JeanP

[From "Is God Judging America Today?"]

Some leading evangelicals believe and teach that America is now experiencing God’s judgment.

If that is the case, as a public servant who is sacrificing so much in your attempt to turn our nation around, it would stand to reason—if those Evangelical leaders are correct—that you are wasting your time. Are you laboring against a foregone conclusion? I think not. But let me qualify that: I do not believe America is experiencing the forsaking wrath of God, but yes, American is experiencing the consequential wrath of God.

I will explain what I mean by those terms—theological terms that you should have a working familiarity with—in this study.

Read on, my friend.

[...]

In Romans 1:18– 32 notice the following five identifying characteristics that surface when God pulls back and allows a person or group of people to go in the way of their wicked desires. I.e., God no longer restrains the fallen nature of man as He usually does.

[...]

Further down in this section of the passage suppressors became futile in their speculations (dialogismo). Speculations is perhaps better translated into the English understanding of “argumentation or reasoning.”3The Greek sentence structure here carries the idea of the vanity that results from godless reasoning. Accordingly, professing to be wise they became fools (moraine). It is not difficult to figure out the meaning of moraino given its English transliteration: moron.
[...]
Man is created in the image of God whereas the remainder of the created order is not (Genesis 1:26). Therefore mankind is separate, special and superior as it relates to all God has made. It explicitly follows from Genesis 1:26 that mankind is not equal or subservient to all that God has created; conversely he has preeminence over creation and the environment. Properly understood, God has appointed man to be His steward over the earth.

Clearly indicative of God’s forsaking wrath is when the abandoned serve the creature rather than the creator.
[...]
Indicative of forsaking wrath is a proclivity toward lesbianism and homosexuality.

In this next portion of the passage Scripture indicates the direct result—what is secured—is a depraved mind.
[...]
Men and women inherently know what are the right and wrong things to do. A good understanding of the flow of this passage, and what depravity means is summarized by this thought: the mind that finds God worthless becomes worthless itself. It is debauched, deceived, and deserving only of God’s wrath.
[...]
Consequential wrath is best understood through the parallel idea we commonly refer to as sowing and reaping. Galatians 6:7 states, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” To illustrate in one of many ways: If a person or a nation sows debt, it will reap in due time the results of financial crisis. Whenever an individual or corporate group of individuals violate the inviolate precepts of God’s Word, he, she, they or the institution will suffer the respective consequences. Most assuredly America is facing this form of God’s judgment.

Let us backtrack now and answer the question whether America is experiencing the forsaking wrath of God. Unlike the ease of answering the question of the existence of consequential wrath, ascertaining the possible existence of forsaking wrath requires a much more complex biblical analysis. What follows are six reasons why I personally do not believe America as a national entity, is presently subject to the forsaking wrath of God.
[...]
America is not similar to Sodom and Gomorrah, in the sense that there were not any faithful to be found (cf. Genesis 18:22–33). In fact to the contrary, America today is populated by tens of millions of faithful followers of Christ!

Many are those who have glibly postured, “If God does not judge America, then he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology!” But such thinking fails to take into account what went on between Abraham and God in Genesis 18:22–33 before He judged Sodom and Gomorrah!
[...]
In fact, today’s America is not by in large characterized by people who are unfaithful to God’s precepts. Conversely, there is only a small minority of individuals who are grossly disobedient to God, individuals to whom the five indicators of Romans 1 apply. Unfortunately for the vast majority of faithful individuals in America, too many of the unfaithful have been allowed by the faithful to gain high positions of influence in our culture: high positions in our government, our educational system, our media and our entertainment industry. This is tragic, unfortunate, and costly.

Those individuals who are rebuked by God’s forsaking wrath are largely responsible for God’s consequential wrath on our nation.

[From "Democracy Dies In "Darkness""]

We learned back in the President Monkey days that negroes appear awfully tribal in their voting practices. After all, you don't hit 100% support in Detroit without a few dudes shutting off the civilized parts of their brains and getting no further than "LOOK LIKES ME=GOOD". I was more than willing to assert these motives to them.

I was mildly surprised to see the Washington Post agree with me though: negroes vote as part of social groupthink without any sort of intelligent independent thought whatsoever.

Okay they didn't quite say it like that. But not that far off, frankly.

As we show in our new book, “Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior,” the generally unified preference among black Americans for Democratic candidates (in 2016, according to exit polls, the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, won 88 percent of the black vote, compared with 8 percent for Republican Donald Trump) reflects not unified political preferences, but a social process by which black Americans hold one another accountable for voting in favor of the party that is understood to best represent the group as whole.

Um...wow. So this book by Ismail K. White and Chryl N. Laird (aren't you missing a vowel in there, Cheryl?) is essentially saying that when niggers vote, they all are expected to share their vote with each other and therefore all express their vote as a block.

That's such anathemia to the entire concept of liberal democracy that WaPo (as noted in the clever pun for the post title) is supposedly so committed to. To have their pages be used to say "well, for civilized white people maybe. niggers would prefer to club anybody over the head for supporting it" is hilarious.

This isn’t to suggest the absence of some fairly wide policy agreements among African Americans, but rather that without this social process, the degree of partisan unity at the polls would not hold.

Oh, that's much better than isn't it? Wait, no. It would be bad enough if negroes were a massive voting block like Wahabbi Muslims who all fervently support all the exact same policy goals. For them to all have different ideals and principles and priorities and interests and then to still mass ignore or abandon them as part of their tribal loyalty is really sickening. I've written before that letting [I]women[/I] vote was generally a bad idea but who knew that extending it to other races would be such a disaster? Well, the Washington Post, presumably.

The lesson to take from what we know about why black voting is steadfastly Democratic in general elections, and to apply to the primaries, is that candidates seeking to consolidate bloc-like support from black voters have a twofold job. First, without party identification as a shortcut for political decision-making, the candidates have to prove to black voters that they have unique claim to the likelihood that they will represent the interests of the black community

Without a "LOOK LIKES ME=GOOD" and it's close cousin "HAS 'D' IN THEIR PARTY NAME=GOOD" shorthands, heaven forbid, negro voters will have to forego the mental shortcuts they maintain to replace rational decision making and instead resort to...

...um, too...?

Second, they need to show that they can deliver on the black community’s understood interest in beating the Republican, particularly President Trump, in the general election. These two criteria can consolidate the impression that a particular candidate is clearly best for the group

So replace "HAS 'D' IN THEIR PARTY NAME=GOOD" with "ORANGE MAN=BAD", I suppose. In the meanwhile, remember that part I quoted at the start about 88% voting for Hillary and "only" 8% of blacks voting for Trump? Halfway through their article, White/Laird revisit this point by mentioning that 85% of black voters recently said they would vote for Warren/Sanders head-to-head against The Donald. Still tribal, but less so apparently. Is the legendary "shy Tory" effect at play even when it comes to the primitivized negro vote? Apparently! (WaPo, incidently, dismisses talk of a surge of Trump voters just because he's polling almost double what he got in 2016. Black voters aren't the only tribal ones around here...)

Meanwhile the discussion about the since-vanquished Mini-Mike is even more illuminating:

Bloomberg’s recent rise is perhaps most revealing about the trade-offs black voters face in the Democratic primary. As a mayor who, for years, embraced and perpetuated a stop-and-frisk policy that targeted African Americans and Latinos, Bloomberg is not well liked among black Americans. The January Post-Ipsos poll found Bloomberg had only a 29 percent net favorability rating among African Americans (with the caveat that many of those polled had either never heard of him or had no opinion) — compared with 69 percent for Biden, 63 percent for Sanders and 51 percent for Warren. In the same poll, among registered black voters, nearly 14 percent reported they wouldn’t vote in the general election if Bloomberg were the Democratic nominee — compared with 6 percent for Biden, 8 percent for Sanders and 10 percent for Warren. Lastly, when asked who would be the best candidate at addressing issues that are important to the black community, only 3 percent of black Democrats identified Bloomberg as the best, compared with 32 percent who selected Biden and 19 percent who chose Sanders.

Ignoring the fact that the biggest beneficiaries of stock-and-frisk are the poor negro communities that have most violent and thuggish of their citizenry suffering instead of them (the Professional Niggers® don't understand this: as this article makes it clear, rational thought continues to elude them), apparently their opinion of how a Bloomberg Presidency would improve their lives has little to do with what his policy goals actually are and instead is completely dependent on whether or not he would win. Better the guy who would (apparently) cause them harm than somebody they are trained like apes to dislike that would implement policy goals they approve of.

That this speaks ill of negro voters apparently occurs to White/Laird, who finish their article off by trying to mischaracterize negro voters as being better than they really are.

Many of Bloomberg’s priorities remain at odds with more policy-grounded group interests of black Americans.

Leftists always lie. niggers don't have policy-grounded group interests. They remain petty, tribal, and uncivilized.