Do You Agree With the Young Republicans

[Bouncing Bill]

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. 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

No, I do NOT agree.  I really do NOT find it wise to let immature youth set the agenda, either for a church or for a country.

[Bouncing Bill]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No, I do NOT agree.  I really do NOT find it wise to let immature youth set the agenda, either for a church or for a country.

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

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.)

[Bouncing Bill]

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?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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 January 1, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Bouncing Bill]

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.

 

[SureWord]

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 January 2, 2021 by SureWord

[SureWord]

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. 

[Bouncing Bill]

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.