Jump to content
Online Baptist

Do You Agree With the Young Republicans


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

What do you think of the ideas they present as quoted in the article?

I fear that this direction for the party will bring MORE compromise on the issues of Biblical morality; therefore, I am much AGAINST it.  Furthermore, I fear that this direction for the party will return the party back to the weakness and softness that had developed before President Trump.  Truth and Righteousness have NO real room for compromise.  "Social inclusivism" is at the present time a political phrase that purposefully includes moral compromise.  As such, I find it Biblically unacceptable.  (Note: Although I would contend that not all which is called "racism" in present day politics is actual racism, I would strongly hold that true racism is a sinful wickedness in the sight of the Lord our God.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
5 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I fear that this direction for the party will bring MORE compromise on the issues of Biblical morality; therefore, I am much AGAINST it.  Furthermore, I fear that this direction for the party will return the party back to the weakness and softness that had developed before President Trump.  Truth and Righteousness have NO real room for compromise.  "Social inclusivism" is at the present time a political phrase that purposefully includes moral compromise.  As such, I find it Biblically unacceptable.  (Note: Although I would contend that not all which is called "racism" in present day politics is actual racism, I would strongly hold that true racism is a sinful wickedness in the sight of the Lord our God.)

I would appreciate it if you were more specific in your objections. Did you read the article?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I would appreciate it if you were more specific in your objections. Did you read the article?

Yes, I read EVERY word of the article (three times now, in response to each time that you have questioned me).  So, to be more specific:

Paragraph 3 read, "The GOP has a lot of really good policy, a lot of winning policies, but it does seem like often we can get caught up on the losing ones and fight like hell for them," said Cameron Adkins, a sophomore who is vice president of College Republicans at Columbia University. "When in reality, they're losing issues with the American people."

My response - It does not matter if particular issues are "losing issues with the American people."  It should only matter if a particular issue is right or wrong.  Society itself has NEVER been a good source for determining the standard of morality.

Paragraph 6 reads, "We should be attempting to expand our reaches, even if it does cost us" some of the more traditional Republican voters, he said. "I guess I'm willing to lose as long as we're doing the right thing."

Herein we have a "young Republican" saying that it would be good for "more traditional Republican voters" (that would be, "older Republicans") to be removed from (or at least have their influence removed from) the party.  Basically, this young person is willing for the "traditional" base of the Republican party to be removed in order that his own "young Republican" agenda can become dominant.  As for me, I do NOT want immaturity to dominate the party.  Now, he did acknowledge his willingness to "lose as long as we're doing the right thing."  However, I have to wonder if he is defining "right thing" according to "political correctness," "societal acceptance," or Biblical (God's) morality.

Paragraph 7 reads, "Clay Robinson, a leader with College Republicans at Arizona State University, also said he wants the party to focus more on inclusivity."

In our present political climate, that word "inclusivity" has become quite filled with "political correctness" and "political agenda."  As for me, I am NOT much in favor of "inclusivity" according to the present day political climate, since such "inclusivity" generally means moral compromise.

Paragraph 9 reads, "Several young Republicans specifically highlighted LGBTQ rights and climate change as essential to tapping into the Gen Z bloc, because Gen Zers are familiar with those issues."

 Even so, the above reference specifically to "LBGTQ rights" demonstrates the very moral compromise of the "political agenda" most often encompassed today under the term "inclusivity."  In addition (although not necessarily a moral issue, per se), I believe that the "climate change" agenda is full of deception and falsehood (especially since so much of it is founded upon evolutionary science falsely so called).

Paragraph 11 reads, "'I think the term 'conservatism' has been given this really bad rep for so long,' he said, predicting that the ethos of the party will evolve to become, for example, less religious and more forward-thinking."

Indeed, the phrase, "less religious and more forward-thinking," is yet another sign of the desire to compromise Biblical (God's own true) morality.

_________________________________

Was that specific enough for you?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
52 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, I read EVERY word of the article (three times now, in response to each time that you have questioned me).  So, to be more specific:

Paragraph 3 read, "The GOP has a lot of really good policy, a lot of winning policies, but it does seem like often we can get caught up on the losing ones and fight like hell for them," said Cameron Adkins, a sophomore who is vice president of College Republicans at Columbia University. "When in reality, they're losing issues with the American people."

My response - It does not matter if particular issues are "losing issues with the American people."  It should only matter if a particular issue is right or wrong.  Society itself has NEVER been a good source for determining the standard of morality.

Paragraph 6 reads, "We should be attempting to expand our reaches, even if it does cost us" some of the more traditional Republican voters, he said. "I guess I'm willing to lose as long as we're doing the right thing."

Herein we have a "young Republican" saying that it would be good for "more traditional Republican voters" (that would be, "older Republicans") to be removed from (or at least have their influence removed from) the party.  Basically, this young person is willing for the "traditional" base of the Republican party to be removed in order that his own "young Republican" agenda can become dominant.  As for me, I do NOT want immaturity to dominate the party.  Now, he did acknowledge his willingness to "lose as we're doing the right thing."  However, I have to wonder if he is defining "right thing" according to "political correctness," "societal acceptance," or Biblical (God's) morality.

Paragraph 7 reads, "Clay Robinson, a leader with College Republicans at Arizona State University, also said he wants the party to focus more on inclusivity."

In our present political climate, that word "inclusivity" has become quite filled with "political correctness" and "political agenda."  As for me, I am NOT much in favor of "inclusivity" according to the present day political climate, since such "inclusivity" generally means moral compromise.

Paragraph 9 reads, "Several young Republicans specifically highlighted LGBTQ rights and climate change as essential to tapping into the Gen Z bloc, because Gen Zers are familiar with those issues."

 Even so, the above reference specifically to "LBGTQ rights" demonstrates the very moral compromise of the "political agenda" most often encompassed today under the term "inclusivity."  In addition (although not necessarily a moral issue, per se), I believe that the "climate change" agenda is full of deception and falsehood (especially since so much of it is founded upon evolutionary science falsely so called).

Paragraph 11 reads, "'I think the term 'conservatism' has been given this really bad rep for so long,' he said, predicting that the ethos of the party will evolve to become, for example, less religious and more forward-thinking."

Indeed, the phrase, "less religious and more forward-thinking," is yet another sign of the desire to compromise Biblical (God's own true) morality.

_________________________________

Was that specific enough for you?

Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate you reply. 

Blessings to you and yours. May 2021 be a wonderful and healthy  year for you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/gen-z-republicans-see-new-era-party-after-trump-n1252220

Gen Z Republicans see new era for party after Trump.  I found this an interesting read. 

 

The GOP is dead. Good riddance. We now have a Uni-Party. 

My guess is a new party will rise up in the future one hopefully without the fraudulent RINOs trying to ride the wave of into power again like they did with the Tea Party or MAGA.

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 minute ago, E Morales said:

I believe the Republican party will need to become more liberal, to win back the White House in the future. We probably won't have anymore Christian president in office, because to win, they will need to be open with the LGBTQ movement, gay marriages, transgenders in the military, and abortion, more minorities in office. This is just the begging of the immoral life without Christ, here in America. Sad

The GOP will not win back anything, ever. It's a failed party. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 1/1/2021 at 7:22 PM, E Morales said:

I believe the Republican party will need to become more liberal, to win back the White House in the future. We probably won't have anymore Christian president in office, because to win, they will need to be open with the LGBTQ movement, gay marriages, transgenders in the military, and abortion, more minorities in office. This is just the begging of the immoral life without Christ, here in America. Sad

I saw the following cartoon that speaks to your reply.

Political cartoon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 32 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...