Good things Trump: 2024 General Election Campaign

[Josh]

So this is the place to say things like, "all praise and Glory to Donald Trump, his enemies are our enemies, his kingdom is our kingdom, only he can save us - may he be exalted and may his horn be raised".

Instead of doing that in every thread.

This isn't the only thread explicitly designated an "all-hail Trump" thread.

So pointing out that there is a past leader that DOES NOT promote brutally killing babies up until birth, didn’t embolden an evil dictator to move into a country causing horrendous death and destruction, who curbed human and sex trafficking, is somehow “hailing” a person? How sad. But I get it. If you aren't trashing the former president, you are "hailing" him.

Right. In the present polarised world, if someone like me doesn’t vociferously denounce Trump, the left will claim I am “hailing” him. It’s ridiculous.

[RZehr]

So this is the place to say things like, "all praise and Glory to Donald Trump, his enemies are our enemies, his kingdom is our kingdom, only he can save us - may he be exalted and may his horn be raised".

Instead of doing that in every thread.

This isn't the only thread explicitly designated an "all-hail Trump" thread.

It’s not? What other thread is “ explicitly designated an "all-hail Trump" thread”?

[Josh]

Is there really anyone on MN who is a "hail Trump" sort of person? I recall some of the Republican sorts of posters here initially preferring candidates like Ted Cruz or Ben Carson.

[Bootstrap]

Is there really anyone on MN who is a "hail Trump" sort of person? I recall some of the Republican sorts of posters here initially preferring candidates like Ted Cruz or Ben Carson.

It might be more accurate to say that there are people who see Trump as He Who Must Not Be Criticized, who regularly make up things about people who criticize Trump, try to imply that Trump's critics support abortion or homosexuality, etc. There's a loyalty requirement that people feel is violated if you believe, for instance, that the evidence against Trump justifies a trial or an impeachment hearing or that by all evidence, Trump won the election. To me, there's a kind of group think there, often associated with Christian identity.

And there's a "Trump's enemies must be destroyed, anyone who exposes anything about him must be drowned out".

Nobody seems to feel that way about Ted Cruz or Ben Carson or Joe Biden or Barack Obama. And certainly not Hunter Biden.

And I think people make up reasons to be offended, reasons not based in reality. For instance:

Right. In the present polarised world, if someone like me doesn’t vociferously denounce Trump, the left will claim I am “hailing” him. It’s ridiculous.

Can you show me a single example of someone saying anything remotely like that? I think that's one of those group-think loyalty lines. Nobody every asks for that here. It's hard to have a discussion that's really about the evidence or whatever when Trump's name is involved. And that's what feels cultish to me. There are emotional grenades that regularly get tossed into the conversation to disrupt it. This kind of line turns criticism of Trump into a personal insult, telling people to circle the wagons around political loyalty. And avoids discussing the evidence directly.

Another thing that feels cultish to me: if the evidence against Trump is really strong on some issue, people respond by saying, "oh yeah, well let me say something that feels even worse about someone on the left". As though political factions are the real issue, and scoring points for your political side is vitally important. All the while claiming not to have political loyalties.

If we really believe that Jesus is our king and the Kingdom of God is our kingdom, these things feel out of place to me. Our unity in Jesus should trump any political loyalties, and we should be able to discuss these things in ways that are not central to our identities or loyalties. Things said about politicians shouldn't taken as personal insults.

[GaryK]

It might be more accurate to say that there are people who see Trump as He Who Must Not Be Criticized, who regularly make up things about people who criticize Trump, try to imply that Trump's critics support abortion or homosexuality, etc. There's a loyalty requirement that people feel is violated if you believe, for instance, that the evidence against Trump justifies a trial or an impeachment hearing or that by all evidence, Trump won the election. To me, there's a kind of group think there, often associated with Christian identity.

And there's a "Trump's enemies must be destroyed, anyone who exposes anything about him must be drowned out".

I'm going to apply your question below to what you said above.

Can you show me a single example of someone saying anything remotely like that?

The irony here is something to behold. The very thing you are decrying that you believe others do, seems to be happening in your post above, which to me, seems to be quite disparaging of others.

[Bootstrap]

It might be more accurate to say that there are people who see Trump as He Who Must Not Be Criticized, who regularly make up things about people who criticize Trump, try to imply that Trump's critics support abortion or homosexuality, etc. There's a loyalty requirement that people feel is violated if you believe, for instance, that the evidence against Trump justifies a trial or an impeachment hearing or that by all evidence, Trump won the election. To me, there's a kind of group think there, often associated with Christian identity.

And there's a "Trump's enemies must be destroyed, anyone who exposes anything about him must be drowned out".

I'm going to apply your question below to what you said above.

Can you show me a single example of someone saying anything remotely like that?

The irony here is something to behold. The very thing you are decrying that you believe others do, seems to be happening in your post above, which to me, seems to be quite disparaging of others.

Irony upon irony.

To me, this is an example:

Right. In the present polarised world, if someone like me doesn’t vociferously denounce Trump, the left will claim I am “hailing” him. It’s ridiculous.

That's why I responded as I did, this is precisely what my message responded to. If nobody is doing that, what function does that kind of statement play? Nobody is insisting that anybody denounce Trump.

I think a LOT of communication is not about facts. It's about something else. So what is this particular statement about? Maybe Josh could say. Or Grace. Maybe I got it wrong, to me it really does seem like there's an identity issue, and that it involves Trump. And this identity issue involves taking a side on polarized politics, where "left" versus "right" in the political sphere is important. And anchored around Trump. And it involves taking offense at people who are criticizing Trump.

I really could be wrong about this. But I'd like to see Josh or Grace reflect on these questions and respond to what it does mean to them.

[Ken]

Right. In the present polarised world, if someone like me doesn’t vociferously denounce Trump, the left will claim I am “hailing” him. It’s ridiculous.

That's why I responded as I did. If nobody is doing that, what function does that kind of statement play? Nobody is insisting that anybody denounce Trump.

I think a LOT of communication is not about facts. It's about something else. So what is this particular statement about? Maybe Josh could say. Or Grace. Maybe I got it wrong, to me it really does seem like there's an identity issue, and that it involves Trump.

Josh:

No one notices or cares whether you or anyone else denounces Trump.

What people notice is when you or others uncritically repeat Trump's propaganda and lies as the case may be. For example:

"Stop the Steal, the 2020 election was stolen"
"There is a 2-tier system of justice and Democrats are weaponizing the DOJ to attack their political enemies."

That is nothing more than just mainlining Trump's talking points and makes you look like an uncritical Trump supporter.

For example:





Trump is entitled to his point of view. But if you choose to parrot it uncritically that certainly makes you look like a Trump supporter.

[Grace]

I think a LOT of communication is not about facts. It's about something else. So what is this particular statement about? Maybe Josh could say. Or Grace. Maybe I got it wrong, to me it really does seem like there's an identity issue, and that it involves Trump. And this identity issue involves taking a side on polarized politics, where "left" versus "right" in the political sphere is important. And anchored around Trump. And it involves taking offense at people who are criticizing Trump.

I see no one here taking offense at people criticizing Trump. Pointing out facts about the past administration and about the current administration is not taking sides. Unless, of course, someone doesn't want to hear any criticism about the current president and wants to only criticism the past president.

Personally I am so tired of hearing about Trump. I highly doubt he will be the next president. Tucker asked him Wednesday night, if he doesn't fear for his life. This is just a prediction, but if the deep state can't beat him, by booking him, and sending him to prison, he will die under suspicious circumstances. Just my thoughts, and I hope I am wrong.

[GaryK]

It might be more accurate to say that there are people who see Trump as He Who Must Not Be Criticized, who regularly make up things about people who criticize Trump, try to imply that Trump's critics support abortion or homosexuality, etc. There's a loyalty requirement that people feel is violated if you believe, for instance, that the evidence against Trump justifies a trial or an impeachment hearing or that by all evidence, Trump won the election. To me, there's a kind of group think there, often associated with Christian identity.

And there's a "Trump's enemies must be destroyed, anyone who exposes anything about him must be drowned out".

I'm going to apply your question below to what you said above.

Can you show me a single example of someone saying anything remotely like that?

The irony here is something to behold. The very thing you are decrying that you believe others do, seems to be happening in your post above, which to me, seems to be quite disparaging of others.

Irony upon irony.

To me, this is an example:

Right. In the present polarised world, if someone like me doesn’t vociferously denounce Trump, the left will claim I am “hailing” him. It’s ridiculous.

That's why I responded as I did, this is precisely what my message responded to. If nobody is doing that, what function does that kind of statement play? Nobody is insisting that anybody denounce Trump.

I think a LOT of communication is not about facts. It's about something else. So what is this particular statement about? Maybe Josh could say. Or Grace. Maybe I got it wrong, to me it really does seem like there's an identity issue, and that it involves Trump. And this identity issue involves taking a side on polarized politics, where "left" versus "right" in the political sphere is important. And anchored around Trump. And it involves taking offense at people who are criticizing Trump.

I really could be wrong about this. But I'd like to see Josh or Grace reflect on these questions and respond to what it does mean to them.

The part of your post I referenced was in response to this...

Is there really anyone on MN who is a "hail Trump" sort of person? I recall some of the Republican sorts of posters here initially preferring candidates like Ted Cruz or Ben Carson.

I'm not sure what irony you find in what I posted. I have not been the one constantly calling for folks on MN to stop disparaging others who have differing views on Trump than they do. I'm simply baffled why you would disparage those who have differing views of Trump than you do. You made some pretty categorical statements about what others think and feel and I am quite certain that no one on MN thinks and feels like how you described them.

[temporal1]

Page 2:

So this thread is a thread for promoting Trump's 2024 campaign? And it is protected from criticism? On a Mennonite site?

Please revisit the OP. Special emphasis on THE SPIRIT of RZehr’s earlier topic.
Last time i checked, RZehr was an unrepenant undisputed Mennonite.

Does your mileage vary?