AOL: Did the RNC just compare Trump to Jesus in official Christmas statement?

Source

The quote from Reince Priebus in particular caused a bit of a stir on Twitter:

"Merry Christmas to all! Over two millennia ago, a new hope was born into the world, a Savior who would offer the promise of salvation to all mankind. Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King. We hope Americans celebrating Christmas today will enjoy a day of festivities and a renewed closeness with family and friends."

What do you think? Personally, I can see why it would be construe as such with the way he worded it and given Priebus' position Trump assigned him, but this might be a bit overblown.

You know, when I clicked on the link, I chuckled, thinking that there's no way Reince would say something so stupid like that. That is until I copied and pasted the quote and found it on the official GOP page. LINK

Those Republicans sure do love the constitution! lolol

The bar for kings just dropped the ocean floor.

Wow, a comparison to Jesus and an implication of monarchy in a single sentence. I'm impressed.

I thought I Republicans were for less government.

Lies!

Not as funny or topical as this.

Wow, the republicans are just getting more and more insane. And this election seems to have validated their insanity.

What a time to be alive... shudders.

Yes they have. they parrot talking points and do no independent research.

Maybe they were comparing him to Edward I?

He expelled Jews for almost 400 years.

Obviously, they have know idea who Jesus is, I would seriously like to know what the Evangelicals think about that statement! Surely this has to be blasphemous to their ears! lol

They've been busy supporting a party that is antithetical to his core teachings.

The evangelical community, as a group, will think what they're told to think provided it comes from the proper party.

Using this logic, I guess Clinton and globalist elites represent all Democrats?

Not all Republicans blindly love Trump, and there are those of us (that while happy our party is back in power) will be critical if he uses his power to promote a false sense of freedom. (The Carrier deal for example being corporate welfare).

You can certainly use the actions of party leaders to criticize the party, absolutely. Just as the Democratic party leaders reflect on their own party, so too do the leaders and their official statements/actions reflect on the Republican party.

There is a big difference between criticizing the party, and categorizing everyone registered Republican as insane. Its the same as calling every Democrat a sheep because their party decided to push a corporatist to the generals.

In fact I welcome those to criticize my party, as that is how the political system improves for everybody.

Oh lord, if we have to add and addendum to every reference to "The Republicans" stating "Well, not all Republicans - the party represents a diverse population with a modicum of beliefs - but rather those leading, directing, and acting on behalf of the party on an official basis" then conversations will get extremely tedious and night unreadable.

Sorry to have triggered you.

There is no addendum. You'll just sound more informed criticizing the party rather than every individual associated with it. For example, The Democratic Party is corrupt (It is, but in that statement I didn't blanket millions of voters into one known fact).

Criticizing parties is essential and I am an advocate (Constantly critical) on parties both side of the aisle. Blanketing everybody associated though as insane is comical and uninformed, so it will be called out. Hardly a triggering statement.

My point is that when you're referring to the actions of party officials, the context is sufficient. This is, of course, the chairman of the party saying this on an official party communication.

Not that I think the incident itself is all the egregious, really. Reports indicate that they're preparing for some significant policy changes that a lot of people will be unhappy about, and this is little more than a funny incident.

This should be made more clear, as not to blanket millions of people into the actions of a select few. The context isn't sufficient as it refers to all republicans as insane, so of course it will be called out in open discussion.

Repealing Obamacare is a pretty popular idea among the electorate as indicated actually:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html

Pre-existing conditions will stay sure, but if 51% of Americans polled on Avg. want it repealed considered to 43%, obviously more Americans would rather see steps towards seeing it dismantled. So this statement doesn't seem to include the 50%+ happy about those changes.

Also considering more Americans favor tighter border and stricter immigration policy, many if not more people will be satisfied with his presidency (domestically) at-least if he follows through.

@luckylucious: Referring to the medicare and social security proposals, actually.

And many Americans support privatization of Social Security as well.

"8-11 Gallup poll* shows that 63% of Americans favor private investment of Social Security funds, while 33% oppose the idea and 4% have no opinion. Responses to this question have been very consistent since Gallup began asking it in June 2000."

Sure many are unhappy, but your statements fails to regard the majority unless you're talking about Medicare (Which just happens to be so since many Americans are engrained in that system). Also considering more Americans favor tighter border and stricter immigration policy, many if not more people will be satisfied with his presidency (domestically) if he follows through.

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/6091/privatization-paradox-americans-social-security.aspx

That's for privatization - for investing into stocks and bonds similar to a 401(k) account. That is not the proposal written up which includes cuts to both Medicare and Social Security, both of which do not have majority support and which the president elect famously promised to guard against.

It seems like you cut out the part in my quote where I said Medicare is supported by the majority, also not acknowledging that to privatize SS cuts do need to be made to the system. So in that sense a large amount of Americans are uninformed since they do prefer a private option (Not surprising).

.. They do this with every single one of their candidates, in saying he is chosen by god.. Though pretty disturbing, this has been going on for a long time with every big candidate of theirs..

I didn't cut out anything, not really sure what you're saying or implying there. I thought maybe you had edited after I quote it but it still appears to be identical - so.... don't know *shrug*

But I'm not manipulating your posts. I don't play that game - it's stupid. Sometimes I may cut portions out of a long post to focus on one idea rather than an entire dissertation, but I haven't even done that in this thread.

But yes, the point that people are ill informed on these complex policy matters is integral - privatization of social security sounds nice until you mention that the plan includes cuts. Or that if the economy goes into another recession then the funding may run dry. I'm always amazed at how many people don't even understand that equities carry risks, LOL.

You tell them that you want to cut social security and medicare benefits, though - that they understand.

I added that quote at the last second, you probably replied to the original post which included both. My b.

However I think the point still stands that a majority don't know what they really want, but the argument can be made that a majority want to see a massive overhaul of social security that includes privatization, which Trump and Repubs seem to be pushing for.

Very few Christians these days understand what the Biblical Jesus stood for.

No you don't. You get rather salty when someone criticizes your party.

Idk but I do know Donald J. Trump is our new God Emperor.

Please point out an instance in quotes, where I've done that. Bad troll is bad.

Best post so far

@luckylucious said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

No you don't. You get rather salty when someone criticizes your party.

Please point out an instance in quotes, where I've done that. Bad troll is bad.

It was very clear from the context he was talking about the party. So it's obvious you took offence to that and then hid behind "Not all republicans!" as a simple strawman argument.

Besides I don't see how criticising party supporters is unfair anyway. They're the ones who voted for a theocratic anti-freedom party, so it's not that unreasonable to assume they share those views, and if not then they're very ignorant.

"Republicans are getting more insane" = the party now? He said "The Republicans" which implies all republicans. Had he meant the party he would've said the "The Republican Party." Context doesn't apply here.

Not really, just calling out a generalization that occurred, which should be done in open discussion. I doubt I'd get offended off a forum post.

Never said that. I said generalizing all party supporters into blanket statements is unfair, maybe you should re-read my posts.

And the Democratic party voted for a globalist corporatist party pawn flooded with special interest money. Guess we should assume all Democrats share those views as well if we're going to use that logic.

Edit: Also still waiting for this quote that proves I'm a party rat who gets offended lol.

Ikr.

Trump Sucks!

@Maroxad said:

Oh wait I forgot Jesus voted for Bernie in the primaries.

@luckylucious said:

Oh wait I forgot Jesus voted for Bernie in the primaries.

That is a pretty poor strawman. Taxation is not robbery. I dont like paying having to pay TV taxes to own a TV, but under no means is that the government robbing me. It is more or less a part of the deal I signed up for by choosing to live in my country. If I dont like it, I could choose to move to another country.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" -Jesus

It is pretty clear where Jesus views lied on taxation.

Of course, you could argue that my image contained a strawman of republicans as well (I dont think the GOP demonizes the homeless). Which is fair enough. But that doesnt change the fact the image I linked had a point. Unlike the complete strawman that was your image.

The Republicans == The GOP. When I said republicans I thought it was pretty clear who I was referring too.

In the past, I also argued for that the democrats were out of touch. This of course, was referring to the democrats in power and not the democrats as a whole.

When someone says the democrats or the republicans, that usually means the party itself... which in turn generally means those in charge of said party. Another example would be that I would argue also that the Catholics are going in the right direction. But that doesnt mean all catholics are going in the right direction.

Hm lets talk about this one;

"Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."

Christ does establish that in his time, the Government is Ceasar's so taxes should be paid towards it. This quote is usually used by secular progressives who wish to catch christian conservatives in hypocrisy, heres the flipside:

We learn from Luke in the Bible in a later chapter that the Pharises were sent to question Jesus as a way of reporting him to higher authority: “watched him and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might catch him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor.”

In essence, Jesus was corned into this question and answered wisely, by moving God to an entirely seperate category, had he spoken up against taxes he would most likely be imprisoned (like anyone else in Roman times).

Resla Aslan gives a good narrative on the interpretation of the quote:

"Religious studies scholar Reza Aslan gives us a different reason to think that Christ was a critic of government. “The word apodidomi, often translated as ‘render unto,’” says Aslan, “is actually a compound word: apo is a preposition that in this case means ‘back again’, didomi is a verb meaning ‘to give.”

Source: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/jesus-want-pay-taxes-scripture-scholarship-say/

“In other words, according to Jesus, Caesar is entitled to be ‘given back’ the denarius coin, not because he deserves tribute, but because it is his coin: his name and picture are stamped on it… by extension, God is entitled to be ‘given back’ the land the Romans have seized for themselves because it is God’s land.” - Resla

In conclusion, we see no advocacy of taxes by Jesus and when he does talk about them, he includes God into a separate category to re-assert everything is God's creation.

Hardly a proponent, and well had he been openly critically it is most likely he would've been imprisoned on the spot. In other words, he was smart while re-asserting that the Govt is a separate entity from God and God is higher authority.

The meme you posted doesn't account for that many of those things can be done individually through private charity, which Republicans seems to be a huge advocate for. In other words, your meme is a poor strawman that disregards private charity contributions and those of individuals, and assumes the Govt must have a foothold in those programs to make any real difference.

Source: http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/republicans-most-generous-people-in-the-world-democrats-not-so-much

Also the meme doesn't account for the fact that Republicans simply give more to charity than Democrats, which renders all 4 of those points useless when trying to demonize the party for not caring about those struggling.

Lets talk about this as well. First off there is no contract and you didn't choose to live here, you were born into it. Which means most of your life is integrated pretty well into the system and considering these thoughts don't come into mind until the mid-teen age, simply moving isn't an option for most people.

"Yet you are robbed every day. Every month at least one third of your income is taken from you forcibly, without your consent. It is taken by the government. And yes, even if only a few realise it, that too is theft! For just how does government differ from a mugger? Why is the state’s “protection” racket different from that of any other gangster? Both conform to the dictionary’s definition of theft - the seizure of individuals’ property without their consent. "

Taxes aren't an optional procedure, there is no consent and trying to justify moving when most are integrated into the system is a poor straw-man that neglects the integration into the system by millions of Americans.

Source: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin044.pdf

Yes, that is exactly what they did and there is no need to question the logic of it at all.

Lulz. It's like the media has not a single clue about the state it is in and just continues to double down on the stupid shit.

The medias main use right now is to report on what twitter says and to shuffle an endless array of talking heads onscreen virtue signalling about how they and the people that slurp up their shit are morally superior to anyone that questions the narrative.

What a joke journalism has become. I don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.

Trump is Jesus though. We had an eight year period of darkness, full of socialism, and now we have returned to white light of God blessing America with his new son President Trump,with a side of pussy grabbing no less.

Glad you're seeing the light!

I have to say despite what most are saying I love his cabinet picks. We need business people who aren't concerned with their legacy running the country. They tend to execute.

That makes way too much sense. It must be wrong.