Trump holds up LGBT rainbow flag at rally

Jose Fly · Nov 3, 2016

Clete said:
Of course. It was not my intention to suggest otherwise. My point is simply that Trump did not win that demographic. Not even close. Ted Cruze would have received many more Christian votes than Trump received while he was still running.

I haven't seen any data showing that, so if you have some I would appreciate it if you posted it. Most of what I can find shows that...

But Trump easily won the South Carolina primary, and exit polls showed that among born-again or evangelical Christians, he beat the second-place candidate, Cruz, by 6 percentage points, a pattern that held true in much of the United States.

If an evil governmental system gives me the power to vote in their election, why wouldn't I?

I didn't make the system! I'm simply not stupid enough to refuse to use it to my best advantage to whatever extent that I am given the right to do so. Pick any two evil entities you want and if given the opportunity to do so, I'm going to vote against the worse of the two evils. I don't know about you, but I happen to think that Satan himself would be far worse than Hilter ever could be in his wildest dreams. The choice, while unpleasant in the extreme, would be an easy one to make.

Your idea is the equivalent of telling me that, when racing toward a cliff, it's wrong to put the brakes on. That it's somehow better to just let the society push on the gas peddle and get it over with as though going off the cliff isn't going to destroy lives and kill people.

Here is the situation you are in, that we are all in...

There's a bad guy with a gun and there's you with a coin in your hand that has heads showing. The bad guy gives you some power by telling you that he's going to kill and mame as many people as possible so long as that coin still has heads showing but that if you flip it and it comes up tails, he'll only kill or mame one person per minute and only seven per day on Sundays.

Do you exercise the power he's given you and flip the coin or refuse to participate?

If you want to know which is the right answer, ask his potential victims what they would have you do.

But again, you're casting it as if you only have two choices....vote for Clinton or vote for Trump. There are other options.

And not only that, I'd guess it's a pretty safe bet that for you, there's no way you would vote for just about any presidential candidate from the Democratic party. So in effect what you're telling the Republican Party is, "I will literally vote for absolutely any candidate you run for President....even Hitler...as long as they're not a Democrat".

If you don't see how that sets you up to be exploited by the GOP, well....I don't know what else to say.

ok doser · Nov 3, 2016

Jose Fly said:
But again, you're casting it as if you only have two choices....vote for Clinton or vote for Trump.

rather, there are only two choices - defeat hillary or help elect hillary

Clete · Nov 3, 2016

DavidK said:
But see, there's that assumption again, that somehow the Republican party gets to assume my vote. That's the assumption that has perpetuated this harlotry on the part of the Church for decades now.

There's no assumption!

Like I said before. Ask yourself which candidate is going to be happiest about your having stayed home. You'll be able to answer that question in your own head and whichever answer you come up with is the one you helped win by refusing to cast a ballot.

If can't answer the question then please, by all means, stay home. You deserve whatever happens to you.

I'm not politically liberal, and I'm not politically conservative. I try to approach everything in light of scripture, and that puts me at odds with both sides more often than not.

No it doesn't!

If you had said, "I'm not a Deomcrat, and I'm not a Republican...." then that would would have been a valid statement. A bible believing Christian liberal cannot exist in reality. The terms are mutually exclusive. To whatever extent a Christian is a liberal they are not bible believing and to whatever extent they are bible believing they are not liberal.

Clete · Nov 3, 2016

DavidK said:
We have trouble understanding the idea that to remove the trash you have to set fire to the house.

I hate to tell ya that the house is already on fire and Hillary Clinton is one of the arsonists!

DavidK · Nov 3, 2016

Clete said:
I hate to tell ya that the house is already on fire and Hillary Clinton is one of the arsonists!

Now you're just switching the metaphor.

Sure, the house is on fire. I have a hard time understanding how setting fire to a different room is going to help put it out.

DavidK · Nov 3, 2016

Clete said:
If you had said, "I'm not a Deomcrat, and I'm not a Republican...." then that would would have been a valid statement. A bible believing Christian liberal cannot exist in reality. The terms are mutually exclusive. To whatever extent a Christian is a liberal they are not bible believing and to whatever extent they are bible believing they are not liberal.

Your false dichotomy is showing.

ok doser · Nov 3, 2016

DavidK said:
Now you're just switching the metaphor.

Sure, the house is on fire. I have a hard time understanding how setting fire to a different room is going to help put it out.

consider:

the house is on fire

one fire department responding to the call has loaded their pumper truck with gasoline

the other fire department responding to the call has loaded their pumper truck with cement

which one are you going to try to stop from arriving on the scene?

DavidK · Nov 3, 2016

ok doser said:
rather, there are only two choices - defeat hillary or help elect hillary

You have a lot of faith in Hillary.

DavidK · Nov 3, 2016

ok doser said:
consider:

the house is on fire

one fire department responding to the call has loaded their pumper truck with gasoline

the other fire department responding to the call has loaded their pumper truck with cement

which one are you going to try to stop from arriving on the scene?

Either way I'm going to end up with an unusable house.

Which one would you stop?

Grosnick Marowbe · Nov 3, 2016

Clete said:
There's no assumption!

Like I said before. Ask yourself which candidate is going to be happiest about your having stayed home. You'll be able to answer that question in your own head and whichever answer you come up with is the one you helped win by refusing to cast a ballot.

If can't answer the question then please, by all means, stay home. You deserve whatever happens to you.

No it doesn't!

If you had said, "I'm not a Deomcrat, and I'm not a Republican...." then that would would have been a valid statement. A bible believing Christian liberal cannot exist in reality. The terms are mutually exclusive. To whatever extent a Christian is a liberal they are not bible believing and to whatever extent they are bible believing they are not liberal.

Good logic.

ok doser · Nov 3, 2016

DavidK said:
Either way I'm going to end up with an unusable house.

the house is already unusable

dk said:
Which one would you stop?

i would stop hillary, for the following reason:

president hillary will be aided in her efforts to burn the house to the ground by the democrats in congress - they will rubberstamp whatever she wants

president trump will have no such support from the republicans in congress

ok doser · Nov 3, 2016

DavidK said:
You have a lot of faith in Hillary.

i believe that her presidency would do far more harm to america than trump's, for the reasons i just gave above

but what really makes me want to see trump elected is the way the left hates him

Grosnick Marowbe · Nov 3, 2016

DavidK said:
Your false dichotomy is showing.

No. He's just making good sense, you're just not getting it.

Clete · Nov 3, 2016

Jose Fly said:
I haven't seen any data showing that, so if you have some I would appreciate it if you posted it. Most of what I can find shows that...

But Trump easily won the South Carolina primary, and exit polls showed that among born-again or evangelical Christians, he beat the second-place candidate, Cruz, by 6 percentage points, a pattern that held true in much of the United States.

I could well be wrong on this point.

We are in agreement that any Christian who voted for Trump during the primary was foolish.

But again, you're casting it as if you only have two choices....vote for Clinton or vote for Trump. There are other options.

No you don't!

If a candidate had to get 50% + 1 vote to win then third parties might be meaningful but that isn't the world we live in. Any plurality will win the election. That means that it will be either Trump or Clinton. A vote for a third party is the practical equivalent to not voting at all.

And not only that, I'd guess it's a pretty safe bet that for you, there's no way you would vote for just about any presidential candidate from the Democratic party. So in effect what you're telling the Republican Party is, "I will literally vote for absolutely any candidate you run for President....even Hitler...as long as they're not a Democrat".

If you don't see how that sets you up to be exploited by the GOP, well....I don't know what else to say.

This objection ignores the existence of the primary process. The Republican Party does not simply choose a candidate. The candidate is elected and I cast my vote for the most concervative person running.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete · Nov 3, 2016

ok doser said:
consider:

the house is on fire

one fire department responding to the call has loaded their pumper truck with gasoline

the other fire department responding to the call has loaded their pumper truck with cement

which one are you going to try to stop from arriving on the scene?

Assuming that the fire is the problem and that those are the only two viable options then the later. Easy.

I have to say that the analogy is too vague though.

DavidK · Nov 3, 2016

ok doser said:
the house is already unusable

Agreed. That's why I don't feel a pressing need to stop either truck, especially since stopping one, in this case, means putting my name on agreement to let the other one have a go at my house.

The insurance company will have a word or two to say to me that I told one of those trucks to please come and unload on my house.

i would stop hillary, for the following reason:

president hillary will be aided in her efforts to burn the house to the ground by the democrats in congress - they will rubberstamp whatever she wants

president trump will have no such support from the republicans in congress

Aw, you abandoned the metaphor. Which one is the cement, and which is the fire?

I'm not so convinced that republicans will suddenly grow principles once the election is over. They're afraid, and if Trump actually gets elected, it'll send a clear message to them that they had very good reason to be afraid. If they couldn't stand up to the mobs of angry Trumpolaters now, why will they want to face them next election?

And even if they suddenly do, what's going to keep Trump (or the people around him) from ruling by executive order to get around their obstruction?

DavidK · Nov 3, 2016

Grosnick Marowbe said:
No. He's just making good sense, you're just not getting it.

There's a difference between "not getting it" and "disagreeing with it".

Arthur Brain · Nov 3, 2016

DavidK said:
There's a difference between "not getting it" and "disagreeing with it".

If not voting for one candidate means vicariously supporting the other via third party vote then it cuts both ways. The logic is on your side here. It just seems to be a disconnect for the 'Trump' crowd...

Jose Fly · Nov 3, 2016

Clete said:
We are in agreement that any Christian who voted for Trump during the primary was foolish.

Why?

If a candidate had to get 50% + 1 vote to win then third parties might be meaningful but that isn't the world we live in. Any plurality will win the election. That means that it will be either Trump or Clinton. A vote for a third party is the practical equivalent to not voting at all.

Only because we make it that way. I hear all the time from right-wing Christian talking heads that conservative Christians are an enormous voting bloc, and if only they would turn out and vote all together, they would shape the country. If that's even close to true, then conservative Christians should be able to make a real good run at getting a third party candidate into office.

But you don't. Instead you predictably and reliably vote for the Republican candidate, no matter who it is. And then you wonder why the GOP "establishment" takes your votes for granted.

This objection ignores the existence of the primary process. The Republican Party does not simply choose a candidate. The candidate is elected and I cast my vote for the most concervative person running.

No you don't. If a more conservative candidate ran under say...the Constitution Party, you would still vote for the Republican, as you explained above.

You're making my point for me.....the Republican Party can count on your loyalty and vote no matter who is on the ticket.

ok doser · Nov 3, 2016

Arthur Brain said:
If not voting for one candidate means vicariously supporting the other via third party vote then it cuts both ways. The logic is on your side here. It just seems to be a disconnect for the 'Trump' crowd...

next week, either trump or hillary will be elected

a hillary presidency will be worse for the country than a trump presidency

Trump holds up LGBT rainbow flag at rally

New member

lifeguard at the cement pond

Truth Smacker

Truth Smacker

New member

New member

lifeguard at the cement pond

New member

New member

New member

lifeguard at the cement pond

lifeguard at the cement pond

New member

Truth Smacker

Truth Smacker

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

lifeguard at the cement pond