Putting America First

[Luce NDs]

Could the Queen redirect ... like in some myths when the red string is arranged the othe way as in Othe'Loö ... all of the darkly unseen ... Jacobean myth?

The that Ðuo'dor King was very opinionated too ... on what authority was best to rule ... shadowy creepers ... silent conspiracies!

Know they don't exist ... right?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

What a strange, strange situation. Everyday I find myself horrified but ROFLMAO soon after. It's not even funny...yet, it is! Anyone else?

Satirists can't even keep up. He's stealing comedians jobs! Terrible! All those jobs being lost to one guy! The comedians...great people by the way...terrific people...want their jobs back!

 

[Luce NDs]

Are comedians finding it easy ... and thus the Job is gone ... nothing to work at due to efficiency experts that don't understand ineffable ...

 

[Jon71]

He won an election. He convincingly won the Christian vote.

Not true, he won white evangelicals in a landslide but that's not the stock and store of "Christian". African-American Christians voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. Mainline Protestants gave Hillary Clinton a majority of their vote and she won Hispanic Catholics easily. I think she barely won amongst white Catholics too. The only group Trump did really well with were the fundys.

 

[Jon71]

I agree. There is no real evidence for the Russian prostitute story. It was a smear and I'm sorry it was even mentioned here. Trump does enough that he can be legitimately taken to task for that one doesn't have to start spreading nonsense as if it's fact.

The source is British Intelligence. I take that to be at least as credible as American intelligence, and at the moment perhaps more so.

 

[Mendalla]

Not true, he won white evangelicals in a landslide but that's not the stock and store of "Christian". African-American Christians voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. Mainline Protestants gave Hillary Clinton a majority of their vote and she won Hispanic Catholics easily. I think she barely won amongst white Catholics too. The only group Trump did really well with were the fundys.

As expected, really.

 

[Jaebius]

Not true, he won white evangelicals in a landslide but that's not the stock and store of "Christian". African-American Christians voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. Mainline Protestants gave Hillary Clinton a majority of their vote and she won Hispanic Catholics easily. I think she barely won amongst white Catholics too. The only group Trump did really well with were the fundys.

A sizable share of American evangelicals also voted Trump.

 

[chansen]

Not true, he won white evangelicals in a landslide but that's not the stock and store of "Christian". African-American Christians voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. Mainline Protestants gave Hillary Clinton a majority of their vote and she won Hispanic Catholics easily. I think she barely won amongst white Catholics too. The only group Trump did really well with were the fundys.

How many fundies are there? When the non-religious vote 4 to 1 against him, how many fun dies does it take to make the Christian vote 60-something percent in favour?

Christians, as a group, voted more for Trump. You can't change that. Did any subset of Christianity vote against Trump as decidedly as the nones did? I'm on my phone and it's not so easy to look that up right now. I think I left a link around here somewhere. I'll repost it later.

 

[revsdd]

The source is British Intelligence. I take that to be at least as credible as American intelligence, and at the moment perhaps more so.

No. The source is not "British Intelligence." The report was a dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, who USED TO work for MI6, and who is now working in private intelligence. That's not the same as saying that the source is "British Intelligence." Steele's report was criticized as being well below accepted MI6 standards - primarily because he had no direct contact with supposed witnesses or participants. That was one major reason that most news outlets gave it little notice.

 

[blackbelt1961]

 

[blackbelt1961]

 

[blackbelt1961]

The future is female , talk about a raciest Clinton

 

[chansen]

BB, what crap are you trying to feed us today?

 

[blackbelt1961]

here is a good one

 

[Jaebius]

 

[chansen]

Christians will believe anything.

Not true, he won white evangelicals in a landslide

True.

but that's not the stock and store of "Christian". African-American Christians voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.

True, though less pronounced than Obama.

Mainline Protestants gave Hillary Clinton a majority of their vote

False. Why do people think this?

and she won Hispanic Catholics easily.

True.

I think she barely won amongst white Catholics too.

False. She lost among Catholics.

The only group Trump did really well with were the fundys.

No, he did well with Christians as a whole.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/

Donald Trump was elected by Christians. The more often you attended religious services, the more likely you were to vote for Donald Trump. Jews, atheists and agnostics voted overwhelmingly Clinton. As did African American and Hispanic Christians. Gee, I wonder why.

Hearing "mainline Protestants" tell us that they did not vote for Trump is revisionist history. This is a president who gives obvious lip service to religion to further his ambitions, and Christians love it. Not just evangelicals.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Now look what you did , I have to go have some now

 

[dreamerman]

The future is female , talk about a raciest Clinton

Raciest? I thought you were going to show a video of Hillary wearing nothing but a thong. I guess you must have meant racist since there was no thong or any thing in that video that could be construed as being racy. Come to think of it I couldn't find anything in that video that was racist either. Possibly sexist maybe?

 

[revsdd]

Christians will believe anything.

True.


True, though less pronounced than Obama.


False. Why do people think this?


True.


False. She lost among Catholics.


No, he did well with Christians as a whole.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/

Donald Trump was elected by Christians. The more often you attended religious services, the more likely you were to vote for Donald Trump. Jews, atheists and agnostics voted overwhelmingly Clinton. As did African American and Hispanic Christians. Gee, I wonder why.

Hearing "mainline Protestants" tell us that they did not vote for Trump is revisionist history. This is a president who gives obvious lip service to religion to further his ambitions, and Christians love it. Not just evangelicals.

chansen, I'm curious as to how you manage to extrapolate how mainline Protestants voted from the Pew survey that you cite? It doesn't say anything about mainline Protestants. It lumps both mainline and evangelical Protestants along with Mormons in a column called "Protestant/other Christian." As the footnote to the reports says, "'Protestant' refers to people who described themselves as 'Protestant,' 'Mormon,' or 'other Christian' in exit polls ..." They do include a separate line for both white evangelical/born again Christians and Mormons, but as I read the survey they've separated those groups out of the larger "Protestant/other Christian" group, but haven't done the same for mainline Protestants.

That 81% vote for Trump among "white, born again/evangelical Christians" most certainly skews the "Protestant/other Christian" line in favour of Trump. Their support for Trump - as I've pointed out before - was largely because of two issues: his promise to appoint pro-life judges, and his promise to offer unqualified support for Israel. But when you jump to the conclusion that the majority of mainline Protestants supported Trump you're doing so with no evidence to support you. The Pew survey doesn't support that because it doesn't offer a line exclusively for those who call themselves "mainline Protestants." Admittedly, @Jon71 also states an opinion as a fact in saying that the majority of mainline Protestants supported Clinton - although, in all honesty, I think the Pew research does lead one in that direction if looked at objectively.

In February of 2016 Pew did a research study that showed that among members of 5 out of 7 mainline Protestant churches, there was more support for the Democrats than for the Republicans. Again, that doesn't prove anything about the actual election results because the candidates weren't yet nominated and the election was still 9 months away, but it also seems to support jon71's view rather than yours. Here's that survey:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/

If you're going to cite surveys as support for your statements, then you should cite them properly, because the survey you cited does not support your assertion about the voting patterns of mainline Protestants.

 

[chansen]

What I posted is exit poll data from election night. What you're linking to are "political leanings" from 9 months before the election.

Had these "political leanings" held true, Trump would not be the president. People either switched to Trump, or many "mainline" Protestants did not vote. Probably a combination of the above.

But either way, it does not change the fact that *Christians* were the force that elected Donald Trump. The aggregate category "Protestant/Other Christian" reported voted Trump over Clinton 58:39. How many Mormons would it take to overturn the "mainline Protestant" vote like that? "Protestant/Other Christian" was 52% of the electorate. How much of that 52% would you count as "mainline"? 80%? Let's do some approximations.