Saturday, December 30, 2017
Interpreting Trump and the Never or Anti Trumpers
If you lived in the biblical time of the judges of the Old Testament book of Judges, would you have voted for every one of those judges? That includes Samson by the way. I'm thinking, no. And yet, when you read Judges, you vote for them. You could say that God Himself voted for them -- He raised them up, significant foibles and all. The Bible gives us a basis for interpreting history, because it presents history from God's point of view, which is how we should judge history. I don't see it happening in many cases among professing Christians, and part of it relates to the more effeminate men that I see. They wouldn't like the judges of the Judges period, and would oppose them to their own demise.
I see Trump as a judge-like figure of the Old Testament Judges type. I say, Judge like, but pretty close to like them. He himself is not righteous, but he's doing a lot of great stuff for the righteous team, whether he believes in it or not, just like the judges. As you read this, I want you to understand that I know that God doesn't have a covenant with the United States of America. However, when you study the Old Testament major prophets, you read large sections on the judgment of the nations, where God has expectations of Gentile nations with whom He does not have covenant. Those nations, and the United States, are still responsible to God. People can be blessed of God depending upon what they do, because this is still our Father's world.
You and I live in an anomaly of history for true Christians, the United States of America. True believers haven't had freedom like this. Jews haven't either for the most part, since the destruction of Jerusalem. It's an amazing time for Christians. However, if you are like me, you see signs in accordance with the rest of history this period of aberration closing. We should not expect it to continue if something isn't done to help preserve it. People like myself see Trump as helping in keeping this window open, even though many professing Christians are aiding in it closing faster, as if they want it. They probably do, because they have very little skin in the game. They think being liked is akin somehow to the love of God in their lives.
We are at the end of the year evaluations, and what I read from conservatives is that Trump was good on policy, but not on politics. Okay. The idea here is that if Trump had not been so combative, used social media like he did, because of his policies, his approval ratings would be higher, but his policies are in general what conservatives would want to see.
Being forthright, the policies of Trump, although not fulfilling yet everything that he wanted in just less than one year, have been fantastic. He had a narrow majority in the Senate. Trump got amazing things done for having that narrow majority, that everyone knows included many non-supporters on the Republican side. More than any politician in my lifetime, Trump went about doing exactly what he said he would do, attempting to keep promise after promise. This would not have occurred with a Romney, a McCain, a H.W. or W. Bush, or most of the guys running against Trump, probably none of which would have won. They would have been looking for bipartisanship and thought that not getting these things done was somehow a noble deed.
Trump's approval ratings according to the Rasmussen poll today, which is the most reliable, and got the 2016 election the closest to right, is 53 disapprove to 46 approve, the same as Obama's after his first year. I believe that Never Trumpers silently like what's going on (in policy), but they can't show approval to Trump in what they act like is a matter of principle. I see their position as a kind of Pharisaical self righteousness, seeing themselves above everyone else, to manifest their own greatness. Some of them perhaps it started out that way, and now they are blinded by a kind of anti-Trump myopia. The Pharisee-ism of Never Trump is that Trump is a bad man with bad motivations and they can't support a bad man with bad motivations, because they are good men with good motivations. The system doesn't work that way, not in a period of the Judges, but they can't understand this. They are utopian in this way, expecting a standard of righteousness that they would never get if they were leaders -- their very nature would be allowing worse than Trump all over the place, and yet they oppose Trump. It's hypocritical in that way too, like a Pharisee.
The Never Trumpers are hurting the country. If they were with Trump too, I think his approval would be mid 50s right now at least, maybe more, and he would get more things done faster. They are slowing down good work. They are causing bad. They are missing a great opportunity here that is hurting the country. Trump has his 46 approval (today) without the Never Trumpers, without the left, without the moderates, and without 90 percent of the media. He's got about everybody he could get without all of that.
Some of what Trump has accomplished are things that Republicans and conservatives have been saying that they have been wishing for decades. Trump has done them because he is attempting to fulfill the agenda the Never Trumpers said he was lying about. They said Trump was lying and we were being duped. I still hear either silence or just nagging criticism only on the things they don't like. By his actions, he wasn't lying about the things he was advocating. He wasn't taking us for a ride, all the claims that we were hearing if we were supporting Trump. If the Never Trumpers were as good as men as they purport to be, they could admit that and get on board. Trump supporters would forgive them. In general, they are part of the opposition, essentially cutting off their nose to spite their face.
As an example of a positive, just a little thing, here in California, we've had some people killed by illegal immigrants, and we are a sanctuary state. The murderers are still living and they spend little to no time in jail. During the Obama administration, the families of the victims had no voice. They got no traction. They wouldn't be listened to. You can include in that the selling of body parts of aborted babies by Planned Parenthood. The Obama administration would have supported that. These families of victims of illegal immigrants are heard by the Trump administration.
The previous paragraph is in addition to the obvious, including what Trump has attempted and I don't foresee his quitting on: Gorsuch Supreme Court, conservative judge appointments, United Nations policies, deregulation, support of Christian activity, including the baker in Colorado, his support of police and military, his support of vouchers in education, destruction of ISIS, the travel ban, etc. Just in the last five minutes, I read about a deal with Israel on opposing the work of Iran in the Middle East. Have you noticed the people right now rising up against the regime in Iran? Would they be emboldened like this in an Obama-like environment? These are things that just wouldn't be done in general by another Republican, let alone a Democrat. Imagine any other administration announcing a big cut to the United Nations like Nikki Haley just did last week. He's facing a lot of opposition, including this bogus Russian collusion case.
Typical of opposition is news today that in a vacation fishing photo of Jared and Ivanka Kushner and their children and off in the distance is a boat with a confederate flag. This is the fourth estate, the important truth telling of the media. The media reports that they included a confederate flag in the background of their picture. Who else gets this kind of coverage? This influences the many duped leftists, low information voters, and keeps the negativity rolling on the racist and white supremacy lie narrative. Last time I checked, white supremacists weren't Jewish supporters and Jared and Ivanka are practicing Jews. It's non-stop this type of news.
Some argue that Trump hurts politics, hurts civility, by the way he acts and tweets. Some would say, if they support him, they would just be encouraging that. I see it a different way. The opposition is carrying a gun to a fight that the normal, establishment Republicans would carry a knife. Trump doesn't stand and take it. Others have tried to get along and just take the hits, to remain in good standing, and they haven't come close to getting done what Trump has been able to accomplish in just a short period of time. He should be judged by these accomplishments, not by the style by which he has done them. Most wish he could use a different style, but in this present environment, we have to look past the style. The combat is what is needed in this climate.
Do you think that if Trump changed his style that the media would let him off the hook? Do you think they would stop criticizing him? Do you think they would stop the fake news and stop lying about him and never publish the good things that he has done? It would be worse.
I see it this way. Trump knows that his popularity is lower because of how he fights through social media. He does it anyway, because he isn't going to capitulate. He could remain silent like most mainstream Republicans, but this isn't how Trump got where he is. He has never backed down in that way. Trump also knows that he has a higher popularity than what the polls show. He sees it in the rallies he still holds. He has a lot of energy for him from a very dedicated base of voters that are a lot of people. He keeps them together. He's looking for success from his policies to help bring others with him. The faster he can get that agenda on track, the more support he will pick up.
If you don't see the corruption of the opposition to Trump, the people who align against him, then you, my friend, are very ignorant. These are some of the most odious people in the country, and you might be someone siding with them against him and what he is doing. They have used about everything they could use to stop him: the race card, the gender card, Hollywood, NY Times and Washington Post, the worst name-calling ever, and a regular fire hydrant spray of lies against him. Almost all of them are sickening. A huge number of them are anti-American, hostile to the core values of this country. They would like to weaken the country for a globalist world view.
9 Absurd Lies of the Media -- Reminds me of some of the anti-Trump who comment here.
Here are sites that have listed Trumps accomplishments as president. You can click on each to read them and get an explanation.
Investment Watch Blog
Read the story of Jewish conservative Joel Pollak
Posted by Kent Brandenburg at 11:19 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks Pastor Kent. We linked to on S/I here.
Happy New Year. I appreciate you.
I agree with your assessment.
I am also reading Scott Adam's Win Bigly and his blog to better understand the phenomenon of Trump's presidency. His explanations seem to be quite accurate in revealing the ways Trump is able to persuade others, especially those who consider themselves his enemies.
Thanks for the insights today and I hope you have a great 2018!
This is an exceptional piece. Your grasp and articulation of the essential foundation and core constructional elements of the matter is one of the best I've read.
There is a bit of an embittered blog owner, Aaron Blumer, at SI, who typifies what you've described as Christian who would oppose Trump to their own demise, in the least, this nation's, never coming to admit he was fundamentally wrong in his framing and interpretation of events and denying Trump much of his due which is supported by his several exclamations at SI, in hoping for Trump's impeachment hence, it is surprising to see this posted there.
If my being specific here is out of bounds for commenting, let me privately thank you for the article. However, I might be surprised seeing the specific personalities regularly identified by that blog.
To AG: "There is a bit of an embittered blog owner, Aaron Blumer, at SI"
Thanks. I've been praying for you. I think you'll be OK one way or the other.
Thanks. I agree. That Win Bigly book sounds great.
I don't know Aaron's position. I'm thinking about the Never Trumpers as a whole. No one individually comes to mind, but Bret Stephens wrote in the NY Times today that he wishes Hillary had won. This is a Never Trump, so-called conservative.
I just went over to the SI site, and Greg H calls me a fraud. I guess I would want to know how, not just the name, but some kind of explanation for how I'm a fraud and what kind of fraud I am, based on my explanation above.
I had an anonymous commenter, and I think he's the same self-proclaimed business success, who won't publish his name. However, I find his comments interesting. He said this about my comment about the Rasmussen poll above:
"It is a LIE that Trump's popularity is where Obama's was at this point. You are purposefully or ignorantly comparing two different polls to come up with that. Are you ignorant or a liar like the other Trump lovers that are trying to make this point?"
OK, I made a very specific statement, which you can find at the Rasmussen Poll here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_dec30
On its final poll released Nov. 7, the day before Election Day, Rasmussen had Hillary Clinton up 2 points on Donald Trump. Clinton won the popular vote by 1 percentage point, even though Donald Trump beat her on electoral votes. No other pollster tracked by RealClearPolitics came as close to the final results.
This is exactly what I said above. Exactly.
He won't retract, of course, which makes him what?
He also said:
It is a LIE that the Russian collusion is bogus. Even if you want to deny the evidence, you Kent Brandenburg do not know enough about that situation to say it is bogus. That is just Trump-loving lying to claim that. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I'll be glad to retract saying that it is bogus, when there is evidence of collusion, which there hasn't been at all. Not at all. It's easy to see it's bogus, or something at least would have been leaked at this point. In addition, Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, who voted for Hillary, says there is no crime against collusion, which makes it a bogus claim on that very root level. If there were a crime for collusion, then Hillary should be charged for paying for the dossier, produced mainly by Kremlin related actors.
Those were his two points, both false -- lies. Proven lies.
This article is too worthy of a debate on my earlier description but when it is responded to with a description as laughable I simply provide this, for the record.
And from the article by Blumer:
"I wish I could title this post “I Beat Bitterness and You Can Too,” but my battle with bitterness is ongoing—almost daily."
I am not condemning anyone who has a struggle I'm pointing out that such struggles seem to go hand-in-hand with a refusal to acknowledge the achievements of others and put it in perspective the events around them
There are no words for the stupidity of Alex G. There is no real way to show enough disgust for the the action of taking someone's vulnerable words that wrote in an attempt to help other people and turn them against them in such an unfair, unjust way. Alex is despicable.
So you Trump lovers just continue living in your bubble. You go ahead and think that everyone that has a problem with Trump is bitter and Pharisaical. You are going to eventually see what happens when you pragmatically support a snake just because he agrees with you politically. Already, younger people that can think are calling you out on your hypocrisy and leaving in droves. You may win the battle but you are losing the war. You are too dumb to see it but you will someday.
There is a real way to show disgust. Give your name. Anonymous is a weasel way to do it, and not a real way. It's a coward's way. You are. a. coward.
Trump supporters aren't the ones living in the bubble. They understand what they are up against, truly. It's hard to describe someone who is fooled to your level, anonymous.
If you don't see the snake being the Democrat party and then mainly establishment Republicans, what people have called RINO, Republican in name only, then you might be beyond help. Younger people leaving in droves to what? To the hipster crowd? They are self-serving people, who have swallowed the lie. They float along in the current and get upset if something causes a few ripples. That's who we're talking about with the young people.
Young people in this state can't get into a home because of the people you support, my friend. And they, it's true, keep supporting the people who are harming them, because they hold to all the trendy causes, that are utopian lies. This is you.
Thumbs up to anonymous. This sycophantic Trump-slurping is truly disgusting by self- professed "Christians." I am reminded by a recent article on the Babylon Bee:
"Poll: Majority Of Evangelicals Would Support Satan If He Ran As Republican Candidate"
It is truly sad how close to reality satire is in this particular instance.
I think it's true that most professing "Christians" today aren't biblical Christians.
I liked your slurping and sycophantic, and Babylon Bee is the kind of proof that you have, probably about tops for what you have in the way of proof and by a wide margin. Enjoy that.
Anonymous wrote me again, using foul language, which for him is normal.
I would like Never Trumpers or Anti-Trumpers to give coherent explanation, a convincing one. All I hear is akin to what Kevin wrote. The people who are supposedly giving the best material are horrible, and I'm talking about someone like Ezra Klein at Vox. They read like propaganda and at least severely duped individuals.
Perhaps tomorrow I'll write something of an analysis of the type of guy "young people" might be into, if they are reading, because I think they mainly get their positions from foul mouthed late night comedians.
I've been following your blog long enough to know that you won't change your mind about anything, and that's fine. Most people won't for well documented psychological reasons. The Babylon Bee wasn't offered as proof, but you already knew that, so you're attacking a straw man. It was merely my opinion that their satire is pretty close to reality in this situation. I understand you believe Trump is working to defend your point of view, but I really don't understand how any Christian can believe that a thrice-married adulterer who lies as easily as he breathes furthers your cause. You may win a few battles but your association with such a person tarnishes your faith and Christianity as a whole to non-believers. I say this, not as a liberal, but as a life-long conservative.
First, this comment is like the other one. It offers nothing, w whole paragraph of nothing, something akin to what Trump does sometime, that is schoolyard type of rhetoric, probably because it works. It is the primary material of the left, and the scoffers of 2 Peter 3.
Second, I would guess I've changed more than you in my lifetime, and I can tell you what and when, major areas. I'd be happy to hear how you have changed. So, that's a lie. Many people who read here could testify of those changes, so you aren't much of a reader here.
Third, the Babylon Bee uses satire to mock people, with the idea that they'll change if they're mocked, what seems to be your wheelhouse, the kind of warfare you would use, ironically like Trump often does too. Satan is pro-abortion and he would bake the cake.
Trump is using the executive branch in helpful ways. He's not furthering my cause, which doesn't depend on changing my social status, but I would rather be free, yes. Thomas Jefferson was a corrupt man. Your thoughts? He wrote the Declaration of Independence. Trump probably has a stronger doctrinal statement than Jefferson. I don't see Jefferson as furthering my cause, Kevin, which I can't explain the level of inanity, nonsense, and absurdity of your argument.
Kevin, I believe in what people call second degree separation, but I don't fellowship with Donald Trump. This isn't fellowship, that is, supporting what he ran on, and what he has done. That doesn't dawn you though. You see this as association that taints me, that supporting Trump means supporting his adultery and three marriages. You are falling for the leftists. They perceived that this would work and it has succeeded on such people as yourself. Supporting Trump doesn't make someone complicit in everything he has done. It just doesn't. I liked Mike Harding's comparison to Cyrus of Persia. You couldn't support the return to the land, because it would associate you with Cyrus. Not good, Kevin.
I don't believe you understand conservativism. Trump at least supports protecting our borders and allowing Christ to be in the public square. You can be opposed to that so that you can not be tainted. This is the cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'll make this my last comment as I generally don't find that internet debates with people who exist in a closed, logical loop fruitful. Outside or new information bounces off you like bullets off Superman. You criticize me for not making arguments to support my case. Why waste my time? In an above comment you denigrated any news source as "propaganda" if they do not agree with your position. Everything inconvenient is "fake news." Maybe you learned that from Trump. It's a tactic long used by totalitarians- just deny any reality that you don't like as propaganda fabricated by your enemies.
I'm really surprised that you are opposed to mocking people since you do it all the time on this blog. You just mocked Anonymous and called him a "coward" for not revealing his name. I've seen you do it many times before. I would be shocked if my pastor engaged in such rhetoric online or in person.
Trump lies, plain and simple. It has been documented many times, in many places. I'm sure this is propaganda to you as well. If you want to adopt a Machiavellian political approach for temporary, short lived political gains, that is your right as a citizen, but it taints you. The world looks at you and sees a disparity between what your profess and who you support politically. It's not surprising that young people are turned off politics and Christianity when they see the two vulgarly welded together. The backlash against Trump will be severe. Democrats have already won races they generally would have no chance to win. Your position in the long run will be weaker because of your support for Trump. I certainly do understand and love conservatism, which is why I do not entrust it's care to the vulgarity that currently is our president.
There's a difference between making a strong statement and mocking, which I would hope you could know the difference. For instance, a young professing Christian anonymous has sworn at me in comments I haven't published, and I call him a coward for not including his name, and you call that unpastoral and mocking. I'm saying he's a coward for not including his name. That isn't mocking. It's staing the truth. Mocking is the kind of statements that you do, which I also know how to do, but I've refrained from it.
You know who I am. I'm taking your comment, publishing, even though I have now idea who "Kevin" is -- this guy won't even put his name. OK, so you come on an insult me to my face and you expect me just to take it -- it's an interesting standard you have for pastors coming from the one making the insult. If you believe in it, you should just practice what you say your standard is. I haven't held myself up to the standard of just taking it from people. I don't Jesus doing that either. I'll let you attempt to conclude what that kind of behaviour is, that is, when you expect behavior that you don't follow.
I'd be interested in your showing me anywhere where I denigrated any news source that doesn't agree with me. Any.
Again, Kevin, you make zero argument. You are like watching MSNBC. The experience reading you and seeing them is the same. I could be hopeful for something substantive, but no.
When someone describes Kent's support for Pres. Trump as "your relationship with such a person tarnishes your faith and Christianity as a whole to non-believers" they do so with a vacancy of responsibility toward fairly qualifying the relationship on a number of points.
Firstly, it is not an ecclesiastical one rather, one of civil establishment though how the Bible may frame the approach and perspective is offered, it is still what Luther referred to as left kingdom.
Secondly, it comes with clear repudiation of Trump's moral failures while featuring his leadership benefits.
Thirdly, it isn't a personal relationship, as I said, it is civil but to the none personal issue, this relieves Kent B., of the charge of tarnishing his faith to anyone.
Failure to acknowledge and argue along those lines is simply moral posturing to those objecting a d a refusal to interact with the merits of KB's argument.
I am a firm Trump supporter and think he is a blessing of God upon the nation for this time.
I also am surprised that SI would link to any article that has anything even remotely good to say about the guy.
By the way, it's still a free country in many ways, so more power to SI. If they want to be radically anti-Trump that is their prerogative. I don't mean anything personal or unkind, but I gave up that site a couple of years ago. It seems to have turned into nothing but an ad against Trump. I suppose I yearn for the days when the site had other stuff to offer other than just anti-Trump articles on a routine basis.
Of course this is "fake news" and lies of the dishonest media. In your mind at least. Keep drinking your Kool-aid http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html
Is this Kevin guy for real? I find it hard to believe that any person could really believe those things he supposedly does. I think he's having fun and he's punkin' us, as the kids would say.
I think I know who Kevin is now, and it's easy to understand now too. He's a very confused individual with a mixed up view of the world, an incoherent one. This can be seen in that he would not answer my arguments, for instance, the Thomas Jefferson one. If you look at Jefferson's portraits, he very often is dressed up in the effete, made-up French style in accordance with the French. He himself clipped out parts of the Bible in fitting with his own thinking and the father of several of Sally Hemming's children. In other words, he was vulgar. Is supporting the Declaration of Independence, therefore, vulgar? Kevin won't go there. He'll just say, "I won't argue with someone one in a logical mind loop," or some gobbledygook that doesn't answer anything. Jefferson was an anti-federalist, the strongest affirmer of states rights of the founders, along with his good friend, James Madison, who by assocation must agree with Jefferson on the Bible, on relations with female slaves, etc. Kevin won't answer this, at least right now, because it doesn't fit with this position he's got to cling to about Trump as a Never Trumper.
Kevin says Trump is vulgar. What is more vulgar than evangelicalism today, and I suspect strongly that Kevin has no problem with vulgarity in churches. He doesn't like vulgar politicians, who are a class that are almost by definition vulgar, but is he fine with it in the church? I'd say he says the church has liberty, which says something about someone's so-called conservatism.
Kevin says vulgar church good, vulgar politician bad, except for Jefferson, and several others in American history. Ultimately, it's not politically correct to support Trump, and the cool guys, the hipster wannabees, they have to have their reasons, and they pose on the political side, when it really is about their church situation. I could explain more but that's the gist of it.
The anonymous amazing business success guy with the foul mouth likes Kevin and Kevin likes him probably very similarly.
Having watched the accusations of Trump kool-aid drinking here, recently this got more discussion at SI and I'd say, for every one Rev.Jeffress (accepting the prosecution's argument) there are four kool-aid anti/never-Trumpers given over to hysterics.
I agree with you, Kent! President Trump is doing an amazing job!
Post a Comment