Is it OK to refer to MAGA by name?

[Grace]

Interesting. I would have compared "Biden Crime Family" to "Trump Crime Family", which I think you and I would both consider hateful rhetoric. I don't think I use "MAGA side" or MAGA land".

You wrote this"

Except in MAGA land. Most of us don't even pay attention most of the time this happens. But when we do, the reasons given are generally compelling.

Make a list of such such disbarred lawyers on the MAGA side and I'll provide you with the list you ask for. But please do answer my question first before asking me to answer a new one.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3309&start=2250

[Grace]

Bootstrap post_id=204872 time=1694649763 user_id=67]
I really don't read this as mocking, and that certainly was not my intent. I can see where Trumpies could be regarded as name-calling, so I was asking for a better name to use instead. I was very surprised that people would take MAGA as name calling. There IS a broader movement, including media and social media and a political faction. To me, calling that movement by a name they have chosen for themselves is not name calling. And so far, I have not heard a better alternative.

I gave you one. "Trump supporters".

I don't call anyone deplorables. I don't call anyone here ignorant in public or in private. I really do try to avoid name-calling.

I often DO point out what see as logical inconsistencies, or point out the net effect of things. And I think what I said about timing is simply true, if you add up the times when people say it's wrong to hold Trump accountable, it adds up to saying that Trump should NEVER be accountable, period. He should NEVER have to testify in trials or hearings, period.

There is no one here on Mennonet who said that if Trump committed a crime, he should not be held accountable. Or that it is wrong to hold him accountable.

Which is how he "can do anything he wants", it's the reason he says "I could shoot someone and not lose voters" and "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it". I think Trump means what he says here. And I think this all depends on convincing people that something terrible happens if he is held accountable to the law just like everyone else.

I am not defending Trump's words, but he uses hyperbole a lot. To say he is threatening people with his hyperbole is really a stretch. All politicians use hyperbole at times.

In the past we have heard hyperbole from Obama and others:
“They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
“Get in Their Faces!”
“Hit Back Twice As Hard”
”We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.”
“hand to hand combat”
“Punish your enemies.”
“I’m itching for a fight.”

I don't think that's mockery. I do think I am pointing out what I see as a real danger to democracy. And I imagine other people would see the same danger if Joe Biden were doing the same thing.

Joe Biden isn't doing the same thing, he is a worse danger. His being weak and addled is far more dangerous to our democracy. Our arch enemies know Biden is weak and they are taking full advantage of that weakness, with Putin is gnawing away in Europe, China staging massive war games of the coast of Taiwan, American economy is in trouble, people invading our borders, depleting our oil reserves, weakening our military, etc. The list is endless. Add to that he lies almost every time he makes a speech.

Can you imagine the out cry if Trump would have fumbled,and stumbled through an answer then said "he is going to bed", while on the world stage.

[RZehr]

Biden gets older every day.

[Ken]

All these conservatives who are endlessly claiming that "sleepy Joe" is getting senile are setting the bar so low that all he is going to have to do is show up to a debate, stay awake, and manage to put two coherent sentences together and the press will be all "Big win for Biden as he exceeds expectations!"

Liberals did the same thing with Trump in 2016 when they talked endlessly about how he was so crazy and dangerous to the point that all he had to do is show up at the debate, not look completely nuts, and the press declared it a win because he "exceeded expectations"

Don't believe me? Look a the endless headlines from the 2016 debates: https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+e ... 016+debate

Here is just one of many many similar examples, this from the Toronto Sun

[Bootstrap]

There is no one here on Mennonet who said that if Trump committed a crime, he should not be held accountable. Or that it is wrong to hold him accountable.

I think MennoNet would be a quite different place if we all took the perspective that:

1. Trials happen. We don't know all the evidence until the trial happens, and even then, we aren't the juries who hear it all. We don't all have to take sides beforehand. Or double down afterward, insisting that we know better.
2. Investigations and impeachments happen. We aren't running them. It's not a combat sport we need to engage in.
3. Elections happen. That's how we find out what voters prefer. There really isn't a better way.

I think both Trump and Bide are accountable to all of that. I don't know what "accountable" means outside of that kind of framework. To me, at least, it seems like some Trump supporters object whenever Trump is subject to these things.

[Bootstrap]

Bootstrap post_id=204872 time=1694649763 user_id=67]
Which is how he "can do anything he wants", it's the reason he says "I could shoot someone and not lose voters" and "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it". I think Trump means what he says here. And I think this all depends on convincing people that something terrible happens if he is held accountable to the law just like everyone else.

I am not defending Trump's words, but he uses hyperbole a lot. To say he is threatening people with his hyperbole is really a stretch. All politicians use hyperbole at times.

In the past we have heard hyperbole from Obama and others:
“They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
“Get in Their Faces!”
“Hit Back Twice As Hard”
”We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.”
“hand to hand combat”
“Punish your enemies.”
“I’m itching for a fight.”

That kind of statement is very common in American politics, where looking tough seems to be popular with voters.

But this is new: bragging about what you can get away with. Including bragging about what you can get away with in taxes. Telling people you know how to teach them to seduce married women. Bragging that you can touch women wherever you want and they can't do anything about it. And I think he can do those things if he has enough supporters who enable that.

To me, that is why the current trials are important. To say that he really is subject to the rule of law. If he is innocent, he can present his evidence and prove that the charges against him are false. But he should not be able to prove that he is above the law, that he can do whatever he wants and nobody can do anything about it.

[steve-in-kville]

Not sure why .MAGA is so offensive.
According to his speech at his rally Saturday night, he may run on "Make America Safe Again" so MAGA may take a back seat.

Boot, it's going to be a long year. You probably would do yourself a favor by avoiding political discussions on this forum. Trump discussions seem to make your blood boil & why not abstain? It cannot be good for the soul. I do understand how you feel, I felt at least as upset 8 years of Obama administration & Clinton, & now Biden, as far as the political policies & environment. Just focus elsewhere, it helps. No one really is affecting anyone else's perspective it seems. Merely quarreling.

I've watched this thread from a distance for the past three days.. and I'm gonna come right out and say it:

For a group of people that refuses to vote, you're making an awful big deal out of nothing.

There. I said it.

This is all

[Jazman]

In fact, when we do not do this, I think politics has a tendency to take over churches. It certainly did that in Nazi Germany. I think I have seen that happen to MC-USA on the left and to the Southern Baptist Convention on the right.

Two-state theology has been an important foundation for Mennonites, both the Sattler and the Marpeck variety.

Yet oddly enough this hasn’t happened at all to the Amish, various conservative Mennonites, GBs…

However, my wife & I were rather puzzled to see a group of Amish girls carrying large US flags (on horseback) in the Fall Festival parade here in Berlin last week-end. (But probably not members, so there is the difference, perhaps.)

I would second you're point, as counterpoint to Josh's claim.... It has and is happening in Amish/CM's as well. But it's probably tempered by some things... it may not be as widespread or virulent, but to claim "this hasn't happened at all to the Amish..." doesn't add up to anecdotal evidence I've observed. I think Boot's point is widespread and happening in more places than we may realize. It's incumbent on all of us and the leaders of our churches and denominations/conferences to be aware of it and try to disciple ourselves and our people away from it.

[temporal1]

boot:
.. If he is innocent, he can present his evidence and prove that the charges against him are false. ..

^^A pelosi-ish blunder:

Nancy Pelosi Blasted Over Statement That Trump Can 'Prove Innocence'
https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-b ... ce-1791739

.. Some Republicans strongly criticized the way Pelosi had phrased her tweet, pointing to the fact that in the U.S.,
those accused of crimes are innocent until they're proven guilty.

It might help explain some forum communication fails, tho. “Guilty until proven innocent” is a major “bump.”

[temporal1]

I would second you're [your] point, as counterpoint to Josh's claim.... It has and is happening in Amish/CM's as well.
But it's probably tempered by some things... it may not be as widespread or virulent, but to claim "this hasn't happened at all to the Amish..." doesn't add up to anecdotal evidence I've observed. I think Boot's point is widespread and happening in more places than we may realize.

It's incumbent on all of us and the leaders of our churches and denominations/conferences to be aware of it and try to disciple ourselves and our people away from it.

Taking into account the zeal to undermine Josh for the fun of it, perhaps those (Amish) accused could be directly addressed to explain themselves before being found guilty and tried in the court of public opinion.

The pesky matter of, “innocent until proven guilty,” speculation, gossip. Spreading rumors?

(i believe) this premise holds up as equally important in U.S. courts of law, as well as in sacred scriptures.