Is Beck becoming Divisive with Evangelicals?

[Redbaron007]

Here is an article/video regarding Beck's recent speech in Utah.

This speech may have done more harm nationally than help get the vote out in Utah.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...elicals-have-not-been-listening-to-their-god/

 

[Bikenut]

SLimebaugh has surrendered and Beck the wannabe is struggling. Limbaugh will not renew his contract. Beck is hearing voices.

I play a card game for which I try to analyze the strategic and tactical value of cards and positions. I have yet to put a good value on the Jokers, but the opponents' squeal when a Joker is played is a good indication of its effect. Trump is a Joker and our opponents are squealing mightily.

Trump is the embodiment, the voice, of the discontent and anger felt by people who have watched the liberal agenda destroy their freedoms, their rights, their incomes, and their way of life. The liberals know it and they also know that if that discontent and anger gets the chance to be heard in the White House the liberal agenda will suffer greatly. And, like any cornered rat, the liberals are hissing, spitting, and frantically fighting to keep their agenda alive.

Beck used to be spot on with just about everything but it seems, at least to me, that lately he has veered off into unusual areas.

 

[color of law]

You can't make money if there is no controversy to sell. Beck and all are in the business to sell advertising.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

Used to listen to beck in the afternoons here. His rhetoric became so negative I have deleted the channel from my radio. Too childish, not informative, a waste to listen.

 

[Redbaron007]

Trump is the embodiment, the voice, of the discontent and anger felt by people who have watched the liberal agenda destroy their freedoms, their rights, their incomes, and their way of life. The liberals know it and they also know that if that discontent and anger gets the chance to be heard in the White House the liberal agenda will suffer greatly. And, like any cornered rat, the liberals are hissing, spitting, and frantically fighting to keep their agenda alive.

Beck used to be spot on with just about everything but it seems, at least to me, that lately he has veered off into unusual areas.

My take is the liberal side of the political spectrum is using Trump to split the party, similar to Ross Perot, but without running a third party. If they can get those who don't like Trump to either vote third party or not vote; that's a vote for the liberal party nomination....hence what they want. The last two POTUS elections cycles have born this to be true; first McCain and then Romney.

Glenn is in his own world now.

Used to listen to beck in the afternoons here. His rhetoric became so negative I have deleted the channel from my radio. Too childish, not informative, a waste to listen.

He lost me a few years ago. He is becoming the epitome of doom and gloom. He has the sounds of an old Pentecostal preacher from about 75 years ago.....you're dyeing.

 

[solus]

now the democrats want Bernie to step down...

quote: Politico interviewed about a dozen Democratic lawmakers about the Bernie Sanders campaign and finds that a clear consensus is in the air: "The time has come, they say, for Sanders to start winding things down." The general view is that he can't possibly win and that if he wants to stay in the race, that's OK—as long as he starts directing his fire more toward Donald Trump than at Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps Hillary will offer Sanders a Cabinet post, such as HHS, where he can indulge all of his single-payer healthcare fantasies if Hillary wins the election,"
unquote.

http://www.newser.com/story/222373/democratic-lawmakers-times-up-bernie.html

i quit listening to both L & B a long long time ago when i decided i could take the time to decide myself without the emotionalism and bias reporting they and other spew...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

Trump is the embodiment, the voice, of the discontent and anger felt by people who have watched the liberal agenda destroy their freedoms, their rights, their incomes, and their way of life. The liberals know it and they also know that if that discontent and anger gets the chance to be heard in the White House the liberal agenda will suffer greatly. And, like any cornered rat, the liberals are hissing, spitting, and frantically fighting to keep their agenda alive.

The discontent and anger is completely understandable. A lot of people feel betrayed, sold out.

But history also shows that anger and the civil unrest and social breakdown deriving from the anger -- for possible example consider on the anti-Trump protesters -- most often favor the liberal, communist, and anarchist agendas. And note how much the liberal media has been stumping for Trump. CNN reported on a Trump rally in SLC a couple of days ago. From the video and discussion, viewers would have reasonably believed the rally took place in our large convention center with thousands in attendance. Nope. It was a small event center (think hotel ballroom) with a few hundred supporters in attendance.

Maybe the media just loves a controversy because it brings in viewers and raises ad revenue. Or maybe the liberal media knows that the surest path to a Hillary presidency is Trump as the GOP nominee.

Put into less conspiratorial terms, there are many in the GOP who won't vote for Trump. A recent poll indicates that Hillary would be very competitive in Utah if Trump wins the GOP nomination. Utah hasn't voted for a Democrat Presidential candidate in over 50 years. The last time Utah went Democrat was in 1964 when we cast our electoral votes for Johnson over Goldwater. The 3 previous elections were for the GOP, so we are back to 1946 (Truman) before we have a string of Presidential elections in which Utah voted for the Democrat. Even if the poll is wrong or manipulated in some way, to be able to manipulate a poll to show such a thing in Utah shows the extent to which much of the GOP grassroots has real issues with Trump.

In addition to those who would vote Democrat (or third party) over Trump, there are a lot more who probably just stay home and don't vote at all. That has ramifications all the way down the ticket. Remember when folks couldn't bring themselves to vote for Romney?

Hillary winning the presidency is terrible. Hillary winning with a majority Senate is catastrophic as the SCOTUS hangs in the balance. Hillary winning with a Democrat majority in both houses is probably the end of the Republic.

Losing a bunch of governorships and State legislatures would also be bad as one can easily see such losses persisting until after the 2020 census and redistricting.

Charles

 

[Redbaron007]

The discontent and anger is completely understandable. A lot of people feel betrayed, sold out.

But history also shows that anger and the civil unrest and social breakdown deriving from the anger -- for possible example consider on the anti-Trump protesters -- most often favor the liberal, communist, and anarchist agendas. And note how much the liberal media has been stumping for Trump. CNN reported on a Trump rally in SLC a couple of days ago. From the video and discussion, viewers would have reasonably believed the rally took place in our large convention center with thousands in attendance. Nope. It was a small event center (think hotel ballroom) with a few hundred supporters in attendance.

Maybe the media just loves a controversy because it brings in viewers and raises ad revenue. Or maybe the liberal media knows that the surest path to a Hillary presidency is Trump as the GOP nominee.

Put into less conspiratorial terms, there are many in the GOP who won't vote for Trump. A recent poll indicates that Hillary would be very competitive in Utah if Trump wins the GOP nomination. Utah hasn't voted for a Democrat Presidential candidate in over 50 years. The last time Utah went Democrat was in 1964 when we cast our electoral votes for Johnson over Goldwater. The 3 previous elections were for the GOP, so we are back to 1946 (Truman) before we have a string of Presidential elections in which Utah voted for the Democrat. Even if the poll is wrong or manipulated in some way, to be able to manipulate a poll to show such a thing in Utah shows the extent to which much of the GOP grassroots has real issues with Trump.

In addition to those who would vote Democrat (or third party) over Trump, there are a lot more who probably just stay home and don't vote at all. That has ramifications all the way down the ticket. Remember when folks couldn't bring themselves to vote for Romney?

Hillary winning the presidency is terrible. Hillary winning with a majority Senate is catastrophic as the SCOTUS hangs in the balance. Hillary winning with a Democrat majority in both houses is probably the end of the Republic.

Losing a bunch of governorships and State legislatures would also be bad as one can easily see such losses persisting until after the 2020 census and redistricting.

Charles

With regards to the poll you quoted; there has been a lot of scuddle-butt about that poll. No other poll has been this way; I'd have to research, but I think it was only one of two/three polls that had the Utah race competitive; the remaining had any GOP candidate in the the lead outside the margin or error.

The no voting has been an issue in at least the last two POTUS election cycles. Ross Perot was one of the other prior elections where the conservative/republican vote was split and a Democrat was elected. Bush 41 road in on Reagan's coat-tails for that election.

The Democrats learned a valuable lesson from the Perot debacle; confuse the GOP voters and the Dems will win. Again, in this cycle, they are trying to build a line in the sand so GOP voters will not cross from one to another. Its working.

Hopefully the congressional races will be more pragmatic and not follow the coat-tails of the potential POTUS. The good thing is, if both houses are lost, the Dems won't have a filibuster proof majority. It is mathematically possible for both to fall to Dems; however, the probability is low.

 

[utbagpiper]

With regards to the poll you quoted; there has been a lot of scuddle-butt about that poll. No other poll has been this way; I'd have to research, but I think it was only one of two/three polls that had the Utah race competitive; the remaining had any GOP candidate in the the lead outside the margin or error.

Noted and acknowledged. But as I wrote in my post, that any poll in Utah can show Hillary winning or even competitive shows the problem for the GOP.

Trump is almost nobody's second choice.

If he wins the nomination a lot of folks either vote for someone else, or sit out. Sitting out hurts the most because it affects the rest of the ticket.

If he is the plurality winner but is denied the nomination in a contested convention (and note how the media is now using the more positive term "open convention") his supporters feel cheated and do likewise.

The GOP is in a world of hurt here.

Hopefully the congressional races will be more pragmatic and not follow the coat-tails of the potential POTUS. The good thing is, if both houses are lost, the Dems won't have a filibuster proof majority. It is mathematically possible for both to fall to Dems; however, the probability is low.

The democrat majority will simply eliminate the filibuster rule if they get the majority. They and the media have successfully cast the GOP as "obstructionists" and will have no real risk in eliminating the filibuster.

If the GOP can't win the presidency and maintain the Congress after the last 8 years, we'll be looking at a full generation in the minority at least. Most likely, the Democrats destroy the constitution and the nation before the GOP or any other party even claiming to respect the constitution gets a chance to come back to power.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

Beck sees a zombie nuclear apocaliss around every corner. Beck is a Cruz supporter.

 

[Redbaron007]

Noted and acknowledged. But as I wrote in my post, that any poll in Utah can show Hillary winning or even competitive shows the problem for the GOP.

Trump is almost nobody's second choice.

If he wins the nomination a lot of folks either vote for someone else, or sit out. Sitting out hurts the most because it affects the rest of the ticket.

If he is the plurality winner but is denied the nomination in a contested convention (and note how the media is now using the more positive term "open convention") his supporters feel cheated and do likewise.

The GOP is in a world of hurt here.

The GOP is hurting because they have allowed the Dems to define them and insert division. They have allowed the Dems to divide the GOP; in the manner that they cannot unite behind a single candidate for president. If Trumps wins the nomination, many of the Cruz/Rubio/Kasich followers will refuse to vote, or vote third party, because of their distaste for Trump. IF Cruz wins, then the Trump or large block will not vote or go third party.....the Ross Perot effect. But they will be the first to criticize how/what is happening and blame everyone for not supporting their candidate. I understand their dedication to principles; however, politics is not always about principles, unfortunately, i's about winning with a candidate. The establishment loves this part.

Now on the flip side, the Dems will unite behind Hilary, because they don't want a Repub in office. The turnout for Hilary is a huge question mark for the Dems this election cycle. The Bernie voters will vote for Hilary, if they decide to vote. It is questionable the Bernie voters would even participate in the main election. Even if some set out, Hilary has a high probility in winning because of the divisiveness (stubbornness) in the Repub party.

The democrat majority will simply eliminate the filibuster rule if they get the majority. They and the media have successfully cast the GOP as "obstructionists" and will have no real risk in eliminating the filibuster.

If the GOP can't win the presidency and maintain the Congress after the last 8 years, we'll be looking at a full generation in the minority at least. Most likely, the Democrats destroy the constitution and the nation before the GOP or any other party even claiming to respect the constitution gets a chance to come back to power.

Charles

I'm not so sure they can eliminate filibusters; however, they can adjust the voting so a simple majority can pass. With those Northeast Repubs, It may not be too hard to get things passed....similar to ObamaCare.

I love the primary process. It is the whittling down off the field; but too often, peoples feelers are hurt because their candidate didn't make it, so they set out. I hope after convention, folks can set aside their differences and look at the bigger picture.

Oh, by the way, I think Beck has grown to be mentally unstable.....I think his fame/fortune is a result of his ability to sell doom/gloom through his religious perspective.

 

[solus]

Rush was thought of becoming unbalanced then everyone discovered he was, as Maher pointed out, quote: Maher added, “Possession, Rush? You’re also a drug addict. And you never got busted for possession.” unquote
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-rips-drug-addict-rush-limbaughs-freddie-gray-hypocrisy/

maybe bill needs to get the addy of rush's rehab facility...

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

The establishment higher-ups in the republican party has defined the republican party. Trump is a manifestation of what the republican party has brought upon themselves. Liberals taking advantage of this is neither new not unexpected.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=freedom+cacus

Beck, a Mormon, dumping on southern Christians is not the type of message that Cruz can afford.

 

[Redbaron007]

The establishment higher-ups in the republican party has defined the republican party. Trump is a manifestation of what the republican party has brought upon themselves. Liberals taking advantage of this is neither new not unexpected.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=freedom+cacus

Beck, a Mormon, dumping on southern Christians is not the type of message that Cruz can afford.

Beck went off the deep end with that earlier rant. Although Cruz has no control over Beck, distancing himself from him is probably warranted at this point.

The Liberals will use all tools in the war chest to win. Many Repubs don't recognize this.

 

[utbagpiper]

The GOP is hurting because they have allowed the Dems to define them and insert division.

The GOP is hurting because its base feels betrayed. Too many republican office-holders care a lot more about holding office than they do about actually getting the GOP platform enacted into law.

Now on the flip side, the Dems will unite behind Hilary, because they don't want a Repub in office.

Democrats and liberals enjoy a couple of natural advantages over Republicans/conservatives.

1-The former are naturally herd animals while the latter are naturally more independent. Politics is a team sport and so being so fiercely independent that you can't work with others is not an advantage. Even on this site notice that folks who agree on 98% of all firearms and RKBA related issues will get so sideways with each other over a 1 or 2% fringe issue (WMDs, where OC ends and brandishing begins, etc) that they will refuse to even have future discussions, instead tossing out the occasional, childish insult. Obviously, such an attitude doesn't lend itself to working with others who may have material disagreements in other major areas of public policy.

2-Liberals and Democrats seem to be far less bound by any personal commitment to integrity, honesty, or playing by the rules than is your typical conservative (I deliberately omit "republican" here). Or at the least, the liberals seem to have less to lose through criminal conduct than does the conservative. Liberals spike trees and cut brake lines on heavy equipment. Conservatives write a letter to the editor. Liberals will vote in GOP primaries when doing so might benefit them or their candidate. How over do conservatives vote in Democratic primaries?

I'm not so sure they can eliminate filibusters; however, they can adjust the voting so a simple majority can pass.

The filibuster is just a rule of the Senate. It isn't constitutionally enshrined. It can be changed or eliminated like any other rule.

Oh, by the way, I think Beck has grown to be mentally unstable.....I think his fame/fortune is a result of his ability to sell doom/gloom through his religious perspective.

I wouldn't know.

While I love the existence of talk radio and Fox News for providing an alternate voice to the rest of the media, I personally can't stand the format for more than 5 minutes at a time. And I most certainly can't stand the commercials. So, if I listen to 5 minutes twice a week, I've gotten more than my usual allotment.

That said, I think one treads into very risky territory by overtly mixing religious doctrines with politics. A church with more than a couple dozen members is sure to have a diversity of political views represented among its members and introducing political divisiveness by suggesting that church doctrines require voting for one candidate/party over the other is just asking for trouble. On the flip side, political success requires cooperation among people with lots of different and sometimes conflicting religious beliefs. There is no need to alienate political and social allies by bringing up religious doctrines with which they may disagree.

Obviously, a man of faith will be guided by that faith in his political and social decisions. But when one says that this doctrine or that demands a vote this way, that intrudes into others' personal understandings of those doctrines that may differ from our own.

Charles

 

[Redbaron007]

The GOP is hurting because its base feels betrayed. Too many republican office-holders care a lot more about holding office than they do about actually getting the GOP platform enacted into law.

You are correct, the base feels betrayed....especially since Ross Perot did his thing. But even before then, the base starting feel betrayed with Bush 41 for stating, No More Taxes...then getting suckered into raising taxes. Then Perot came about, furthering the split. Then Bush 43 came to play. Without 9/11; it was speculated Bush 43 wouldn't have been re-elected; however, with the emotions and his character, he pulled it out. Aside from Reagan, this was the only time the GOP was really united with their candidate.

Democrats and liberals enjoy a couple of natural advantages over Republicans/conservatives.

1-The former are naturally herd animals while the latter are naturally more independent. Politics is a team sport and so being so fiercely independent that you can't work with others is not an advantage. Even on this site notice that folks who agree on 98% of all firearms and RKBA related issues will get so sideways with each other over a 1 or 2% fringe issue (WMDs, where OC ends and brandishing begins, etc) that they will refuse to even have future discussions, instead tossing out the occasional, childish insult. Obviously, such an attitude doesn't lend itself to working with others who may have material disagreements in other major areas of public policy.

2-Liberals and Democrats seem to be far less bound by any personal commitment to integrity, honesty, or playing by the rules than is your typical conservative (I deliberately omit "republican" here). Or at the least, the liberals seem to have less to lose through criminal conduct than does the conservative. Liberals spike trees and cut brake lines on heavy equipment. Conservatives write a letter to the editor. Liberals will vote in GOP primaries when doing so might benefit them or their candidate. How over do conservatives vote in Democratic primaries?

From a Presidential election perspective, the underlined above is very true. The Dems will sacrifice their political leanings to defeat a conservative/GOPer; hence why they will rally around whomever the nominee is. Unlike the GOP/Repub/Conservatives who generally are independent thinkers and somewhat principled individuals, will rationalize their not voting or voting 3rd party as a protest vote against the primary candidate because of mainly one, or at most, two issues they don't agree with. Many on the right are one/two issue voters and if the candidate doesn't meet those expectations for their one/two issues, then they tend to not vote or vote 3rd party, or even vote for the liberal candidate, just to 'show those guys'. Romney is prime example; the evangelicals did not show up for him like they did for McCain. Was it the religious differences? It's hard to nail down, but it is estimated 2 million evangelicals did not go to the polls for Romney, but did for McCain.

Until the base realizes this, they will always be divided. Once they realize there will never be a candidate they will make most GOPers happy, then they can begin to enjoy the election process.

Most people think politics has been a Principled position. It has always been about power and who can gain the most. Most people have no idea the politics being played now was also happening centuries ago; today, they just have different tools and we have 24/7 news/reporting cycle.

The filibuster is just a rule of the Senate. It isn't constitutionally enshrined. It can be changed or eliminated like any other rule.

True, however the Senate president would have to rule it unconstitutional and the senate, I believe 2/3, has to vote it out; which is highly unlikely unless the party in power can muster the 2/3rds vote or have their party in 2/3rds of the seats, again, highly unlikely in this election cycle. However, they can manipulate the rule as they have in the past.

I wouldn't know.

While I love the existence of talk radio and Fox News for providing an alternate voice to the rest of the media, I personally can't stand the format for more than 5 minutes at a time. And I most certainly can't stand the commercials. So, if I listen to 5 minutes twice a week, I've gotten more than my usual allotment.

That said, I think one treads into very risky territory by overtly mixing religious doctrines with politics. A church with more than a couple dozen members is sure to have a diversity of political views represented among its members and introducing political divisiveness by suggesting that church doctrines require voting for one candidate/party over the other is just asking for trouble. On the flip side, political success requires cooperation among people with lots of different and sometimes conflicting religious beliefs. There is no need to alienate political and social allies by bringing up religious doctrines with which they may disagree.

Obviously, a man of faith will be guided by that faith in his political and social decisions. But when one says that this doctrine or that demands a vote this way, that intrudes into others' personal understandings of those doctrines that may differ from our own.

Charles

Would agree with the above, and the underlined/bold is very well stated.

 

[Redbaron007]

Beck? When does he start serving Jim Jones brand KoolAide?

Very good Question....I think the time is near.