I actually liked some of his jokes the best. I think it would have been better to have stopped the “pardon me” there instead of finishing it but that would take some subtlety.
Most of his “jokes” just came across as mean or not even mean and certainly not clever. The line about hating Catholics was one such “joke.”
I agree with CairoCarol that Hillary’s performance skated the line (and I also watched it first) but at least there was self deprecating humor in hers.
Agree with TokyoBayer. Trump was already getting huge laughs with “Pardon me.” He didn’t need to explain the joke. But he can’t help stepping on his punchline; it’s what he does at rallies, trying to extend the laughter as long as possible. Every time during this one that people laughed, he continued the joke past its peak point.
Sorry to continue the hijack, but I did attend a United Methodist seminary for three years.
It’s a bit of a tricky point to summarize neatly, both because Methodism in the United States is a very broad tent, and because John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and perpetual wellspring of Methodist theology, tacked a narrow course between traditional Protestant sola fide theology and Catholic faith-and-works doctrine. (It’s worth noting that Methodism arose within the Anglican church, which does the same thing.)
Methodists do believe that salvation comes only through God’s grace, but the defining feature of Methodist theology is that it is Arminian (a reference to an obscure pre-Reformation theologian) in believing that salvation involves a human response to that grace, and that that response involves both assent to belief (faith) and changes in behavior (works). Early Methodism defined itself (and was defined) in contrast with the Calvinist belief that faith itself was out of human hands: not a human response, but an irresistible gift that God predestined certain people to have and others not to.
Technically, both of these positions are consistent with Luther’s doctrine of sola fide (faith alone), since works are seen not as a cause of salvation, but the inevitable outcome and sign of faith, but in practice, Arminians (which today includes in practical terms a lot of traditionally Calvinist sects; good luck finding a member–lay or clergy–of the Presbyterian Church [USA] today who really accepts Five-Point Calvinism) place a lot more emphasis on doing good works (especially as part of, if not the cause of, salvation) than the few remaining Calvinists (generally Southern Baptists, a subset of Evangelicals, and most fundamentalists).
As mentioned above, though, the issue is even more complicated by the status of the United Methodist Church as the tofu of American religion, which is to say, it picks up the flavor of whatever it is stewed with. In the south, this often means Southern Baptists, who, as mentioned above, are probably the greatest organized concentration of Calvinists in the country. Since the south is also a stronghold of Methodism, you might easily find a third to half the Methodist preachers in the country rejecting Clinton’s description of Methodism just like Vicsage.
If Trump weren’t already aware of how badly he was losing he would have been far more gracious. He needs to keep his base dialed in so he did the right thing for him at this event. His people, who saw this event, were probably fantastically entertained by his behavior.
I have to admit I was too.
Because I can’t help myself, I’m going to post a little more about Arminianism vs. Calvinism. What I posted earlier makes it seem like a very technical distinction, but it has practical consequences.
Presented with someone who claims to be Christian but who refuses to do anything good, an Arminian Methodist and a Calvinist Southern Baptist will have different reactions.
The Baptist will say that although the refusal to do good works may be a sign that the person isn’t truly saved, it may be ignorance of what Christianity demands. Only the person’s inner acceptance of Jesus really matters. Furthermore, if the person ever truly accepted Jesus into her heart, she is saved no matter what, because no conscious or unconscious thought or action on her part can undo God’s will (and only those God desires to save will accept Jesus).
The Methodist will say that humans have a choice to accept or reject God’s grace, and that even if the person genuinely accepted Jesus at one point, the current refusal to do good works is itself a rejection of God’s grace and a denial of faith, which should be remedied through continued repentance and the practice of good works.
Both will agree that a person who converts on her deathbed and lacks the opportunity, but not the desire, to do good works is going to heaven.
Trump’s jokes reminded me of Mallard Fillmore. In that they are basically just tired old Republican attacks, which I suppose a like minded individual might view in a “it’s funny cause it’s true” sort of way.
The difference between the two struck me as partly typical of the campaign. Her jokes, though generally clumsily delivered, were probably all written by the ‘witty’ section of the big professional writing team, discussed and maybe even tested with focus groups. His seemed to be a mixture of possibly some professionally written ones but others he probably made up himself and didn’t bounce off anybody else first.
For example, a candidate might given the writing team the Podesta/Palmieri (‘but we’re Catholics too and anyway we don’t remember that’ yeah sure) anti-Catholic thing and ask, ‘can you make something funny and fairly lighthearted out of this, considering it’s a Catholic sponsored gathering’?
But seemed to me some of Clinton’s were not really jokes either and more like what you’d expect at a debate (‘Donald said I was on drugs but I was just better prepared than he was’). Both of them went pretty light on self deprecation.
Love it.
Well, that there would be some mighty good works! OK if he goes to Heaven, I guess, I’m not likely to notice.
Behind the podium, there was a guy with a knightly award, medals etc, any idea who he is?
I assume she had two sets of jokes. One set making fun of herself in the event Trump took the high road, and the one she used.
I actually just came to this topic to see if anyone else had noticed! I was raised Methodist. When she said it I was kind of surprised because it’s not some deep secret. It’s really important, and something that is stressed a lot. None of our works is worth a damn, they’re dead without faith.
I just assume she didn’t write that part of her speech. She did joke about her speech writers.
Does anyone know who the man behind Trump was that was on his right wearing the big cross? All the people sitting up there reminded me of the James Taggart types in “Atlas Shrugged”.
Well, if they answer my post 110, that might also answer your query. 
Sometimes on the Dope I can get irritated with ill-informed blowhards who are convinced they know more than they do. (And if you think that describes me, sorry). But for every one of those, there’s another poster like Alan Smithee, who writes detailed, cogent, informed posts that help me understand the world better. Alan, thanks for this wonderful series of posts–you and folks like you are why I stay around here :).
And I seriously doubt she said a word to him later. Trump doesn’t strike me as someone who would be contrite about using her like that.
I thought so, too - after he rifled through his notes and said how corny it all was is about when it went off the rails.
I haven’t seen the email, but I saw it posted elsewhere that one of the Wikileaks emails had a string between two staffers - one of the Catholic - about how Catholics are likely to vote, demographic stuff. If that’s what he was referencing, it’s pretty weak.
This.
I was raised Catholic, educated in a Catholic school, and I rarely opine on matters of doctrine as I seem to know as little as some posters know about their own religion.
I know jack about Methodist belief, but apparently Hillary – who was for years a Sunday school teacher – knew what she was talking about.
Ignorance fought.
I was looking at that too. It’s not the Maltese Cross, so he wasn’t a Knight of Malta. It wasn’t the sign of the Knights of Columbus.
I’m guessing it’s the cross of some Catholic order, but I have no idea which one.