I’ve been voting since the first time an unelected president ran for reelection.
You politics geeks can figure that one out, right? By my count, I’ve voted for president 10 times and I’m batting .500. This was going to be a tie-breaker election for me but now I’m seriously considering whether I should even vote at all. I know that offends some who consider voting a sacred duty, but so far I’ve found absolutely no options for me. So now, post-convention, in this break before the real electioneering fires up, I have a few things to say. After I say them, it is my intent to retire from writing about politics completely – though I’ve been known to change my mind.
Random Thoughts
1. Voting is gray-area, “disputable-matter,” Romans 14 territory.
I am anything but wishy-washy about politics and sometimes I wonder, “How could a Christian vote for …..” or something like that. I tend to state my opinions strongly and argue them, but ultimately we must remember that these are issues of conscience in which there is not a single Christian position.
As we express our views we need to give honor to those who differ. I’ll be straight here. I don’t see how a follower of Christ can even think about giving their vote to Donald Trump. Twenty years ago he’d have been laughed out of my former party, now he is the standard-bearer. On the other hand, I’m getting vilified by some who believe that hating Hillary Clinton is an act of worship. I’ve been told that I’m actually voting for Hillary because I’m not voting Trump. I’m not voting Hillary either, does that mean I’m voting Trump? One lady, a lifelong friend, is really angry because I won’t vote for Trump.
We can articulate our opinions and argue them, but we must also respect the conscience of every person in Christ.
2. Voting is an act of conscience under the Lordship of Christ.
I don’t get to vote for “whoever I like.” I’m a servant of Christ and my vote (or refusal to vote) must be an act of obedience designed to honor Christ and advance the kingdom. It’s not a personal decision, it’s a kingdom decision and I must vote as an obedient act. Yes, it is an act of personal conscience and obedience, but it is a spiritual act nonetheless.
3. Every election is “the lesser of two evils” – yes – but that has limits.
There’s only one perfect man (and they crucified him). He is not running! So, every election of my lifetime has been a choice between flawed candidates. I loved Ronald Reagan. A lot. But he had flaws. A lot. In my ten elections, I’ve only gotten to vote for 2 candidates that I supported in the primaries (each ran twice – Reagan and W). I voted for candidates I was not enthusiastic about most of the time I entered the booth. Bob Dole. John McCain, Mitt Romney, even George the Elder. They were not my first choice. Bob Dole and Mitt Romney weren’t my second, third, or fourth choices.
In the last election cycle, Romney toed the acceptability line. The fact that he was a Mormon was troublesome, but that wasn’t my chief concern with him. It was his last-minute conversion to pro-life politics. I’m not really a single issue voter, but I’m pro-life dispositive. If someone believes that killing babies in a mother’s womb is okay, he or she doesn’t get my vote. Other issues matter, but I only fish in the pro-life pond. But when Romney was a Massachusetts Republican, he was conveniently pro-choice. Then, just before he decided to run nationally, he was knocked to the ground by a blinding light and a voice from heaven corrected his abortion views. Whew! Just in time. I found that both convenient and suspicious.
I voted Romney. Barely.
But there is a limit to the “lesser of two evils” rubric – I can only go so far. Romney was an honorable man. Bob Dole and John McCain seem to be decent human beings (of course, there are always stories about any politician). Of the 17 candidates who ran for the GOP nomination, I would have held my nose and voted for 14 of them, and possibly a 15th. Pataki is pro-choice, so no-go. I’d have a hard time voting for Chris Christie – he impresses me as everything that is wrong with politics, but I might have held my nose and voted for him at the end.
But saying, “lesser of two evils” doesn’t justify voting for truly evil, despicable, unrepentant people who have not even tried to be morally upright. Can you believe this, people? The party of the “moral majority” has just nominated a man who made his money partially through gambling and has owned “gentlemen’s clubs.” He has bragged in his books and on appearances on the Howard Stern show about his immoral lifestyle. Kennedy had to hide his – Trump brags about sleeping with many women, single and married alike. His words are uncivil (that’s the civil way to describe them) and he has shown no concern for morality or truth. Trump lies more than Hillary Clinton. And when asked if he’d ever repented and trusted Christ, he responded that he’d never made mistakes and had no need to repent.
There’s a limit to how low I can go in accepting the lesser of two evils. Is Trump less evil than Hillary? That’s a good debate. But neither of them has the character or deportment to make an effective president of the United States. I won’t vote for either.
4. A lot of conservatives and Republicans owe Bill Clinton an apology.
Every single person who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton because “character matters” back in the late 90’s and is now supporting Donald Trump in spite of his despicable, ungodly, immoral and amoral character, owes the former president and likely future first husband an apology.
If Donald Trump’s words are to be believed (and they often are not), his immorality may exceed Bill Clinton’s. There are certainly no winners in that contest. But if we are simply going to turn a blind eye to the Donald’s amoral flaunting of biblical standards because he is playing for our team when we called for the resignation or conviction of Bill Clinton because he played for their team, we are hypocrites.
I think character matters. It matters. It mattered in Clinton. He could not be a good president when he was regularly violating his most sacred oath with Monica and others. He was a creep. It matters in Hillary. She is a dishonest person who lies for no apparent reason. It matters. And it matters with Donald Trump. He’s been married 3 times and he was unfaithful to the first two. Melania? I don’t know. He has bragged about his promiscuity and adultery.
Character matters and I’m not going be a hypocrite. I’m holding Trump to the same standard that I held Bill to, and that I’m holding Hillary to. Sorry, his character disqualifies him from my vote.
5. Consistency matters. Hypocrisy is wrong.
I recently received a sanctimonious reproach from a self-appointed prophet of American revival because I spoke against Donald Trump. Others have chastised me for speaking ill of him. But those who have chastised me for speaking against the character and qualifications of Donald Trump have one thing in common. They speak about Hillary Clinton in the most vicious, vile terms, and they have spoken of the president in the strongest and most negative terms.
The Bible commands me to respect the president – a lot of Christians have sinned by ignoring that command. But I am free to speak the truth about political candidates as an American and I do not see how that violates scripture. But people, if you slander Hillary you cannot get self-righteous when someone critiques Donald Trump. You cannot say it’s okay to publicly eviscerate Democrats but wrong to speak against Republicans.
God is NOT a Republican. Do we need to argue that?
I’ve asked those who rebuke me for speaking my mind on Trump this question, but not a one has ever even attempted to answer me. “Why is it okay to slander Hillary but not okay to speak against Trump?”
6. Voting is not a biblical mandate.
Since I turned 18, I’ve voted in every presidential and congressional election. Every single one. No exceptions. I’ve sat up late with scorecards I created counting the Senate and House balance and watching the electoral map. Wow, remember 2000? Up all night!
But please do not tell me that I am sinning against God if I make a conscientious choice to stay home the first Tuesday in November as an act of conscience or if I simply leave the presidential slot blank and vote in other races. There is not a single biblical injunction that requires me to vote. If my conscience does not allow me to vote for any of the candidates, I’ll just stay home or leave the presidential vote blank – and I will have NO SIN to confess.
7. Not voting for one candidate is not voting for another.
Please leave Ross Perot out of this. “If people hadn’t voted for Ross Perot in 1992, Clinton wouldn’t have won.” If I had a nickel for every time I’d heard that I’d have a lot of nickels. It is not true. Research has demonstrated conclusively that Clinton would have beaten old George man on man whether Perot ran or not. He made little difference.
And me refusing to vote for Trump is NOT me supporting Hillary. The GOP does not own my vote and has to earn it. They didn’t – they picked (one of?) the worst man in American history to run for office. I said at the start that if Trump headed the party, I’d renounce my affiliation. I did. I’m ex-GOP now. I’m single, looking for a political relationship.
But I’m not obligated to choose between the Democrat and the Republican. They want you to think they are the only choices. They aren’t.
8. If you think the GOP is pro-life, pro-values, you have been in Colorado smoking something.
The GOP is the party of Renee Elmers. She ought to be the chair of the RNC. She ran on a pro-life platform but when it came time to cast a vote that mattered to support a pro-life initiative, she sold us out. That’s the Republican Party, folks. They are the party that pretends to be pro-life to get our votes. But has the GOP really fought for us? No.
By the way, I didn’t watch it, but those who watched Donald’s speech at the RNC, did you see what he said about abortion and the pro-life agenda? If what I read was true, it was NOTHING.
For me, abortion is a passion. It’s evil and must be opposed. For most of the GOP, abortion is a wedge issue to be used to keep us in line at the voting booth. Once the election is over, they shelve the issue until the next election cycle. How long are we going to fall for this? The GOP’s passion on abortion tends to flare up only in the months before an election. Between election cycles they treat it like a shameful family secret to be ignored.
If you can find a member of the GOP willing to take a principled stand on abortion, he’s probably right next to Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, and they are probably all in an SEC football program that observes all NCAA rules.
9. We need a new party.
The GOP formed when the Whigs disintegrated. The GOP has become nearly as corrupt as the Democrats and its time to leave it behind and form something new – a party that is pro-life, has a reasonable immigration policy, balances fiscal sanity with economic justice, repudiates racism in all its forms and genuinely fights against it, and takes reasonable positions on issues.
10. The Supreme Court is the fly in the ointment.
There is one argument that makes me question my position. I just can’t vote for Donald, but the fact that the next president will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and probably two or three, and that if Hillary makes those appointments things will change for the worse in our land is the best reason I can think of to lower our moral standards far enough to vote Donald.
Of course, that assumes that he will actually appoint someone like the list of 11 candidates he suggested a while back – all good candidates. Donald Trump changes his mind and feels no obligation to stick to his word. So, you are voting for him in faith believing he will do what he says.
For me, it is not enough. His character disqualifies him and even if he does something wonderful he is still not a man of honor, of character, of truth, and of decency who should be president. But I can at least understand the motivation of those who use the Supreme Court as their motivation.
Exploring the Options
So, for whom should I vote this time around?
1. I could vote for Hillary.
Uh, no thank you. She is passionately pro-death and has no integrity or loyalty to the truth. She has a 25-year track record of bad policy, bad behavior, dirty-dealing, flip-flops, and bald-faced lies. No way. No how. Not ever. Not in a million years.
2. I could vote for Trump.
Sorry, can’t do it. The Supreme Court issue is tempting and it is the one reason that I suppose I’d be happier if Trump won than if Hillary does, but his character, his positions on certain issues, his suspicious views and lack of passion on pro-life issues – no means no. I was, I am, and I will remain #NeverTrump.
3. I could vote for Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party.
But I can’t. I have some quibbles and quarrels with Libertarians over a few smaller issues, but I could hold my nose and vote for them as the “lesser of three evils” if it weren’t for the fact that both Johnson and William Weld, his running mate, are pro-choice (I prefer the term pro-death).
I won’t vote for abortion supporters.
4. The American Solidarity Party
A newer party with some very interesting possibilities. It follows the “Consistent Pro-Life Principle” with means they are against abortion, euthanasia and even against capital punishment. They are essentially a conservative party following Catholic social teaching and can best be described as socially conservative and economically moderate (some would say liberal).
I like their pro-life ethic, but I disagree with their other views on a lot of issues. I don’t know who their candidate is going to be or if he (or she) will even be on my Iowa ballot.
5. The Constitution Party
This very conservative party has some problems for me – they tend to be dominionist and I can’t get behind that. I’m probably not voting Constitution Party.
6. An Independent Run
I’d hoped that the dissatisfaction with Jezebel and Lord Voldemort might bring about a significant candidate to run as an independent. It seems that a lot of people explored it but no one pulled the trigger. It may be too late. My guy was Ben Sasse from Nebraska – I even promised I’d cheer for the (much-hated) Nebraska Corn-shuckers this year if he’d run. He didn’t. I think a significant independent run is probably not going to happen at this point.
7. A write-in
If I were voting today, I think I’d write in David Rogers! He makes the most sense. Or maybe I’d actually vote “None of the Above.” That would be the best way to vote my conscience.
8. Stay home.
That’s a possibility too. There are some local races and we have a senate and house race, but I’ve lost my positive feelings for my congressman Steve King after he made some ridiculously racist comments recently, and refused to back off of them. I don’t think I can vote for him either. Chuck Grassley is probably going to win with or without my vote and serve in the Senate until he is 134 years old.
So, maybe if the weather is good I’ll take my granddaughter to the zoo.
I admit, I don’t really know what to do. I know what not to do. I have never given voting for Hillary even the briefest of a hint of a glimmer of a thought. She’s horrible. But I just cannot feel like I’m doing something honorable if I vote for a man with the character flaws, behavioral history, and political views of Donald Trump. You can hate me, berate me, and castigate me, but I can’t go there. I’ve not found a third party I get behind and my hoped-for independent bid hasn’t materialized.
Hey, that Pastor’s Conference thing worked out. Maybe I give this a try. No. The press would have a field day with stuff I’ve written on here and some of you guys would sell me down the river.
Right now, I’m stuck with the choice that “Brewster’s Millions” advocated so long ago.
By your own words, you KNOW what you should do because of the Supreme Court. Yet you are unwilling to cast your vote for the sake of your children, grandchildren, and right to preach freely from the pulpit. All if these will be taken away with HRC in office. You can ignore her liea, but believe all if the lies about Trump. Is he a sinful man? Yes. Does he love America? Yes! That is why I am casting my ballot for Donald Trump.
James, you may know what YOU should do, but it is arrogant to believe that you know what I should do. You obviously do not.
Trump is a liar.
Trump is an adulterer.
Trump is unrepentant.
You can vote for him if you wish, but I will not. I could not feel that I’d done an honorable, godly thing if I did.
You feel free to vote your conscience, but you are NOT God, nor are you the Holy Spirit. You don’t get to decide for me how I should vote.
Didn’t Carly Simon write a song about you?
In my 36 years, Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 have been the Republican presidents. All seem to be men much more morally upstanding than Trump. Still some of their Supreme Court appointments haven’t exactly fallen on the conservative side on many big cases.
Voting for Trump isn’t a guarantee that the supreme court appointments won’t be liberal leaning in the wrong ways.
But it is fairly guaranteed given his history that he’d have the least moral fiber and integrity of any Republican president, or nominee, in my life; barring a miracle. I have to vote on what I see, and integrity is a must, so that cuts out Hillary and Trump.
Regardless, I am certain of this: God is sovereign and the world will keep spinning as long as he wants it to. No matter who is in office or what the laws of the land are, the great commission still stands as given by the One with all power and authority.
And trusting Him, I will not violate my conscious due to fear.
I’d like to hear some feedback on this article from yesterday, if you guys don’t mind:
“Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice” by Wayne Grudem
http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564
1. This is called trolling. I wrote an article. It’s kind of rude to jump on and say, “Let’s discuss Grudem instead.
Maybe someone could write an article interacting with Grudem – I saw Todd Benkert doing this on Facebook after I posted this. But it’s disrespectful to do what you did.
trolling 1. informal “make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. ”
So, obviously not trolling.
I just did the same thing.
Sorry.
Did not know citations were not permitted here.
I’ll send you an article shortly asking that this be its own separate post for discussion.
2. I understand Grudem, but I think he is a) overly optimistic about Trump’s honor – something he’s never demonstrated and b) under-selling the character of Trump as an issue.
So, I understand and appreciate his views, but I disagree.
Dave, I appreciate this post and agree with you completely. Even though the Libertarian Party is more liberal on social issues, they do believe it should be given to the states to decide instead of federal mandates. I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to turn the tide on those issues, but letting states decide on those issues would be nice. Of course, one problem we are discarding when only voting based on SCOTUS possibilities is the lack of balance of power given to the Supreme Court. How did that happen? They aren’t supposed to legislate from the bench; only Congress has the power to make laws. -Rory
Minor point of order, but President Clinton (dear God I hope I don’t have to start using first names to differentiate between “President’s Clinton”) was not impeached for his sexual promiscuity or immorality, he was impeached for perjury, for lying under oath.
As far as adultery and the President go, I wonder how far you want to take this line of thinking? Is anyone who has had more than one marriage out? Reagan is, to this day, the only President to have ever had a divorce. Should that have disqualified him too? I would warn you, be-careful about making the Commander in Chief the Pastor in Chief of the nation. Holding a President (or prospective President), an office that is inherently secular, to the standards of 1st Timothy, is beyond what that text allows for.
I also would like to point out that you have more than just the Presidental vote and US Rep and US Senate votes. You should have local and statewide elections too. Are you going to stay home from those as well? Would you have others reading this stay home from theirs as well? Here in Missouri we have every statewide executive position up for grabs. To my knowledge this is one of the first times in recent history no incumbent is running for Gov, Lt Gov, AG, or SecState. I am not only going to be voting in November, but also in our August primaries. These elections are every bit as important as the national election. To stay home, and then complain that my state is not going the way I like, would be hypocritical of me. I also have a State House election as well.
This leads me to my frustration about “third party” talk. To put it bluntly, if you think a Third Party is going to rise up suddenly, to take the White House in a Presidential election, you are incredibly naive. For a new political party to rise up and vie for power against the existing two, it will require incredible amount of grass roots effort to occur. It will require multiple states to have members of that new party in office at the state and national levels. It will require enough influence in EVERY state to be able to even get on the ballot. This is why groups like the Conservative Party (or whatever they are called) continually fail. They put ALL their eggs into one basket every 4 years, rather than looking to gain a few dozen House Seats every 2 years. Rather than getting majorities (or at least significant minorities) n state congresses. No, they stick all their hopes on one race, a race which they NEVER will win.
Because you see it actually will take effort and hard work to make a Third Party actually work. Dave you talk about how you are not happy with Rep Steve King, I ask you, did you support anyone in the primary race against him? Or are you just now saying “I won’t vote for him” and think that is enough effort on your part? Instead of “not voting” why are you not working on the grass roots level to change the Republican party in your state? Or working to raise up a third party in your state? Time more important to be spent elsewhere? Gee, now you know why Third Parties always fail. If the political situation is important enough for you to write blogs about it, why not actually do something constructive?
Finally, I have one thing about voting for Trump that you might want to consider. I would argue that the odds of Trump resigning, being impeached, or dying in office to be quite high. If that happens, Gov Pence would be come President. And no matter your thoughts on Trump, I would hope you consider that he at least would be a decent person to fill that office. I have said previously, that who Trump selected for his VP would determine whether I vote for him. Well…I am voting for him. Just something to consider.
GOP Boss Mark Hanna on Vice President Theodore Roosevelt: “Don’t any of you realize that there’s one life between that madman and the Presidency?”
🙂
While Pence is a better choice, he is not the choice. We don’t get to vote on possible outcomes, but certain outcomes. And Trump is certainly a bad choice for president.
Stephen, he didn’t say that incredibly stupid thing until the week of the RNC, after he’d already won the nomination. So, your condescending guidance is a little misplaced.
I’m not going to engage the rest of the comment, since it shows little interaction with what I wrote. If you read what I wrote, engage with what I actually said, I’d be glad to respond.
Some of us are going to sin by commission and by omission in this election. If its me, I will likely end up sinning by omission by not exercising my right to vote.
But I take comfort in this: “What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.”
Paul might have added: “those who vote should live as though they do not vote.” After the dust has settled and we are 1 or 2 terms down the road, it will be time for us to extend grace to each other based on the stupid decision some made in supporting Trump or supporting Clinton. No matter how much a big deal we make of our responsibility to vote, God still has the king’s heart in his hands like a stream of water, and I can rest easy knowing that I have prayed and searched his word without coming up with a good solution. Just because I don’t have a good solution for voting for either candidate doesn’t mean God is going to judge me.
I don’t think its fatalistic for me to not vote because I know this world is passing away. If I had a better choice and could vote, I would zealously vote and call other to vote as well…but thats not reality in 2016.
Dave, I commend you for the clarity and truth here. Likely, you will be demonized as a sycophant of Russell Moore but the extremists in the SBC. I’d take that as a compliment any day.
I actually appreciate Dr. Moore, but without wanting to offend him, I spend little time thinking WWRD or WWRT. Dr. Moore’s opinions play a very small part in forming mine. That he and I agree quite a bit on politics shows his intelligence and where we disagree demonstrates his need to keep working, right?
“Some of us are going to sin by commission and by omission in this election. If its me, I will likely end up sinning by omission by not exercising my right to vote.”
I don’t think we can necessarily say this…some will vote trump, believing it to be the best option, others will vote 3rd party or abstain…I don’t think either can say the other has necessarily sinned by their action…though of course either vote could come from sinful motivations.
The sin would be to violate your conscience under the Lordship of Christ.
My job is to make a decision for me. I can try to influence others toward my position, but I must fall short of trying to force Christians to replace their conscientious decision-making with mine.
I don’t think voting or not voting is a matter of sin.
I agree Andy and I agree Dave. Voting or not voting for either candidate could come from sinful motivations and both must be submitted to God.
Some folks have not prayed enough through the choice… or been convicted enough of their responsibility to vote in the first place…
Others are overly invested in making a choice for a certain candidate because they think he or she is the only biblical option…while others still want to just back off of the whole process and move on…
This article does a good job of at least recognizing the internal struggle of what this election means for an individual Christian to vote in a world gone mad…but it was always mad anyway…
…and yet the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of His Christ too…
…already and not yet…
so…
If college football is half as interesting as the election, it going to be a great season…
You lost me on Exploring the Options, point 7.
I thought it was my best point.
By the way, the American Solidarity Party candidate is Mike Maturen. https://www.facebook.com/maturenforpresident/
I agree with their pro-life stance, but so much of the rest of it I’m either unenthusiastic about or actually disagree with – but it’s a really good start.
As I understand it, they are trying to put Catholic social principles into effect. I wish someone would do that with reasonable Conservative Christian/Evangelical principles (not the Bretibart stuff).
Of all the third parties I’ve seen, it’s the best.
Anyone who knows me knows I am not Catholic nor a purveyor of Evangelical/Catholic ecumenism. But my main discrepancies with the RCC are in the areas of soteriology and ecclesiology, not so much in social teaching. The ASP, as I understand it, makes room for these differences.
Re: “reasonable Conservative Christian/Evangelical principles”
Theologically conservative or politically conservative? Fiscally conservative or morally conservative?
Combination. Of course, the devil is in the details. Such an attempt would face untold land mines.
As I read the ASP platform, there were quite a few things that didn’t match my views. They weren’t deal-breaker type things, but there were quite a few.
On the big things they were pretty good. But I do think that fiscal conservatism shouldn’t be abandoned fully, though it should be run through a baptism of compassion and justice.
I’m also less of a fan of military disengagement than both this party and the Libertarians seem to be.
It’s hard to say exactly what kind of party I’m looking for.
Mike Maturen (Am. Solidarity Party) is a professional magician!
Hmmmm … choices, choices … (1) foul-mouthed, anti-immigrant, right-wing extremist, (2) tax & spend, open borders, corrupt left-wing radical, (3) professional magician.
None of the Above!!
Dave Miller,
I don’t disagree with your reasons to sit this one out. There’s just not much out there is there, Pal. The only issue I can take with you is about your stating “Trump lies more than Mrs. Clinton.” I doubt that, but both lie so much that even that is not worth an argument.
However, I am going to vote. I am going to vote for Trump because of the SCOTUS issue and a couple of others, but SCOTUS is the primary reason.
There is one other reason to vote for Trump in my thinking. Pence is a better POTUS possibility than Kaine and both Trump and Mrs. Clinton are 70 and above. That’s about it for me. No more reasoning than that and I know that’s pretty poor at best, but that’s how it’s going to be for me.
I have read arguments about the moral high-ground and all of that. I have listened to it. I have considered it. I conclude that this time, there is no moral high-ground in this election. None.
I have also read some who are saying that it is Calvinists who are leading the charge against Trump in the SBC. That is absurd in my opinion also. That may be even be just plain crazy and religious bigotry.
So, in conclusion, I guess I am just voting in hope, in hope that something better happens to my country than what appears to be happening. A Phoenix rising out of the ashes perhaps. No, not really.
In the end, in all truth, I just pray God intervenes before complete destruction prevails.
I’ve actually considered that. Pence is a pretty good guy. But “Vote Trump and then pray for his death” seems a little too extreme for me.
“It’s the Calvinists” is all some folks know how to say, CB.
Yeah, and that’s a shame also. It seems we are living not only in a 1 Timothy 3 perilous time, but in a time of what might be termed as “Delighted Ignorance” also.
Who says death is the only option? Knowing his Ego, I contend that there is a good chance he would resign if he does not get his way; or that he will be impeached. You can pray for those to happen instead!
BTW, I am not promoting “Vote Trump and pray for his death.” I am just thinking of age and life’s realities. I think of that more now anyway. You know, I am no spring chicken myself.
I know CB.
I’m disappointed in you, by the way. I put a pretty good anti-SEC shot in there and you said nothing about it.
Dave Miller,
I saw the SEC shot, but this subject matter is so deplorable that maybe for the first time in all my Football loving life, I have given little thought to BAMA and the SEC lately, but since you called me by name, I will say, the SEC is really hot in talent this season except for Vandy of course.
BAMA needs a running back to make us completely unstoppable, but I think that Uncle Nick has maybe gotten that covered recently. I am a little concerned with Tennessee, but they will probably choke again. So, thank you, Dave. I can say:
ROLL TIDE ROLL!!! once again.
WOW!! That was certainly refreshing!!!! 😉
I have no idea who these people are that are saying, “Calvinists are against Trump.” However, I could understand some people coming to that conclusion and would not judge them too harshly for it. When you consider that Russell Moore, Dave Miller, Denny Burk and other Calvinists have been talking about “nevertrump” quite a bit, and when you also have The Gospel Coalition, a Calvinist organization, posting two articles supportive of Clinton, I think such a conclusion is, if not completely accurate, at least easily forgivable.
I am an antinomist. Of course, since you see the world in binary terms and like all but about 1000 SBCers, I didn’t sign your doc, I guess you would see me as a Calvinist.
Rick, you really need to open your eyes to a great big world where anti-Calvinism is NOT an obsession.
“I have no idea who these people are that are saying, “Calvinists are against Trump.””
Rick Patrick,
Try this “spin” out for me and tell me if it comes close to your level.
Here goes:
Rick, you make the statement declaring you do not know “who these people are that are saying, ‘Calvinists are against Trump’ and then you use the rest of your comment to prove the fact that you are one of “these people who are saying, Calvinists are against Trump.”
How is that for spin, Rick? Oh wait, it’s not spin at all is it, Rick?
You are brilliant, CB. And hilarious.
bawahahaha….. we need a hand-clapping emoticon after that post form CB!
Sorry, Dave. I will try to remember not to call you a Calvinist any longer, since you disaffirm the title and prefer to be called an Antinomist instead. In exchange, I would appreciate it if you would stop referring to me as an anti-Calvinist and instead use my preferred term, Traditionalist.
By the way, your assertion that I see the world in binary terms is easily disproven by a Soteriological Assessment I have written. Over 830 people have made use of this instrument. It differentiates between not two, but FIVE different soteriological views.
Among those who have taken the assessment, 3% were Semi-Pelagian, 17% were Arminian, 50% were Traditionalists, 2% were Amyraldists and 28% were Calvinists.
So the world is not binary and my interest in soteriology is manifold.
CB,
I am not the one who said all the Calvinists are against Trump. These people were not named. I suppose I should not have bothered to defend those not present. Sure, I can kinda see where that would come from. That’s all I was getting at. No spin, just, “I can see where they’re coming from.”
By the way, here’s the link to the Five Position Soteriological Assessment: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C2P2DJK
Why am i not surprised that the results of a survey you designed boasts that which you intend?
Rick, you can call me what you will, it matters little to me. I’m just pointing out that you are inaccurate when you lump me in with “the Calvinists.” But I’ve not come to believe that you care about accuracy, just about your crusade against Calvinists.
I don’t use the term Traditionalist because I think it is inaccurate and silly. I use the term anti-Calvinist because I think it is accurate. It’s what you do.
You call me what you want. It says more about you than it does about me.
Rick Patrick,
Let me try to explain how I see what you and others are doing in the SBC in terms of firearms, those tools that Mrs. Clinton so desperately desires to take from us.
We, Southern Baptists, are the largest, non-Catholic, somewhat debatable, Protestant, Christian entity on earth. Our world is going to hell in a handbag. Satan has declared full-scale war on Christians all over the planet. There is a desperate need for all capable Southern Baptists to put on the full armor of God, pull out the big weaponry availed to us by the Holy Spirit, and engage the devil and all his minions in battle. We “all” and I mean all who are within the parameters of orthodox faith need to get in this fight.
However, it seems to me that we have at least two major extremist groups of Cals and Non-Cals among our ranks, who do not truly realize we are at “real” war with the forces of hell and have chosen up sides and gone out in the woods to “play” war, shooting at each other with BB guns, screaming “foul” at each other, when one of you gets hit above the waist with a BB.
You have become so obsessed with your “war games” that you have failed to join in the “real war” that’s going on all around you. . . . and Rick, your “games” have caused a lot of damage to some of the folks who are fighting in the “real war.”
That’s how I see it, Rick . . . and I think it is high time for both extremes to throw those BB guns down and go get the real ones out of mothballs and get in the trenches with your brothers and fight hell wide open, until the King comes to take us home. Yep, that’s how I see it, Rick.
Again, spot on, CB. We have a broad middle with loud minorities on the extreme who want to turn everything into Calvinist/anti-Calvinist fight. It damages the convention and the work of Christ when they play these games.
I, for one, do not want a fight. I want polite gentlemen representing both sides to sit down and work out some practical solutions for the concerns that are being raised by godly men and women on both sides of the aisle.
I am *not* talking about the *theological* advisory committee from a few years ago that met in the Exhibit Hall, of all places, but a genuine get together to work on the matters that are causing us the most concern. Civil. Patient. Godly. Peacemaking.
I believe in conflict resolution, not conflict avoidance. This avoidance tactic is not getting us anywhere. The issues are not going away on their own. We have to deal with them.
“I, for one, do not want a fight. I want polite gentlemen representing both sides to sit down and work out some practical solutions for the concerns that are being raised by godly men and women on both sides of the aisle.”
Then lay down your sword and shield and study war no more, Rick. And stop trafficking in the “weaponry” of war and stop running with those who do.
You are needed in the “real” war, Rick. You are an extremely gifted person. Stop wasting your gifts in this “BB Gun” fight that means nothing. Get into the fight against hell and stop this silly game.
Rick,
“I am *not* talking about the *theological* advisory committee from a few years ago that met in the Exhibit Hall, of all places, but a genuine get together to work on the matters that are causing us the most concern.”
That’s exactly what CB is talking about Rick. That little (not so subtle – not subtle at all actually) jab about “in the exhibit hall of all places” and inferring that people were not genuine in that advisory committee…is the type of pettiness and “anti Cal” warfare we all wish you’d stop.
Who is it exactly from that group of respected SBC leaders that you’re referring to as not being “genuine” – i’ll just go ahead and sarcastically say that I’m sure you’re referring to Paige, Patterson, Hankins and others with whom you agree. Right???
I’d really like to get this away from Calvinism, but Rick leveled a dishonest slander against some very good men, and it should be clearly refuted. The Theological Advisory committee, generally called the “Calvinism Task Force” or whatever, did not meet in the display hall – as Rick’s false and demeaning words say.
They did real and important work – a blue ribbon panel of SBC leaders. Then they met in the exhibit hall to MAKE A PRESENTATION. They gave a report to the convention and answered questions there.
The meetings and the work was done elsewhere.
When Rick’s spin turns to falsehoods that slander good men it should be corrected.
I have nothing bad to say about the T5 Report or the wonderful people who participated in it. My concerns were (a) the *report* meeting was held in the Exhibit Hall whereas I believe it should have been presented in the convention itself, and (b) the report only dealt with theology and not the practical matters that still remain unresolved.
So it was great, as far as it went, but it stopped short of addressing practical compromises and action plans for moving forward. At least one person in the Q&A asked about that. It was sort of, “Now what?”
Of course, the committee met in other rooms during the year, and did much of their work by telephone.
I am hoping and praying for a more peaceful resolution to the conflicts we face. Blessings.
I am a full on, fatalistic, borderline superlapsarian, 5-point Calvinist. And I am going to vote for Trump. What does that do to your little world view there Mr Patrick?
It does nothing at all to my world view. My claim was that many of the higher profile “nevertrump” Christian leaders appear to fall in the more Calvinistic camp. Those making such a claim could be forgiven, I said, because I saw some evidence of it. I supported my statement by mentioning three Calvinist individuals and one Calvinist organization. One person I named disputed that he was a Calvinist.
My claim was never, “No Calvinists are voting for Trump.” Clearly, you and Wayne Grudem are. Wayne is the first high profile Calvinist to come out in support of Trump. Perhaps if many other high profile Calvinists come out in support of Trump it will cancel out this impression of “nevertrump” Calvinist dominance. Alternatively, perhaps higher profile Traditionalists will begin posting “nevertrump” articles. But it seems to me if that was going to happen, it would already have occurred.
I will be voting for Trump for all of the same reasons that CB is voting for him.
Tennessee is riding a whirlwind into the SEC, this year. The Vols are kicking up their heels, and they are hunkering down for a real fight for the SEC crown, this year. Get ready, Bama. Coach Jones is coming for ya. And, the Vols are with him!!
David
It’s Trump for me. I agree with Geuden. A bit NOT cast for Trump is one less that Hillary needs to win.
“One less vote Hillary needs to win”
Not if you have an agreement with a democrat who does not like Hillary that you both will vote third party or write in…if you are from the same state – neither of your rejections of your parties nominee will benefit the other parties nominee. 😉
We have a little over 3 months to see how things play out. We have up to the last second on election day to make our decision. I’m going to vote for who I think is best for the country; for who is in the best position to make a positive difference and for whom I don’t think I’ll be throwing away my vote – all while trusting in God and His sovereignty over our free choices.
BTW I know quite a few mature Christians, business people and other professionals, as well as rank and file workers, who plan to vote for Trump but their plans are largely quiet. They have no interest in being berrated and belittled by the “moral high ground” crowd which is happening all over social media. And Dave not talking about you brother.
Les Prouty,
I have come to value your comments over the years, even if we do differ on a “few” things. 😉
So allow me to ask you something? I stated there is no “moral High-ground” in this election, but I am voting for Trump because of the SCOTUS and a couple of other issues.
Tell me, is that why you are voting for Trump, if you don’t mind telling me, of course?
CB, I really do value your opinion. God has given you wisdom my brother and father in the faith.
I am voting for Trump for the same main reason you are. SCOTUS. That is where the legacy will be. We have a known baby killing, gun rights hating, constitution butchering (I could go on) candidate in Hillary. Then there is a more unknown candidate in Trump but one who has stated positions more favorable to our nation and her citizens. And he has a genuine conservative in Pence. On sheer information this is a no brainier.
I refuse to effectively help elect the baby killing Hillary by not voting for Trump by staying home or casting a vote for someone so has zero chance to win.
Les, while you’ve maintained you were for someone else, you’ve been a consistent and vocal Trump apologist since the days of the Iowa caucuses. Haven’t you?
No Dave. I was unsure during the primaries which candidate not named Trump I was going to vote for. In the end I voted for Cruz. I’ve never been a Trump trumpeter. 🙂
Fabre sorry you took it that way. 1. It’s my view. I’m not telling other Christiams how they must vote or they must vote at all to be good Chritians. I’ve seen way a lot of that. 2. I rarely even voice my plan or reasoning. Many others do. This is one of those rare occasions.
You are attempting to stake out the moral high ground just as much as the #NeverTrump side is.
My point is that we should seek moral high ground always. You did it. You just should complain when others do it and come to a different conclusion than you.
Fabre? Auto correct? I meant Dave. Sorry.
Dave Miller,
I personally can see no “moral high-ground” in voting for Trump or Mrs. Clinton either one. I have stated there is no moral high-ground in this election.
So I ask you, what do you think the moral high-ground to be?
Right now, Cornelius Beauregard, I haven’t found the high ground. I just know that for me, voting for either Hillary or Trump would be a place in the dirt to which I cannot go.
I understand that. This election is a true pig-sty for sure. That’s why for me, all I can say is I am voting in hope of something better happening and because of the SCOTUS.
That won’t hunt, Les.
You are doing the “moral high ground” argument right here.
Essentially, you and the rest of the Trump crowd are accusing the rest of us of being Hillary supporters (I’ve been told 237 times that I’m essentially voting for Trump) and helping to elect a “baby killer” – your words.
You are playing the moral high ground game as well.
WE SHOULD!
Every one of us should seek to find the moral high ground on every decision we make. Are you suggesting that we NOT seek the moral high ground?
It is hypocritical for you to complain about Trump opponents claiming the moral high ground when you are doing exactly that with your pro-Trump reasoning.
I will not vote for Trump. The republican party is the party of clowns and shysters now. When Trump isn’t lying or admiring dictators, he’s simply crazy. He’s not stable.
Think about this: If the Republican party isn’t told in this election, in no uncertain terms, that they are leaving millions of faithful people behind, then GWB may be the last Republican president. No, a third party candidate will not win. But perhaps we have a chance to shape the next party that rises up in the ashes of the GOP.
Pence may be a better choice than Trump, but frankly if someone is willing to hitch themselves to Trump, then they’ve disqualified themselves in my mind. The evangelicals who are fawning over Trump sicken me. Hold your nose and vote for Trump? I won’t, but I understand why some people will. Enthusiastically vote for Trump? I can’t even conceive of a mind that works that way.
This is brilliant.
“I’m not voting Hillary either, does that mean I’m voting Trump?”
No. You were never a potential Dem voter.
I was never a potentialTrump voter either. Made that clear from last August or September.
I didn’t say you were a potential Trump voter. Read it again.
I didn’t finish. But you WERE a potential R voter. And now you’re not. The D candidate doesn’t lose something it never would have had. The R candidate does.
The R candidate doesn’t “have” my vote. He doesn’t own me. He has to earn it. He didn’t.
the GOP lost not only my vote, but my affiliation by nominating the craziest, least principled man we’ve ever had in American politics.
They do not own my vote. They hold no rights to it. They aren’t going to get it this time around.
Dave I get they had to earn it. That’s why you were a “potential” R voter until Trump was nominated. Am I wrong about that statement?
You were never a potential Dem voter. Am I wrong about that?
So my point stands. You not voting g huts only one party which helps the other. Binary and such.
My lack of vote affects both Hillary and Trump.
You cannot bully someone’s conscience this way, Les. I cannot vote for either Hillary or Trump (or Gary Johnson). I’m not voting Johnson, and he had a real shot at winning my vote this time – if he were pro-life I’d probably sign on. He’s not. So is my refusal to vote for Gary and vote for both Hillary and Donald?
Just know that the bullying tactic, “It’s a vote for Hillary” isn’t going to either impress me or intimidate me to change my mind.
Do you not understand how that is a blatant bullying tactic? “Your conscience says Trump is bad, but you must vote as I want or you are really supporting the bogey woman, Hillary.”
It’s a pressure tactic to force people to vote your way, not by THEIR conscience.
Dave good gracious. I am in no way bullying. Obviously you and I don’t know each personally and only digitally. If you knew me you would know I’m not a bully. Just making an argument. If if this then that. Just make the counter argument but no need to make it personal. It’s not.
That’s what I’m saying. The ARGUMENT is inherently a bullying tactic – “you are a Hillary supporter.”
I’ve been told that dozens of times. “So you are supporting Hillary?”
It’s a bullying TACTIC. I don’t care who uses it. It’s the tactic that is the problem.
Dave said Trump is “the craziest, least principled man we’ve ever had in American politics.”
Ridiculous Hyperbole.
Here’s two of many that can easily be found:: James Traficant and Jim Bunning.
I meant presidential politics. I left that qualifier out. Name a less moral, crazier man who ever represented a major political party in American history.
There have been numerous immoral and “crazy” men sitting in that big chair, Dave.
Jackson (and others of way back) more modern ones- Clinton, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson might have given him a run for his money in various ways.
Difference is we all know exactly who Trump is – no one can cast a vote for Him and not know exactly how much of immoral, disgusting, moon-bat he is – unless they have been literally under a rock someplace from June of last year until the morning of the election.
Dave said – “Name a less moral, crazier man who ever represented a major political party in American history.”
Andrew Jackson is the first name to pop into my head.
I’ve not studied Andrew Jackson in depth, but did he really reach down to Trump levels of insanity? Debauchery?
Jackson was well known for violent outbursts of anger.
Kennedy and Clinton were certainly at or beyond trump level perversion and sexual promiscuity.
Point being that perhaps Trumps faults are more visiable and accessible via media and Internet.
I was 100% as likely to vote for Hillary as I was for Trump. Same.
Seven reasons why for me a vote for a third party is not a “vote for Hillary” or a “wasted vote”:
1. It is important for me to vote my conscience. A vote for either of the two leading candidates is, for me, a vote that flies in the face of my conscience. I like being able to sleep at night with a clear conscience.
2. Symbolically, the amount of votes a candidate garners—whether in a winning effort or a losing effort—is viewed as a “vote of confidence” or gauge of the level of support among the general public for his/her agenda. Thus, a vote for either of the leading two candidates—whether I mean it that way or not—is interpreted as a vote of confidence in their agenda. For example, a dismal showing for Trump at the polls sends a message to the Republican Party and to others that Trumpism is not the way we want to go and dissuades them from continuing further in that same direction in the future.
3. A vote for a third party is a move toward breaking the stranglehold of the two-party system, which I believe is handcuffing Washington and keeping sensible elected officials from working across party lines to come up with sensible solutions for issues like immigration reform and health care.
4. A vote for the party/candidate that most closely matches my own understanding of biblical morality and ethics—even if they have no human chance of winning—is a way for me to register the sentiment that my ultimate hope is not in the political process but in God. It is doing what I understand is right and leaving the consequences in God’s hands. It is not taking things into my own hands like Abraham did with Hagar or like Moses did when he struck the rock instead of speaking to it, but trusting God to work things out according to His plan and in His time.
5. A vote for a third party allows other ideas beyond those proposed by the Republicans and Democrats to be heard in the public square and ultimately to be taken more seriously.
6. A vote for someone other than the two leading candidates gives Christians the opportunity to demonstrate to the onlooking world that we are not political puppets and helps them to take more seriously the life solutions we offer—whether they be of a strictly spiritual nature or a more human, practical nature. It helps remove stumbling blocks to our collective witness. While this is true in the United States, it is especially true in many places overseas where Evangelical Christianity is less known and more often misunderstood.
7. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for freedom and a vote against the inherent coercion and manipulation of the two-party system that wants to make us think our choices are limited to only the ideas either of the two leading parties proposes.
* These are my reasons for voting the way I plan to vote. You are free to agree or disagree with any or all of them. That is your choice. If you disagree, I do not therefore consider you to be an idiot or a reprobate. Just follow your conscience, that’s all.
See point 7 above
Excellently put, David Rogers!
@ David Rogers
Excellent!
Let me make another point.
If we communicate to the GOP. – as corrupt, cowardly, and craven as it is – that all they have to do to win our votes is be a little better than the Democrat, I guarantee you that’s what we’ll get – someone slightly better than the Democrat. If at all.
We’ve sold ourselves for a bowl of soup, The GOP gives us nothing but we keep lining up election after election because they may be minuscule degree less evil than the Democrats.
We’ve lowered the bar that far and we wonder why there’s a mess in Washington?
Dave I have a question about that. So you’re mad at and blame the GOP. Ok. Are you talking about party leaders? Who are you talking about sending a message to? Party leaders didn’t give us Trump. They tried everything they could think of to stop Trump. Voters are to blame if you want to blame and get a message to.
Party leaders gave us the ineffectual work that led to voter anger than led to national insanity and the selection of Trump over 5 or 6 VERY good candidates.
The Republican Party has been so corrupt, so useless, so ineffective, and so hypocritical that I just don’t feel like being one anymore.
I’m not really angry. Just don’t want to be a part of that. The only thing that really gets my goat is the “You are a Hillary supporter” bullying I’ve seen a thousand times.
The GOP doesn’t own me or my vote. I’ve given it to them for 40 years, but it’s over now.
I mean would you rather the party leaders have rigged the system at the convention to prevent his nomination?
I wish they’d been honest, effective leaders who never created the climate for Trump.
Your question is kind of a “have you stopped beating your wife” kind of thing – there’s no good answer.
I think Republicans should choose the GOP candidate, though, not primaries filled with Democrats and independents.
Good point, Dave.
I liked the move by the Cruz supporters and others to add to the rules that states be rewarded with “bonus at large delegates” (who are not bound except by conscience) for having closed republican primaries/caucuses over those who have open ones. The Trumpstablishment stopped that rule in its tracks – wonder why?
Its very interesting to me that there is such consternation and angst within the Trumstablishment toward the notion of people voting their conscience. If many, many conservatives who vote their conscience cannot then vote for the nominee of the party then the problem, IMO is not with the voter. The Republican Party is supposed to be THE place where conservatives go to vote.
I am yet to find a conservative who is voting for Trump for any other reason than 1) He is not Hillary and/or 2) the chance that he might appoint conservatives to SCOTUS (although I argue that this is no where near a certainty as he does not understand the slightest bit of constitutional/judicial conservatism so how can we expect he’d appoint one?) It truly does seem that many conservatives are decidedly IGNORING thier conscience…maybe I am wrong – but it does not seem so.
@ Dave Miller
You wrote: “If we communicate to the GOP. – as corrupt, cowardly, and craven as it is – that all they have to do to win our votes is be a little better than the Democrat, I guarantee you that’s what we’ll get – someone slightly better than the Democrat. If at all.”
This X a really big number. The RNC knows all they have to do to get the evangelical vote is be one tick to the right of the democrats.
You had at least one major error in your post… it’s “He who must not be named” 😉
Who is? Trump?
If there’s one thing that both Sanders and Trump are correct about, is that the system is broken. It is ironic that people are being encouraged to vote for the Republican candidate, no matter what, to perpetuate the system that the Republican candidate insists is broken. Voting for Trump will absolutely guarantee that the party will continue to spiral downwards, because we will have proven that there is literally nothing that the party can do to alienate us. If a misogynistic egomaniacal vice-peddler and pro-choice political supporter with no self-control can’t make us jump ship, nothing will. This is the guy that would direct our military to commit war crimes for Pete’s sake. Where do we draw the line? Is there a line?
Dave are Bill Mac’s comments bullying? Probably not.
Les: I’m not worried about whether you or I are bullying. We’re big boys and I feel zero pressure to change my mind. However I understand your motives, you are essentially joining the “toe the party line” crowd. I was not a big fan of Cruz, but how far have we fallen when the words “vote your conscience” bring such immediate and vile retribution to a person? The fact is, the SC is held over us on every election cycle. The fact is that every election cycle we are told that this is the most important election in history, and electing the wrong person will bring a plague of locusts o’er the land. Nothing changes. No, scratch that. Things change. Every election cycle our party gives us someone worse than the one before. When will we say enough is enough? Well for me, that time is now.
That’s essentially my definition of bullying, Bill Mac.
Instead of saying “Vote YOUR conscience,” Les and the “No vote is a vote for Hillary” crowd are essentially saying, “Submit your conscience to MY conscience.”
They are telling us to vote as THEY believe, not as we believe.
In what way do you think they are?
That you ask is enough.
Well, I’m asking. If you want to play rhetorical games, I’m not really interested. You lay out your accusation against Bill’s Comments and I will respond. But I’m not interested in some kind of sophistry where you lead me into a trap you have set.
What is it about Bill’s comments you see as bullying.
On the constitutional party – Darrell Castle – I’ve read his website and ideas. Very conservative and prolife. Could see how voting for him can be done with a clean conscience. You said you don’t like the constitutional party, but is there something specific you don’t like about Darrell Castle?
John, VERY cursory examination. Seemed a little bit dominionist for my tastes. Plus, what I read it seemed like they were in line with some of the GOP extremes on immigration – round ’em up and ship ’em to the borders. I don’t assume that “more conservative” is always the same as “biblical.” In fact, I think there are issues on which extreme conservatives have abandoned biblical principles for cultural beliefs.
But I am sharing an impression, and it was based on the briefest of excursions into research.
Dave,
IMO, It’s a stretch to say that political conservatives, extreme or otherwise, have “abandoned” biblical principles.
The majority of conservatives never had any biblical principles. We Christians have been lucky enough to find a place within mainstream conservatism for a time, but there’s precious little in conservatism that is “based” on biblical values. It’s a political system. At best, conservatism doesn’t conflict with biblical values. Well, at least not overtly.
Likewise, I don’t find Trump to be conservative or share our biblical values.
Earl, either I didn’t state it clearly or you misunderstood – I choose to blame you because the alternative is to blame me – unthinkable.
I’m not saying that all conservatives held biblical values or anything like that. I’m saying that many people who are both biblical and political conservatives have accepted beliefs that come from our culture rather than having beliefs shaped by scripture.
I’m still not sure I’m communicating it, but its a GREAT point and if you understand it, you will both amen me and likely send me money.
Amen, Dave. Check’s in the mail. 🙂
Sorry, I think I chose to nit pick (and misunderstood) to try to make the point that you made better than I did in your response.
I’m afraid that we’re very close to a point (or past it) where we Christians identify so much with conservatives that we can no longer communicate effectively with liberals and progressives.
I disagree that every elections is about the lesser of two evils. Not all politicians are evil and the phrase is not about the imperfections of people. However, this election is about the lesser of two evils and the lesser evil is still evil.
I think a lot of us use that in the “all have sinned” sense. All politicians are flawed. If you think there’s a perfect politician, you are setting yourself up either for disappointment or for the necessity of self-delusion.
Good article Dave,
My goal in these Presidential elections is to discover if there is any thing worth voting for in the platform. The man with the levers has some pull, but at the end of the day, it is the platform and policy wonks that craft up the legislation that pulls a country along or pushes it down.
This election is a bit more unusual because of the Supreme Court potentials. So, that along with the platform makes the election fairly easy to get an angle on.
But, I do agree with you…. if you conscience can’t take you down a road for a certain individual or any at all…that is plenty ok. The folks that don’t play, just can’t pontificate with any effectiveness, although will continue to pontificate none the less.
Politics, if I read the scriptures correctly, has always been a nasty struggle for all sorts of peoples and nations. I don’t expect that to change until the struggle is completely over.
“. I don’t expect that to change until the struggle is completely over.”
You are right as the rain, Chris Johnson. Yep, right as the rain.
I don’t agree, Chris, that platform matters more than candidate, if that is what you are saying.
The platform is window dressing. The candidate drives the party, at least till the election.
At what levels are you talking about Dave? You do know the parties exist at state and local levels too, right? In Missouri for the past few years l, the Republican Party has been more visibility socially conservative than the national party as a whole. In the primaries for state wide office this year the candidates are falling over themselves to show how conservative they are. And having got to meet a few of the candidates, I know they are genuine.
And here is the thing. The more reliably conservative the GOP is at the Missouri state level, the more we will put pressure with our national delegations on the GOP as a whole. Yes the presidential candidate plays a large role on leading the national GOP platform. But the GOP as a whole is guided by party members at the state and local levels. If you are bemoaning the state of the national GOP and yet do not participate at the local and state level, you, not Trump supporters, are the problem.
Dave, there is an plethora of facts to mitigate against one man having “primary” sway over a platform in America. The facts and reality of governing always goes to the platform. Platforms, policy…which ends up being Bills are what drives change. Sure, the leaders can push and shove, yet it is the policy makers that have the power and the backing, driven by folks that want the leader to push those things (SV is correct). If folks are not voting for a platform, ultimately realized as Bills and Laws, then those folks are easily moved into camps without any traction…. This year, the Democrats would love to see millions of no votes for the Republican platform; in the end, that is really their aim in this bizarre game of politics 2016.
I think Hillary is squeaky clean compared to Trump. A presidential candidate should never make fun of a handicapped person or be as prejudice as he is. I will not take a chance on World War Three by voting for Trump. The number of deaths by nuclear weapons will certainly out number abortions. That’s my view!
No Jess…. it is more to the form that Hillary is like Athaliah, and Trump is like Jehoash. One kills babies, the other ran a coup on the Republican party.
The answer to the question of who was President that never faced a national election for President is G. Ford, Agnew had to resign in disgrace and no VP for Nixon. Ford approved by House. Best question is who was Ford’s VP when he took over from Nixon? No fair looking it up, either you know or do not. Hint, it just shows how the rich and powerful are always close to ruling.
So for the Never Trump people it is simple, the Democrat Party just a couple days ago applauded a woman for having an abortion and gave her a standing O. After being used by Republicans like Bush, McCain, Romney and the establishment who only gave lip service to our values I will take Trump in a minute. So just stay home or do whatever but please get off the moral high ground using your religious position as a shield for public discourse. The majority of SBC members will vote for Trump .
Why would anyone tell a person to “get off the moral high ground?” What an odd thing when Christians – I assume you are a Christian, Kenny? – tell another to leave behind morals and to sink lower.
When Christians are encouraging other Christians to leave the high ground and get into the muck, it’s a kind of sad day.
So, Kenny, no thank you. If the majority of SBCers are going to vote Trump, then maybe my vote is inconsequential after all.
Kenny: I was wondering the same thing. As a Christian, I can’t get off the “moral high ground”. That is the result of my faith in Christ as any Christian.
“After being used by Republicans like Bush, McCain, Romney and the establishment who only gave lip service to our values I will take Trump in a minute.”
Kenny, I believe that multitudes of Republicans have given only lip service to our values (if you mean conservative Christian values). That is one reason I left working in the Republican party as a precinct chairman and election judge. But I don’t think Trump will give any better service to our values, and am afraid if elected he will give worse.
You are probably right, though, that a majority of SB’s and other conservative Christians will still vote for Trump. For many, it’s the fear factor.
Isaiah 8:13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the SCOTUS issue lately. In a weird way, I’m almost glad that Trump is the GOP candidate, because I’ve seen the SCOTUS argument used far more frequently in this election than in elections past, and, as a result, I’ve been forced to think about it more than ever. In the past, I think I’ve passively just accepted the SCOTUS argument as the be-all-end-all reason for supporting a GOP candidate. But with Trump being a wholly unacceptable nominee for a number of reasons, I’ve had to to wrestle with that issue for more this election cycle than in years past.
Now that I’ve thought about it, I mean really thought about it, I’m beginning to wonder why we cling to this argument so much.
Since the 1970’s, the Court has leaned decidedly conservative when compared to historical averages. And what has that accomplished for hot button conservative causes? J. Blackmun, a Republican appointee, wrote the opinion in Roe v. Wade. J. Kennedy, a Republican appointee, co-authored the plurality opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which affirmed the right to abortion under Roe, he wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which established a constitutional right to homosexual behavior, and he wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell, establishing a constitutional right to gay marriage. CJ Roberts, a Republican appointee, wrote the majority opinions in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell, both affirming the ACA. On some economic issues, the Rehnquist and Roberts courts have had a conservative leaning, but not overwhelmingly so.
By far, the most ideologically liberal Court of the 20th c. was the Warren Court, (1953-1969). What were the landmark cases from his tenure? Brown, which desegregated schools, Loving, which legalized interracial marriage, Griswald, which ruled that states can’t outlaw contraception, Sullivan, which strengthened first amendment protections for the press, Engel and Schempp which outlawed mandatory prayer and Bible readings in public schools, Mapp and Miranda, which outlawed the use of illegally obtained evidence and confessions against criminal defendants, and Gideon, which established the right to counsel.
Now, before somebody squawks: (1) I’m not saying that a liberal court is better than a conservative court; (2) nor am I saying that a liberal court isn’t a dangerous thing for this country; (3) nor am I saying that any particular case listed above is good or bad.
However, I just can’t get behind the argument that SCOTUS appointments are so vitally important to the preservation of [insert issue here] that any Republican presidential nominee must be supported, no matter how repugnant. Nixon appointed CJ. Burger, who pretty much kept the Warren Court status quo. Nixon appointed J. Blackmun, who gave us abortion. Nixon appointed J. Powell, who authored the landmark opinion affirming affirmative action and who voted with J. Blackmun in Roe. Ford gave us J. Stevens, perhaps the most ideologically liberal justice of the last 30 years. Reagan gave us J. O’Connor, who was moderate at best. Reagan gave us J. Kennedy, who gave solidified abortion and gave us gay marriage. G. H. W. Bush gave us J. Souter, a stalwart liberal who has consistently voted lock-step with Ginsberg. G. W. Bush gave us CJ. Roberts, solidified the ACA forevermore. The only consistent conservatives
Since 1969, we’ve had 12 Republican SCOTUS appointments, (including two Chief Justices), compared to 4 Democratic appointments. Historically speaking, I can’t see how the GOP’s SCOTUS track record justifies the argument that Trump, of all people, is going to appoint conservative justices. If that’s the major argument for overlooking all of Trump’s negative aspects, then I just can’t buy it.
This is just about worthy of being its own post!
“Just about,” until one notices that I somehow managed to delete only half of a sentence in my editing.
That sentence at the end of the second-to-last paragraph which starts “The only consistent conservatives…” was meant to be deleted in whole. Originally, my comment was much longer and more rambling. I was hacking away before I pressed the submit button, but that little bit escaped the purge. I guess that’ll teach me a lesson about reading blogs while I’m supposed to be sermon prepping.
Zachary, good points about the Supreme County justices.
Thanks for pointing all of this out. The SCOTUS arguments are the ultimate red herring. They have no teeth or basis in fact. Great research to prove that reality.
And I agree with Dave. Worth a full post.
Zachary, I still agree with the good points you made about SCOTUS. But it is worth pointing out that we can be fairly certain what we will get with Hillary Clinton appointments. Maybe that is why some are willing to “roll the dice” on The Donald.
When I heard the DNC applaud Ilyse Hogue for saying she had an abortion not voting is not an option.
I will put a vote for someone who is opposed to the DNC platform.
Amen, Dean.
That was sad and disgusting.
But I’ve come to believe that the GOP is no more committed to the pro-life cause in truth than the Dems are. The Dems come right out and SAY they love abortion. Killing babies in their mothers’ wombs is a great thing to them. It’s evil and horrible.
But the party I’ve been in all my life, even when they have power and they have the chance to do something – THEY NEVER DO!
They sell us out every chance they get. I don’t think the GOP is actually pro-life. I think it’s pro-getting votes from pro-life people.
Sorry, I’m cynical about things now. But I’ve been following this since the 70s. The GOP has held much power. What has it accomplished concerning abortion? How hard has it tried?
I’m not sure that we should trust the GOP platform.
It seems to me, from reading the comments on this site, that the real decision in this election (for many of us) comes down to whether to vote as a strategy to win or to simply vote for the best candidate according to one’s conscience (if an acceptable candidate is available). The same decision comes up every time that there is a third-party candidate who has more appeal to our conscience than the two who “actually have a chance to win.” Only now, we face the same decision even without such an ideal third party candidate, because the two main candidates both fall below the minimum acceptable standards for so many.
Isn’t this an occasion where the rubber of our theology meets the road of practical life? I once told a Sunday School class, just prior to a presidential election, that God had already decided who would win. Their reply: “What if God doesn’t get enough votes?” My answer: “God is able to raise up voters from these rocks if He wants to.” Isn’t our responsibility to vote for the best candidate (if he meets a minimum moral standard), so that the votes of God’s people will bring Him glory rather than shame? Isn’t this the original idea behind voting–that each citizen would vote for the candidate that best represents him according to conscience (and the one who best represents the most would win)?
But almost as soon as the concept of voting was born, politics slithered in, bringing strategy and concern that a vote might be “wasted” if given to one’s ideal candidate. Added to the concern for voting for the best candidate was the concern that one make the most efficient use of one’s vote toward bringing about a favorable (or least unfavorable) election result. No longer would voting for the best candidate do, if that candidate “has no real chance of winning” (according to informal opinion polls). To do so would be to “waste” one’s vote and abdicate one’s civic responsibility. We’re no longer responsible for voting for the best candidate–now, we’re responsible for strategically voting for a less desirable candidate in order to accomplish the best election results under the circumstances (causing the least desirable candidate to lose). Folks, this is nothing less than a vote of “no confidence” to the question of whether or not we can trust God to have the results under His control.
The world’s wool-covered lenses have been pulled over our eyes if we see the world in such a way that we think we are responsible for accomplishing any election result. The accomplishing belongs to God alone. All that we are responsible for is to register our principles by casting a vote for the one who best represents those principles. The highest thing that we can achieve in an election is to show the world who best represents us as we represent Christ. The election is not ours to win or lose. Unlike the world, we should see that God alone raises up and casts down, and the weapons of our warfare are not the carnal methods of the political battle.
As for voting itself, do you think Jesus would have voted if the Romans had elections back then? It would not surprise me if He would have said something like, “Let the dead elect their dead…” For the record, I do plan to vote… and the only one I’ve ruled out is Hillary. Whom would God have me vote for? He hasn’t told me yet.
Well, do we believe that God is in control and will elect whomever He chooses? –or, don’t we? If we do, then we ought to vote for whomever we find to be the best candidate, even if he seems to have no chance of winning; But if we don’t have confidence that it is God who ultimately decides this thing, then we had better try as hard as we can to achieve the best possible election result, even if that means voting for other than the best candidate. However, if we admit that God is in control, but we worry that we might not like the result if we “leave it to Him,” then we have some serious problems.
I’ll repeat myself. Do the words “war crimes” not give anyone pause? Trump wants to target civilians, including children. You are putting your hope to save American unborn in a man who is willing to kill Muslim children. A man who has shown his support for abortion rights not only with his words, but with his wallet.
In WW2 Allies obliterated German (and German controlled lands), Italian, and Japanese cities through our bombing campaigns. Look up the Bombing of Dresden, or the Firebombings of Tokyo. This is to say nothing of the Atomic Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And all of these were apart of a clear and direct goal. That is a military doctrine of Total War. If you are going to fight in a military conflict, if you are going to be at war, you fight to win. You fight to destroy the enemies ability to fight. You fight to force the enemy into complete and total surrender. And while it is best to avoid needless civilian casualties, sometimes they cannot be avoided.
Look at Israel. Terrorists fire rockets from civilian occupied buildings, and they themselves are dressed as civilians (and have people remove weapons after they are killed before cameras drive to make them “identical” to the civilians). Israel strikes the single building that was used to fire rockets, but because civilians die, they are the bad guys. What do you do when terrorists hide themselves among civilians? What do you do when even your most precise weapons will still kill civilians when targeting the bad guys? Go door to door? Same problem and a lot of our own soldiers are going to die. Do nothing? Terrorists will keep coming to kill if they are not dealt with. Fight them over there or over here, because with the type of people who are becoming terrorists, there is no peace, just their or our deaths will end it. Does that make it a “war crime”? Hardly.
Oh come on. “Target their families” he said. I’m not talking about civilians killed as collateral damage. Trump said he deliberately wants to target families. Question: If you knew a terrorist was hiding out in a building filled with civilians on American soil, would you favor bombing the building?
Another question: You’re in the military and you have been ordered to the house of al-Zawahiri to kill his wives and children. Do you follow that order? Because that’s what we’re talking about.
Bill – read Numbers 31 = in particular verse 1 and 2 and then down to 17 and 18. Would you be able to follow those orders? This was my reading today. Perhaps you have the answer.
Rob
Rob:
The answer? The answer to what? I’m trying to figure out of you are equating this passage with committing war crimes for Donald Trump.
If I was raised as an OT Israelite then perhaps I would have followed those orders. I don’t know. But I’m not. As an American Christian if someone tells me to murder civilians of course I don’t do it.
Since I’ve answered your question perhaps you’ll answer the original question. Do you kill women and children on the orders of Donald Trump?
First of all I did not read (or just skimmed) your first post in this section which connected it all to DT. So I would say no, committing war crimes for DT is not my bag of tea. Just send me off to the execution chamber with them. See you in glory. Though I must have missed the quote about DT saying he would target families. I will Google it and see if i can find the direct quote versus your interpretation of him (oftentimes I find the interpretation of DT is fairly and wildly emotional at times and is subject to hyperbole. I can quote many sources on that if you wish).
My response I thought was in the greater context of what Steve above talked about. Warfare itself is a fairly bloody business = some of those weapons will crawl back and bite the user if they are not properly used. The carnage that they create is unpredictable in the sense they are indiscriminate of their victims.
At the same time we cannot ignore history. The Axis and Allies bombed civilians populations in World War II for the sole purpose of decreasing morale. If you are going to fight a war, then you had better win or the other guy will. Gone are the days where armies would stand apart and fire at each other in a match to see whose weapons were more accurate. You are on the other hand seem a bit squeamish about it all – even so far as to infer that such warfare is un-godly and immoral. Well….the passage I just cited was an order by God given to Moses to “wreck vengeance on Midian” with the destruction of their civilization = the sacking of their towns and the wholesale killing of the people. When the Israelite army reappeared in the camp with the women and children of Midian as captives, Moses dressed them down. All males and all women who had known man were to be killed, leaving only women and girls. This is what I would like explained.
Rob
You are on the other hand seem a bit squeamish about it all – even so far as to infer that such warfare is un-godly and immoral
I’m not inferring that at all. I said as much to SV. I’m not talking about collateral damage, although you and SV seem a bit more cavalier about it than I am, but that may just be the communications medium.
I’m sorry if I’m being obtuse, but I still don’t know what you want explained. That passage? It kind of explains itself. As you say, Israel was commanded to take vengeance on Midian. The army didn’t go far enough to suit Moses and he had all the boys and non-virgin women killed. Whether that was God’s specific instruction isn’t said, so this might not be the same type of case as the other incidents of the cleansing of Canaan, but I don’t know that for sure. Moses, as we know, didn’t always stick to the script. He gave reasons for killing the women, and I presume he had the males killed to prevent them from turning on them in the future. I don’t think we need to go into the reasons for keeping the virgin girls.
I’m still not quite sure what this passage has to do with what I’m talking about. That it’s OK to kill women and children? You seem to be saying it’s not OK, so what’s the point of bringing up this passage?
Here is the Trump quote:
“”The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” “
Dave, I’m with you in concluding that the GOP has snookered us into believing that they are pro-life. I cannot continue to vote for candidates just because they “say” they are pro-life when they have not held that position at a political cost to themselves.
Aside from that, my problem with endorsing Trump is what it will cost me in terms of my witness to the lost. The secular left see our vote for Trump as nothing more than an unholy alliance designed to protect the privileges of Christians and the church. I think they have good reason to come to that conclusion.
I don’t see the 3rd party candidates as challenging our two party system. Those evangelicals enamored with the Libertarian Party might consider their candidate’s take on religious liberty: “”I just see religious freedom, as a category, of just being a black hole,” Johnson said.”
I can’t vote for the Johnson/Weed…umm…Weld ticket. To much purple haze…but then again, for the first time in the history of the United Stares all the candidates are likely former and/or present potheads. If we are disqualifying, keep it simple. They probably all drink, too, so…
I think you’re overthinking it, Dave. If you want to follow God’s direction you should cast lots. It eliminates the human passion and allows us to directly hear God’s voice on the subject.
What I’m firmly convinced of is this kind of hand-wringing is expressing fear. As a pastor is there solid advice you can give us on what to do when the choices are awful?
I really do believe we need to stop worrying who gets elected and literally and factually pray. Pray that God lend wisdom to the voters and the leaders alike and not even charge them either interest or a royalty when they act wisely.
I believe that our nation is a Godly nation when we obey God in our individual lives and make disciples of those around us. This is what we can do to make America great and each and every reader of this blog has the instruction manual for how to do that.
Dave, a few random comments on your random thoughts and options:
“9. We need a new party.”
I agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, we don’t have this new party, so that is not an option in this election. We have the two major parties and all the “third parties” that are vying for a seat at the table. The time to start thinking about forming a new party is as soon as this election is over (or even now). What we usually do is say that and then forget and then say it again four years later (and so on). Svmuschany is right when he writes, “For a new political party to rise up and vie for power against the existing two, it will require incredible amount of grass roots effort to occur.” But I do think that the constant dismissal of third party at times like this contributes to the continual “hanging of hopes” (they’re hung alright, and die quickly) on the two major parties. Even if we understand the need for important grass roots hard work, the election of a third party presidential candidate is not without merit. As with most Southern areas, our county was once an almost solid Democratic voting bloc. We (and most other counties) didn’t start out changing at the local level and then change the state to Republican. What happened to us was that the local folks first started voting for Republicans in the White House, Congress and State House, and then later through grass roots effort became a very solidly Republican county on the local level. This was done at the grass roots level, and in the case of our particular precinct, it happened when a local man from our precinct decided to run for county commissioner as a Republican rather than a Democrat. This gave the “Democrats in Name Only” a good reason to cross over and vote Republican in the primary rather than just in the general election.
“1. I could vote for Hillary…Trump…Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party…The American Solidarity Party…The Constitution Party…An Independent Run…A write-in…None of the Above…Stay home.”
In a year like this we should be extremely careful in criticizing the voting choices of our Christian brothers and sisters (of course we always should take care). It’s not just “the lesser of two evils” but looks like trying to find a choice between “the lesser of nine evils” (or so). I have voted Libertarian and intended to do so this time, but I don’t like what I’ve heard from Johnson on abortion or religious liberty. I still might vote Libertarian as a protest vote. One redeeming factor about their party philosophy is that they at least throw most issues back to the states. It is my understanding that they will be the only other party on the ballot in all fifty states.
I also like and don’t like some things I see in the American Solidarity and Constitution parties. An independent run seems to be out of the question. A write-in, at least in my state, is no good (not counted/registered) unless there is actually a declared write-in candidate. Staying at home and not voting is quite tempting in this state of affairs – but at least a vote for ANY third party candidates registers opposition in a lasting way and can’t just be dismissed as apathy and low voter turnout as when we just stay home. I seriously believe “none of the above” should be an option when voting. It might cost extra in the beginning when we have to redo an election, but voters and politicians would probably get the point fairly quickly.
Sorry for the length.
Affirming Dave’s point #7:
Arguments claiming that “If one does NOT ‘vote’ for DT, one IS therefore ‘voting’ for HC” commits the fallacy of equivocation: ‘Vote’ does not have the same meaning in the premise as it does in the conclusion. The argument is also confused conceptually: Not engaging in a positive action that would produce a positive benefit for DT (giving him my vote) is not to engage in a positive action for HC and is not a conferral of a similar positive benefit on HC (giving her my vote).
But if you normally vote for the republican candidate, then the logic is sound.
No, it is not. The equivocation regarding ‘vote’ (what you are specifically doing) remains.
Even the math is unsound…let’s say I convince 10 usual republican votors to vote 3rd party, and Hillary wins by 5 votes (say, 100-95) Seems to support the argument…BUT, if Only 5 of those people vote for a 3rd party, then it is a tie, 100-100…whereas if those 5 voted for Hillary, she would win 105-100…even if 3 did it, it would be 103-102 Hillary…
So it would be more accurate to say ” Not voting for Donald Trump is the same as a half a vote for Hillary. 🙂
You are making my brain hurt.
1. If I were to physically cast a vote for DT, then by my action I increase his vote total by one.
2. If I do not physically cast a vote for DT, then by my inaction I do nothing to increase or decrease his cast vote total.
3. If I were to cast a physical vote for HC, then by my action I increase her vote total by one.
4. If I do not physically cast a vote for HC, then by my inaction I do nothing to increase her cast vote total.
2. and 4. If I do not physically cast a vote for either DT or HC, then by my inaction / non-vote
I do nothing to increase the vote total of EITHER one.Neither one gains any advantage or ‘vote increase’ by my inaction / by my NON-VOTE.
5. If I do not physically cast a vote for DT, then, admittedly, my inaction / non-vote makes it easier for HC to win – because she would require one less vote to win than if I had voted for DT..
6. If I do not physically cast a vote for HC then, admittedly, my inaction / non-vote makes it easier for DT to win – because he would require one less vote to win,
7. Therefore, I am NOT giving AN ADVANTAGE to either of the two by not voting..
Neither DT nor HC has a claim upon, or presumption of receiving, my vote.
As there is no such thing as casting a ‘half-vote,’ that is of no impact whatsoever..
(Caps intended for emphasis – not to ‘yell!’)
Joe Blackmon – I know a few NeverTrump folks. What Russell Moore thinks is one opinion, but none of us live our lives on the basis of that.
Your words are hateful towards Dr. Moore and toward those who disagree with you. That’s your problem not mine. You need to deal with the hate in your heart, but I’m not interested in helping you work out your pathological and sinful hate here on this site.
You need spiritual help.
But issuing insults (fangirls, etc) and pretending your are GOD himself, knowing everyone’s motives. It’s just not acceptable.
Your comments are on moderation until you deal with your issues.
I’m not an ex-Republican yet, but I’m planning to vote for Hillary. I’ll continue to vote down ballot for Republicans to hold her in check. I’m well aware that the Democratic party is pro-abortion, but that issue isn’t on the ballot. Trump is. This isn’t a vote for SCOTUS, but it IS a vote for POTUS. I cannot vote for Trump. Further, he is such a bad choice that NOT voting for him is not good enough. I think I have to vote against him. If he wins with only a smaller majority than he would have had, then I didn’t do all I could.
Similar to your post, I would have voted for 16 Republicans against Hillary with varying degrees of enthusiam. Hillary is my 17th choice.
Amidst all of the moral hand-wringing, I do find it interesting that those who will not vote for Hillary on moral grounds seem to forget, or rationalize, that she’s been married to one man, even when she had moral and biblical grounds to leave him. I know, people will say it was a “power thing”, but they can’t know that. Trump’s record on marriage isn’t so good.
Republican Senators were able to work with Hillary, even though they were from the other party and had significant policy differences with her. Trumo has announced that he will fund super pacs against Senators in his own (supposedly) party.
As you (sort of) implied, hating Hillary Clinton should not be an act of worship. If she’s all that stands between Trump and the presidency, she deserves my vote.
May God be with us.
Voting for Hillary is a place I can’t go. Her dishonesty. Her enthusiasm for abortion. Her general platform. I simply would not consider voting for her at all.
Math aside if you don’t oppose Hillery in her bid you are for her.
So…same for Trump too, right?
Right, same for Trump. Although I understand it better to say that if you don’t vote FOR Trump, you haven’t done everything you can to prevent Clinton from being president. If you don’t vote for Clinton, you haven’t done everything you can to prevent Trump from being president.
If you don’t vote for either one, you haven’t voted FOR either one, but if you don’t vote for either one, you haven’t voted against either one. Unfortunately, I think this is an election where we have two candidates to vote against and none to vote for.
John Wylie: That makes absolutely no sense. It’s as if Christians have gone wacky this election. A no vote is noticed. It does make a statement. And even if it wouldn’t my conscience is ok with that.
To say what you have said it simply not true and as has been said, a bullying tactic. It just doesn’t wash. Trump is successful because I think he knew that all this thought is exactly what would propel him to the Presidency and he is no dummy. He didn’t come into this to lose and so far he has been absolutely right. No matter what outrageous thing he has said, the more outrageous, the more it has proven people will vote for him. I am shocked at the Christians that are for him and growing.
Maybe some have fallen for the if you don’t vote for Trump you vote for Hilary line. Maybe many agree with his lack of policies and rhetoric. I hope that is not the case. Granted Grudem’s article as outlandish at it is will ease other’s conscience to vote for Trump. Either way it’s not a place I will go. A vote for Trump will be a nail in the coffin of minorities and women. No thanks. Not to mention goes against every Christian value I hold dear.
I will also counter with this: If folks don’t want the Democrats to win, then start getting candidates people like me can vote for. Donald Trump is by far in history, even compared to the ones mentioned, who is the most despicable in character and no policies. He has not said one single policy or appointment he would make. Not once. No one knows what he will do as President.
Of course Andy, there are only two possible choices in this matter, regardless of all the banter.
This statement is known as the ‘false dilemma / false dichotomy fallacy’.
There is at least a third possible option -do not vote for either one.
There are other choices as well – vote for a candidate of another party.
Clearly, it will not affect the outcome of the election if one does so – but they
are still possible / actual choices.
And the statement that if one does not oppose Hillary, one is “for her” is
sophistry and falsehood, pure and simple..
So, logically, if Dave doesn’t vote for either, he is “for” both?
(Hopefully you see the problem here…)
Andy, the thing that makes your proposition illogical is the fact that I am pretty sure that Dave has always been a consistent Republican voter.
But the fact that a bunch of republicans not voting for trump makes Hillary winning more likely is not the same as saying they are “for” Hillary. They are for neither…even though their actions may make Hillary’s victory more likely.
That simply isn’t true, John, there are several candidates, parties, and options.
The simple truth, Dave, as you know, is that either Hillary or Trump are going to be president. You know that, I know that, and these other commenters know that. So no amount of cutsie mathematical equations will change that.
I will state my point like this. Our political and electoral system has changed dramatically from what it was even 150 years ago. Under the current system, it is not only a long shot for an independent or third party candidate to win, it is impossible. There are a sufficient number of states who don’t bother counting write ins, that it is an electoral impossibility for a third party guy to win.
Green party votes traditionally take votes away from the Democrats, and Libertarian and Constitutional party votes traditionally take away from Republicans. I would love a multi party system that actually had a chance.
I know that many of you disagree, and that is cool, but in my opinion Hillary would be an unmitigated disaster. There are only two viable choices. I am voting for Trump, because I think he would be better than Clinton.
It’s only true because people buy into it. If enough people broke free from the two-party mirage, we might have a chance to start a new party. Granted, it is probably too late to do it THIS election – but it could have been done.
I think a 3rd party or independent bid COULD have worked this time, IF…
…if a big name had the courage to run.
…if he or she had announced a couple of months ago.
…If that candidate had been pro-life with reasoned positions on other issues – secure borders without “ship ’em all back to Mexico” rhetoric, a racial peacemaker instead of a pot-stirrer, a fiscal conservative but on the centrist side of conservative – a person of compassion, sanity, integrity, and honor.
It’s only impossible because people keep saying, “It’s impossible.”
John, if you want a third party with a chance, then look for a district that comes closest to a majority for a third party. Move there, find a superior candidate, and start working toward the 2018 election. Help that candidate become well (extremely well) known in the district and get him/her elected in 2018. Then move on to a second district. Make sure the district is well taken care of by the new party.
It is not all that hard, but you do have to be patient, smart, and very determined.
No Dave, it’s impossible because it is literally mathematically impossible.
John, you may think that Dave’s and my comments have something in common–and they do. But I did not read his before I wrote mine. The way things are these days, it is extremely difficult to suddenly be a successful third party.
Bennett,
I happen to agree with you. You have made the most rational comment about a third party bid than any other commenter.
There are only two possible outcomes. The system is heavily stacked against any but the two parties. It’s an old civics essay question: “Is our two party system better or worse than other systems? Why or why not?” Question like that makes you hate your teacher for requiring an essay on it.
Oh, your individual vote will not make any difference in the outcome. This is about satisfying our consciences, not electing anyone with our vote.
I’m a ‘Trump? Nope. Never.’ guy…but the more I hear from Hil and her crowd the more I waver. I’d hate to have to endure all that for 8 years. Then I get the standard political-religious line from folks like Grudem who says a vote for Trump is a “moral choice” and reminds me that we’ve sold our soul to the political devils for a couple of generations now. Makes me want to head for the desert and a life of isolation…but then no SEC football, besides I have sensitive skin.
“Oh, your individual vote will not make any difference in the outcome. This is about satisfying our consciences, not electing anyone with our vote.”
While this is true for many of us (I’m in Indiana…we will go trump/pence no matter what I vote…it is different for those next door in Ohio…their votes might well chose the next president.
Perhaps if I still lived there I might be more concerned with the impact of my vote…as it is, it is purely an exercise in conscience.
We’d survive Clinton. We might even survive Trump, although I think the damage would be greater. However I think my credibility and witness take the most damage if I vote for Trump. It’s not worth it.
Bill Mac who would know how you voted? Do you usually publish that info somewhere for others to see? I guess I dont understand this whole “my witness will be damaged” thing. How unless you tell people?
I talk politics with people all the time. Everyone knows my opinion of Trump. Who I support for president, or not, is not something I keep secret.
Oh I see. Well that “witness” issue is one of your own making. But you do know of course whatever your view that you make known will hurt your witness with someone. 🙂
Disagreeing with someone is not the same as hurting your witness. I have built relationships with people over the years, and I have tried (imperfectly) to model empathy, honesty and integrity in my own life, and I have made it clear that I value those qualities in our elected leaders. For me to turn around and support someone who in my opinion has never even tried to model such things would, in my opinion, put the lie to what I purport to believe. For me to support a candidate, flawed as they all are, I have to be able to find something I can grab on to. Something I can admire or appreciate. With Trump, there is nothing.
As far as keeping my voting secret. I think as a rule if I have to keep any of my activities secret for fear of hurting my witness, those activities are probably not something I should be doing in the first place.
Bills Mac didn’t say you HAVE to keep your vote secret. But if your witness may be harmed it may be best to NOT exercise liberty here in revealing your vote.
Do you make your income and amount of taxes and charitable giving public as much as your political views? I mean as your general rule, why keep all that secret.
Bill not good arguments on your part here brother.
Not sharing my salary or charitable contributions is not the same thing as voting for Trump and keeping it quiet. I am not ashamed of my salary or charity. I don’t think there is anything wrong with my salary or charity. My salary and contributions don’t tell a different story than what my public life portrays. My salary and charity don’t betray every moral instinct that I possess. If I thought someone would be edified or helped in some way by sharing my salary I would do it gladly.
You’re missing the point of my not voting for Trump and keeping it secret. I don’t secretly want to vote for Trump but am worried that it will hurt my witness. Secret or public, quiet or vocal, conscious, subconscious, or unconscious, I want Donald Trump as far away from the White House as it is possible for him to be. There is nothing in him that I admire, appreciate or approve. I would have to turn my entire world view inside out to vote for him, and it’s not just that I won’t do it, I can’t.
Will your voting for Hillary hurt your witness?
I’m not voting for Clinton, and please save the “not voting for Trump is the same as voting for Clinton” speech if you’re about to give it. It’s not.
Look, if Trump is your guy, have at it. This is, at least for now, still America.
Bill Mac, you have no idea what I am about to say so wait until I speak and we can have a dialogue. If you want to write your own challenges to interact with let us know and we will now bow out and watch you go. You are more sympathetic to Hillary than Trump. I assumed you were a Clinton man.
My question is a legitimate question are those who are voting for Hillary are they hurting their witness?
Bill Mac I think you’re missing MY point. Mine is not really about WHO you vote for or IF you vote. No one is under obligation to reveal who or if they vote.
If you write in Huckabee or someone you have no moral objection to you still need not ever publicize that. Why would you? Your decisions are I presume conscience decisions. Why reveal them? What would that accomplish.
Why are any of you revealing your choices anyway? What are you trying to accomplish? Is it about being able to stand tall and be seen in your conscience decision? If not then why?
I am revealing it to show that Christians do not have to vote, to not vote is not sin, to get the word out that bullying phrases like you continually use Les, and have become the mantra for many Christians voting for Trump don’t work on all people. That they are bullying words with no meaning. That is why I am vocal in my choice or non-choice take your pick.
I am vocal because I think as Christians there are many who want to do the right thing, but listen to others and not to their inner conscience. Voting is a privilege and a right. I think we need to start standing for higher standards in our politicians. And quit this they are not running for pastor nonsense. There are jobs that wouldn’t hire Trump or Hilary based on their ethics or lack of. I certainly will not hire them for President of the United States.
Oh, and another reason is I don’t have to keep it quiet.
Why do we ever reveal our choices? Why have you revealed that you are voting for Trump? People discuss things. The voting booth is not the confessional. People ask. We talk. This is just normal life. No one is entitled to know how I vote and I am not obligated to share it, but why wouldn’t I? I’m not ashamed of how I vote. You seem to be implying that pride is driving my decision to not vote for Trump and not to hide the fact, but why does that apply to me and not anyone here who has voiced their opinion, including you?
The math here is simple: Everyone knows I am a republican and that I have generally supported republican candidates. They also know I am a Christian. Well, now we have Donald Trump with a big R next to his name despite a long, long record of living in a way antithetical to both conservatism and Christianity. People who know me want to know if I’m going to fall in line and vote for him. If I choose to keep silent, they might be forgiven for thinking that I will do just that. I want no one to make that mistake and so I tell them in no uncertain terms.
Here’s an interesting transcript of views held by Gary Johnson regarding Religious Liberty. This is disappointing. Doesn’t even sound Libertarian to me.
Oops!
Here’s the site.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gary-johnson-religious-freedom-as-a-category-is-a-black-hole/article/2598088
I am sure many of you saw Wayne Grudem’s discussion of why Christians should vote for Donald Trump.
http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564
Just saw that linking to this article is not a good thing, and that a separate post is preferred.
I will do that, and sorry for posting this again in this thread.
Let me say clearly for the record that any of the people on here can vote for whomever they choose, and unless they say otherwise, I would assume that they are doing so after searching their hearts and consciences, and that they are acting in good faith. I may question the wisdom of their choice, but I do not doubt the sincerity of their conviction.
Is there anyone on here who disagrees with that statement, and if so, why?
In other words, do any of you feel that a vote for a particular candidate is the commission of a moral evil or not done in good Christian conscience?
If so, who feels that way? And for which candidate would you consider a vote to be committing a moral evil and not in accordance with a Christian conscience?
“NONE of the Above: An Examination of Our Election Options”
I read the title and thought this was another article about Calvinism.
David R. Brumbelow
David:
You NEVER disappoint!
Calvinism is less controversial. 🙂
I gotta give you a point or two on that one, David.
Neither candidate seems honest. Both could cause great harm to the country. No one but the Lord knows who would actually be worse (and anyone who says they “know” is as untrustworthy as HRC or DJT in my opinion). Some people will not vote, some will vote for one because of certain things and some will vote for the other because of other things. Some will vote for a third party (though none have the remotest chance of winning). I respect all those choices. For me, it is clear that the Ds are consistently committed to abortion without restriction and pushing the cause of the sexual revolution. They will seek to restrict religious liberty and freedom of speech. If HRC wins this will be aggressively pursued. I have no doubt about that. If DJT wins, I am very uncertain about what will happen, but there’s a chance that the liberal progressive agenda will not be as quickly or effectively asserted. Just a chance. But some are saying DJT maybe another Mussolini or Hitler. He’s clearly a mess but that seems unwarranted. Looking at the choice on the basis of personal character and integrity and I’d say it’s a wash. Neither inspire respect. But looking at it on the basis of the policy agenda likely to be carried out through the parties, it seems a clearer decision that the Ds will much more aggressively push the country in a dangerously liberal direction, while the Rs may restrain that drift at least somewhat. As for me, I want to at least try to slow the liberal progressive agenda at least a little and voting for the R candidates seems the only possible way this could happen, unless the Lord otherwise intervenes. But I refuse to condemn or criticize other Christians who see things differently. To quote the movie “Argo”:”You don’t have a better bad idea than this?” “This is the best bad idea we have, sir. By far.”
“…the only possible way this could happen, unless the Lord otherwise intervenes.”
Reading some of the comments in this thread makes me wonder how many believe the Lord can or will intervene in our affairs.
Intervene? It is HE who decides which candidate will win. Do we really think that He just sits back and watches, and only occasionally gets involved Himself?
Robert I absolutely believe that the Lord can intervene. And yet He may not. In any case, He uses means to intervene quite often. The means could be us.
Les, I agree with Ken that the Lord decides — that is, He raises up one and puts down another, etc., and rules in the kingdoms of me. I used the word “intervene” in response to Steve’s comment. The reason I brought up the topic, though, is because of the amount of folks in this thread who have said there are only two possible outcomes of the 2016 election — DT or HC. I don’t believe that (and wouldn’t believe it even if only men or the Devil were “in charge”). That said, I have no disagreement with the fact that God can and does use means. He has many “means” at His disposal that could change the course of how the election will transpire and so I don’t think we should say there are only two possible outcomes.
Nevertheless, there are only two outcomes that seem very likely. I don’t know, but it may be that God has designed us (as a nation) for judgment soon. The prospects of DT or HC surely make me wonder!
Thanks, Robert. I was beginning to wonder if my comments were visible. Would you agree that there’s no reason to vote strategically if God has the result in His hands? We need not worry that if we vote for the best candidate (who may not have a “chance of winning”) that we will waste our vote.
Yes, Ken, I agree — if I understand what you mean by voting strategically. We should do what (vote how) we believe is right and leave the results to God.
Also, while I believe God rules everywhere, when I wrote “and [God] ]rules in the kingdoms of me” I meant rather to type “and [God] ]rules in the kingdoms of men.”
Trump’s latest attack on Captain Khan’s mother has Republicans rushing to the microphones to repudiate it. This is the guy some want as CIC. The same guy who suggests POWs are not heroes because they were captured.
“loves” that babies get butchered. Loves it.
Right. And the only other possible winner of the presidential election lives that babies get butchered in wombs I’d prefer that the one who advocates for the murder of babies not be elected.
A woman whose rise to power was funded, in part, by Trump and his family.
And again…still. The only two possible winners are a woman who loves babies dying in wombs or a man who has said some bizarre things and has committed adultery. Accused of being a racist but definitely not proven. But what if he is? A racist or a baby killer? I’ll take the racist every time. At least his victims can still breathe. Babies with their brains sucked out? Not so much. Now, queue up Debbie.
Les: I understand your attitude, but if frustrates me because it is precisely the attitude that the Republican party loves. All they have to say is “pro life” and they (rightly) expect a majority of Christians to fall in line. Despite the fact that they have clearly done little for the pro life cause. Trump has no record of doing anything pro life other than saying so for political expediency and I might add a record of dishonesty that is astonishing even for a politician, and yet people fall in line. The republican party is broken, but it will never get fixed if we keep bellying up to the trough and taking whatever swill they give us.
How bad does a candidate have to be before Christians will say to the Republican party, thanks but no thanks? Clearly someone worse than Donald Trump. We deserve better. We should demand better.
How many more babies have to have their lives snuffed out before some people will use whatever flawed instrument is available to stop her? I’m more concerned with that than trying to send a political party a message they won’t hear anyway.
Well OK. But what is “better” at this time? The R “establishment” didn’t want DJT. Elected Rs didn’t rush out to support him en masse. The decent conservative candidates…lost. Because DJT got more votes than any other single primary candidate. I’m not happy about this and I didn’t vote for him. But the problem isn’t the R party leadership. The fact is there aren’t enough solid conservatives to win national elections on their own. DJT in fact brought some people into the primary that weren’t typically R primary voters. And many R voters saw in him something of the no-holds barred, non-PC attitude that they longed for. They thought the only way to beat HRC and her allies in the media and pop culture was someone who continually flummoxed and outraged the media and didn’t care. DJT may well lose but there was little doubt he’d take the fight to HRC.
Go ahead start a truly conservative party. Pull away from Rs that aren’t conservative enough. See how that goes. The fact is that right now there are 2 major parties: one is bad and the other is worse. And one of them will win in November. The policies of that winning party will profoundly influence us for years to come. This year there’s not going to be a better option. Many have rejected the “lesser of two evils” argument. Fine. But in my opinion this is what we face.
DJT is a gamble, a risk. I get that. I hate that dilemma. But it is almost certain that HRC will push this country further down the progressive liberal path. I want to do anything I can to hinder that. I remember something I heard back in the 80s when I was a kid. Sometimes your only real choice is between two skunks. Choose the one who’s tail is pointing away from you.
Les: Trump supported abortion before he became Republican and I ask you where in his speeches as he addressed abortion other than a person who has an abortion should be imprisoned? Come on Les. And it seems in scripture that when God uses a person like Trump to fix things, it is a judgment on the nation.
The church is to be a voice for righteousness to the world are they not? Yet, settling for Trump by the Christian community is OK? That just doesn’t seem right to me.
Steve in Birmingham: I disagree. And where would that be in scripture? Anywhere? What we face is not the lesser of two evils, but are we as Christians to pick evil? Even if it’s the lesser? Where in scripture is that? Please someone show me cause I don’t see it and given the fact that we serve a Holy God, I can’t go along with that premise. That’s more than holding our noses, it’s going against all that is Christianity.
It seems a Republican can do anything and it’s ok, but if they are Democrat you yell they are wicked and I won’t vote for them. It’s hypocritical it seems to me. And for a Christian to be a hypocrite, again goes against everything the church and the Bible teach.
Let’s see Debbie on the life issue. He acknowledged that his position has changed. You remember Ronald Reagan? Anyway, He has said he will appoint pro life judges. He has said Planned Parenthood should not be funded as long as they do abortions. P is strongly against him and said he will be a disaster for women’s cause (read: abortion). Susan B Anthony, a strongly pro life org praised the names of judges he said he would appoint.
someone who continually flummoxed and outraged the media
You’re kidding right? The media made Donald Trump. The media played the whole country for fools and won. No candidate in history has gotten the free media that Trump has. The media outraged? The media has lapped up Donald Trump since the beginning of this cycle.
The people who are flummoxed are people like me, who wonder how a cartoon character bullied, lied, complained and insulted his way to the top of a major party ticket. You pro-Trumpers can thank the media.
Les,
“… On the life issue . He acknowledged that his position has changed. You remember Ronald Reagan? ”
Unfair attempt at equivalency, in my opinion.
It’s true that Donald Trump claims that his position on
has changed –. And that he is now “pro life and that he is now “pro lights in ”
It’s also true that Ronald Ragan changed his position from a pro choice to a pro-life position in the 1970s.
However there was a whole lot less information in the 1970s – and it was crystal clear Reagan had truly changed his belief based on a conviction not based on political expediency – go back and read his explanations of why he became pro-life.
Conversly, withdrawal – he is supportive Planned Parenthood and abortion for many many years – done so publicly and without reservation – one year ago when he decided to run for president was the first time we have heard him say that he had become pro life. When asked why it is that he’s few changed – he told of the story where “friends” were considering an abortion and they did not go through with that abortion – and the child that was born grow into a wonderful, beautiful, wealthy, successful individual and therefore he saw the value of not choosing abortion.
My friend, that is not pro life that is – just like everything else Donald Trump espouses pure pragmatism – if the child had been born and had down syndrome for example, or grew up to be a 25-year-old homeless shelter liver – would he have “changed his mind” and become pro life? We don’t know but based on his verbal history I sincerely doubt it.
Also take his position on torture and “taking out” of family members – without any concern for their actual complicity but in order to say “send a message to terrorists”
He also espoused support for what many consider to be torture (waterboarding) but he also espoused support for going “a hell of a lot further, trust me” – again not a pro-life position. ( I know there’s great disagreement over for the waterboarding is actually torture – and that’s not what I’m wanting to get into here – surely though even if someone believes waterboarding actual terrorists is not torture – we can agree “taking out” family members simply for being related to a terrorist is not a pro-life position)
I could go on – but I think you get the point – I truly believe his newly minted espousing of a pro life position is yet another lie – or perhaps I should say political pandering – from one of the greatest political opportunists we seen in our lifetimes.
*It’s true that Donald Trump claims that his position on
has changed –. And that he is now “pro life.”
*Conversely, with Trump…
Bill the winner of that office, let’s say a R, has a much broader effect than just his actions which are limited given there are two other branches. On a national level you’re right. Not a lot of progress in saving babies. But don’t discount state and local levels which are connected to the national party and platform.
Look I know DT is a flawed candidate. What R candidate can you name who wasn’t? None. With HC there is virtual certainty of the continued policies and judicial appointments which have resulted in the expansion of baby killing. With DT there’s a better chance that that will not happen. My vote will be to stop her to the extent I can. Maybe some babies wil be saved from butchery. My conscience will not allow me to stand by and NOT try to stop her and her killing machines.
Bill,
It appears that there are a lot of Republican platform supporters that believe Trump “is not” stronger than the platform, yet there are some that think one man will extinguish the only party platform option that can effectively fight to keep babies from being killed in the womb, higher taxes for bloated programs that ultimately create economic slavery, protection of the value of the dollar through less and efficient government spending, etc., etc. Christians seem to be a fickle bunch, and are placing a lot more hope and confidence in Trump to wreck an entire mission to correct the current morass of government failures and lying politicians. Its almost laughable that Christians are so easily made chumps by the liberal media, and by a current Federal governing class that has no reason to change from the current course of action to kill, create a new slavery, and make a country’s economy less valuable day by day.
Chris: If there’s anything we’ve learned in this election cycle, is that contrary to all logic and reason, Trump can exceed expectations. I don’t there’s there’s any limit to what he can wreck. Christians have put their hope in the Republican party for decades to stop abortion and we know how that’s gone. Do you really think voting for anyone with an R next to their name is the right thing? What happens when David Duke is the next Republican nominee? As long as he says he’s pro-life, we have to fall in line? We’re being told that racism, lying, misogyny, threats to religious freedom and freedom of the press, advocating war crimes, threat of war, cozying up with dictators, none of that matters as long as the candidate says he is pro-life. Trump says he is for the unborn (Americans) but doesn’t seem to think Muslim children are worth protecting if there is a terrorist in their family. He’ll send troops to kill them. Flawed candidate? Yeah, I’d say he’s flawed.
Bill, I’m not a registered Republican. The R platform is the only platform with hope in view,…at least in this election, if you compare the platforms and performance during the past 40-50 years. This election is not so much about Trump, as some like to think it may be.
What I find interesting is when Trump is attacked by a very carefully crafted DNC effort with a Muslim American…Trump ends up being spun into the media frenzy as the attacker because he doesn’t say what “Political” operatives think he should say. And then Hillary uses that spin to extend to a discussion about nuclear codes. Fear mongering goes both ways…
You are absolutely right though…. this is a bizarre election cycle. If Hillary does win, it will not only be the most bizarre electorate decision in our nations history, but it will be rubber stamping a platform that is clearly inducing economic slavery to those in poverty, that is clearly killing millions of babies in the womb every year, and, is clearly writing policy that contributes to the moral decay of his nation.
I heard a guy yesterday say…”what if both candidates never make it to the election”, what happens then. Well, both parties then push forward a couple of more folks for battering. The bottom line though, the platform remains the same, and the policy making remains in tact to the winner. One thing, probably the only thing Obama got right, was when he repeated over and over after the election to his policy foes… “We Won!” So, shut up!
” he doesn’t say what “Political” operatives think he should say”
Most of the time he doesn’t say what any decent human being would say.
If Clinton does win, it says that the Republicans couldn’t put forth a candidate good enough to defeat one of the weakest Democratic candidates in recent history.
My question about David Duke was a real question: What happens if he’s the next nominee and says he is pro-life?
Can’t happen you say? After this election cycle, anything is possible.
One more thing: Perhaps the Democrats did set a trap for Trump with the Khan family. He fell for it, as everyone knew he would. He literally cannot help himself. How will he deal with world leaders who will do the same thing, but probably much more cleverly?
Bill, I think that is a bit of an over reaction. Trump is not that important, and David Duke would not be the party’s choice based upon the history of that party. For that matter, Hillary is not all that important either (but does have 40 years of very interesting history) I choose to compare Hillary and her policy machine apparatus to Trump and his policy machine apparatus. That seems to be more in the realm of what is actually happening, and will be making more policy decisions in the near future.
Chris: With all due respect, that’s what you said about Trump’s chances for winning the nomination. I’m not faulting you for that prediction, I agreed with your assessment. But in light of the direction the party took, nothing is off the table. Any fiend with a pro-life button is a potential candidate.
“Perhaps” 🙂
I truly believe this election cycle is doing something good for America. It is exposing the ugly underbelly of existing government overreach, and horrible economic policy that is creating a permanent poverty class, that will have no other option but to vote for the party dolling out their portion for living from year to year. Absolutely absurd! This has been the least efficient governing decision making in the history of our country. Christians have a distinct opportunity in this climate to expose the atrocious poverty making policies that have been expanded and continued by Obama Administration. An opportunity like never before in the last 50 years. So, the choice is clear. Tell the truth. Don’t cave to political insensitivities that cloud the reality of the policies thrusted upon the communities of those in poverty, and you wisdom and patience to help the naive and innocent understand the reality of efficient governing that leads to abundant living, teaching them how to never being tied to the lender….in this case “the current American poverty machine”.
“Chris: With all due respect, that’s what you said about Trump’s chances for winning the nomination. ”
Trump ran an excellent coup on the Republican party. I didn’t think he could outpace the “establishment” Republicans,…so that was very impressive, I must say. I also said he mirrors a few of the other Republicans running in the same campaign, and I know he does, but certainly will not act like them. Walker and some others have the same policy ideas as Trump, but that will not see the light of day in this cycle.
I will say, that he will not win the election unless he begins to pivot and catch the media in their game with Hillary. 8 out of 10 media agencies are in the tank for Hillary, along with the DNC establishment apparatus, and some of the RNC establishment guys (Bush, etc.) So, this is a race for Hillary to lose….and she could, and America would be much better off if she does…. But, in politics and the social media environment, politics can change on a dime, when it used to be on a silver dollar.
I don’t think it is fair to say opposing Trump (like Bush) is being in the tank for Clinton. When you nominate a candidate so odious, don’t be surprised if some people in the same party don’t support him. I continue to be amazed that political party allegiance is held as such a high virtue among Christians.
Bill, …there are only two parties in play this go around. I truly believe that most Christians know the right thing to do, and I can see why they might even opt to sit this one out. But, there still remains the consequence in politics, the nation, and its people. Hoping that a platform will change is not like voting for it to change. Votes do matter in making policy.
Bill Mac it’s not about political party allegiance. Not sure where you get that idea. It’s about using the only real means/option available to try to stop the baby killing party from getting another 8 years in power.
Republicans have no interest in outlawing abortion, for if they were successful, it would no longer be part of the platform, and thus they would lose the main thing that has held Christians in thrall to the party for decades.
I think people can be forgiven for being skeptical that the party that has done almost nothing to curb abortion since Roe v Wade will somehow be energized to outlaw abortion by a man with a proven history of being pro-choice and no history other than his word of being conveniently pro-life.
Bill Mac, history shows that a lot of good has come from Rs over the years. Your sweeping generalizations and apparent hatred for all things Republican is stunning.
Read this article and let’s talk about what hasn’t happened because of Republicans.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/30-year-history-gop-attacks-defund-planned-parenthood
I don’t hate all things Republican. I just don’t put my trust in them, especially now that Trump is the leader of the party. I would willingly have voted for any of this year’s crop other than Trump, some more enthusiatically than others. The only other high profile Republican I would never consider voting for is Sarah Palin.
And the oft repeated mantra here that Rs have accomplished nothing? Did you read the Mother Jomes article? No response?
Having ads in the White House matter…with severe consequences on the unborn. Like getting murdered in larger numbers.
So trying to stop more D White House occupancy makes perfect sense and may very well stop some butchering.
Bill Mac we can do this all day and all night. I’ll never compromise my baby savi g attempts even in periodic defeat.
To the point that Les is making, the DNC platform and subsequent policies have created financial hardship for the poor and is creating a deeper well of hopelessness for those in poverty, and their answer is (according to their spokesperson Hillary as of yesterday) that enough of this has not been done. So, more hardship, and more poverty will be hoisted upon the nation should the DNC platform be enacted even further. So, it is possible to leave off the abortion issue all together, without harming the ignorance of voting for the DNC platform.
The RNC does not even retreat enough for me on diminishing the strangle hold and breadth of Federal controls, but I would at least have a starting point for a conversation on moving in that direction. The DNC has capitulated to a point that is extremely scary and will increase moral decay in America.
Hey, boys and girls. Let’s show respect in our conversation here, or we will have to shut this down. That’s a general thing.
Except for SEC Football. There’s no need to show respect for that.
You can express strong opinions but try to show some honor to others.
A comment like this always ends up appearing below some other comment and people assume I’m talking to THAT person.
It’s a general admonition.
I am still thinking and praying about what to do. Many of the comments in this string are very interesting to me and help me in my thinking.
What to believe about the candidates is almost as difficult to discern as what to do. Being no stranger to politics, perhaps my view is darker. My perspective leads me to more willingly accept the political novice who is morally bereft than I am a life-long, professional politician who is artfully and intentionally deceptive. The former brand of evil seems more impersonal and unintentional as a result of the fall, and the latter seems to be more of a wilful and fully knowledgeable giving of one’s self over to evil actions that hurt others to attain one’s goals. But is harm by accident or ignorance any less devastating than harm by intent? Not sure.
While the decisiveness of those of you who snap to your judgments is attractive, there are many of us who cannot react automatically in that way but wish we could. We really want to get this right and we are having a really hard time knowing what to do. Without denigration, can some of you offer some biblical passages to inform the decisions the rest of us need to make?
In my own struggle about this, I was drawn to Isaiah, wherein I was reminded that the Lord’s heart goes out to the downtrodden, the defenseless, the poor, the victims of corruption in government and the courts, the unhealthy, etc. I think His heart goes out to anyone who seeks Him and His will and His help, for whatever reason. But we have to be doing that, not just practicing “common sense”. Exercising our logic is not really a spiritual endeavor.
Read Isaiah 26 (for instance) and change the word “Judah” to “America”. I want to be the guy in verse 3, but is that the same guy that is among others like him in verse 20? How does that plug in to elections?
I tried to analyze differently by using the perspectives of the people God has a heart for. In other words, assuming they were motivated in a godly way and could foresee outcomes depending on how the election results would affect them, who would the unborn be wanting us to vote for? Or would they want us to stay home? What about the poor or the defenseless or the victims of oppression or unjust courts . . . who would they want us to vote for or what would they be praying we would do or not do? Honestly, this analysis helped me only a little, but was not conclusive.
(It just occurred to me that the last paragraph sounds like I am buying into party platforms. I am not. I think party platforms pander to such groups to get their vote, and often do so without any real intention of ultimately rendering any assistance.)
Please don’t read into this post. I am not judging any of you. How could I? I really don’t know what to do in regard to the vote this November. But I might just be reminding you as I am reminding myself that laying it all out to the Lord and asking for His help is an act of worship He says He will accept, and will show Himself worthy of. But should I “only” pray and not vote? Again, I do not know . . . yet.
I usually don’t post until the steam is completely gone from a subject, but I am hoping for a little more light and a little less heat in at least a few more posts that would lead us to scriptural direction pertinent to this election.
Thanks to anyone who comments on these thoughts.
Grudem in an earlier article last week wrote about the opportunity in this fashion…”“Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7).
By way of modern application, I think Christians today have a similar obligation to vote in such a way that will “seek the welfare” of the United States. Therefore the one overriding question to ask is this: Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?”
Probably a good place to start.
Chris, Grudem is right. Thank you for pointing it out.
For me, of the candidates available, DT is the best option to be consistent with what Grudem points out as a biblical approach.
In his theology, as in his politics, Grudem tows the party line. While I’m not really looking for original thought in a Systematic Theology, I’m unimpressed with Grudem’s analysis of this year’s choice.
Between now and November, God could convict me that a vote for Hillary is wrong, but to do that I think he’d have to convict me that a vote for ANY Democrat is wrong. I think that is the position of many Christians that I respect.
We’ve not had a Republican candidate for president, until now, that gave me a reason to consider voting for a Democrat. Now we have. I find Dave’s (and Mohler’s, and Moore’s) argument that Trump is not worthy of a Christian’s much more compelling than Grudem’s. Thabiti Anyabwile makes the argument that a vote for Clinton is the best choice for a Christian. I find his argument the most compelling.
As it is, especially with the vitriol that I’ve heard in this discussion, I’m wondering if my original plan for voting Clinton at the top and voting Republican down-ballot is wrong and whether I should just vote straight Democrat, or not vote at all.
The more praise I hear for Trump, the more I wonder whether the abortion issue is just a red herring by some to coerce a vote for an unworthy man. (As I say that, I realize that Dave holds a “never Trump” position that I agree with and has nothing to do with his article) Praise for Trump, when coupled with the demonization of his opponent as if they were sucking the brains out of fetuses with their own hands make me wonder if the abortion issue is just being used by some (not Dave, et al, since they favor 3rd party, write-in or no vote) for partisan advantage.
I stated in an earlier post that I wasn’t ex-Republican, yet. I would never have dreamed that I would say this in 72 hours, but I am now. I’ve decided that a party affiliation is a barrier to my faith, a competing interest that gives a group of people an allegiance that belongs to God alone.
Earl, good thought, and I had not read through Thabiti’s argument.
Since you bring up Thabiti,…I really like THABITI a lot btw, and he and I are in lock step for the Gospel, yet his analysis of Clinton and of Trump in order to reach his conclusion is a bit assuming. His main argument is….
“Here’s why: I prefer the predictable over the unpredictable. Whatever we might call Clinton, however we might evaluate her as a leader or her platform as a vision for America, we could say more or less the exact same things about Trump–with one glaring exception. We have no way of predicting Trump’s behavior from one hour to the next. None.”
The problem with Clinton’s predictability is that the platform she pushes is predictable…so to support such a platform is to agree with the results. More poverty, more debt, more moral decay by dismissing the creation of man and woman, more economic slavery for the working poor which disproportionally effects what the government marks out as African American.. because of the equity erosion of the dollar they are working for, etc. etc. The only winners are those in governing positions, period. That is “predictability” at its worst for a Constitution that is founded upon principle of the opposite kind.
“But Clinton represents the status quo, a steady state of affairs in that regard. Trump is the revolutionary, the rebel it seems without a clear cause. His prescriptions are not only draconian but also erratic.”
One thing that Trump is not, is a revolutionary. If anyone looks at Trumps business dealings outside of the 4 bankruptcy filings (which is used for the most part by millions of businesses in America as a fail safe to save businesses from total failure), among his 500 current businesses….there is no revolutionary things there …nor is he erratic in his business. His business practices of less than one in 100 businesses failing is pretty amazing and consistent. The mere mention of the word bankruptcy is a great political fear mongering term, so why not use it to create fear, right (that’s fair). A comparison to SharkTank may be more familiar to some…since it has seen more bankruptcy potential in their short tenure, ….where As many as two-thirds of those televised deals never come to fruition, and according to FastCompany, it recently reported that the sharks have spent $28 million on 116 small companies — with only one return to speak of, because of royalty structures and loan requirements.
So, although Thabiti and I can wholeheartedly agree on the Gospel….his reasoning on voting for Clinton is something I’ll need to continue to disagree with him on, because of the meaning of “status quo”. The welfare of America is in greater peril with that “status quo” IMHO.
I think you’re ignoring Trump’s racism, cynicism, narcissism, megalomaniacal tendencies (I’m really rich. I’ll solve xxx so fast…), his fear mongering, name calling, obliviousness to facts that are required to lead a superpower, his dangerous policy ideas concerning NATO and nuclear weapons – and that’s not even a complete list. It’s not THAT he’s unpredictable, it’s WHY he’s unpredictable that is the problem. He has no moral center and no control over his emotions or his mouth. He will continue to keep his own counsel.
I agree with Grudem that it’s biblical to seek the welfare of the foreign land where we’re exiled – in our case, this world. I strongly disagree that Donald Trump is a man that is seeking the office to better the world, or that we’ll get lucky and be able to guide the neophyte in the right direction.
If he were a Democrat and he’d said the same things that he’s said as a Republican, I would be thrilled to vote against him, and I suspect that would be the case for everyone who’s participated on this discussion. If that’s true, then you shouldn’t support him as a Republican either.
Earl, his campaign rhetoric is a new low…yet, if one does actually does look at his businesses, its not at all like the rhetoric. I’m with you on his ability to win the coup over the Republican guys, because they didn’t think he would hang around. But, if results are important, then the Democratic platform has no shortage of evidence to where they are taking the nation. Whatever vote one does cast, they can rest assured it could be even more of the same devolution of American culture.
I’m not sure which way to respond. It’s not campaign rhetoric. Trump “tells it like it is.” He tells it like hebthinks it is, and shows just how self centered he is. He will never be a publuc servant. He’s nobody’s “servant” except his own.
Trump’s business dealings are hardly honorable. Gambling, Trump university, serial bankruptcy. .. And, for all the misguided talk about how we need a businessman to run the country, that’s just nonsense.
Government’s don’t run like businesses. Business is a zero sum game. Government needs people who are experienced at politics to fill political offices. Only in the movies do you see a person go straight from business man to president and be successful.
James warns us not to be impressed by a man’s riches and give him honor because of that.
You make an unjustified leap when you assume that “seeking the welfare” includes employing political strategies to try to secure a result that Scripture says is in God’s hands anyway. Also, how could anyone rightly say that a believer who votes for a man of integrity with good principles is not seeking the welfare of his country? You who claim that a third party candidate has “no real chance of winning” are not even mathematically correct–much less Biblically correct. We ought not to be like the unbelievers who think that people alone decide an election–we know something that they do not: God is in control and He decides whom to put into power. How does that difference in knowledge change our view of the election? It should change our view; but does it”? Or do we jump right into the world’s faithless perspective of thinking that votes and fleshly efforts are all there is or can be?–that a man who votes for a fine, upstanding third-party candidate and then prays for the best result is a fool who “wasted his vote?”
Dr. Grudem’s view is wrong. For such a theologian to say nothing of God’s sovereignty in this matter is inexplicable. God has already decided this election. All that remains for us is to not go down in God’s historical record as having compromised our principles in the voting booth for political expediency due to having put too little confidence in God and too much hope in fleshly efforts. All the terrible consequences of a win for Clinton, which Dr. Grudem warns us of, are reasons not to vote for her. But they are not good reasons for compromising one’s principles (see Dave Miller’s article above). Destiny belongs to God alone, and it is He alone who is authorized to use evil to accomplish good. We are simply charged with doing good even when we know that evil has the advantage (when measured by the world). Is God’s control left out of such discussions because we secretly fear that He might put Clinton in power? If He is judging us in that way, then it will not matter if all Evangelicals vote for Trump, Clinton will still win. We cannot thwart God’s will by fleshly effort, but neither can Clinton or Trump. Vote for whom you find to honestly represent you the best (as you represent Christ); and let God engineer destinies as He sees fit.
I happen to agree with your theology. God sets up kings and He casts down kings. I disagree with your logic. Following your logic no evangelical should ever cast a vote. If you voted for Romney you violated your principles, if you voted for McCain you violated your principles. George Bush’s election resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. I’m sorry, but all this angst that is presented on this blog toward Trump is simply an exercise in hypocrisy.
Well, I have been away for a while. It now appears that everyone is arguing the merits or lack thereof of one candidate or another.
That’s as it should be.
At least no one is saying it is an act of evil to vote for one candidate or another.
I’m voting for Elmer Fudd.
He’s a strong opponent of socialism and a firm supporter of the Second Amendment.
And he is significantly more credible than HRC or DJT.
I like it. Write in candidate!
I am having a hard time voting for Trump knowing every time he speaks for the next 4 years I would share in the responsibility of electing him to public office. Some would say I would have equally as hard a time sharing in the responsibility of electing Hillary. I exercised my responsibility in the primary and my candidate did not win the nomination. The responsibility for electing Hillary is not mine even if I do not vote for Trump. That responsibility lies with the party that elected a candidate that I have much difficulty in supporting. It seems untenable to get on an airplane that has been hijacked. Trump has hijacked the party. On another note, I applaud the evangelical leaders who meet with him and those who advise him. They are Daniels and Nehemiahs in my book. I am praying for the Daniels in the Democratic party as well as those who may find themselves in the Trump organization. Perhaps they realize that in order to have a voice they must also exercise support.
In the short term–I repeat, in the SHORT term–it is possible that a non-vote amounts to a vote for Hillary. (I am not really convinced of it, but I will assume it for sake of argument.) If evangelicals stay away from the polls this November, or make some protest vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of being elected, it may, in some states anyway insure that Hillary carries the state’s electoral votes. However, I suggest that we (and yes, I include myself in the same boat as most of you, even if some consider me too far to the left) are going to engage in national politics at all, not voting for Trump might tell the GOP that the occasional lip service that have been giving us for the past 20 or 30 years is not enough. That is a long-term solution. Feel free to send me money for this brilliant strategy.
This is where I am. I think we have to look long term. I think the standard of “barely better than Clinton” (which is highly debatable) and “possibly pro-life” just won’t cut it.
“Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country.
Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger.
And not voting at all is just giving up.
Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.”
-Thomas Sowell
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/08/02/the-political-picture-n2200760
David R. Brumbelow
It appears that Trump is already calling the election rigged and preparing to lose. Talk about hedging your bets.
Trump is declining to endorse Paul Ryan and John McCain. I can almost hear them doing the happy dance.
I saw this and, sorry, I know it will offend a few, but it gave me a much needed chuckle.
Trump: “I’ve always wanted a purple heart….”
Really? You always wanted to be wounded in combat?
OK. Trump says on stage that the veteran gave him his real purple heart. He said the man specifically told him it was the real purple heart. The veteran is interviewed and says no, that’s not what he told Trump, and the medal was a copy.
Anyone’s confidence in Trump shaken yet?
Obviously you’ve got to be in the know to either be offended or chuckle.
From someone not in the know.
Well, read the Harry Potter books, Robert.
Or watch the movies.
A Trump spokeswoman blames Obama for Humayun Khan’s death. Khan was killed in Iraq 5 years before Obama took office.
Great article. I am against Trump because he is anti-woman because of his disagreements with Meghan Kelly. I also don’t like his fear-mongering and weird things he says about Muslims. No Christian should support anyone, politician or not, who holds those odd views about Muslims. Sadly, even a lot of Christians have jumped on that bandwagon, aside from anything related to Trump, and have started calling Muslims “terrorists” etc. It’s like Muslims are the new gays for Christians. Only the radical, nutjob right still holds those anti-gay marriage views that were so harmful for generations. But even some mainstream Christians are jumping on the anti-Muslim bandwagon calling them “terrorists” and wanting to “keep them in their own country,” etc. I’m embarrassed to even be associated with those people.
“””I’m embarrassed to even be associated with those people.””” Reminds me of the Pharisee that said, “I’m so glad I’m not like that sinner over there.
It is amazing to me that people create caricatures of a person’s views (straw men) and then take such delight in setting them on fire.
Now, that’s embarrassing.
I have no idea what this site is and just found it from another anti-Trump site a few minutes ago. So far I like it. I was originally for Sanders, but will gladly join forces with Hillary. She is inclusive, and is pro women and pro transgender. She is everything we should all stand for. I don’t know where else you get your readers from, but have seen a few comments in here actually advocating for Trump. That is truly scary that there are real people who would vote for that man.
Janelle,
Welcome to this blog. I am just an occasional responder.
Thus site is run by a group of fine Southern Baptist Pastors and is open to everyone.
Most of those posting here do not want Mrs. Clinton to be elected.
But your opinions are welcome.
BTW, I go to Parsons Baptist Church, hence the name parsonsmike. I am not a member of the clergy.
Though we often disagree on politics and religious matters, we all agree that Jesus is the Lord of all the earth. If you wish to inquire about that please feel free to email me at bygrace4012@yahoo.com
Or ask about Him on the blog.
Otherwise, I hope you have a great day, and read a lot here.
Some GOP guy named Evan McMullen is evidently getting in as a 3rd party candidate.
I’d hoped someone like Ben Sasse (brilliant pro-lifer) would do this, and I know nothing about Evan McMullen.
Anyone know anything about this guy?
I hear his name is Evan.
All I got is this politico piece: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/evan-mcmullin-2016-presidential-run-226784
Never heard of the guy, but reports seem reliable that he is getting in the race:
Another Republican will enter Race
Evan McMullin, Anti-Trump Republican, Is Said to Plan Independent Presidential Bid
NYT article says he is a Mormon.
50 GOP foreign policy and security experts have come out against Trump.
In a letter, they say “ “We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.“
“Indeed, the Reagans arrived in Washington in the winter of 1981 as insurgents themselves. A number of Republican leaders had worked against Reagan’s nomination, preferring predictable moderates like George H. W. Bush or seasoned political tacticians such as Senators Howard Baker or Bob Dole. The California governor was an outspoken outsider who preferred a good horse, cowboy hats, and denim to the meaningless blather of DC salons. He said impolitic things like Washington was the problem. Many, including the man he defeated, Jimmy Carter, intimated that he might start a nuclear war.”
Yeah, remember that nuclear war Reagan started?
Please.
Trump is no Reagan.
He’s like the opposite of Reagan.
What nicknames did Reagan give his political opponents?
Reagan had political experience running the largest state in the union. Trump has none.
Reagan laughed at himself. Trump can’t do that or allow anyone else to do it.
Reagan was a Washington outsider. Trump barely gets outside of his own head.
Come on, Les.
Trump is No RR.
Les: To compare Trump with Reagan is simply ludicrous.
Reagan was poised, articulate, and intelligent. Reagan was a gentleman. How many Republicans opposed Reagan once he had won the nomination? C’mon Les, this is a gigantic reach. Vote for him if you like, but don’t try to convince people he’s something he’s not. He’s the anti-Reagan. This argument is like those Christians who act like total jerks and then when people oppose them, they think they are going God’s will because they are suffering “persecution”. Trump isn’t odious to just Democrats, he’s odious to people in all walks of life. We’re just weeks out from the election, and his followers cheer if he stays on message for one speech, like a toddler who they just got to try his spinach. Ben Carson continues to destroy his remaining credibility by pursuing his role as the most unenthusiastic Trump apologist ever, saying that taking Trump’s insults personally is self-centered, and that Trump is still learning how to be a good candidate.
You Trump haters really need to calm down. I worry that y’all are going to pop a vein or two on the side of your head.
Now listen up. Did I compare him to Reagan, as if to say he is LIKE Reagan? Let me help you out since your hatred may be temporarily blinding you. No. I did not. It is quite simple and it’s easy to see what I was doing in that quote.
Meanwhile in other news, the proponent of even more baby butchering is leading in the latest polls.
Meanwhile in other news, the proponent of even more baby butchering is leading in the latest polls.
Of course she is, and that’s the saddest part of this whole affair. The most defeatable Democrat in ages ends up running against a Republican candidate so awful, even many in his own party won’t vote for him. It’s unprecedented.
It is indeed sad Bill Mac. A person poised to win the White House, a woman who admittedly will seek to have even more babies slaughtered and yet so many people are worried what the other only electable candaditae SAYS that may hurt someone’s feelings. Or that he has had affairs or that he is connected to casinos and therefore plan to not vote for the only one who is in a position to stop this woman who plans to expand baby slaughtering. Sad indeed.
Come on Les, you know it’s more than that. You know it’s more than just being rude and unfaithful. The president does much more than act for or against abortion. You think these 50 former officials are opposed to Trump because he’s a philanderer? You think these Senators and Congressmen are coming out against Trump because he owns casinos? This man is fracturing the party like no one else in history. He is poised not only to lose the presidential race in spectacular fashion, he threatens to take the House and Senate down with him. I’m not even convinced he will stick out the race to the end if it looks certain that he will lose.
Bill Mac,
“Come on Les, you know it’s more than that.” Do I?
A fractured party? Who cares on this site? I certainly don’t, so long as Hillary is stopped from expanding baby slaughter. I see DT as the best path too stopping HRC. Others like you choose to sit on the sideline. That’s your choice. Sitting idly by will @&*%# well will not be my choice.
“The most defeatable Democrat in ages ends up running against a Republican candidate so awful, even many in his own party won’t vote for him. It’s unprecedented.”
Obama was defeatable in 2008 and in 2012 and look what the Republican Establishment gave us: John McCain and Mitt Romney – great job guys
The Republican Party Establishment ran 16 others against Trump and none of them bothered to listen to the everyday average citizen who thinks the Republican Establishment IS THE PROBLEM.
Now, the Republican Establishment, and others are blaming Trump because they are deaf? It’s amazing people somehow still think Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, or Paul Ryan is going to come riding in on a White Horse and save the day.
Get over yourselves or vote for Hillary, because that’s exactly who the Republican Establishment and the #NeverTrump folks are campaigning for.
Because there are only two possible outcomes in Nov. – Trump or Hillary…
And now the Trumpites have given us someone likely to receive even fewer votes than Romney or McCain. You want Trump? Fine. You elect him.
Bill, my larger point was that the Trumpites didn’t give us Trump. Those who ran McCain and then Romney to the altar did. What does it say about the state of politics in the Republican party when their “best and brightest” got their “rears” handed to them by Trump.
However, now those who believed everybody should have just oohed and awed over Rubio or god-forbid, another Bush, can’t understand why Trump received more votes, or even why Cruz, who is not liked by the rest of the Republican party, received the 2nd most votes.
And because of that, Republicans are more than willing to hand the election to Hillary, which is my 2nd point – there are only 2 outcomes (Hillary or Trump).
So perhaps it works both ways: You wanted an Republican Establishment guy in McCain and Romney’s image – Too bad: you get Hillary or Trump.
Nate: If Trump represents the average, everyday citizen, then they should have no trouble electing him.
This!
“We’re just weeks out from the election, and his followers cheer if he stays on message for one speech, like a toddler who they just got to try his spinach.”
Meanwhile, this!
Hillary has still not wavered in her pledge to increase the slaughter of unborn babies, including right up to the day of birth. In Hillary’s presidency as per her preference, there will be way less toddlers to have around to try and get them to try spinach. Their dismembered bodies may be found in a dumpster near you.
Les, given Trumps lack of character, and his many position flip-flops, we really have no way of knowing for certain if he will do anything different from Hillary on the abortion issue.
I could never vote for a low life character like Trump. I’m amazed that the same evangelicals who rejected Herman Cain because of alleged infidelity-of which he denied-are groveling over Trump. Inconsistent, hypocritical, double standard. The GOP has lost any moral high ground advantage, and owes Bill Clinton an apology for making character an issue in his election, but not in Trump’s attempt at the White House.
Dwight,
Given Hillary’s lack of character, and her staunch doubling and tripling down on her plans to see to it that even more babies are slaughtered in the womb, we really have certainty on what she will do on the abortion issue. I’ll take the openness of some uncertainty of DT over the certainty of HRC to slaughter more babies.
When HRC is elected due in part to many staying home from the voter booth, when said persons could have actively supported her opposition, and the result is an increase in baby slaughter, there will be a lot of apologies owed.
I don’t plan to stay home from the voting booth.
Bill Mac, I mean no disrespect, but I should have typed:
“When HRC is elected due in part to many staying home from the voter booth or casting a vote for a #neverhadachance candidate, when said persons could have actively supported her opposition, and the result is an increase in baby slaughter, there will be a lot of apologies owed.”
Dwight,
I was a Cain supporter until the day he dropped out. I cannot express how disappointed I am in him that he has become not just a “hold you nose and vote for Trump” but a full fledged Trump is our messiah mindset.
This stuff – not just Cain but the other Trumpians – reminds me of the hero worship lavished upon Obama….and we see how that turned out for America. His actions and policies and lack of actions have gotten us in a bigger mess than we were in when he walked in the oval office.
Tarheel,
“full fledged Trump is our messiah mindset”
There may be some of those. I am not one and no one I know among the Christians who plan to vote for DT (laborers, doctors, engineers…i.e. working class and white collar educated types and quite mature Christians I might add) could even remotely be classified that way. Just FYI.
I was speaking specifically of Cain in that comment – but you could include other full in campaign surrogates (official and unofficial) who have not only decided that he is better than Clinton – but that he is actually good for, America and the republican party. (and some say he is good for Christianity)
Think Falwell, Dobson, Jeffress, Gingrich, Carson, et al….
“I was speaking specifically of Cain in that comment – but you could include other full in campaign surrogates”
Maybe they view him that way. I cannot say. But I think many, many DT voters in the general are not that way at all. Many I know are like me in that they want to use their voting privilege to try and stop the inevitable increase in baby slaughter.
To those of you who I continue to go back and forth with, just know that I can and will do this all day and every day unless Dave bans me. I am a single issue voter–life. In the womb and outside the womb.
HRC will without doubt push for and execute policies that will increase the number of babies slaughtered. She plans to keep with O’s economic policies and further them which will result in the poor becoming poorer and even more enslaved. Both of these fact are life issues. One directly and immediately results in bloodshed. The other results in death as well, just takes longer to see.
So single issue. I am full throated anti abortion and I will do and actually whatever legal means available to save lives. Foreign policies, trade agreements, etc., though distantly related, I am not as concerned about. Rhetoric and people getting their feelings hurt by someone’s insensitive comments? Pales in comparison to baby slaughter. DT a racist? Not a chance. But even if he is, which NO ONE here can prove, at least his victims are breathing, unlike the scattered baby parts in the abortuary.
So keep all the comments coming about how awful of a character DT is and I will reply each time I can get to a keyboard that his election, as bad as you all think he is, will more likely than not, save baby lives. It’s as simple as this: 1) sure increase in baby slaughter (Clinton) or 2) at least some hope in no increase and perhaps a decrease in baby slaughter (Trump). I will cast my vote for the one who is best positioned to stop the baby slaughter candidate.
Les,
I respect that argumentation. I am not there as I do not trust Trump in the slightest on pro life issues (born or unborn)…but I understand that in your mind even a possibility (which is the best you can hope for with him) of his being not as bad as Clinton on these issue is enough for you to vote for him. (except she may be better on torture of innocents than his stated remarks).
Fine. Go for it.
Just do not try to convince me (or expect me stand by when you try) that he is not espousing racist rhetoric, or that he is a decent human being, or that he is a good (as in honorable) businessman, or that Trump is one who is more moral, mentally stable and presidential than Clinton (that is essentially a tie in a race to the bottom).
Tarheel,
“Just do not try to convince me…that he is not espousing racist rhetoric, or that he is a decent human being, or that he is a good (as in honorable) businessman, or that Trump is one who is more moral, mentally stable and presidential than Clinton (that is essentially a tie in a race to the bottom).”
Do you think he is a racist?
Honorable businessman? I do not know how he conducts his business.
Moral? Biblical moral? Name a candidate in your lifetime who was? Or, are you grading each candidates’ morality on a curve?
Stable? You have knowledge of some mental illness I am unaware of?
Look, these are the only two people who can win. One or the other. I’m not trying to tell you who you should vote for. I’m just responding to the insane, incessant, irrational (alteration alert) attacks on him by many here when the same ones voted for McCain (who divorced his wife soon after returning a Vietnam hero and after her severe car accident wherein she was disfigured with permanent issues related to it. Some refer to him as a womanizer) and the Mormon. Sorry, hollow advice form such about DT.
“[Trump’s] election, as bad as you all think he is, will more likely than not, save baby lives.”
Les:
I agree with you 100% that HRC will do everything she can to increase abortions, abortion access, public abortion funding, pro-abortion judges, etc.
I am curious, however, as to why you believe that Trump’s election “will more likely than not save baby lives.” Again, I agree with you 100% on your assessment of the danger of HRC and the continued slaughter of unborn babies, so please don’t misunderstand my question. Moreover, you’ve been in a long discussion here with lots of different regulars, and I’m not trying to step in on those issues. Rather, I’m just simply curious about that one specific, narrow statement you’ve made.
Zachary, thanks for your question. I’m about to hit the road driving for 5 hours so I may not be able to respond more for a while.
The reason is that DT has said his position has changed. I choose to believe him. Others say he’s a pathological liar. I disagree. One thing for sure, he has never been as rabid for babies to die as HRC has been. And he has floated a SCOTUS list that looks good. And his running mate is very, very pro life and has a proven record.
Given all that, and my limited choices, I’ll take my chances and try to stop the baby slaughtering cheerleader from becoming president.
“One thing for sure, he has never been as rabid for babies to die as HRC has been.”
That is a low threshold – I would caution that simply because one might not be as bad as Hillary in no way means that they would be good for babies….
Tim Kaine, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and countless other pro choice persons are not as bad as Hillary on the issue but are bad still.
The notion that Trump has changed his mind is simply not backed up with measurable evidence – in fact the evidence lends itself in the other direction.
I posted a link the other day regarding his ever changing positions on abortion – not to mention that his reasoning for becoming pro life is not in keeping with any real prolife stance I am aware of…
I essence he said this when asked after deciding to run as a republican why he changed from being very pro-choice the last time he ran for President (“very pro-choice are his words) to pro-life…..”I knew some friends who considered an abortion but they did not do it – now that child is a beautiful, successful and powerful adult so I decided that it was a good thing they did not have an abortion.”
That is not a conversion based on any sort of pro-life principle that I am aware of – I contend that a true pro-life position is based in the intrinsic value of human life – even non believing pro-lifers cite this as their reasoning…I have never, ever heard of Trump using this reasoning…
What Trump espoused was merely a continuation of his worldview (egoism). What if the child had been retarded or ugly or not “powerful” – would he have “converted’ to be pro life?
One who is pro life for convenience or political expedience (as it seems clear that Trump is) is more dangerous to unborn babies in my view than one who is convictionally pro choice – why? Because the pro-lifers are on guard against the pro-choice person.
There are issues that I believe Trump will be a stalwart on – immigration, terrorism, trade, etc….but abortion is not one of them. I truly believe, based on all I have seen and heard him say on the issue that he will “negotiate” pro life issues away the second it hits up against one of the things he actually cares about.
I care about all those others. There are two candidates who can win. Period. I’ll use my vote to mitigate against an increase in the slaughter of the unborn.
Should have been, “I care NOT about all those others”
If this endorsement from a Trump supporter doesn’t say it all. “One thing for sure, he has never been as rabid for babies to die as HRC has been.”
“Honorable businessman? I do not know how he conducts his business. ”
I believe you do know how he conducts his business Les, unless you have lived under a rock for the last 30 years, everyone knows two things for sure about Trump. How he conducts his business and how he conducts his marriages.
Dave Miller,
I noticed that too – that comment does say a lot doesn’t it?
Someone said to me the other day – – “You have to vote for Trump he is not as bad as Hillary” to which I responded bleeding to death does not kill you as quickly as being shot in the face – and I am not going to vote for either to happen to someone.”
Les: “There are two candidates who can win. Period.” Les, you have adamantly stated this several times on SBC Voices. While I agree that, barring something unusual, that one of these two will likely be president. God is the God of the unlikely, and if he chooses neither of these to be president, they will not be.
Robert I agree that God is sovereign and can overrule any and all of our votes. It’s kind of like when the doctor prescribe some medication but he says will likely make you better we usually take in understanding the God can overrule that and the medicine can work or not work. But we still take the medicine Using voice recognition pardon the mistakes
Les,
Yet again, Trump supporters are in the place of defending an outlandish, stupid, asinine comment that is being taken as his calling for assassination if Hillary becomes president.
He may have been kidding, maybe not, but if it were not such a common occurrence for him to say things along these lines – it’d be easy to pass off as a slip of the tongue, or merely an ill advised comment – but its so commonplace – soooo —- good luck.
Your candidate keeps putting you in spots like this – daily.
I’m reminded of the scene in the fugitive where Richard Kimball is standing at the end of the tunnel with his back to the dam, water flowing around his feet. Tommy lee Jones’ character is pointing a gun at him. Kimball says “I didn’t kill my wife.” Jones says “I don’t care!”
I don’t know if I should even bother given the blind bias and hatred that you #nevertrumpers have, but here it goes Tarheel.
I saw those comments, and here was my reaction. If Sec Clinton, through her SCOTUS appointments, and thus through judicial fiat, makes the ownership of firearms illegal, then it is indeed the duty of the citizens of these United States, the supporters of the Second Amendment, to use that right, that is the force of arms, to resist the tyrannical government, and provide protections for that, and our other freedoms. We are not talking about assassinating the President of the United States, we are talking about taking up arms to preserve our way of life.
Through another thread, I know there are those on this forum who are not gun owners, and who would not support such resistance. However, for those of us who are concerned about a tyrannical government, the 2nd Amendment is our avenue and our means of ensuring our freedoms.
Yes, if Sec Clinton appoints judges, and those judges in a ruling say that civilians do not have the right to own firearms, then yes, I will resist the government, including up to armed resistance.
Again, to my eyes, no one was talking about assassination. And your willingness to jump to that conclusion, in my opinion, highlights your blind hatred and biased opposition to anything that Trump says or does.
“…blind bias and hatred that you #nevertrumpers have…”
Louis, if you see this, I hope it serves as evidence that the harsh rhetoric and hate-speech doesn’t just come from those who oppose Trump.
I mean, this is one of the least charitable, most vicious statements we’ve had on here – brutally attacking all of us who are against Trump.
Ok I read his comments. Nothing about assassination at all. Except by Elizabeth Warren and other libs. You’re siding with them now? Desperate.
Les: Seriously? “The Second Amendment People” can stop Hillary Clinton. And you don’t find that disturbing? Yes, I side with “them” when “them” has a case. Which Trump just handed to them.
I am a gun owner and I will not kill people to keep them. I suspect I’m not alone, but I know that there are people who say they will kill to keep them. I may be willing to go to jail to keep them (or perhaps not), but I won’t kill people to keep them.
When we get to the point where Stephen is lobbing hate-bombs like he just did, and the discourse has descended into the muck andd mire as it has (see Les and Debbie) – it’s time to shut it down.