re: #77 wheat-dogghazi-mailgate

It all sounds too familiar, ja?

I did forget about the Pat Robertson endorsement. You’re right, they are quite willing to ignore the faults of a candidate if they think the candidate will get them what they want. (One very good reason why religion and politics should never mix.) But I suspect Trump is playing them for fools, too. Taibbi is absolutely right. Trump is a con man who knows how to exploit his marks’ weaknesses. He’ll turn his back on the religious nuts as soon as he’s able.

I forgot to add links to add links to stuff I was citing. The other one is Fred Clark.

Thing is, just because Trump is a con man doesn’t mean he won’t give them what they want. Doubly so, since we don’t actually know what his angle is. If it’s a con, there’s a specific path to be taken to achieve an end that is profitable…but in the interim before reaping that prize, you have to keep the marks engaged.

And on the other hand, what evangelicals want is not necessarily a transaction of votes-for-policy. Wingnut religion is authoritarian, but it’s also intensely pessimistic and obsessed with apocalypse. A sputtering pugnacious ass is pretty much the perfect tinder for everything getting worse in a manner that matches Revelation. Some of these folks are longing for the world to simply go wrong—because the failure of the state is their gain—and some are ticking off boxes on the checklist of signs the world is ending.