Is it OK to refer to MAGA by name?

[JimFoxvog]

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

More completely, the phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." This is a legal presumption--legally the accused needs to be treated as if he were innocent. Even this has its limitations. One indicted for murder will often be held until trial for the safety of the community. Some are arguing the same should be done for Trump.

[Grace]

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.

Trump’s words were repugnant, no denying that. But to say that kind of stuff is new, just isn't true.

In 2016 we had a presidential candidate that denigrated the women who her husband sexually assaulted and raped. Hillary Clinton called Monica Lewinsky, a “narcissistic looney toon” in private conversations with a close friend. She called Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash.” And the Clinton rape victim, Juanita Broaddrick, said Hillary Clinton threatened her in person only two weeks after she was raped by Bill. Instead of attempting to stop her husband's predatory actions, she enabled him to continue his sexual assaults and rapes, putting more women in harm’s way.

And wasn’t it the Obama’s, who felt Beyonce was a role model for their daughters? Beyonce whose vile and highly sexualized song lyrics are way beyond repugnant. And they invited the depraved entertainer to the White House several times, enabling the promotion of reprehensible sex acts.

Back in the nineties, America's children were introduced to the definition of a vile act that their president engaged in with a young intern.

In 1969 a leachourus Senator drove drunk off a bridge, leaving a the young woman, he most likely was having an affair with, to die in a horrible death by drowning. In 1990, GQ magazine ran a devastating profile of Ted Kennedy, his actions so vile it wouldn't be fit to quote here on Mennonet.

The current president showered with his young daughter and has a penchant to touch and sniff little girls in a inappropriate manner.


The list is endless of vile "actions" of politicians, that go way beyond "braggy" words. And definitionally is nothing new.

[Grace]

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

You are right. I suspect though, that some here do vote.

[Josh]

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.

Many of us on MN lack confidence in the things you listed above:

#1. I don’t think that trials necessarily uncover the truth nor mean justice prevails.

#2. Investigations and impeachments and indictments are political. The fact they happen means almost nothing.

#3. Elections at best mean 50.1% of the people who showed up to vote (which often is only 25% of eligible voters, which is in turn closer to 20% of the total population) decided something. 1 out of 5 people agreeing on something means very little to me.

At worst, elections are not conducted fairly so it doesn’t even mean 1 out of 5 people agreed on something.

I feel like you consider items 1-3 deeply meaningful. A lot of us don’t.

[Josh]

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.

Perhaps you should join a conference like mine, then, that takes an explicit stance again voting.

As opposed to a conference that takes an explicit stance that voting is OK.

[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.

Many of us on MN lack confidence in the things you listed above:

#1. I don’t think that trials necessarily uncover the truth nor mean justice prevails.
#2. Investigations and impeachments and indictments are political. The fact they happen means almost nothing.
#3. Elections at best mean 50.1% of the people who showed up to vote (which often is only 25% of eligible voters, which is in turn closer to 20% of the total population) decided something. 1 out of 5 people agreeing on something means very little to me.

At worst, elections are not conducted fairly so it doesn’t even mean 1 out of 5 people agreed on something.

I feel like you consider items 1-3 deeply meaningful. A lot of us don’t.

I think you are accurately describing a real difference here. I believe that any society has two main choices:

1. An agreed-on way of resolving issues, or
2. Raging conflict - torches and pitchforks

I think that every way we can resolve issues is imperfect, always, as long as we are human beings. But I also think that some approaches are more likely to result in truth. The best approaches force the facts out into the open and encourage all sides to weigh in, on an equal footing, without allowing insults and passions to disrupt the process.

[Josh]

I think you are accurately describing a real difference here. I believe that any society has two main choices:

1. An agreed-on way of resolving issues, or
2. Raging conflict - torches and pitchforks

I think that every way we can resolve issues is imperfect, always, as long as we are human beings. But I also think that some approaches are more likely to result in truth. The best approaches force the facts out into the open and encourage all sides to weigh in, on an equal footing, without allowing insults and passions to disrupt the process.

As Anabaptists, we believe in a third way.

The best approaches force the facts out into the open and encourage all sides to weigh in, on an equal footing, without allowing insults and passions to disrupt the process.

This is simply not how the political process (including courts) works.

[temporal1]

It’s hard to grapple with the idea that “my side is as bad as, or worse than,” [DJT].
It’s become specific that way since 2016, altho it’s all a total lie.

DJT is not specially evil.
It’s a popular lie, for political convenience. One day he’ll be gone, it will become obvious then.
Nothing will change. Another villain will promptly be trotted out.

[temporal1]

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.

Perhaps you should join a conference like mine, then, that takes an explicit stance again voting.

As opposed to a conference that takes an explicit stance that voting is OK.

Pearl clutching

[Bootstrap]

I think you are accurately describing a real difference here. I believe that any society has two main choices:

1. An agreed-on way of resolving issues, or
2. Raging conflict - torches and pitchforks

I think that every way we can resolve issues is imperfect, always, as long as we are human beings. But I also think that some approaches are more likely to result in truth. The best approaches force the facts out into the open and encourage all sides to weigh in, on an equal footing, without allowing insults and passions to disrupt the process.

As Anabaptists, we believe in a third way.

In my particular Anabaptist background, we believe in both:

1. Seeking first the Kingdom of God
2. Being subject to the governing authorities except when it goes against my allegiance to God
3. Seeking peace and justice and truth

And in all of that, finding ways to agree on how to resolve issues winds up being an important part of that third way. Rebellion against the government is not the third way. The third way doesn't make us the experts on elections or which politicians are most guilty. The talking points of political factions are NOT any third way as I understand it.

The best approaches force the facts out into the open and encourage all sides to weigh in, on an equal footing, without allowing insults and passions to disrupt the process.

This is simply not how the political process (including courts) works.

So we should prefer shouting matches and torches and pitchforks and January 6th? For Caesar, do you have a better alternative to juries and elections? If so, what?

Because it often sounds like some people want to tear it all down because it's not perfect.

I agree with Winston Churchill:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

Of course, there's only so much that ANY government can do. We don't expect government to be perfect. It's not the Kingdom of God. But what better alternative do you have to courts and elections?