Ben Carson: Muslim shouldn't be president

[bravesnumberone]

:Bowman:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/20/ben-carson-says-a-muslim-shouldnt-be-president-many-americans-agree/

[cajunrevenge]

Anyone who believes in fairytales shouldn't be president.

[weso1]

Well, look at how bad Obama has been as president. I agree with him.

[zitothebrave]

How are evangelicals above atheists? What kind of shenanigans is that?

[goldfly]

he really is awful

don't get why so many republicans like him

[bravesnumberone]

he really is awful

don't get why so many republicans like him

He's not a Muslim, for one thing.

[57Brave]

Fear of a Muslim Planet: Carson, Trump, and the Cowards of the Right -


http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/09/fear-of-muslim-planet-carson-trump-and.html#sthash.MTm5dzPn.84V89Dhb.dpuf


" in our war against, oh, hell, let's say violent, extremist Muslims, we're at the point where, chances are, ****'s more or less done. Sure, there will still be small incidents here and there - But here, in the U.S., where the only "plots" to blow up something are started by bored FBI agents needing to justify a paycheck, we had our freak-out moment, we've lost our minds and stayed crazy, to a large extent, but, mostly, it's time to ****in' move on to the next villain."

[57Brave]

Reading below the article of Walker dropping out I learned Armstrong Williams was Carson's "Axlerod"

Armstrong Williams was caught during the Iraq War shilling for the Bush Administration . Literally $hilling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_administration_payment_of_columnists

[Runnin]

Well, look at how bad Obama has been as president. I agree with him.

How has Obama been so bad? Please tell me because I'm eager to learn.

His administration has been good for Wall Street while bringing health care to millions. It's been scandal free, as much as humanly possible with Reps sharks circling for blood 24/7. He inherited a disastrous foreign policy situation and hasn't started any major wars. I understand why Dems and folks on the left don't like him but I don't think the right has any legitimate gripe.

[weso1]

The economic recovery has been very poor.

His handling of Iraq was a failure, imo. It allowed ISIS to grow into what it is today.

Lied to the american people about the healthcare bill. Made it much less responsive and made it so that half of the physicians in which the poorest people live don't actually accept new medicaid patients. It's terrible plan that will have to be repealed and replaced.

Elected terrible liberal judges.

Common Core

Terrible on illegal immigration

Terrible Iran deal

Terrible on North Korea

Terrible on Putin

Couldn't negotiate with pubs

NSA scandal

No president would have started a war after the Iraq disaster. I really don't see that as a huge accomplishment. I guess it is one now after Iraq.

[Oklahomahawk]

The economic recovery has been very poor. Well America's CEOs and Stock Market would definitely argue with you on this one, but for what little is left of America's middle class I would have to agree.

His handling of Iraq was a failure, imo. It allowed ISIS to grow into what it is today. Agree, ISIS was actually created by western governments, including ours right? Not saying all this is Obama's fault but he's certainly among the guilty.

Lied to the american people about the healthcare bill. Made it much less responsive and made it so that half of the physicians in which the poorest people live don't actually accept new medicaid patients. It's terrible plan that will have to be repealed and replaced. Not sure if he lied on purpose but it sure didn't turn out like he promised so I suppose it works out about the same way.

Elected terrible liberal judges.--Not sure about this one, who did he elect? Nominated? Sure, but both parties' president nominates people who agree with him, I'm not convinced any of Obamas POS nominees are that much worse, if any, than W's POS nominees, and I remind you that 5 of the 9 justices up there now are Repub nominated. Just saying...

Common Core--You know since I'm a teacher and have been for the past 20+ years you'd think I'd at least have some knowledge of/experience with Common Core, but to be honest I don't know Jack Schidt about it. I do have several friends, some in education some not, but the very next person I talk to who likes Common Core, will also be the first person I've ever talked to who likes it so I guess I"ll have to agree on this one.

Terrible on illegal immigration--True but so has pretty much every other president for the past 3 or 4 decades. W was a little better but nothing to write home about, and I know you're too good and honest/reasonable a guy to throw that old "well that was a different time" when I bring up Reagan's amnesty thing, right?

Terrible Iran deal-True, while a lot of people like the Iran deal, I don't trust it because I don't trust Iran, not as far as I can throw former Iranian president Amdneadnoldjerdidad. Who knows for sure, but if/when this deal proves to be a bust I won't be among the surprised.

Terrible on North Korea-yes, but again who hasn't been. I think I have told the story before about Dr. Monica Crowley on O'Reilly a long time ago and she talked about how Bill Clinton had made a TREATY with North Korea (and the loathing was such that you could cut it with a knife) then she talked about how President George W. Bush had made a TREATY with North Korea and you could see the signs on her face and her blouse literally looked like (and I ****e you not) she had walked into a VERY cold wind. The fact of the matter is, compared to North Korea, Iran looks trustworthy IMO.

Terrible on Putin-True, but again Obama isn't the one who talked about being able to look into Putin's eyes and see the good person who lived in his soul. WTF??? That guy is a thug, a terrorist, and a Hitler/Stalin wannabe. Any president who trusts him with a vintage Elect George McGovern president button is making a mistake.

Couldn't negotiate with pubs--OK I gotta call you on this one. As little as Obama tried to negotiate with the Pubs you have to admit that they literally got together when he was first elected and vowed to not work with him on ANYTHING. Not that he would have, but I really can't see anyone who could work with this bunch, even a good president (like those actually exist).

NSA scandal--Agree. I do think you could trace their "froginess" back to the Patriot Act which is straight from President, "You Know Who", but still it's on his watch, so lay it on him.

No president would have started a war after the Iraq disaster. I really don't see that as a huge accomplishment. I guess it is one now after Iraq. Disagree here, President Cheney as already spoken numerous times about his ongoing warlike nature and I believe Iran was/is the target his (and KBR's next $40 Billion endeavor). Oh and the worthless POS US Senator from Arkansas Tom Cotton was elected on the premise that he would go to war the first chance he got (to protect America of course).

I will add one for you though, The Fast and the Furious fiasco. I know that was Obama's POS Attorney General, but still he's in charge therefore it's his responsibility.

weso I enjoy debating with you because even though you're an ardent conservative you are usually pretty good at seeing/admitting the truth regardless of who it helps/hurts. My responses are above in bold print, I couldn't find the plain red font. :icon_biggrin:

[57Brave]

wow, Carson steps outta bounds so, let's talk about Obama. And, leave the facts out. Shoot I coulda turned on Hannity and Colmes and heard the same discussion.. Constitution ? This particular thread points out Carson has no idea of the Constitution --- tell me, the first sentence of the 1st Ammendment ? But, Obama has no regard for the constitution. I have been regular on this board for well over ten years and lately I want to shower after reading some of the non sense somma y'all write

[weso1]

I will add one for you though, The Fast and the Furious fiasco. I know that was Obama's POS Attorney General, but still he's in charge therefore it's his responsibility.

weso I enjoy debating with you because even though you're an ardent conservative you are usually pretty good at seeing/admitting the truth regardless of who it helps/hurts. My responses are above in bold print, I couldn't find the plain red font. :icon_biggrin:

I don't really have a reply. I think you made good points.

[57Brave]

"Congress shall make no law ..."

[weso1]

wow, Carson steps outta bounds so, let's talk about Obama. And, leave the facts out. Shoot I coulda turned on Hannity and Colmes and heard the same discussion.. Constitution ? This particular thread points out Carson has no idea of the Constitution --- tell me, the first sentence of the 1st Ammendment ? But, Obama has no regard for the constitution. I have been regular on this board for well over ten years and lately I want to shower after reading some of the non sense somma y'all write

I guess I'll be the one that says it. I don't have a problem with what Carson said. I wouldn't vote for a true practicing Muslim for president. I don't think many of you liberals really would either. I don't think Carson was saying that a Muslim couldn't be president. He was just saying that he wouldn't support a Muslim for the presidency. He's a devout christian so his position really isn't that absurd.

[57Brave]

now tell me, what Obama has said or done that compares to what Carson proposes, health care ? I am disappointed you would make such a comparison

[weso1]

now tell me, what Obama has said or done that compares to what Carson proposes, health care ? I am disappointed you would make such a comparison

It was just kidding about the Obama being a muslim thing. I actually think Obama is agnostic.

[57Brave]

why care any ones faith ? I disagree with a host of proclaimed Christians - but the fact th ed y profess Christianity has nothing to do with them getting the pot holes in the streets filled

[weso1]

why care any ones faith ? I disagree with a host of proclaimed Christians - but the fact th ed y profess Christianity has nothing to do with them getting the pot holes in the streets filled

I would vote for an agnostic muslim. A true practicing muslim who took their faith seriously? I don't think I'd vote for that person, the same way you'll never vote for Huckabee. That's the point I think Carson was making. I don't have a problem with that. I appreciate the honesty.

[The Chosen One]

Obama has governed more like a closet atheist.

Can't wait for the day we have an openly Atheist candidate running for POTUS.

[weso1]

Obama has governed more like a closet atheist.

Can't wait for the day we have an openly Atheist candidate running for POTUS.

Like Stalin?

[57Brave]

If I thought Huckabee would fix the street I'd vote for him. By the qualifications you spelled out, what about Scott Walker that never mentioned unions and on occasions during his first campaign danced up and down how he would work with Labor Yada Yada Yada then turned on a dime. Do you give him a pass ? Or, despite his professed Christianity - do you give him a pass. My guess --- based on his profesding

[57Brave]

please forgive my awkward posts. I am entering the 21st century and posting on a smart phone. Quit laughing

[weso1]

By the way Americans will never truly vote for a religious candidate. They all pay lip service to the idea that they are church goers, but most Americans are voting for the dude that sits in the back of the church who would rather be doing something else. G-dub, Reagan, Clinton and Obama, imo were all the same dudes. None of them were truly that religious. Most of us are that way and thus we'll vote for that person. A guy like Huckabee has no chance. If he wasn't essentially a pastor he'd actually have a legit chance to win the election.

[weso1]

If I thought Huckabee would fix the street I'd vote for him. By the qualifications you spelled out, what about Scott Walker that never mentioned unions and on occasions during his first campaign danced up and down how he would work with Labor Yada Yada Yada then turned on a dime. Do you give him a pass ? Or, despite his professed Christianity - do you give him a pass. My guess --- based on his profesding

Huckabee is actually pretty moderate like the Pope. He probably would fix your street. You just will never vote for an evangelical christian. You anti religious bastard.

[weso1]

voted for Carter. And, would again

Carter sat at the back of the church looking at his watch the whole time.

[57Brave]

Not true.

[weso1]

Not true.

He was good at hiding it.

[Julio3000]

He was good at hiding it.

Dang.

[Runnin]

It was just kidding about the Obama being a muslim thing. I actually think Obama is agnostic.
Me too.

[Oklahomahawk]

Me too.

He might be a Deist. That would explain a lot, but do they still have those? Are they called something else now?

[Runnin]

He might be a Deist. That would explain a lot, but do they still have those? Are they called something else now?It's called a Christian-Agnostic. That's pretty much what I am.

[Hawk]

It's called a Christian-Agnostic. That's pretty much what I am.

I think the difference between a Deist and a Christian-Agnostic is that Deism really doesn't get bogged down in the minutiae of 'the word' -- it simply acknowledges belief in a higher being and generally embraces basic religious moral belief systems while leaving the rest of the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching to individuals who want to go down that road.

[Oklahomahawk]

I think the difference between a Deist and a Christian-Agnostic is that Deism really doesn't get bogged down in the minutiae of 'the word' -- it simply acknowledges belief in a higher being and generally embraces basic religious moral belief systems while leaving the rest of the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching to individuals who want to go down that road.

Yeah these definitions sound pretty reasonable. The way I usually define it in class is that while evangelical Christians feel that God created everything and he's still involved in every aspect of our lives, Deists (like Jefferson) tend to believe that God created everything then took a couple of steps back to essentially "let it run itself", sort of a "God helps those who help themselves" kind of thing.

What do you guys think?

[50PoundHead]

I've always thought that Deists are of a similar strain as Unitarians in that they can't reconcile the man/God aspect of Christ and thus subscribe to much of the basic outlines of the moral structure without tackling the whole "Who is it you say that I am?" query from Jesus. Pretty much what Hawk said. Another aspect is, as you say Oklahomahawk, the "cosmic watchmaker" aspect of creation. The universe was created by a higher power, but then it just kicked back and let things take their own course. Lot of theological nuance after that.

[yeezus]

I think the difference between a Deist and a Christian-Agnostic is that Deism really doesn't get bogged down in the minutiae of 'the word' -- it simply acknowledges belief in a higher being and generally embraces basic religious moral belief systems while leaving the rest of the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching to individuals who want to go down that road.

huh, I like this.

[yeezus]

By the way Americans will never truly vote for a religious candidate. They all pay lip service to the idea that they are church goers, but most Americans are voting for the dude that sits in the back of the church who would rather be doing something else. G-dub, Reagan, Clinton and Obama, imo were all the same dudes. None of them were truly that religious. Most of us are that way and thus we'll vote for that person. A guy like Huckabee has no chance. If he wasn't essentially a pastor he'd actually have a legit chance to win the election.

Huckabee has no chance because he's a bigoted asshole, not because he's religious.

I'd have no problem voting for someone very religious so long as they don't use their religion to justify not giving others equal rights. That goes for a Muslim, too - we'd never allow a Muslim government to require women to cover themselves up the way some Muslims do. If they tried, they'd fail. Yet, we can have presidential candidates vow to take down legal gay marriage. It's the same thing.

[BedellBrave]

I think POTUS is a liberal "Christian" of a fairly mild liberationist stripe. Coming from the black Christian tradition, he probably doesn't completely jettison supernaturalism, but likely downplays it. "Grace" for him isn't so much as unmerited divine favor (though he's got room for that), it's more something horizontal - offered to others, a Golden Rule as understood by theological progressives/liberals.

[BedellBrave]

And no, I don't think any of us would want an orthodox Muslim to be POTUS. Why is this even a debatable?

[The Chosen One]

And no, I don't think any of us would want an orthodox Muslim to be POTUS. Why is this even a debatable?

Don't think an orthodox Muslim would ever have a chance at the presidency anyways. As atheism/agnostic numbers rise in the coming years, faith won't be as big of a political influence in national races as they wiil be locally.

[Oklahomahawk]

I think POTUS is a liberal "Christian" of a fairly mild liberationist stripe. Coming from the black Christian tradition, he probably doesn't completely jettison supernaturalism, but likely downplays it. "Grace" for him isn't so much as unmerited divine favor (though he's got room for that), it's more something horizontal - offered to others, a Golden Rule as understood by theological progressives/liberals.

Dude, you DO remember who your audience is (even if we're just talking about me), right? :happy0157:

[BedellBrave]

A black Mr. Rogers? Who wants the neighborhood liberated from traditional oppressors? :-)

[goldfly]

And no, I don't think any of us would want an orthodox Muslim to be POTUS. Why is this even a debatable?

why is anyone running for president thinking their religion should be the one to run the gov't?

i mean, we already know what happens when we put religious people in Gov't from the actions of the religious radical in Kentucky

[Oklahomahawk]

A black Mr. Rogers? Who wants the neighborhood liberated from traditional oppressors? :-)

Hey, don't eff with Mr. Rogers (the real one anyway), you don't dress like he did, and talk in that voice tone and not be able to kick a few asses now and then. :icon_biggrin:

[BedellBrave]

why is anyone running for president thinking their religion should be the one to run the gov't?

i mean, we already know what happens when we put religious people in Gov't from the actions of the religious radical in Kentucky


They all do. Every last one of them.

We always put religious people in Gov't. Get over it. Question is, what type?

Again, of course no one here wants someone committed to an Islamic theocracy as POTUS.

[Runnin]

why is anyone running for president thinking their religion should be the one to run the gov't?
Because she has to appear that way to get votes and maintain popular support?

I agree that even though voters live in bubbles, the president has to reside over all the bubbles and shouldn't be too heavily of one stripe.

[The Chosen One]

They all do. Every last one of them.

We always put religious people in Gov't. Get over it. Question is, what type?

Again, of course no one here wants someone committed to an Islamic theocracy as POTUS.

Hope you'll be alive in 30-40 years when that won't matter much when it comes to election cycles nationally. :FrediGreen:

[goldfly]

They all do. Every last one of them.

We always put religious people in Gov't. Get over it.

do we? or do we have some that know they have to play the game of the fringe and religious lunatics that think their religion should be law?

excuse me, i can't figure out if i am talking about Republican and US politics or the mullahs and Iran politics right now


i would prefer atheists to be president honestly. would maybe speed up the process of things getting done around here since they only believe this short time we have on earth is it forever but whatever :shrugs

[Runnin]

So what of this sentiment?

In God We Still Trust (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0UET3MaqC4)

[BedellBrave]

Hope you'll be alive in 30-40 years when that won't matter much when it comes to election cycles nationally. :FrediGreen:


And I do too! :-) But we will still be putting religious people into government.

[BedellBrave]

do we? or do we have some that know they have to play the game of the fringe and religious lunatics that think their religion should be law?

excuse me, i can't figure out if i am talking about Republican and US politics or the mullahs and Iran politics right now


i would prefer atheists to be president honestly. would maybe speed up the process of things getting done around here since they only believe this short time we have on earth is it forever but whatever :shrugs

Yes we do.

If you can't then you are just being lazy.

And you'd still have a religious person in government.

[BedellBrave]

So what of this sentiment?

In God We Still Trust (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0UET3MaqC4)


Not my musical cup of tea, but I'd say it represents a fairly popular religious viewpoint that has a long pedigree. Are you asking for something else?

[BedellBrave]

And I assume now that you all agree with me that no one on this board wants an orthodox Muslim to be POTUS.

[Runnin]

Not my musical cup of tea, but I'd say it represents a fairly popular religious viewpoint that has a long pedigree. Are you asking for something else?
We already have the "something else". I'm fine with the basic sentiment as long as it's personal and not promoting a Christian theocracy.

[Runnin]

And I assume now that you all agree with me that no one on this board wants an orthodox Muslim to be POTUS.
Hell no. I don't want an orthodox anything to be POTOS.

[BedellBrave]

Hell no. I don't want an orthodox anything to be POTOS.


Not even an orthodox secularist?

[BedellBrave]

We already have the "something else". I'm fine with the basic sentiment as long as it's personal and not promoting a Christian theocracy.


There are theocrats and then there are theocrats. I'd describe the sentiment in your video more as a "Christian nationalism" - which I'm not that fond of either - maybe surprisingly - because it usually waters down true Christianity to something it is not (or should not be). I actually think it will be good for the true Church in the USA to be and recognize itself as a minority view.

[Runnin]

I'd describe the sentiment in your video more as a "Christian nationalism" - which I'm not that fond of either - maybe surprisingly - because it usually waters down true Christianity to something it is not (or should not be).
Complete agreement. Yippee.


I actually think it will be good for the true Church in the USA to be and recognize itself as a minority view.Wow. That didn't last long. lol

[BedellBrave]

Complete agreement. Yippee.

Wow. That didn't last long. lol


What didn't last long? By "true Church in the USA" I mean any and all historically-orthodox Christians and congregations - particularly as opposed to nominal-"Christian nationalists," frauds-shysters, and those that have jettisoned cardinal doctrines. I don't get your response.

[AerchAngel]

What didn't last long? By "true Church in the USA" I mean any and all historically-orthodox Christians and congregations - particularly as opposed to nominal-"Christian nationalists," frauds-shysters, and those that have jettisoned cardinal doctrines. I don't get your response.

Benny Hinn?

[Runnin]

What didn't last long? By "true Church in the USA" I mean any and all historically-orthodox Christians and congregations - particularly as opposed to nominal-"Christian nationalists," frauds-shysters, and those that have jettisoned cardinal doctrines. I don't get your response.
I meant that our simpatico was short lived. I find the phrase "true Church" anathema to potential religious benefit to either individuals or society. This kind of thinking had its day but the future of religion must be more honest and self aware.

Some religions may be more fraudulent than others but all religion, by its very nature, is man made and imperfect. The magic stone turns to dust when the people look upon it.

[BedellBrave]

I meant that our simpatico was short lived. I find the phrase "true Church" anathema to potential religious benefit to either individuals or society. This kind of thinking had its day but the future of religion must be more honest and self aware.

Some religions may be more fraudulent than others but all religion, by its very nature, is man made and imperfect. The magic stone turns to dust when the people look upon it.


That kind of thinking is always employed. You just employed it in judging me and finding me deficient. You employ it in your own dogma (i.e., "the future of religion must be more honest and self-aware"). Accordingly to whom? Why? What ever do you mean by "more self aware" and "must"? According to you? Because you're in the higher position to make such judgments and determinations for others? We all do that sort of thing - as you have too. I'm not trying to be pompous or anything of the sort - I was just trying to delineate who I was actually talking about. Yes, I see myself as belonging to the "true Church" (Church, not synagogue, not Temple, not Mosque, not Center for Higher Consciousness, etc.) - but I'm not being overly sectarian there because I think that designation would apply to all manner of Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians. I am talking not about all religions in general but in those that call themselves "Christian." And I am saying that those who call themselves that and are actually adherents of the cardinal or orthodox Christian beliefs (as have been expressed throughout the history of the Church) - i.e. "the true Church" - who reside in the USA, will do well to see themselves as a minority now. That's a good thing in my opinion. I am thus distinguishing it from others like:

Jehovah Witnesses - they have always been a minority view. And they aren't orthodox Christians. And that's not a value judgment, that's an historical, theological judgment.

Or, Mormons. And they also have always been a minority view. And they aren't orthodox Christians. And that's not a value judgment, that's an historical, theological judgment.

Or, anti-supernatural, "liberal," mainliners, who aren't distinguishable from culture on the points of contention and so they aren't a minority and thus my point doesn't apply to them. And that's not a value judgment, that's an historical, theological, and cultural judgment.

Or, "Christian Nationalists," a term I'm applying to those who want to wrap the flag around them, and many of them have so bastardized and syncretized their faith with patriotism that there is very little remaining (if it was there in the first place) of a historic-creed. And when civic-duty and patriotism becomes a sort of works-righteousness then I have a hard time considering that Christianity. And sadly, from my perspective, that sort of view gets wedded to prosperity hucksters (e.g., Osteen, T.D. Jakes) and/or Zionism (e.g., Hagee).

I use the adjective, "true" to mean "true to the historic standard" as opposed to the examples above. My statement isn't knocking any other religion. It is calling attention to my own tribe. And Christianity - if it isn't a wax nose - has historically had certain markers, certain central, core beliefs and practices that distinguish it from other faiths. That's all I'm saying.

[BedellBrave]

Benny Hinn?


Indeed!

[Runnin]

That kind of thinking is always employed. You just employed it in judging me and finding me deficient. You employ it in your own dogma (i.e., "the future of religion must be more honest and self-aware"). Accordingly to whom? Why? What ever do you mean by "more self aware" and "must"? According to you? Because you're in the higher position to make such judgments and determinations for others? We all do that sort of thing - as you have too. I'm not trying to be pompous or anything of the sort - I was just trying to delineate who I was actually talking about. Yes, I see myself as belonging to the "true Church" (Church, not synagogue, not Temple, not Mosque, not Center for Higher Consciousness, etc.) - but I'm not being overly sectarian there because I think that designation would apply to all manner of Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians. I am talking not about all religions in general but in those that call themselves "Christian." And I am saying that those who call themselves that and are actually adherents of the cardinal or orthodox Christian beliefs (as have been expressed throughout the history of the Church) - i.e. "the true Church" - who reside in the USA, will do well to see themselves as a minority now. That's a good thing in my opinion. I am thus distinguishing it from others like:

Jehovah Witnesses - they have always been a minority view. And they aren't orthodox Christians. And that's not a value judgment, that's an historical, theological judgment.

Or, Mormons. And they also have always been a minority view. And they aren't orthodox Christians. And that's not a value judgment, that's an historical, theological judgment.

Or, anti-supernatural, "liberal," mainliners, who aren't distinguishable from culture on the points of contention and so they aren't a minority and thus my point doesn't apply to them. And that's not a value judgment, that's an historical, theological, and cultural judgment.

Or, "Christian Nationalists," a term I'm applying to those who want to wrap the flag around them, and many of them have so bastardized and syncretized their faith with patriotism that there is very little remaining (if it was there in the first place) of a historic-creed. And when civic-duty and patriotism becomes a sort of works-righteousness then I have a hard time considering that Christianity. And sadly, from my perspective, that sort of view gets wedded to prosperity hucksters (e.g., Osteen, T.D. Jakes) and/or Zionism (e.g., Hagee).

I use the adjective, "true" to mean "true to the historic standard" as opposed to the examples above. My statement isn't knocking any other religion. It is calling attention to my own tribe. And Christianity - if it isn't a wax nose - has historically had certain markers, certain central, core beliefs and practices that distinguish it from other faiths. That's all I'm saying.
I guess I don't see enough of a difference between religions. I see them all equally spun from the same cloth of Good intentions with rightful fringe benefits.

[BedellBrave]

Well that's a common religious viewpoint which sees itself as the best, though with good intention and with rightful fringe benefits. :-)

[weso1]

he really is awful

don't get why so many republicans like him

He's a good guy. I think that's why pubs like him. Is he ready for president? I don't know, but I personally feel that this guy is a good dude.

[BedellBrave]

The anti-politician vibe is certainly attractive.

[Runnin]

He's a good guy. I think that's why pubs like him. Is he ready for president? I don't know, but I personally feel that this guy is a good dude.
The presidency would eat him alive. Probably the least important trait for that job is being "a good guy", whatever that is. Above all, the job needs someone good at politics, maybe not a politician, but certainly a master conductor who can keep an endless number of differing constituencies happy, or at least at bay.

He's polling about 13% in an extremely weak and unlikable field. He's doing and saying nothing that gets any press, at least nothing positive. Like Bedell implied, I think his numbers are just anti-establishment people.

[Runnin]

The anti-politician vibe is certainly attractive.
That fades away when fast when things get serious.