A lot of numbers in this article, but here is the gist:
Indeed, if we add in the number of non-white evangelicals (about 20 percent), the number of evangelicals ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction (since 28.9 percent of Americans identify as evangelical and 6.5 million Americans have a felony conviction, we can estimate that nearly 1.7 million would be ineligible), the number of “culturally Christian” voters who identified as evangelical, and so on, the actual number of evangelical Trump voters would be even lower, likely between one-third (roughly 35 percent) and two-fifths (about 40 percent).
Whether you consider that final estimated number to be too high or too low, one thing is certain: it is substantially less than the 81 percent figure that is being touted as representing the voting figures for our faith community.
Something came up in conversation earlier today about the donkey and elephant of American politics and I found myself intrigued as to the history of it. From History.com, the donkey has a great history:
The origins of the Democratic donkey can be traced to the 1828 presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson. During that race, opponents of Jackson called him a jackass. However, rather than rejecting the label, Jackson, a hero of the War of 1812 who later served in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, was amused by it and included an image of the animal in his campaign posters.
The Republican elephant is a bit less interesting:
[T]he pachyderm didn’t start to take hold as a GOP symbol until Thomas Nast, who’s considered the father of the modern political cartoon, used it in an 1874 Harper’s Weekly cartoon. Titled “The Third-Term Panic,” Nast’s drawing mocked the New York Herald, which had been critical of President Ulysses Grant’s rumored bid for a third term, and portrayed various interest groups as animals, including an elephant labeled “the Republican vote,” which was shown standing at the edge of a pit.
Both animals were solidified as political representations by Thomas Nast in the late 19th century. I love nerdy things like this.
Don’t get caught up in manipulative words. Communism doesn’t work nor has it ever and it has been the cause of more deaths in the 20th and 21st Centuries than the Nazis.
De Blasio also spoke out about his distaste for the chicken chain during a recent unrelated press conference, urging New Yorkers not to support the restaurant. "What the ownership of Chick-fil-A has said is wrong. I'm certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn't urge any other New Yorker to patronize them."
The left is getting really weird lately. I was raised with the phrase “sticks and stones” echoing in my head, but NYC mayor, Bill De Blasio is trying to convince hungry, chicken-loving New Yorkers that they shouldn't go to Chick-fil-a, not because of any bad treatment of customers or employees, but because of the personal, biblical views of the owners. Great customer service, high ratings with employees, solid business. But bigots.
Yeah.
Trigger warning: sandwiches may cause feelings of holy conviction. Only eat if you aren’t… chicken.
"Does it have to be unified?" he asked. "I'm very different than everybody else, perhaps that's ever run for office. I actually don't think so."
He went on: "I think it would be better if it were unified. I think ... there would be something good about it. But I don't think it actually has to be unified in the traditional sense."
Donald Trump declared Monday the U.S. never has to default on debt "because you print the money," while clarifying his strategy for managing the national debt.
He also repeated his claim that he is "the king of debt."
"I understand debt better than probably anybody. I know how to deal with debt very well. I love debt -- but you know, debt is tricky and it's dangerous, and you have to be careful and you have to know what you're doing," Trump said.
Believe in our nation’s founding principles, believe in our rights, believe in God, and we will ultimately prevail. No matter who is president and no matter how far down the path to Socialism or Fascism our nation goes, each of us must still stand for Liberty. As long as we stand up for our principles and our rights — for each other — we will continue to win.
Each of us must still feed our families, must still defend freedom, must still be honorable.
What is happening in this election is normal. If you think it’s abnormal, you aren’t looking back far enough into history. Civilizations go through this. Societies aren’t a straight line of growth. There are down waves for every up wave.
My post last night wasn't me taking a seat, but me taking a stand. We must stand for Liberty, for Freedom, and for our Constitution. Let's not forget that.
During my early twenties I struggled in many ways. I left Catholism because I read my Bible and discovered too much that didn't line up with Catholic teaching. I found my way into Calvinism, and now laughingly call that my "cage-stage Calvinism" period. I pulled away from politics, not because of my own feelings or opinions but because politics left a bad taste in my mouth. In high school I debated to win, but— despite being a cage-stage Calvinist— politics felt like there was no point aside from winning. So I dove headstrong into theology. Debating theology had a point. Jesus. Politics didn't.
And then I got married at 25. Marriage started to change my views on politics and religion. Instead of aligning closer to Libertarianism, I started to align closer to Conservatism. The importance of our society's future started to matter to me. At 27, I found out that I was going to be a father and my political views on marriage, adoption, abortion, and much more started to solidify and I stood up as a Republican, the closest political party I could identify with. Fiscal conservative and social conservative. That was the Republican party.
Even then I realized that most Republicans weren't fully conservative, but instead more center-right. The Tea Party was trying to revive the Constitutional stance that the Conservative movement was founded on. Maybe I was closer to them.
And then last year as every Republican threw their hats into the arena as candidates for POTUS, I got to take my pick. There were a few good ones, but only one was strong enough: Ted Cruz. I have stood by Cruz since the early days of this election cycle. Even today, I stand by Cruz.
But apparently the Republican Party wants something different. They want the worst stereotype of American conservatism. White nationalist, xenophobic, nearly Fascist Donald Trump. A man that has been a Democrat until 2 years ago. A man that has been everything the definition of "establishment" entails. A man that has a well documented relationship with the Clintons and has publically backed many Democrat congressmen and congresswomen and many Democrat presidents. A man that cannot articulate a view on abortion and thinks that women should serve time for having one. A man that considers himself the best information on foreign policy. This dolt, this jackass, this absolute bumbling fool that cannot tell an ass from an elephant or a men's room from a women's room is what the Republican Party wants for their next President.
So you can have him. I won't be voting for him. My family won't be voting for him.
Many politicians, even Republicans, would sidestep this kind of confrontation to save face. But Cruz gives humble, honest answer about the importance of law and order and the need for immigration reform.
