, I can see how it's an "understandable thing" to want a better moral example in the Oval Office. But I'm unwilling to sacrifice my children's future on the altar of my personal moral ideology. 

You almost treat Moore and Burk worse than they treat Trump. Moore can point to actual words and things Trump has done as morally wrong. You guys "read" Moore's heart and motives, and decide he is evil, inconsistent, and a liar. This is pure nonsense, Chris. I've not once brought Moore's personal life into this debate. If I have, then produce the goods. Prove it. And while I've perhaps shown inconsistencies in his position--which, by the way, is perfectly legitimate criticism, is it not?--never have I claimed or implied Moore to be either evil or a liar. If you can prove to the contrary, do it. If not, don't make these claims again on this site. I tire of emotional outbursts claiming absurd charges that have no basis in reality.

So, either produce the goods, Chris, or drop the invective claims now.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

As for your attempt to distract the thread away from politics and toward Calvinism, making the merits of what I say about politics dependent upon what I believe about Calvinists, no. You get no traction. Either stay on topic or drop out of the exchange. My criticisms of Moore and Burk's politics stand or fall own their own.

[Scott Shaver]

Chris writes: "Scott, what I am describing is CLEARLY conscience, not ego."

No Chris, it is not clear to anyone but yourself unless you can quantify and substantiate your arguments. Arguments, which up to this point are being blown to pieces by some very appropriate analyses.

Good try on the "Calvinism" red herring but no cookie..these folks have been around the block a time or two. Stay on point.

[Lydia]

"I can understand that position. Did you call out Richard Land for his comments on various political candidates such as Mitt Romney? Or is this only an issue when Calvinists do it?"

I admit I was not paying much attention to Land because he was just not all over the media like Moore. I don't recall him using his position on a media #neverObama campaign like this from motor. From what little I followed he tried to keep it to issues and map from those. Anyway, was not a loyal fan.

But then, I think the ELRC is an overall bad idea. Moore is making the ELRC HIS personal platform that gets him establishment cred and lots of camera time. I have never seen anything so obvious in my life. These men have no shame using Jesus and SBC pew sitter money as a cover for their personal gain.

[Scott Shaver]

Chris writes: "Because Burke and Moore are pointing to legitimate reasons why Trump is Bad". This is his justification for the "home team"? LOL.

Let's look at it this way, some of us are pointing to LEGITIMATE REASONS why it's very BAD to listen to either Denny Burke or Russell Moore on the subject of Trump as well as a host of others.

Soros-backed open border agendas

Demanding removal of publicly displayed Confederate flag with oil painting of CSA Chaplain Broaddus hanging in his ERLC office.

Disdain for white Southern Baptists beyond age 40.

Politics of White Guilt,

etc, etc, etc

[Scott Shaver]

Perhaps I overlooked it, Chris, but did you post any kind of response to WHY NOT WYLIE?

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Sorry. I missed this comment. (as before, my response follows your embolden words):

I can understand that position. Did you call out Richard Land for his comments on various political candidates such as Mitt Romney? Or is this only an issue when Calvinists do it? No I didn't for the simple reason to my knowledge, Land never campaigned for/against any particular candidate the way Moore is campaigning against Trump. In fact, more than once Land mailed voting  guides to churches giving the positions of all candidates encouraging members to vote for candidates whom they believe best represent their views. As for your sideways insult about Calvinism, I suggest you follow my earlier comment about that.

I think who is our next President and who evangelicals support for president definitely affects churches. So you interpret the ERLC as a campaign office for the SBC? Good luck with that one. I suggest you read the profile statement on the ERLC website which gives the parameters of the ERLC's focus. I assure you it's not about campaigning for/against particular presidential candidates, or any other elected official for that matter.  

That sentence describes some of what goes on here [hyper-critical commentary]  in the blog posts and comments. Perhaps. But I do not work for an entity owned by the Southern Baptist Convention which specifically requires one to represent the stated positions of the convention. I don't need to represent all Southern Baptists. I only need to represent me.

So bent against Calvinists that you call them mindless. In your view, a Calvinist cannot just be wrong or off-base. They have to be mindless. I imagine that you are disappointed when you read an article by a Calvinist that you mildly agree with. I'm confused, Chris. Why would you assume I was only referencing Calvinists when I mentioned Christian critics' mindlessness? Did I make that connection? Were my words unambiguously directed toward Calvinists? The plain fact is they were not. I would count it mindless criticism for anyone--Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Methodist, Reformed, Non-Reformed, Calvinist, Arminian, or for that matter even a non-Christian critic--to place Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the same moral category as Hitler and Stalin. To do so is intellectually suspect and borders on moral ignorance. Is that clear enough for you? Now, as I instructed earlier, don't bring your red herring (i.e Calvinism) back into this exchange for my present beef with Moore and Burk would be the same no matter what side of the salvific bridge I or they are defending.  

[Lydia]

"The point of your side of the argument in part seems to be that Moore should support Trump. He's good enough to be President at least when compared to Hillary. So you are defending the ungodly Trump."

Let's back up. You could not be more wrong. I think it is absurd that any servant of Jesus Christ would view their endorsement or lack of endorsement as significant to other adults. That is the bigger problem here. Moore has taken this absurdity to a new level. Are we thinking adults or not? Moore is claiming a whole lot of people have no conscience. Persuasion by insults. How is he any different than The Donald? Or Driscoll.? He is like a teenage rock star basking in his new found fame. His articles make about as much sense.

I don't think it is Moore's job to support or be against anyone running for office. I am not even a supporter of the ELRC from way back. I am not sure why your tribe cannot understand that. Moore is burning bridges that do not need to be burned over stupid politics so the only thing that makes sense from a professional pov is this is more about Moore's personal brand than representing the SBC and especially, Jesus Christ.

"Clearly, you are attacking Moore (a godly man)."

I disagree that Moores public persona is "godly". Just the opposite, in fact. Perhaps he does better in private. In fact, Moore presents a "faux Christianized" version of Trump to the world. He is more like him than different. It is uncanny you cannot see that.

"These kind of discussions remind me of listening to political partisans who can see nothing good in anything the person in the other party does. Even the good they do is bad. I think it is the same for some of you. Whatever Calvinists do will always be evil. Calvinists can only think, desire, do evil. Even the good Calvinists do is evil. You hold to a radical depravity in Calvinists only."

Chris, this is just silly. So now we are to defend ourselves? Does this tactic actually work in your world? You are the one insisting it is partisan because you can only think in those terms. I am libertarian. Small L. I have no "party" except burned-out hippies in front of the DMV getting signatures to legalize marijuana. I am for small government. A girl can dream, right?

"I think that is really sad. It shows a type of blindness that seems to flow from a desire for justness and rightness that has been twisted."

And.....it's not "biblical", right? Or the "Gospel". I am surprised it isn't a #GospelNeverTrump campaign. Sheesh! Think outside the box, Chris. You are wearing the tribal blinders. It's not always either/or.

[Lydia]

What about Bernie? Does he pass the moral litmus test or "we deem you have a conscious if you vote for Bernie"......for Burk and Moore?

Bernie or Wylie? Inquiring minds want to know if they pass.

[Lydia]

"Yes, a conscience can be a non-negotiable factor. Our conscience represents our understanding of right and wrong, to violate it is to choose to do wrong and thereby sin. Our conscience is not perfect, but violating your conscience is always sin because you are doing what you believe to be wrong."

Chris, I just cannot help myself. So a good conscience continues to promote and protect the pedophile protector, CJ Mahaney? And it was the right thing to do to partner with the greedy vulgar porno divinator, Driscoll?

The boys you are defending do not have a great track record in a lot of areas when it comes to a good conscience . I would hope that would have started spiritually in their representation of Jesus Christ . But they want to wave the moral conscious flag about political candidates? Some folks need a reality check. And we can start with innocent children.

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia and Mary,

When one thinks about this, why would Chris or anyone for that matter, have any public qualms in morally condemning Russell Moore? After all, did not Moore go on public record confessing that everything Donald Trump said about him is true? That he believes himself, in fact, to be a nasty guy with no heart? If this is true, why in Sam Hill are guys defending him?

[Lydia]

Why are you asking me to make sense of Moore's articles and tweets???? Whenever I listen to Moore or read his articles, tweets....I feel like I am back in Jr High trying to sound all self righteous and smart on the debate team. It is surreal what we have churned out of SBC academic institutions.

There is something that scares me more than Moore: All the people who think he makes sense, is not a hypocrite and Moore is indicative of what passes for thinking in the SBC!

So we are back to the: gospelly nasty and the secular nasty. Sheesh!

[Mary]

The "godly man" Moore behaved like a dorky adolescent when Trump responded on Twitter "I know you are but what are you!" I've noticed that a lot of these guys who were probably pretty dorky in high school seem to be enjoying the thought that somehow they've mananged to make it to the cool kids lunch table. Look to the ridiculous discussion that somehow profanity is ok because Paul! Paul had something to say about putting away childish things.

[Mary]

Here's a quote from a Hilary surrogate Ed Rendell:

"Will he have some appeal to working-class Dems in Levittown or Bristol? Sure,” said Ed Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor and Philadelphia mayor, who won landslides in the suburbs. “For every one he’ll lose 1½ , two Republican women. Trump’s comments like ‘You can’t be a 10 if you’re flat-chested,’ that’ll come back to haunt him. There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women. People take that stuff personally.”

The difference between Trump and other politicians is that Trump has no filter and just says whatever. The big mistake people make is that they think other politicians don't think and act the same way off camera as Trump does on camera. John McCain has a reputation of being a very vulgar person (nevermind that he hadn't divorced his first wife before he hooked up with the second one) McCain was known to make horrible comments about Chelsea and Hilary back during the Clinton presidency - when Chelsea was a teenager. Sooo.....

[Lydia]

Mary, people have totally misread the underlying reason for what has taken place. I view it more from a social economic position than whether or not I like the candidates. That ship sailed for me long ago.

The Bernie supporters I engage are different and not typical registered Democrat's. Thirty years ago, they would have been viewed as more than just socialists. They are unlikely to rally around Hillary who they view as fat cat oligarch who got rich off government and corruption.

There is a massive change taking place that is being fleshed out and who knows where. The party lines are being redrawn. Many people were likely to put Hillary in the establishment category with the former Republican field.

We can say they are all stupid or we can try to understand what is really going on. This is a backlash of sorts.

Moore and Burn can write in Wiley. :o) But what they are doing (and Mohler on radio this morning) is very short sighted from a spiritual POV. They are drawing a line in the sand they have no moral gravitas to draw.

Until now, Trump did not need the party machine or money. He spoke, the media was there. He has no filter and people read that as anti political correctness. They are tired of being censored.

The irony of Moore is he sounds a bit like Jeremiah Wright and his blame whitey sermons I heard before the Obama campaign had them removed. It is so strange how shifts in rhetoric occur and people blindly ignore the obvious. Just a few years ago, Moore's pressing issue was our needing more patriarchy. They are just so obvious now. It's embarrassing.

[Scott Shaver]

Somebody needs to ask Moore exactly what he meant by his use of the term "Soul Freedom" in a recent comment.

[Mary]

Lydia, IMO there's been a "perfect storm" of events that have brought us to this point. The R's royally screwed up when Jeb Bush decides to run and immediately has 100 mil war chest and all the conservative pundits start declaring that the nomination was his and he was formidable blah, blah. Why anyone with two functioning brain cells thought they could push through Jeb Bush is mind boggling. This after R's voted in a majority in the house and then the Senate - then the establishment sits back and does nothing - just twiddle their thumbs and refuse to fight for anything. Sure you're gonna lose but why not make Dems own some uncomfortable votes and force some vetoes?

And now on top of the incompetence of the Republican elite the economy has never actually recovered for 90 something percent of counties in the country. Add Obamacare screwing up insurance for people who had it. The cost of everything going crazy and then terror attacks against the west every few months and people are fed up and scared. Young people are graduating college expecting some big job to pay off their student loans and the jobs are not there. People are struggling all over while the President goes around declaring he saved the world economy and things are pretty good. Things are not good for a lot of people.

And then of course nobody nowhere wants to have a serious conversation. At the heart the question is "what is the purpose of government" You have Christians who seem to think that Jesus somehow declared that we should gather a mob, call it government then forciably take from those who have to give to those who have not. And oh you are then relieved of your personal responsibility to take care of the poor because this thing called government has now taken over for the church and individual Christians. Ask the CAtholic Church how that partnership with the government is going. The contraceptive mandate wasn't just about BC but about abortion. Who doesn't get that Catholic Hospitals will be forced at some point to perform abortions. Dems are so happy that xMillions of people now have access to healthcare - most of the people covered under Ocare are covered either under Medicaid or are heavily subsidized. Dems celebrate more people are now dependent on the government. What a lot of people don't get or even think about is the fact that when you become dependent on the government for any part of your life you have given up your freedom. Currently there's a push to do away with soda through "sin taxes" Do you honestly think Big Brother is gonna stop at taking away your Big Gulp?

So there are so many serious discussions that should be happening but we're living in a reality show now. To me the least of our worries is that some life long con man is name calling. There is a definite backlash against the PC culture

[Lydia]

Mary, as to the ridiculous focus on Establishment candidates, the RNC thinks people will just go along. How else do you explain John McCain and Mitt Romney? Sheesh!

As to the purpose of government, that should start in elementary school. But it has become about indoctrination. I have been astonished at conversations with some young restless and reformed on blogs who actually have no clue because their mindset is in Geneva. But they think they are educated.

[Chris]

Mary,

I think Christians should have little hope of influencing the world when they chew up other Christians online.

Also, Moore is a godly man. If you don't see that, take the "hate Calvinists" glasses off.

[Chris]

Calvinism is not a side issue. It is the issue underneath everything you all post. You despise Calvinists. You don't post here for any other reason. The vast majority of the blog posts and comments are attacks against Calvinists. The funny thing is that if someone collated the comments, they'd all fairly similar. "Driscoll, Mahaney, Calvinists evil"

Then you pretend like you are here for some other reason. "Calvinism isn't the issue" but all of your attacks are against Calvinists. You cannot even admit they are godly men when appropriate. Do you really believe what youbarr saying? Do expect anyone else to when they can read your comments and blog post history?

[Mary]

Chris, we're talking politics not Calvinism. The one showing an obsession with Calvinism is you. Now you read hearts and minds knowing that everything is about Calvinism. Why don't you try to enter into the actual debate instead of throwing out these red herrings. It's you who can't read anything here without first assuming you know the hearts and minds of those posting. If I say I had a salad for lunch your response is why do you hate Calvinists so much. I understand that you think because you worship Russell Moore that means everybody is supposed to bow down and worship and if they don't it's only because of Calvinism. To you Moore is perfect and we should all just get in line with his politics. Life doesn't work that way Chris. Russell Moore is pushing all kinds of thoughts and ideas beyond Calvinism - he's obsessed with race, he's pushing socialism, amnesty - he tried to push Jeb Bush etc, etc. and now this idea that he can attack Christians who don't agree with him politically as lessor Christians. Get a clue Chris and try to broaden your mind a bit so your knee jerk reaction isn't how is every single thought a person has about Calvinism.

[Mary]

And Chris try to follow for just a minute here. Pointing out how fools who pushed Mahaney, Driscoll et al are now trying to dictate how we think politically is not about Calvinism it's about the ability to be discerning and good judgement. You can't whine about misogyny with Trump when you have a history of dismissing Driscoll's misogyny. You want to continue to dismiss bad acts by Calvinists by trying to play the "you just hate Calvinists charge" even though we're talking about character issues that everyone should be able to agree on.

[Lydia]

"I think Christians should have little hope of influencing the world when they chew up other Christians online."

I don't think Moore got that memo.

"Also, Moore is a godly man. If you don't see that, take the "hate Calvinists" glasses off."

So, it is not "hate" when Moore does it? Just trying to learn ya'll's rules