Horrifying Republican response to Bishop's sermon

[JessaWoo]

These are tweets from Matt Walsh on X about Bishop Marian Budde and her sermon earlier today in Washington, attacking her womanhood and ability in a sexist and ageist tirade. It seems the clarion call has gone out to the rest of the Trump X minions, as they are all tweeting the same sentiments - including Kellie-Jay Keen and Donald Trump Jnr. Rep. Mike Collins całłed for her deportation, although she is American. Do you still support Trump after this?

“A liberal woman over the age of 50 with a lesbian haircut is guaranteed to support the most evil ideas and policies that mankind has ever conceived.”

“Just take one look at this witch and you know everything you need to know about her, even before she starts talking.”

“Of course this grotesque display is coming from a female “priest.” You will only ever hear heresy and inanity from someone whose whole existence is blasphemous.”

And another tweet from Bo Loudon: “🚨BREAKING: A bishop at the National Cathedrol just urged President Trump to protect transgender children and not deport illegal aliens because "they're not criminals."

Pure class from President Trump as he sat through this despicable politicization of the prayer service.”

Speech text:
““In the Name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now,” Budde stated. “There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families. Some who fear for their lives.

”The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat-packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals. They may not be citizens, or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.”

Budde asked Trump “to have mercy” on people “in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away and that you help those who are fleeing warzones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here.

“Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were all once strangers in this land,” she continued. “May God grant us the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, to speak the truth to one another in love, and walk humbly with each other and our God.”

Earlier in her message, Budde stressed the importance of unity, of respectfully disagreeing with one another, but also expressed concern over what she called “the culture of contempt” and feared “the loss of equality” for some who lose in political debates.

What a horrible, divisive message this is! 🙄 Personally, I think Budde's message is courageous and beautiful, and clearly deeply Christian at its core.

Gosh yes. It was rather long and had 3 whole different things in it.

So they can despise a man/political party for example for behaviour/s

This is one view.

and also think that they cannot believe that a person/party on the opposite side is responsible for the man/party getting into power due to their inability to accurately reflect reality [and that they were literally mutilating children],

This is a second view.

and also be squealing with delight at the meltdowns when actual reality is put back into law.

This is a third.

Nope. Still incomprehensible. The second part, particularly.

@AlisonDonut

and also think that they cannot believe that a person/party on the opposite side is responsible for the man/party getting into power due to their inability to accurately reflect reality [and that they were literally mutilating children],

Are you saying here that they (ie. you) can't believe the Democrats are responsible for Trump being elected? And now you're squealing with delight at the meltdowns?

"However, a great many do support at least some of Trump's policies"

What person in a country is not going to support any policy by the political party in power simply based on the fact that, even though that one policy is a good one, it was a policy by that government?

It is like the discussion about denouncing anyone who says a policy, influenced by feminist groups, is not to be supported because it was signed by an abhorrent person. What lobbyist groups operate in such a tribal and siloed way and are considered successful?

Do lobby groups effectively shut down during times when the political party they support is not in any position to influence decisions? I didn't think so, but maybe I was wrong. Does that mean that when a political party gets into power that the lobby group opposes that they simply stop lobbying the political party in power to enact the changes they seek?

What happens if it is 8 years (or 14) before the party they support gets into power? Can they then morally stand up and say they did everything they could to enact change in those intervening years? If they refused to lobby to the government at the time, I would say that no, they did not do everything they could to enact change when they should have.

@JessaWoo wrote “the misogyny, ageism and anti-intellectualism contained in their messaging”.

Gosh yes. The last few years have been under the thrall of all the above. A backlash against reason, and reality. Perfect description of David Lammy’s statement in the HoC about women being like dinosaurs ‘hoarding’ their rights. In relation to women fighting against the junk science of the law/society pretending people are a sex other than what they are, and even a belief that people can change their sex.

Hope that will go the way of illness being regarded as God’s wrath or possession by demons.

Ok try this. I get this is hard for some.

2 people go for a job.

In the interview, Dave says what he would do when he got the job. Sandra couldn't. Dave got the job.

Not many people like Dave, but when he got the job, he did what he said he would do, and what the manager wanted him to do.

People in the company can 'do' 3 things all at the same time. Here are the 3 things they can do, simultaneously.
a - They can not like Dave
b - They can be really annoyed that Sandra wasn't able to hold her own in the interview
c - They can be really glad that Dave put the policies in place.

In this story - Dave is Trump, and Sandra is Harris. The manager is the electorate that voted for him.

The things that Dave did, are the Executive Orders that Trump has signed.

Really hoping that helps.

Perhaps a diagram? 😃

I saw a guy being interviewed a while ago, a music producer I think, maybe a rap musician? Anyway, he was very politically active on the Democrat/socialist side and had campaigned for Bernie Sanders and for someone for his state governor.

After the Republican candidate won, he became involved with setting up some sort of program in his state with that administration, it was something to do with literacy or education I think. And was actively still involved with political initiatives in his area of interest.

The interviewers who were Democrat types were giving him a lot of flack about working with this Republican, even agreeing to meet with him in the first place. And he was like - I have views on who I'd like to see elected, but I am never going to refuse to set up good programs with the person who is elected, that's not how things get done. And I'm not going to be disrespectful and refuse to acknowledge when people on the other side have a good program or policy.

That all just seems normal to me. But I see why people talk about TDS, people are out of their minds, it makes no sense.

The thinking behind some of the statements I have seen are really discordant with how to get activist goals achieved. I, like you, think that it is normal to work with whatever government is in power. Because if you don't, you practically have to start again when your 'ideal' party is in. This constant weak guilt by association that comes through where women saying 'that was a good EO' are now 'supporting Trump' seems only to be a silencing tactic.

@AlisonDonut

It does help make your thinking clearer for me, at least, even if this particular example isn't the best.

Did the employees then start moaning that it's all Sandra's fault that Dave got the job?

I’m sure people used to say that Trump could be the Antichrist. Maybe there was something in it his policies are particularly evil and lacking any sort of humanity.

The analogy rather fails there, doesn't it?

The Democrats have access to the information that would have won them the election, and yet they keep doubling down on what are clearly deeply unpopular policies. They seem dead set on continuing to appeal to a very small group of people, which is a very strange strategy.

They chose a candidate known to be unpopular, too, who had previously bombed, quite spectacularly, in trying to get the nomination.

That is a bizarre approach for a party that wants to get elected. Whose fault is it other than their own?

Trump has been pretty good at taking advantage of those exact same issues, even though a lot of people find him personally unappealing. He and his team listened to what people said, and responded with something they sound compelling.

Which is surely what they are supposed to do, it's not a "fault".

It was the Democrats election to lose.

If Sandra could well have outperformed Dave and didn't because she preferred to virtue-signal, then yes, and I'd be even more annoyed with her than if she was simply the weaker candidate.