Should Christians Choose Between the Lesser of Two Evil's in the 2016 Election ?

[stephen583]

Second, he's made emphatic statements about standing behind Israel and its government,

I was initially impressed when Trump first came out strongly supporting Israel. But then he celebrated Briton's exit from the E.U, and called European countries that weren't paying their fair share for NATO "dead beats". Then he broke with the international community, and called for sanctions against Russia to be dropped for Putin's annexation of Crimea, the Russian purge of Muslim Tartars from Crimea, and for Putin's support for the civil war in the Ukraine, in which a commercial airliner was shot down.

These policy statements by Trump are consistent with "isolationism" and "appeasement". I'm not certain I can actually trust Trump and ignore his opponents. I'd like to hear more about what he considers "support" for Israel to be. If Hezbollah starts shooting missiles into Israel from Syria and Lebanon, is Trump willing to bomb Hezbollah in Syria ? If IRAN tests a nuclear device, will Trump support Israel when they take out every nuclear facility in Iran ? Is he talking about moral support, or direct military support, and how far does that support go ? What are the limits, if there are limits ?

Trump needs to answer these questions and give specifics before I could vote for him. I'm not going to vote for a candidate on the basis of a "generalized" statement alone. Perhaps he will clarify his position about Israel in the upcoming debates.

 

[Albion]

I was initially impressed when Trump first came out strongly supporting Israel. But then he celebrated Briton's exit from the E.U, and called European countries that weren't paying their fair share for NATO "dead beats".

But our nation's commitments to Israel are not tied to our commitments to NATO. They, in fact, predate the formation of NATO.

These policy statements by Trump are consistent with "isolationism" and "appeasement".

No. Neither of those would be accurate.

I'm not certain I can actually trust Trump and ignore his opponents. I'd like to hear more about what he considers "support" for Israel to be. If Hezbollah starts shooting missiles into Israel from Syria and Lebanon, is Trump willing to bomb Hezbollah in Syria ? If IRAN tests a nuclear device, will Trump support Israel when they take out every nuclear facility in Iran ? Is he talking about moral support, or direct military support, and how far does that support go ? What are the limits, if there are limits ?

Trump needs to answer these questions and give specifics before I could vote for him.

Now, THAT's fair, level-headed thinking IMO.

 

[stephen583]

Although politics can sometimes be unpredictable, the sense I'm getting, is that Trump has LOST this election. More and more Republican politicians are saying they can't vote for, or endorse Trump's candidacy. It looks like he could even lose the traditionally Republican states of Ohio and Arizona.

At the same time, Trump has received an endorsement this week from Louisiana's ex-KKK leader David Duke who vows to make yet another bid running for a senate seat in the U.S. Congress. Trump remains silent on Duke's endorsement and political ambitions, and has missed a golden opportunity to disavow himself from any connection with David Duke's anti-Semitic and racist Klan ideology.

If you're thinking Hillary Clinton isn't going to throw David Duke at Trump like a "live grenade" in the first presidential debate, you must be hoping her entire campaign staff is in a comma. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence so far they are.

Over the years, I 've watched several presidential candidates "go down in flames" at this point in the election, and it appears to me the only thing that will eclipse Trump's meteoric rise to power, will be his meteoric descent into oblivion in the polls as November approaches.

I am very, very concerned at this point, Hillary Clinton is going to be elected president in a landslide vote come election day. Trump is simply making too many mistakes and alienating too many people to get elected.

 

[Albion]

Although politics can sometimes be unpredictable, the sense I'm getting, is that Trump has LOST this election. More and more Republican politicians are saying they can't vote for, or endorse Trump's candidacy. It looks like he could even lose the traditionally Republican states of Ohio and Arizona.

To make everyone think the election is already lost is a major component of Democratic campaign strategy. To suppress the Republican vote is just as effective as keeping Independents happy with the Democrat candidate, you know. IOW, I wouldn't jump on that bandwagon just yet, not when one of the most recently-released polls has Trump 3 percentage points behind Hillary. The situation with Ohio and Arizona is somewhat special also. Ohio's governor, humiliated by Trump in the primary voting, is the main cause for Republican worry about Ohio, and Arizona is gradually tilting Left under the great number of Latinos coming into the state.

At the same time, Trump has received an endorsement this week from Louisiana's ex-KKK leader David Duke who vows to make yet another bid running for a senate seat in the U.S. Congress. Trump remains silent on Duke's endorsement and political ambitions

He disavowed Duke's endorsement. Meanwhile, the Communist Party USA is backing Clinton. You didn't hear anything about that, I'm guessing.

 

[tooldtocare]

Should Christians Choose Between the Lesser of Two Evil's in the 2016 Election ?


Our founding fathers deliberately crafted the Constitution to separate Church from State.

The 2016 Elections are about governing not about Christians. When you vote, vote for the best qualified person to hold the reins of governorship setting religious fate aside

Just a suggestion -

 

[stephen583]

He disavowed Duke's endorsement. Meanwhile, the Communist Party USA is backing Clinton. You didn't hear anything about that, I'm guessing.

That's good. I was praying Trump's campaign staff would reject David Duke's endorsement before any televised debate. In doing so, they diffused the grenade before she had a chance to use it against him. Anyway David Duke is an unapologetic anti-Semite and racist. I'm from Louisiana and attended some of his private political rallies because he claimed he was reformed and no longer followed Klan ideology. What I heard was different. Duke is very clever and personable on camera, but in person he's a monster. The racist remarks he was spewing made me physically ill, especially since he was talking softly, and smiling while he was doing it. I never again attended another Duke rally. I saw what I needed to see.

Of course the media isn't going to report anything about the American Communist Party and Hillary Clinton. The Convention coverage of the RNC and the DNC was so biased it was obvious who they wanted elected. The Bernie Sanders and independent protesters outside the DNC were hardly shown on television. In the one of the few instances where they covered the demonstrators, after a couple of seconds the announcer said they had to cut away because a musical group was performing live on stage in the convention hall. Apparently the demonstrators outside were less important to the political narrative than the entertainment inside was.

At the Republican Convention the commentators made sure to mention Trump had been married three times, and they came right out and called Melania a former model "trophy" wife the Donald married only for prestige.

Not once during the Democratic Convention did any of the commentators say one word about Bill Clinton's extra marital affairs while governor of Arkansas or President, or his contrived marriage and continuing "convenient" relationship with Hillary Clinton despite his infidelities. I thought that was pretty biased reporting, don't you ? It appears the media is only slinging dirt and filthy innuendos in one direction.

 

[katiemygirl]

I'm of the mind that God is in control, and He will establish our next leader, who will accomplish His purposes. Read Romans 13.

That said, I will vote! There will never be a sinless candidate. Yes, the candidates we have now are both sinners. So what! We, the voters, are sinners too! Too many lives have been given for the freedom we have been given to cast a vote. As a woman, I know how women fought hard to give us this opportunity. And look at what our African American citizens had to suffer in order to vote. So, YES, I will be voting, and I pray you will be, too. Don't give up the precious gift you've been given: the freedom to choose your President.

 

[Kersh]

Christians should vote for a candidate with integrity. If there isn't one, we should either abstain or write in. The "lesser of two evils" is still evil. I'm weighing between Gary Johnson or abstaining, partly because I'm not sure whether Johnson is a man of suffucient integrity. I think its beyond reasonavle debate that neither of the major party candidates are morally acceptable leaders. As long as Chrisitans continue to buy into the "lesser of two evils", we will never have the opportunity to vote for someone who isn't evil.

 

[Albion]

Christians should vote for a candidate with integrity. If there isn't one, we should either abstain or write in. The "lesser of two evils" is still evil. I'm weighing between Gary Johnson or abstaining, partly because I'm not sure whether Johnson is a man of suffucient integrity.

Pro-Abortion on demand and Pro-drug use.

 

[Kersh]

Pro-Abortion on demand and Pro-drug use.

Those are positions of his, though not necessarily to his personal morals. That said, the former troubles me, the latter not so much. I support decriminalization of Marijuana (though I'd never use it myself), and lean in favor of decriminalization of drugs in general. Whether GJ smokes pot is no more relevant to me than whether he drinks beer. Either can be abused, but neither is inherently immoral.

I am more troubled by Johnson's stance on religious liberty than by either of the things you mentioned.

There is a 50/50 chance I just won't vote the POTUS portion of the ballot, as I've not identified a candidate that I can support. I'd rather endure 4 years of Trump (who is IMHO, clearly the worst option) than to have it on my conscience that I voted for Hillary. At this point, I can't say I know enough about Johnson or Stein to form a strong opinion. If Johnson were more consistent with Libertarian values, I'd likely have an easier time supporting him.

 

[Albion]

If Johnson were more consistent with Libertarian values, I'd likely have an easier time supporting him.

That's probably a POV taken by a lot of Libertarians also.