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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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 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… Read more »
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.
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.
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@ 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“. 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… Read more »
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….… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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).… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“…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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
*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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
” 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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »