The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

Home » Forum » News » Election

Seriously but not literally...

Quote Reply
Seriously but not literally...
Charles Lane of the Washington Post writes in a recent op ed:

<<If they gave Pulitzer Prizes for pithiness, journalist Salena Zito’s analytical couplet on the surprise winner of Campaign 2016 would get one. The press took Republican Donald Trump “literally, but not seriously,” she wrote, whereas Trump’s supporters took him “seriously, but not literally.”>>

The whole piece can be found here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/take-trump-seriously-and-literally/2016/11/16/cbdcf2c8-ac25-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.50d494361b72

As I read about our President Elect, I find I am dismissing nay-sayers by remembering this quote. And..as I read about how Trump's changes from his campaign rhetoric don't bother his supporters, I understand them by remembering this quote.

So far, so good…as far as I am concerned, although I am waiting to see the real test of dismantling Obamacare and replacing it with something that does not live up to the nightmare of Obamacare's predictions. If the goal for Obama was to ruin this country, he certainly went about it well, especially with the Affordable Care Act.

It was, however, very difficult NOT to take The Donald literally. After all, we have just been burnt because most of us did not take Obama literally. "Fundamental transformation" anyone?

I took Trump literally, except when I thought about taking him seriously, whereupon he did or said something so outrageous that I went back to my previous opinion of him.

So far…so good. Keep it up and make me eat crow. As he surrounds himself with good people (white men…OMG) I feel more and more hopeful. I worry much less about the color and sex of his advisors, etc. and more about the content of their minds.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Seriously but not literally... In reply to
Jeanne: Hi.

There are some questions surrounding a Trump presidency however which only time will and experience will reveal.

Such as:

How can a US President simultaneously run a billion dollar business empire and the Country. Surely there's a massive conflict of interest?

Are we going to see a USA 'to hell with it' attitude to global warming. Trump apparently believes it is entirely a Chinese scam having only just recently overtaken the USA in global co2 emissions world champion nation.

I'm sure there are many more questions we would like to see answered. Being positive is all very well, but what we get to know depends almost entirely on what the media 'feed' us. Judging from the copious misinformation that characterized the whole presidential campaign, I think you are going to have a job sorting the 'wheat' from the 'chaff' or even really knowing what is actually going on. I fully expect a homespun rosy, feel good picture to emerge from Trump supporting media and a series of profiles of the anti-christ to emerge from reactionaries or those few sections of the media willing to report the nastier aspects of a right wing takeover, such as you mentioned happening at ground level on the street or in the public forum.

It is interesting how what goes around, comes around. Deja vous is a funny thing.

I seem to remember the USA started a war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein a powerful national leader, who lived in a golden palace, strongly supported 'law and order', wanted to make his nation 'great again', gave positions of political power to his relatives and family and had popular support of the people, with executive oversight of an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Still something like that could never happen in the USA . . . . . . . . .seriously or literally, could it? Laugh Frown huh?

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Nov 19, 2016, 8:20 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Seriously but not literally... In reply to
Hello Chris,

How can a US President simultaneously run a billion dollar business empire and the Country. Surely there's a massive conflict of interest?


I am pretty sure that Trump has a board of directors who can run his business effectively while he serves as President. Besides, John Kennedy was wealthy and served as President. There was no conflict of interest then and I don't see one now.

Are we going to see a USA 'to hell with it' attitude to global warming. Trump apparently believes it is entirely a Chinese scam having only just recently overtaken the USA in global co2 emissions world champion nation.

I once did a research paper on global warming, Chris. I discovered that the polar ice caps on both Mars and Pluto were melting. No one has ever explained how the emissions from my automobile can affect those planets. It appears to be a universal problem and. I am reminded of 2Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." Could it possibly be that we are heading for that day?

I took a survey earlier tonight. It dealt with the issues I felt most important for Trump to deal with during the first 100 days of his Presidency. Most dealt with problems such as securing our borders and rebuilding our military or getting illegal aliens out of the country. I was asked how important these issues are and, I believe they are extremely important. Personally, I believe our troops should be pulled out of those countries where we know they are hiding terrorists and al funding stopped that is going to them as well. There should also be a complete trade ban on them

In addition, I would eliminate all funding to the United Nations and use the billions we spend there to accomplish more for our legal citizens. The U.N. is a drain on our economy and does nothing to help any nation in the long run. Let's do away with it and put things where they belong.

One last thing: It has been said that, "Charity begins at home." The lesson from that is simple. Donald Trump was elected to uphold the Constitution of the United States. His concern is to secure and protect our citizens and our nation. He should do exactly that and let the rest of the world deal with its own problems.

Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Seriously but not literally... In reply to
Jeanne, as I wrote way back already, the Trump that America was shown on TV was not the true Donald Trump that I watched and heard in context. At our Republican meetings we watched large segments of various rallies, with the protests left out. They served no good except to wake the silent majority up. Those distracted many people from listening properly. By "properly" I mostly mean by not knowing what Trump was mostly saying, those words kept from practically all TV and radio audiences. They repeated a few favorite outrageous lines from Trump, heard on all channels, even FOX, keeping new material off record. Some of his larger statements of little substance were included, but mixed with talking heads shaping ho patrons ought to regard them. It was all a serious blow to integrity of the press. That sort of election manipulation should not be protected, surely not intended by our founders.

Churches made those rally videos available, and contrasted Hillary's rhetoric against Trump's. Enough high profile Christian leaders arose to endorse Trump to wake us up big time. Ever since the 1950's the Church has feared doing that out of a dread of losing tax exemptions. It turns out only one church lost that, but regained it after a court battle the IRS lost. Now too many people know other religious groups, including Muslims, promoted liberal candidates, opposed conservatives. Many of us remember from the 1990's Bill taking over black church services on radio, without prohibition, while the rest of us kept our mouths shut.

We know. That law was a breach of free speech, and could be repealed or replaced under Trump. Why should Christian churches be the big target? The early Church stood up defying government persecutions, and did so this year.

I think the main idea is not to replace the Affordable Care Act with another handout. The need is to put it all back the way it was, assuming it isn't too late to get insurance premiums back to reasonable levels in time to save that industry. The act itself is what drove the medical costs up, which was a totally Obama's Progressive liberal idea of government single payer status. The resulting bureaucracy is the "who done it to us" force.

The solution will include reducing harmful regulations of businesses, forming good policies that will energize our economy, producing more jobs. A small rise in employment will have a profound effect that should quickly spur more business, creating even more jobs. The way we had it was for businesses to provide insurance benefits they can afford, paid for by customers of those employers. Then, when the economy is back in good health, the nation could afford medical mercies that wouldn't affect the costs of medical services. That will be sped up by not giving illegal aliens the same rights as our citizens who actually pay the taxes, by restoring our national sovereignty. Enforcement against employers paying them cash will help tremendously, keeping the dollars here, not wired south of the border so they can live in relative luxury in retirement back home.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men.....DG
Quote Reply
Re: [dovegiven] Seriously but not literally... In reply to
Amen!!!