/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Donald trump. I know he's not going to be able to do most of what he says, but he'll at least get the wall built. Which is his main promise.

>>9461

Are you a Christian?

The wall being built seems really unlikely to me, assuming he wins. The idea of making Mexico pay for the wall, unless he's willing to use the military or offer something they really want, they won't do it. Mexico is a pretty powerful nation in its own right, and the participating world (including people within America) seem largely opposed to the notion.

If the wall is built, it won't be Game of Thrones. It has to be backed up by a strong ideology of duty, honor and loyalty, or you'll see what you see in many other countries where the guards deal with the smugglers to sneak people in constantly.

Pretty much, even if he wins, I don't see it happening. If it does and it lasts a decade, it will be an incredibly impressive achievement that will be remembered forever a la Hadrian's Wall.

>>9462

>Are you a Christian?

I don't go to church, but yes.

Also, yeah, the next liberal president after trump will probably tear it down. but if it works, the people might appose it being torn down.

>>9463

>I don't go to church, but yes.

So, you're a Christian just like Trump is

>>9462

I don't see a wall being all that hard. Trump's already set expectations of what sort of flimsy wall he's talking about, set a cost in the single-digit billions which isn't much, especially when he's implicitly threatening the 50bn or so in imports from Mexico.

He does not strike me as a rational man, that is, someone bound by the rules of the game that other "leaders" are bound by. Y'know, annoying things like treaties and international laws, that sort of "garbage". And, let's face it, that's why his supporters love him. With Trump anything seems possible, even making Mexico pay for a wall.

>it won't be Game of Thrones

No, and neither is Trump setting that expectation. It'll deter the least determined entrants, but won't keep the drug cartels or the more determined immigrants from entering.

I certainly don't see it rivaling anything Hadrian built.

>>9458

>Who do you like for president and why?

Personally – and I know this will trigger folks – but I still think the old Jew (Sanders) will be the best of them all, simply because he's the only one out of all of them that has said anything determinedly pro-middle class.

Trump will be out for Trump, bottom-line, and yes, by accident that might even be good for the country. Hilary is only going in for her womyns and Wall St. backers. Cruz, as a lawyer, and husband to someone that runs one of the investment banks, is also going to be a pro-Wall St. hack. And Rubio will be announcing the end to his campaign shortly – probably the end of the month, I'd say.

Frankly the only one that will shove Wall St.'s dick back in their own pants and out of everyone else's pockets is, ironically, the Jew. Now, I don't think he'll get to make college free like he wants, nor raise taxes to 90%, but he might preserve Obamacare for another four or eight years, which should seal its fate.

And he's been consistently re-elected in a north-eastern Republican state, which means he's probably closest to my moderate politics, despite some of his more lefty proclamations… so, yeah.

He won't win. The election IS going to be Donald-v-Hilary and since the Donald simply WILL NOT carry the evangelical or picket-fence Republican vote, turn-outs will be low, and Hilary will win fairly comfortably, an outcome I once thought I might welcome but I really don't think I do now.

>>9467

There aren't any orthodox chruches where i live, fam.

>tfw

>>9462

>Hadrian's Wall

meh

>>9468

Then what's the point? The people who do the most damage will still get through, and money will be wasted on such a thing. It really can't be just about racism, he's not dumb but perhaps someone might vote for him for exclusively racist reasons.

If he had legitimate interest in stopping illegal immigration he'd put the pressure on the industrialists and small business owners who hire them, enable them, and drive down the price of native labor. But then, would they still vote for him if he actually hinders their enterprise, instead of just "pretend"?. I think you're right in that his rhetoric and populist tactics are more about painting himself as a canvas upon which the voter, to some extent, can project his own ideology.

>>9469

I like Sanders as well, and I wouldn't dismiss him so easily. I think the scare tactics and smear campaigns against him from the right and the shillary crowd have been pretty ineffective against his base of young people. They're pretty close still, there's still hope.

All the Hillary crowd has got as of yet is pure ideology. "Oh she's a woman", so fucking what "boo, misogynist". Even the right wing at east tries to come up with some more complex criticism of the opposition and support for their own platform.

>>9481

I agree many of her supporters are susceptible to identity politics. She won on the solid black vote in the south. Ninety percent of blacks in Mississippi voted for Hillary; and eighty percent in Alabama and Georgia.

I like Sanders, but even if he closes the gap the superdelegates will all go for Hillary in our undemocracy. The older generation treats socialism as a swear word too, and with that degree of stigmatization they won't vote for him no matter how much integrity he has. Socialism is so taboo they'll vote for Hillary who is for both big business and big government, rather than the politician who wants to hold weed out corruption and make leaders accountable for their actions.

>>9483

I don't think that's the actual quote, but I am amused nonetheless

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-institutional-racism/

>>9482

>I like Sanders, but even if he closes the gap the superdelegates will all go for Hillary in our undemocracy.

Yep

>The older generation treats socialism as a swear word too, and with that degree of stigmatization they won't vote for him no matter how much integrity he has. Socialism is so taboo they'll vote for Hillary who is for both big business and big government, rather than the politician who wants to hold weed out corruption and make leaders accountable for their actions.

Very, very sadly, agreed.

What the heck is with /christ/ here – sane thought, liberal views, only one Trumpster – is this the non-/pol/ version of /christian/?! Is that what we also lost when we dropped the "ian" from the board name?

>>9482

That's a very distinct and scary possibility. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to stay optimistic. I would, without question, take Trump over Hillary because accelerationism. He'd also be much funnier and I just really dislike Hillary Clinton as an individual woman.

That said, even if Bernie won, I would expect some Europe-tier (adapted for the American material conditions) reforms, not actual socialism. I'm not naive enough to think the rich will ever allow us to vote away their wealth and power.

>>9484

Agreed. If they become citizens, at least then we could begin putting pressure on the bosses again for higher wages, healthcare and humane treatment. Not as good as a mandate from the top, but better than what's happening now.

>Abso-flooping-lutely, but that would be anti-business and no Republican can be that, now can they?

I used to think I understood the Trump vote, but now I'm not so sure. Is it a "best out of a bad situation" type deal? Do people legitimately think he's some kind of populist with the interests of the American "common man" a la Jackson? This is difficult for me to grasp with his very very very obvious corporate/ultra rich background. Cruz has the religious vote for sure. Trump has the racist vote but that can't be such a huge portion of the populace. What else is there, because there's something else in that mix.

>>9486

I'm pleasantly surprised as well. It's pretty interesting.

>vote for me, I'll be the first woman President.

Ugh. Pic related is my fantasy with all this. Put her on top.

>>9494

I think Sanders has to play the game to some extent, so I personally forgive some of the less Marxist things he engages in (the nuclear stuff and the idpol, the Idpol especially because it could be tackled in a leftist way rather than putting the liberal veneer on it). I also think that a hypothetical socialism in America would not be the same as it has been in Venezuela (and I'm sure there's been good and bad down there from what I've read/heard from ex-pats), due to the starting abundance of resources, the vast population, the infrastructure in place and, most importantly, the lack of opposition. I've mixed feelings about Chavez to be sure, but I think things would have been different had the U.S. and friends not opposed Venezuela so.

Still, I doubt we'd even get to that point. Bernie doesn't even admit he's a Marxist still. Or rather, he can't. My gut says revisionist Marxist-Leninist

>>9497

>accelerationism its a very dangerous position.

You're dammed right it is. I promise you if it comes to that, no one outside of anonymous laotian file-sharing communes will know that I voted for Trump. What would they think of me?

But, if its between Hillary and Trump… I've a feeling if he wins, all his failures and bad decisions will expose the fundamenta issues with the system that we have. Hillary could explain a lot of those away to her liberal followers, and the right will cal her a socialist and use her as evidence for why "leftist" policies suck. So its just y way of trying to ameliorate a bad situation. A really fucking hate her too.

>>9497

The chans hate Cruz cause there's not that many people here that are super-evangelical American protestants, or care more about their religion than racial stuff. To be fair though, I haven't been to /christian/ in a long ass time, so maybe there's Cruz supporters there. But not /pol/ or any of its derivatives. He's a beaner, don't you know? In the real world, he's insanely popular, on par to Trump in some states and actually beating him by a significant margin in others. States full of religious people that are further away from the mexican border, like Kansas, are a good example of the kind of people Cruz can work with really well.

>>9495

>That said, even if Bernie won, I would expect some Europe-tier (adapted for the American material conditions) reforms, not actual socialism. I'm not naive enough to think the rich will ever allow us to vote away their wealth and power.

this

>>9506

>he government even larger

I'll speak only for myself. This is not the end goal, only a means to an end. The government (if guided right) is the only defense the people have against corporatism. I find all other alternatives unsatisfactory.

>Why would you want to make people even more dependent on government subsidies and handouts?

I don't want that at all, myself. I would like to see the workers getting material compensation closer to what their labor is worth (and its worth as much as they are willing to take from the industrialist). The conditions of the poor would be improved so that they don't have to be "on the dole", as liberals like. Its a tool of manipulation by the upper class to satisfy the petite bourgeoisie while appearing as a "savior" to the destitute poor. Right, "savior" like a man who beats a dog mercilessly and then gives it a treat for performing a meaningless trick.

>claim to be Christian and even consider voting for a pro-abortion candidate

I'm quite pro-life, personally. I happen to care about life all throughout its existence, not just after it exits the vagina. I won't sugarcoat it though, its an unpleasant compromise either way. So many of the things that Republicans support, directly or tangentially, are absolutely despicable and immoral. They have to be rationalized away, or say "well, you know, that's life. Better this than the other guy".

So I say to you, better this than the other guys.

>>9506

what this guy says >>9507

>This is not the end goal, only a means to an end. The government (if guided right) is the only defense the people have against corporatism.

Yes, this

>>Why would you want to make people even more dependent on government subsidies and handouts?

>I don't want that at all, myself. I would like to see the workers getting material compensation closer to what their labor is worth (and its worth as much as they are willing to take from the industrialist).

I would go further because "worth" is what the market sets it as, and we all know that just means $6.50 because there's usually no other employer in town. I believe "worth" should mean whatever dignifies the individual as a human being, that they are able to survive on that wage in the place they are living. But, I'm with anon here, I have no desire for the state to be mother to everybody. I would rather have make-work schemes than a straight-out "dole", where someone can work for the scheme, earn enough to survive, and have at least two days available to search for something better.

>>claim to be Christian and even consider voting for a pro-abortion candidate

>I'm quite pro-life, personally.

I agree that this is probably the biggest reason for opposing the Democrats, but on balance it simply cannot be the ONLY reason. Republicans need to do a better job providing a real alternative than to constantly rely, year-after-year on stupid evangelicals voting by their Bibles. Because, ultimately, this imperfect union will always be a compromise, and, right now, a majority of people want the right to choose, however repugnant the consequences. Until that changes, trying to game the system to restrict abortion rights isn't really saving lives. What NEEDS to happen is not for abortion to be tweaked at the edges, regulated, and have Planned Parenthood defunded of its pittance it gets from the federal government – all token efforts – what NEEDS to happen is the slow, painful wrenching of the mass public consciousness toward comprehensive abolition. If every woman in America said "No" to abortion, the issue would be gone tomorrow. pics definitely related

Oh, yeah, but that's right… there's no votes in that.

>I happen to care about life all throughout its existence, not just after it exits the vagina.

Oh, yeah, and this, too.

>>9509

One of the incredible notions that some people on the right have, which I honestly think can only be explained by ignorance and lack of exposure (hopefully), is that people just want to get abortions. I've worked with pro-life groups in their clinic, and I never once saw a girl or couple there that was like "Yeah, abortion, whatever, not a big deal, I'm just here for free cookies and then I'm down the street to get this thing outta me". They are physically and psychologically painful for the mother, and each abortion reduces her chances of being able to get pregnant in the future. People don't make these decisions lightly. Aside from religious reasons, one of the biggest motivators for abortion is poverty. Young kids who can't afford a child, and who's parent's cant really help them. For adult people, I would say poverty is the greatest reason, as they don't even have a stigma or angry parents to deal with. This is especially true for minority groups, blacks specifically.

I think the number of abortions can be significantly reduced by lowering poverty rates. Restricting abortion would be less effective than this. In an ideal world, I would do both and get the most effective pro-life solution, but this election doesn't allow for that.

Interestingly enough, we all got along very well in that pro-life endeavor, despite the place being Catholic and many of us being different denominations/religions.

>>9511

>syndicalist

oooooooooooooo, an ACTUAL syndicalist on MAH /christ/ !!! WOW this board is the forking OPPOSITE of /po… I mean /christian/

More power to you, brother.

That said, I think anon, here >>9512

>How would you remedy the inequality of power and ownership over the means of production through this dialect?

… has a point. The Pinkerton era demonstrates that, in America, at least, unionism will remain considered a "communist backdoor" and until that is thoroughly dispelled, the middle-man is going to have to stay as an honest broker. Refer the Accord era in Australian labor relations. (To be fair, that was the end of unionism, but nevermind the details)

>>9512

>I'll admit I'm not super well-versed in syndicalism. Seemed like a less anarchist version of anarcho-something.

You're thinking OF anarcho-syndicalism which is fair enough since every dictionary and encyclopedia seems to confuse the two. Not sure about anon >>9511 he seems to talk about syndicalism as just being a place where unions exist or have equal power, whereas syndicalism is more like where the workers actually run the companies, not negotiate with them.

Anarcho-syndicalism is the libertarian version of the far-left, a more democratic answer to communism, where in communism the state organises and controls everything from the top, syndicalism has the workers in each individual factory be the managers of their own enterprise, and then form federations to enable the government …. well, actually, I'm not sure A-S actually conceives of nations existing in the ultimate version because to anarcho-syndicalists, the state is a tool for the preservation of private property.

When you're done reading about anarcho-syndicalism, go read about Christian anarchism. Not saying I agree with everything, but their citing 1Samuel 8 is compelling.

>>9514

>where in communism the state organises and controls everything from the top

Remember that communism is the end goal of any Marxist-inspired political system not anything that has ever happened in history. Communism is a stateless, classless society where all the workers control and own all the means of production. Alienation and scarcity have to be non-existent, and dehumanizing labor must be automated. The rest is vague. Anything other than that is not communism.

The top-down stuff is, well, various other socialist systems inspired by an ideology (Marxism-Leninism, anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism, Hoxhaism, Maoism, Trotskyism, etc.) This is what leftists mean when we might say "we've never had communism, its never been done". What we've had are various attempts to get to that point with various degrees of success and failure. Anarcho-anythings usually want to bypass the middle-stage and go directly form Revolution to "Communism" (or its non-Marxist analogue).

>syndicalism has the workers in each individual factory be the managers of their own enterprise, and then form federations to enable the government

Sounds kind of Titoist… or some less authoritarian form of Market Socialism.

Anarcho-syndicalism seems to me like a compromise with the current world. Just by wanting to preserve the state in any way, shape or form, even in the end goal, is a huge departure from many other leftist ideas. To each his own but I would think you have to go all the way and completely abolish all the pillars and relics of capitalism in order to fully be free from its tyranny.

"We want Hillary Clinton to win. She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda."

>The KKK grand dragon … told the press that Hillary is simply "telling everybody what they want to hear" in a bid to get elected President of the United States. The KKK leader said that this is because she's the wife of former president Bill Clinton, saying that Hillary is "close to the Bushs," adding that once she's been elected, "her true colors" are going to become visible for all to see.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2888727/hillary-clinton-kkk-california-grand-dragon-supports-clinton-for-president/

>Rubio's down for the count

>will suspend his campaign after today

The unfettered path to President Trump awaits

>>9525

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/15/politics/marco-rubio-drops-out/index.html

Told ya.

Cruz won't win broad party appeal. Kasich who has run on a $2 campaign will collect the balance, but unless everyone, including Cruz, bows out and gives all their delegates to Kasich, sorry Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, Trump will be the nominee and quite possibly the President.

Hands-up those who think Trump only got into the race to spoil shit for the Republicans soak-up all the tea party votes and guarantee Hillary the Presidency?

No, seriously.

Think about it; he's chummy with Dems as much as Reps; he's walking around a complete parody of himself; he's always had fairly moderate positions until last year; he was a Reform candidate f'fksake; he's got no one to impress except his own ego…

What's he get out of it? She pays for the wall and Trump Construction gets the contract.

So, y'know, what he's always wanted: money.

https://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz

Very detailed, very interesting…

… And apparently I'm still a pinko, commie scumbag

>>9535

>tfw

>>9584

>>9584

>Bring back CHRISTIANITY in mainstream society. Let us say Merry Christmas, etc. Return to god.

>Build the wall. Deport illegals. Remove leeches.

Either serious or high satire but either way, something about seeing these two statements in one greentext with the intention of cohesiveness inspired me to make this shit.

>>9594

I lel'd

bottom text needs to be a different colour, it's too hard to read