Christianity Today editor calls for Trump to be removed from office

[90DayFinancier 910]

 

Christianity Today, the flagship Evangelical magazine, called for President Trump to be removed from office in a new editorial.

The piece, attributed to Christianity Today Editor in Chief Mark Galli, notes that the magazine’s “typical approach” is to “stay above the fray,” allowing readers to “make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible.”

But the editorial criticized Trump, saying “[T]he facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”

Galli continued, noting that the president has, in his opinion, lowered the standard for presidential decorum, openly admitted to unsavory interactions with women and has worked with a "number of people who are now convicted criminals."

“The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration,” Galli said. 

“His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused,” he added. 

 

 

 

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/475386-christian-today-editorial-board-calls-for-trump-to-be-removed

[Dashinka 24,492]

The facts are unambiguous?  Was this writer watching the same House hearings most of us saw?  Oh right, the House rules were so fair.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

21 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The facts are unambiguous?  Was this writer watching the same House hearings most of us saw?  Oh right, the House rules were so fair.

 

 

  They are in the sense that they lack ambiguity. Perhaps that's why they refer to them as facts.

[Dashinka 24,492]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  They are in the sense that they lack ambiguity. Perhaps that's why they refer to them as facts.

So there is only one interpretation of what was presented?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

So there is only one interpretation of what was presented?

 

  Are you still going for that alternative facts thing? Otherwise the word "fact" has a pretty clear and specific definition, that being "something that is known to be true".

[Boiler 45,486]

Tell Pelosi, she is the one holding things up.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

51 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So there is only one interpretation of what was presented?

It's a Christian, he doesn't like Trump, and has just as much knowledge (which is, none) of the situation in question as the star witnesses the Democrats brought before the hearings -- it really has nothing to do with facts, or truth, it's all about confirmation bias and identity. It's a Christian therefore credible and proof that my views are correct! 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

The significance is this: 

Any substantial shift in opinion of white evangelicals would be a serious blow to Trump's reelection prospects according to pollsters

 

 It remains to be seen if this represents a shift in the vote for evangelicals.

 

Regardless, 

"His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused,” he added. "

 

[Boiler 45,486]

We keep on coming around to what is the other option, did you watch the debate?

[Dashinka 24,492]

5 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Are you still going for that alternative facts thing? Otherwise the word "fact" has a pretty clear and specific definition, that being "something that is known to be true".

Considering there are a lot of different interpretations out there on this issue including whether the articles drafted and adopted actually include facts, shows the House output is very ambiguous.  The “facts” are certainly not cut and dry other than there was a phone call, aid was delayed, but received, the President directly said he wanted nothing for the aid, and the WH would have relented to allowing witnesses if compelled legally.

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It's a Christian, he doesn't like Trump, and has just as much knowledge (which is, none) of the situation in question as the star witnesses the Democrats brought before the hearings -- it really has nothing to do with facts, or truth, it's all about confirmation bias and identity. It's a Christian therefore credible and proof that my views are correct! 

Wait, I thought all evangelicals were of one mind?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Wait, I thought all evangelicals were of one mind?

The nature of confirmation bias seeking (especially in context of the left's identity politics) in this fashion is precisely to single out an "identity" they disagree with ("Christians", "Republicans", "white males", "southerners", etc.), find a dissenter, then inflate how meaningful it is. It's effectively self-mindscrewing. Normally people might, you know, adjust to reality, but the left seem all to steadfast in playing out this otherworldly act like things are going to bend to their whims when it isn't. It's why when independents like me come along and set them straight, they handle us worse than they do the easy-to-dismiss GOP slappies. Or, people like Glenn Greenwald, Tracey, Taibbi, etc., who, despite being severely on the left, get lefty backlash like an ex who cheated on every one of their readers by daring to disagree with a narrative the "identity" they belong to decided for them to espouse. But, the good news is, in a capitalist society, when there's a demand, there surely will be a supply just waiting to oblige this self-serving inanity:

 

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-just-six-senate-votes-away-impeachment-651857

TRUMP IS JUST SIX SENATE VOTES AWAY FROM IMPEACHMENT

8/17/17

 

At some point in 2019 (if not sooner) a Republican Senator may walk into the Oval Office and say to President Trump: "Mr. President, we don't have the votes," at which point the Trump presidency will end in a resignation or a conviction in the Senate.

This scenario actually occurred forty-three years ago this summer when Republican Senator Barry Goldwater walked into the Oval Office and told Republican President Richard Nixon that they didn't have the votes in the Senate to save his presidency.

Following impeachment in the House, a trial takes place in the Senate. Conviction requires two-thirds of the Senate and by my count there are already twelve senators who have shown a willingness to take on the president when they believe he is in the wrong.

If you add that to the forty-eight Democrats in the Senate (who have shown no inclination to work with this President), Donald Trump could be six votes away from conviction in the Senate.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

Franklin Graham slams Christianity Today for invoking father's name in call for Trump's removal

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-graham-christianity-today-remove-billy-franklin-impeach

[Dashinka 24,492]

Apparently there are a lot of evangelical Democrats out there.  Who knew.

[fascinating123 38]

The fact is Trump, like his predecessors, has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. The commander in chief has continued to wage wars across the globe, wars that were never authorized by a congressional declaration of war. The raid he authorized in Yemen in January 2017 resulted in the murder of an 8 year old American girl, Nawar al-Awlaki by a member of US armed forces. Trump has never denied that he ordered those troops into Yemen and there has never been a congressional declaration of war on Yemen. That raid was unconstitutional, and as such Trump should be impeached and removed from office. And yes, this means that Bush and Obama should have had the same fate, the fact that they didn't is unfortunate, but not an excuse for continued abuse of presidential power to wage war. 

 

I don't care about phone calls to Ukraine or threats to withhold money from Ukraine because I don't think the US government should be dispersing money to other countries. I care about limited government and opposing empire. You won't see anyone from "the resistance" mentioning the above reasoning for impeaching Trump because they want the same war making power when their person is in office. The whole thing is a sick joke, meanwhile people are dying and resources are being thrown away for destructive purposes. It's disgusting and it's long been the end of the republic. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Are you still going for that alternative facts thing? Otherwise the word "fact" has a pretty clear and specific definition, that being "something that is known to be true".

Their star witness clearly said Trump wanted nothing from Ukraine, that said witness ASSUMED Trump wanted something.

 

That fact?  Or have they moved on to someone else's assumptions at this time?