Trump Trolls His ‘Christian’ Chumps

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Hot Air has the audio clip. It’s a relatively obvious troll. It underscores the notions that either (a) Trump isn’t even slightly serious about the job for which he’s purportedly campaigning, or (b) if there is a serious bone in his body, it’s dislocated from any real competence.

I’m actively curious as to how anyone with even the tiniest bit of ‘Evangelical’ leaning could possibly support Trump. If you want to study a religion that cleaves closer to Hammurabi, as Trump appears to do here, have a glance at what Islam teaches.

123 comments

  1. I don’t waste time on people who are beyond the pale. After a generous evaluation period, if I decide someone isn’t interested in the truth, they are excommunicated.

    Hard leftists usually fit that description.

  3. We aren’t under the obligation to extend false equivalence to all the candidates. They’ve been measured, and Trump has been found sorely lacking.

    That evaluation automatically extends to Trump’s supporters, even if only implicitly: they are supporting a really, really bad candidate and do so vehemently. We’re not going to treat them with kid gloves. The stakes are too high to waste time with people’s feelings or political correctness.

    We’re just telling it like it is; something Trump supporters hypocritically say they like.

  5. It certainly doesn’t prove that he is a “heathen”, to use your word, but it is an indication of his lack of familiarity with both the source material and the culture of Christianity.
    Much as Obama, unfamiliar with and antithetical to military culture, mispronounced a word foreign to him as “corpseman”, Trump’s unfamiliarity with that which virtually all of Christendom knows as “Second” Corinthians, calls into question his claims that he is a Christian, because “he owns a Bible and is on a church roll somewhere”.*

    Add to this his recent interview where he was asked for his favorite Bible verse or story, after hemming and hawing could only come up with “an eye for an eye”, which is not a Biblical precept at all, although it seems to be the basis for much of Trump’s own philosophy.

    IMHO, Trump is pandering to Christians in an attempt to curry their votes. Once that is accomplished, he’ll have no further use for them.

    Crucify him? Nah. Exposing him for the fraud he is should suffice!

    *Billy Sunday was noted for saying that “Going to church makes you a Christian like going into a garage makes you an automobile.”

  6. I think it’s unlikely because the country is already under God’s judgment. The stench of depravity is increasing and the logical result of people chasing after false gods.

  7. Frankly, you could substitute “Trumpkin” for “Cruzite” in your fist sentence and be quite accurate. The Trumpkins I’ve had exchanges with have been beyond reason. I can understand why they are the way they are, and I can understand the why of Trump, but that in no way makes him a good choice. Cruz may be the most qualified to be POTUS, but I see things about him that turn me off as well. His vote for Corker’s stupidity and TPP leave me cold.

  8. “I never knew that we had so many people concerned about the state of a candidate’s soul as a condition of leadership.”
    POTUS is a secular position. No spirituality required. It’s his hypocrisy that disqualifies him.

    He’s every bit as honest as Hillary or Obama, which means his newly professed conservative positions may be just so much window dressing as to achieve his own goals.
    His conservatism is as unproven as is his Christianity.

    “Not a novice”, to quote the Good Book.

  9. QM, you’re not reading what I’m saying.

    You’re making the allegation that Trumpkins don’t defend their man. I’m making the obsevation that even after multiple corrections Gunga is still pretty rude in his challenge.

    How hard is it for a Cruzite to say ‘Why should I vote for Donald Trump?’. Evidently, its impossible.

    Now, if you want to discuss this query we can.

  11. Sure I am. You’re raising another related issue. I’m sticking to my issue as a way to seek clarity rather than wander aimlessly.

  12. 1st para. No one is asking you to like Trump.

    2nd para. So if I hate Hillary, its okay to run over an old lady with a Hillary bumper sticker on her walker.

    Part B. We know who’s the vehement one here, and its not the Trumpkins, Its you.

    Part C: As jakee308 makes clear, it is indeed important. Too important for the Cruzites to follow their nonsensical ‘Lets spit in the faces of Jacksonians’ ‘strategery’.

    I suspect this is status mongering, but its childish and unwise. One would suspect possible social insecurity as a cause.

    Is Smitty calling Evangelicals Christianity into question really telling it like it is? Really
    ?

  13. It is appropriate to judge righteously according to the word of God; in fact, we are commanded to do so. It is certainly my right to choose a temporal leader, if possible, from among the Body, and conversely, reject a candidate based upon their bad fruits. You judging me for righteously judging seems pretty hypocritical to me, actually.

    If you can’t see that a man who ascribes to an ideology responsible for the murder of, some say, as many as 200MM people in the 20th century is evil, and a woman who follows the same ideology, and who also is responsible for Americans being killed in Libya while hanging them out to dry and then lying to their parents about it, plus tons of other dangerous stuff is also evil, and that a man who does the things you freely admit above is lying about being Christian and, in fact, is far from God, then you are not very discerning.

    As Christians, we are supposed to know better than to mindlessly follow wolves in sheep’s clothing, and this has nothing to do with hypocrisy. Choosing not to follow wolves has less to do with the state of a person’s soul, and more to do with common sense in my mind. Does even common sense not teach you that someone who glibly and regularly lies to you now, even after being caught out and yet continuing to lie, is, in fact, a pants-on-fire liar? And is it not possible that such a liar is also lying about the beneficial things that he claims he will do if elected? This would be the very reason Smitty called out Trump supporting evangelicals as “chumps”, which in fact, is a word that could be used to refer to someone who shows a breathtaking lack of discernment and an almost childlike propensity for believing promises made by a known liar.

    Out of the subset of candidates that are realistic contenders for President, only one of them, in my mind, is even possibly a true member of the Body, and he is also better qualified than any of the other realistic candidates, so its him I choose to vote for. This has nothing to do with any judgment of his soul, but entirely due to the fact that I choose to associate with possible or known members of the Body whenever I can. If you prefer to support a known liar, that is of course, your affair.

  14. I know. God has ordained for us the leaders we deserve, and I think we both know what it is that this country deserves. Which is why President Clinton is going to preside over the final hours of the Republic, and very possibly, into the Tribulation. That’s how I’m calling it, anyway.

  15. Smitty isn’t calling Evangelicals’ Christianity into question. He’s calling their discernment into question.

  16. Sorry, I see the arguments people make and conclude that Trump’s Christianity is simply a handy hook for people who favor Cruz to denounce Trump. That’s hypocritical, but totally human. It is, incidentally one of the reasons the Crusades eventually failed; the failure of various Christian lords to admit that their real enemy was Islam. Instead they either fought each other or failed to come to each others aid. Sad but all too human. Good luck.

  20. Being a Republican in New York is like being a Communist down South. He also contributed to the odious Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Chuckie Shumer, Andrew Cuomo, etc.

  22. Being a Republican in New York is like being a Communist down South.

    What are you talking about? Downstate, it’s suburban Italians and their kin in Staten Island and Queens. Upstate, it’s a mess of generic suburban homeowners and mossbacks in small towns and the countryside. Republican politicians are a fat disappointment, mostly because they’re careerists with no fixed ideology at all.

  24. Exactly, I think it is a fine statement to show that he remembers what people who have wronged him and the country should expect.
    I like the blog but really he should not try to alienate all his allies. We agree on most thinks, but Cruz is not my first choice for President. I have voted for him Senate but he and his supporters are rapidly alienating his potential supporters. It is the worst mess coming from the TX Republican party, whom I am a delegate for, in favor of Cruz. It is completely off putting.

  25. The reason to reject him is not that he is actually secular, but that he tried to lie his way out of a situation. I don’t see that has hypocrisy on his part, just that he’s a liar. If, to you, that is using Christianity as a handy hook to denounce him, I’d say you don’t understand the issue either.

  26. I doubt the good ol’ USA will see the tribulation. There are things on the horizon that will probably cause enough stress in the US to cause it to break apart. Frankly, I think that the US is not mentioned in scripture is a strong indication that it doesn’t exist when it matters.

    The average Republic lasts about 200 years. The US is on borrowed time.

  28. Dude. I’m staying fixed on target on the same message over and over and over again.

    Cruz supporters are aggressive and rude compared to Trump supporters.

    Read the posts I’ve written on this comment section.

  29. So if I say Dead Messenger is a ‘woman’ that’s not calling your feminine nature into question?

    Nope. Smitty stepped in poop, and its all over his shoe.

  31. Why would calling me a woman call my feminine nature into question? This response makes no sense.

  32. “woman” is in quotes, just as Smitty did.Its not to designate the word, but to suggest that what is in the scare quotes is not what it claims to be. Sorry for being unclear.

  33. Actually I’m from upstate long ago and far away. What I not so eloquently meant was Republican does not equal conservative in New York

  34. Sorry, your explanation is not helpful. It seems as if you’re trying to be insulting, but it’s not really coherent.

    Daniel, are you there? Can you please explain to me the point he is trying to make? Thx…

  35. Sure. Eric is saying that Smitty putting ‘Evangelical’ in scare quotes means that Smitty is questioning whether any that “could possibly support Trump” could possibly actually be evangelical.

    And that’s kind of insulting to someone if he identifies as both an evangelical and a Trump supporter. So that’s a weird thing to do on a right-wing blog, when a plurality has supported Trump so far.

    I’m very disappointed in this election cycle. It reminds me of 2008, when I was a left-libertarian Democrat and the Rodham supporters were vicious.

    I literally saw “Not My President” bumper stickers and even an apartment window flag from lesbians that couldn’t handle her defeat. It was ridiculous.

    I’ve been very careful not to say anything against either Trump or Cruz, and especially not against their supporters, since either one would be better than the Molochite alternative — and by pure political analysis they would be an unstoppable force together.

  37. Mike, see this is where you and I disagree. He’s not “pandering” to Christians. If he were pandering he would make Christianity a central part of his campaign. As far as I know he only talks about Christianity when he’s asked about it … like in this interview. Cruz, OTOH can be accused of pandering to Christians because he makes his faith a central part of his appeal. I’m not saying that Cruz is a fake Christian but am saying that he’s appealing to Christians because of their faith just as Obama appealed to Blacks based on the color of their skin.

    If “pandering” is defined as not actively denying your wish to gather their votes, that leaves out a lot of people running for public office.

    Is Trump as good a Christian as you – or I – are? Only God knows and he’s not sharing.

    P.S. an “eye for an eye” is a Biblical precept. You can look it up.

  38. Smitty is saying that Trump doesn’t follow Jesus. I’m simply replying that a really good follower of Jesus would take the Sermon on the Mount to heart. Or doesn’t that apply to government officials?

  39. You’re hardly on point. I simply stated that you could put Trumpkin in place of Cruzite and still be accurate. What part of such a simply concept don’t you understand?

    Trumpkins run around hurling insults then whine like babies denied a sucker when they get called on it. Trump, sadly for himself and his supporters, produces a lot of ammo to use against him. Complaining that Cruz takes advantage of it smacks of immaturity.

  40. And Trump does this how?

    There’s more to being a Christian than the sermon on the mount. That he seems unrepentant of his affairs and groundless divorces is enough to mark the man as a non-Christian.

  41. But your statement about Trump supporters is not true. As evidenced by this post, and Jeff’s post.

  43. So many errors, so little time! The first thing you should learn, is that when you disagree with me, you’re probably wrong. This time is no exception.
    Let’s start with the low hanging fruit: “Eye for an eye” is quoted in the Bible, but it is not a Biblical precept. You should look it up in its context (Matt. 5) and see that the very next verse Jesus contradicts it. Who are you going to believe? Jesus or Trump’s lying eyes?
    The whole Sermon on the Mount is the antithesis of Trump’s philosophy that if someone hits you, you hit them back ten times harder. (You can look it up.)

    As far as pandering, you have your facts wrong here, too. One does not have to change one’s platform in order to pander to any particular group. You could but that’s beside the point. Trump panders to Christians by pretending to be one, waving his Bible in the air, etc. It is interesting that Trump repeatedly accused Cruz of waving his Bible in the air, but to my knowledge, Trump is the only one to physically do so.

    It is possible to pander to audiences and groups by lying. Obama at AIPAC in ’08 promised a Jewish group that Jerusalem would always be the capitol of Israel. He was pandering for their votes. When he redrew the borders of Israel in his vain and stupid attempt to influence their survival, Jerusalem was outside that boundary.

    When Bill Clinton put Confederate flags on their campaign buttons in the South, he was pandering to southerners. No platform change needed.

    Telling people what you believe, who may agree with you is not pandering. Telling people what they want to hear, regardless of how you really feel about it, is.

    There are Biblical precepts for Christians who are wronged, who have a conflict with a brother Christian, etc. Trump follows none of these.

    As far as “Only God knows” who is a Christian, that is true. But he also said “by their fruits you shall know them”. That’s in Matthew chapter 7. You could also check the book of James, where he talks about a tongue putting forth blessing and cursing. A lot of cursing from Trump. Not that cursing is a prohibition from the presidency, but it is certainly not a hallmark of Christianity.

    God judges the heart, but men are allowed, even encouraged to judge the actions. Trump’s honesty is in question as well. If he were more honest, not as litigious, (how many lawsuits has he threatened in just the last year?), not as foul mouthed, thinned skinned or mean as a snake, it might be easier to convince one that Trump is indeed a Christian.

    But that assumes facts not in evidence.

    Matthew 5: 38-41 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 4 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.

  44. See? Here you’re confused again! The office is not Christian-in-Chief. No one expects POTUS to ‘turn the other cheek’ as the country’s chief executive. That’s a straw man argument.
    How Trump, or anyone else acts in his personal life goes to character.
    Trump is one, but has none.

  45. Will insulting millions of honest hard working people who hold the opinion that they can’t trust Mr. Cruz or don’t like him but like Mr. Trump and his attitude do anyone any good?

  49. I expect nothing of your sort. I’ve seen both Trumpkins and Cruz bots, and really, there is nothing to recommend either one. That you can’t see anything of the other side’s case marks you as a Trumpkin.

  50. Thanks for explaining. That makes sense.

    I don’t mind speaking out. And I have to say, I would actually go for a Cruz presidency with Trump as VP. For lots of really fun and lolsy reasons, one of which being, the VP should then be in charge of dealing with the President of Mexico while President Cruz is busy with the ME.

    I also don’t see why we (all of us) can’t agree to disagree about some things. This isn’t an SJW echo chamber. I personally think that Trump is using and manipulating his Christian followers, and clearly so does Smitty.

    Frankly, if these followers wanted to admit, yes, the man is a pathological liar, he’s not a Christian, and we know that as a liar and loudmouth, he’s very, very unlikely to keep any campaign promise he makes, but I still support him, then ok. At least they’re keepin’ it real. But what I see among personal friends of mine, anyway, is a complete lack of discernment, and almost a kind of insanity where it comes to Trump.

Comments are closed.