Did Trump Pick Richard Grenell as VP
Trumpin For VP Pick?
A buddy of mine sent me a text. He thinks it might be Richard Grenell based on what Sebastian Gorka said.
Gorka mentioned... "This is not identity politics.. and no one is even talking about the pick".
What do you guys think?
I like Richard.
But if this is true. I am not sure it will help with the culture war.
What is your thoughts?
Yet, if Richard Grenell were the most qualified patriot you would turn him down.
That would be hypocrisy.
And yet...that isn't meritocracy.
Absolutely I would turn him down. I wouldn’t extend the invitation in the first place. Queers are destroying our country, our children and our culture. Would you pick marginally or even highly qualified satanist for your VP?
That isn't meritocracy then.
First: VP is not the role that dictates any of that.
Second: Tactically, a VP like Richard Grenell (or Carson, etc.) would create chaos in the left's camp as they would immediately do backflips in order to attack them for being gay or black or female, which would create massive implications.
Are you telling me you wouldn't vote for Trump if he chose Grenell?
What does it matter if we win, if we destroy the country in the process? Not being subservient to the Lord leads to the downfall of society.
And the ends don't justify the means. It's not worth it to "own the libs" if it means doing that which is wrong.
Satanism is ideology.
Sexuality is not inherently due to ideology.
Oh, but it is.
To have a propensity for a certain sin is not inherently due to ideology, but to accept a behavior as good, ok, and correct, especially when he claims to be a practicing Christian, is 100% an ideology.
If he can't read the Bible clear-mindedly enough to realize that homosexuality is sin, how can he be trusted to read any laws and come to a sound conclusion? Or to read the constitution and understand it?
When the New Testament speaks of sexual sin, it’s referring to sexual violence — like rape, slavery/human trafficking, sex with boys/children. Thats what the temple prostitution was all about.
The OT is a different religion based on legalism.
Pretty sure that it's satanic, communist pedophiles that are ruining the country.
Really not worried about a gay man who has stood by DJT since day 1 and continues to defend him on a daily basis.
You do realize that there are many, many gay people who detest the Leftist agenda, right?
Homosexuality goes against God, and therefore is for Satan.
When the New Testament speaks of sexual sin, it’s referring to sexual violence — like rape, slavery/human trafficking, sex with boys/children. Thats what the temple prostitution was all about.
The OT is a different religion based on legalism.
No hypocrisy here: Trump should pick a sufficiently qualified heterosexual, white, Christian man.
You cannot espouse meritocracy if you hold specific opinions like that.
Also, you may get away with the heterosexual and Christian bit, but you have zero religious standing for the racial bit.
Ben Carson is a better human than 99% of this country. As is Clarence Thomas.
I never espoused a total meritocracy, hence "sufficiently" qualified. Though also, and I made this same argument back when I was defending Amy Coney Barrett from people saying Trump was playing identity politics, but you can usually find a perfectly qualified candidate even if you decide they have to meet some qualification that's unrelated to merit.
The same applies here. Where it stops applying is when ludicrous lefties want to find some unicorn who's a black, gay, trans woman, since there aren't very many of them to begin with. When that is your criteria, you end up with someone unqualified. When your criteria is "straight white man" or "woman" your selection pool is like half of the available candidates because plenty of those kinds of people exist in our country.
Now, you're not totally wrong on race. If there was no good white candidate I'd agree, as my position is not "don't pick a non-white dude" but instead "pick a white dude", however there are absolutely plenty of equally good candidates that are white and so it should be no issue to pick one of them.
And I never said I had any religious standing for the white part (though I'm sure I could conjure something logical up. God did separate the nations, and gave different nations to different peoples), and because of that it's the qualifier I care the least about. However, until the demonization of the white race ceases, I'm perfectly fine holding to the position that white people should be preferred for these roles. That's an active preference for something, as opposed to a specific aversion to something.
Edit: Also, to be clear after rereading your initial comment, and since this comment mainly focuses on scenarios where there's no most qualified: I would absolutely turn down a gay dude even if he was objectively the most qualified.
Frankly, I'd argue that being gay precludes one from being qualified to run a country in the first place. Society can not stand on rejection of God. At that point we are already doomed to destruction and failure.
That of course doesn't apply to race, though I'd likely apply it to gender as well.