Recently, I found myself arguing for the reelection of Donald Trump with a couple of fellows who are solid Christians. I'm often in agreement with them, at least more often than not. On the subject of Trump, not so much. It seems neither of them are any more likely to vote for Trump in November than they were in Nov of 2016, which is to say, they didn't vote for him in Nov of 2016.
They weren't the only ones, of course. There's another who didn't vote for him and to all three, I offered reasons why I felt their decision was incredibly poor as well as contrary to what they should have done (in my humble opinion) as Christians. Before going any further, I must make clear that I do not in any way consider their objections to Trump on par with those of, say, an idiot like Dan Trabue, whose claims of following Christ I find not only false, but highly objectionable. The three about whom I speak are actually Christian men.
Rather than revisit my arguments, I instead have decided to offer the arguments of others who might hold some sway.
The first is Ralph Reed. Reed has a new book out: "For God And Country: The Christian Case For Trump" in which he attempts to make the case that Trump "has been the most ardent and effective presidential defender of
religious liberty and the pro-life cause since Ronald Reagan—and perhaps
in U.S. history." (from the Amazon description of the book)
"In For God and Country, Reed reveals:
-The sincerity of President Trump’s defense of the Christian faith—and why he has delivered policy victories when other pro-Christian presidents haven’t
-Why Trump is the most pro-Israel president in American history
-How liberals hope to demoralize Christians—and thus defeat Donald Trump and reverse his pro-life, pro-family, pro–religious freedom policies
-Why Never-Trump Christians naively preach de facto political surrender"
This last point I might argue against. Rather, I would say that it is the consequence of not supporting Trump's presidency, though it might not factor into a defense of Trump for the purpose of convincing the three in question. Indeed, the surrender if far worse than merely political.
Personally, I only know of Reed in a mostly political sense despite his connection to the Christian Coalition and the like. And I haven't read the book. I felt the mere fact that the book is out there indicates there are others of note who are making the case from a Christian perspective. More compelling in that regard are the next two, beginning with Albert Mohler.
Mohler was really against Trump the first time around. He stated the very reasons many of us balked at the idea of a Trump presidency and like the three in question, he followed through by opposing his campaign in 2016. But since then, he's come around for the reasons I felt were legitimate back then, and are very much more important now. What follows are two links about his change of heart:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-the-head-of-the-southern-baptist-theological-seminary-came-around-to-trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/04/16/souther-baptist-albert-mohler-to-vote-trump/
Finally, there's Wayne Grudem. Grudem also had less than a favorable opinion of Trump back in 2016, though I don't recall if he said he voted for him or not. I wanna say he did, but don't quote me. In any case, he does indeed support him now and recently presented his case to a Christian friend in a letter that appeared at Townhall.com. The link below is from American Thinker.com, but it contains a link to the letter within it. The AT article is worth a read as well, but the letter is definitely essential for its detailed argument. I like how Grudem refers to one's vote as a package deal, as that is truly how it must be regarded. He also speaks to the point I made regarding the folly of third party voting.
https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2020/08/08/letter-to-an-antitrump-christian-friend-n2573909
All in all, the Christian move is indeed to vote for Trump. Given the choices that matter, it's the only choice one has as a Christian who cares about his fellow man.
UPDATE: Originally, I neglected the link to the Wayne Grudem argument. Sorry.
21 comments:
Trying not to put words in your mouth, I want to know what you mean by "the Christian move is indeed to vote for Trump." It can be understood in a variety of ways. "If you don't vote for Trump, you're not a Christian." "If you don't vote for Trump, you're a bad Christian." "If you don't vote for Trump, you are sinning." A variety of ways. It's not like "The wise move is to vote for Trump" or other approaches that might allow for opinion. How do you mean it?
I can elaborate later when I've more time to do so, but for now, I would refer you to Grudem's "package deal" argument for why the Christian move is to support Trump as opposed to Biden, third party, write in or no vote at all. (Don't worry...I don't suggest that last option is one you consider.)
Finally have a chance to spend a little time with this. So what do I mean by "the Christian move is to vote for Trump"? Well, of your suggestions, I would say the following isn't far from the truth of my point:
"If you don't vote for Trump, you're a bad Christian."
Indeed, it's pretty much synonymous. Once again, we are left with two true choices: Trump and Republican policies (as Grudem put it) vs. Biden and Democratic policies. Given what we know of Dem policies alone, I have tremendous difficultly understanding how any Christian could ever cast a vote for a Democrat, especially one who is down with party policies. Just abortion and LGBT "rights" alone are enough to compel me to prevent a Democrat win or majority in Congress...or control of my own state or locality. It just ain't gonna happen. That means the only way to fight that possibility is to vote Republican until such time as the GOP adopts the same anti-Christian platform. As a Christian, I MUST do what I can to prevent Dems from winning because their control and influence always ushers in some form of unChristian, culture destroying law or mandate.
So on that alone, a "good" Christian cannot merely not vote Democrat. A "good" Christian must do more. He must work to block their attempts to gain control and voting for the only party...the only candidate...that can defeat them is the Christian move. Voting third party, write-in or not voting is abdication because it's all as good as doing nothing.
Art,
I've literally seen these sorts of reasons before, and they haven't swayed me as much as they have you. My problem is that I can't in good conscience vote for the DFL. I've posted my reasons elsewhere, and the primary issue for me is their extreme stance on abortion.
I'll give you this suggestion. Listening to Dan, bitch, moan and question my salvation didn't increase my likelihood of voting the way he thought I should, and having you tell me that how I vote equals how "good" of a Christian I am, isn't likely to be any more persuasive.
I'll go this far. There is no way I'll vote for Biden, and virtually no way I'll go third party again. I will vote for as many conservative members of congress as I can. If I do vote for POTUS, it'll likely be Trump.
Craig,
I think you, Stan and Dave are getting unnecessarily hung-up on this notion that you would not be a good Christian if you didn't vote for Trump. That's not at all the same thing as acknowledging that good Christians will or more accurately what I stated, that voting for him is the Christian move.
Good Christians do stupid things all the time. Doing stupid things doesn't mean one isn't a good Christian (unless they want to do those stupid things regardless of knowing they're stupid and counter to God's will). More so than Clinton and Obama before him, it is absolutely critical to oppose...not just not vote for...Biden and the Dem party. To vote for Trump is the most effective means of doing that, with the added benefit of the nation enjoying the benefits of his good (not perfect) work as president. There will most likely always be things a favored president will do that is not favorable, but his overall performance is what counts (unless there is one clear and unforgivable act, which Trump has yet to commit). Trump's overall performance has been outstanding, and more importantly, includes many things that are specifically good for people of faith and conscience. And this is true all while never doing anything that promotes or legitimizes any of the reasons most of us find reprehensible about his past. It is as if he has repented in fact.
I've much more to say about why denying him is a horrible move for a Christian, but my work schedule is heavy at present and I can't find the time to put it together properly as yet. But what stands out to me is the poor arguments offered to deny Trump one's vote. That tells me they are more like excuses to hold Trump over until a real reason can be found.
Art,
Unfortunately, you're the one who keeps insisting exactly that. That "good Christians" have only one option consistent with their Christian faith, which is a vote for Trump. Sine you keep insisting that, of course we are responding to it. We're two "good Christians" who have concluded that we have other options consistent with our faith and that we are exploring them. We've not adopted the converse to your position (that "good Christians" should NOT vote for Trump), we're merely suggesting that Christian liberty allows "good Christians" to vote their conscience and remain "good Christians". We're pointing out that failing to vote for Trump doesn't endanger our salvation. I'm suggesting that you've crossed a line from an attempt at persuasion, to an attempt at coercion. Of course, casting not voting for Trump as "stupid" isn't really helping your cause either.
I hate to break it to you, but suggesting that people's reasons for not voting for Trump are "poor", also isn't helping you make your case.
Look, we get it. You are 100% on the Trump Train. You're the equivalent of Dan in 2016. His enthusiastic support of Clinton to the point of minimizing, ignoring, or denying her many significant flaws was maddeningly partisan.
Just a suggestion, how about you try the road of Christian liberty. The road of Unity in essentials, liberty in non essentials, and charity in both. There's nothing to be gained by continuing to cast Christians who disagree with you on this as not "good Christians" or as doing "stupid things".
God is on his throne no matter who sits behind the Resolute desk, and he is more than capable of using a Biden presidency to move His plans forward as He is a Trump presidency.
Craig,
"Unfortunately, you're the one who keeps insisting exactly that. That "good Christians" have only one option consistent with their Christian faith, which is a vote for Trump."
Yes. I have. But that's not the same as saying one isn't a good Christian for failing to get it. I'm assuming you, nor Stan or David, are getting it as yet. Thus, you're simply making a bad..."stupid"...decision to not support the only guy with any hope of denying the Dems. Third party can't do it. Write in candidates can't do it. Not voting for president can't do it. Thus, those aren't choices and there are only two actual choices from which good Christians must make a selection.
"We're two "good Christians" who have concluded that we have other options consistent with our faith and that we are exploring them."
Yet I can't seem to draw out the reasoning for insisting that any of those options are consistent with your faith. I can't express more strongly my desire to know and understand, but I'm getting nothing of any substance.
"...we're merely suggesting that Christian liberty allows "good Christians" to vote their conscience and remain "good Christians"."
And I've said absolutely nothing that contradicts this statement. (Evidence intended to claim otherwise will require date and time for contextual reasons)
"We're pointing out that failing to vote for Trump doesn't endanger our salvation."
Absolutely never made this claim. I'm saying it endangers our republic.
"I'm suggesting that you've crossed a line from an attempt at persuasion, to an attempt at coercion."
You're demonizing my attempts at persuasion by using a loaded term in place of it. A truly persuasive argument IS coercive. Feel free to coerce me with such.
"Of course, casting not voting for Trump as "stupid" isn't really helping your cause either."
Yet, barring any decent argument, I can't see it any other way. That should compel a desire to understand why, rather than used as an attempt to stifle.
"I hate to break it to you, but suggesting that people's reasons for not voting for Trump are "poor", also isn't helping you make your case."
Yet, the fact remains.
"Look, we get it. You are 100% on the Trump Train."
Ah...and here's where you three go so very wrong. I'm 100% on the America train as well as the Christian train. Trump's on those trains, too. Like many in Scripture, he's an imperfect man driving that train.
I don't minimize any of Trump's flaws. I'm just not seeing how they matter given his great performance thus far. They were far more significant in making the choice in 2016, but as only the most minor of his flaws have manifested at all since then, his more significant flaws are not significant at all.
Out of time. The last two paragraphs of your response are especially worthy of their own response from me.
Again, suggesting that it's "stupid" to not vote Trump isn't a good way to persuade. It's more of a Dan thing.
"Yet I can't seem to draw out the reasoning for insisting that any of those options are consistent with your faith. I can't express more strongly my desire to know and understand, but I'm getting nothing of any substance."
1. This sounds exactly like something Dan would say.
2. I think that not voting for an amoral, narcissistic, truth challenged, serial adulterer, vulgar, candidate is consistent with my faith. I also think that it's possible that voting for that same flawed sinful person can be consistent with my face, if the other candidate is worse.
3. My reasoning is and has been that for me, good character is the primary thing I look for in a candidate. I see no reason why that criteria would conflict or not be consistent with my faith.
"And I've said absolutely nothing that contradicts this statement."
I'd suggest that your entire premise (that "good Christians" must vote for Trump) contradicts that statement.
"Absolutely never made this claim. I'm saying it endangers our republic."
Yet you keep linking the political to the spiritual by casting this a something "good Christians" must do, because failure to do so is "stupid". In all honesty, I'd suggest that Trump's adding so significantly to the national debt is also "endangering our republic". The reality is that both candidates "endanger our republic" in different ways and to different degrees.
"You're demonizing my attempts at persuasion by using a loaded term in place of it. A truly persuasive argument IS coercive. Feel free to coerce me with such."
No, I'm pointing out that I understand the reasons to vote for Trump as well as the reasons not to. Suggesting that my failing to do that analysis and agree with you means that I'm not a "good Christian" or "stupid", isn't persuasive. The difference is that I have absolutely zero desire to coerce or pressure you into anything. I am completely comfortable with you voting your conscience for your reasons. I'm not suggesting that it's "stupid" for you to vote your conscience, I'm not trying to persuade or coerce you to do anything.
"Yet, barring any decent argument, I can't see it any other way. That should compel a desire to understand why, rather than used as an attempt to stifle."
See the answer above. The difference is that I'm no trying to coerce, persuade, or shame you into not voting your conscience.
"Yet, the fact remains."
Yes, the fact that "you're stupid" is what you've been reduced to, isn't helpful, persuasive, or a successful way to make your case does remain.
"Ah...and here's where you three go so very wrong."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are 100% convinced that voting for Trump is what "good Christians" must do and that those who don't are "stupid", right? You're simply making a Dan like semantic dodge. FYI, to call Trump Christian in any meaningful sense is to drastically redefine Christian.
I understand that you have decided that Trump's accomplishments offset his flaws, I don't completely disagree. Yet, I'm not impressed with his SCOTUS picks which is one of the more compelling reasons to vote for him IMO.
I think that your problem is that you are presuming that we all have decided 100% not to vote for Trump. I can't speak for others, but I haven't made up my mind. As much as I'd like to, voting for someone to piss Dan off just isn't a good reason. (It might be a side benefit, but it's not a good reason)
I think that your limited time would probably be better spent not trying to pressure other Christians into making a political decision that might go against your conscience. You're treading into Dan territory here, (although you definitely have better evidence to support your choice than Dan's ever had) maybe it's time to chill out and let God speak through people's conscience.
"Again, suggesting that it's "stupid" to not vote Trump isn't a good way to persuade."
Suggesting it's stupid indicates just how bad it is to not vote for Trump. But unlike Dan, I've been giving, and will continue to give valid, fact-based reasons why the term applies. If you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, I will indeed inform you the practice is stupid and will give your valid, fact-based reasons to justify my use of the term. The downside of ignoring my reasons actually demand stronger terms, but I try to be nice with people I like.
Like Stan, you're far more insulting pretending I'm like Dan than I am insisting on the stupidity of not voting for Trump when there is only one other option available to you. And no, there are only two options available to you that are legitimate choices to make. Not voting, voting third party or write-in (all effectively like not voting which is like voting for Biden) are not legitimate.
"1. This sounds exactly like something Dan would say."
Maybe, perhaps in a really, really superficial way if the stereo was on really loudly and you could barely hear me. Otherwise, there's no comparison.
"2. I think that not voting for an amoral, narcissistic, truth challenged, serial adulterer, vulgar, candidate is consistent with my faith."
Except that you're not. You're voting for the policies he promotes, as well as the policies he's already put in place, the vast majority of which have been beneficial for America. Nothing he has done as president has promoted any of those things you listed, nor have they manifested in his behavior save his inarticulate, regular guy manner. That's, by the way, a more accurate way to use the term "vulgar" with regard to him. A Congressman from Illinois, Sean Casten is vulgar in the more common sense when he says 2nd Amendment defenders have small genitals. Trump talking crudely makes him vulgar in the sense that he's like regular, or the common, people. Us. Not pretty, but I can handle it given I'm a truck driver and I'm required to be vulgar.
As to amoral, that's not at all true as there are many testimonies from those who know him that belies the claim.
Narcissistic? Boo-hoo. How has that gotten in the way of anything of importance? It's likely played a role in him being as successful a president as he's proven to be.
Truth challenged? Maybe YOU can tell me which "lie" he's told that has been worth a worry? Dan can't and he believes WaPo in suggesting Trump's told 5000+ lies since he's taken the oath.
Serial adulterer? Reagan was an adulterer. King David was worse. Trump hasn't indulged while president and I don't see him doing so as he gets even older so that no longer matters when the focus should now be on his job performance, which has been great. Yeah, I'd prefer he was as pure as the driven snow. He's not. He got elected. He's performed great and is deserving of another four years and we need him now more than ever given the even further drift toward outright socialism that is now the Democratic Party. If they get their way, Trump getting jiggy will be the last thing on your mind.
More later
"Except that you're not. You're voting for the policies he promotes, as well as the policies he's already put in place,"
Except you can't separate the person from the policies, and your ignoring the fact that his SCOTUS picks haven't been particularly impressive so far and the national debt (pre Covid) has been continuing to grow.
I've seen nothing from Trump before or after election that doesn't agree with referring to him as immoral/amoral.
As to his narcissism, I'd argue that it is part of what drives his bizarre Twitter outbursts that haven't accomplished much of anything in moving his agenda forward. FYI, only a narcissist would claim that he's never done anything that needed forgiveness.
Truth challenged, if you want to minimize Trump's casual relationship with the truth, be my guest. I'm convinced that one of the greatest moral crises of recent history is the devaluation and dismissive around the concept of Truth. Given that, I don't see how I can take such a cavalier attitude to Truth.
Serial adulterer. Again, if you want to accept long term serial adultery as not worth concern, go right ahead. I said this about Clinton and I'll say it about Trump. An inability to take one's marriage vows seriously, doesn't give me much hope that one will take one's oath of office seriously.
You can keep going if you want. If repeating the same old stuff and doubling down down on calling people stupid is how you think [persuasion happens, I can't stop you. If you can't accept that a vote for Trump is not an essential tenet of Christianity, and therefore give others the liberty and charity they deserve, then I see no reason to prolong this.
"The difference is that I'm no trying to coerce, persuade, or shame you into not voting your conscience."
But why wouldn't you? If you truly think Trump is the horror-show you insist he is, why wouldn't you do all you can to disabuse folks of the notion of voting for him? And once again, a strong argument tends to be coercive and in that sense is synonymous with persuasive. As to shaming...well...it is shameful to allow a worse option to succeed when you had an opportunity to join forces with those who would see it fail. Even in blue states like ours, that's a righteous pursuit even given who will be president should we succeed ourselves.
"Yes, the fact that "you're stupid" is what you've been reduced to, isn't helpful, persuasive, or a successful way to make your case does remain."
No...it's the starting point for getting to the argument for why it's true...except it isn't quite true, is it, as I've said only that not voting for Trump is stupid. I didn't say YOU are stupid as if that's the totality of my position. Good, intelligent people do stupid things now and then...not being perfect...and this counts as one of those times. I know you, Stan and David are not stupid. That's what makes this decision of yours so alarming.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are 100% convinced that voting for Trump is what "good Christians" must do and that those who don't are "stupid", right? "
Wrong. See the previous comment.
"FYI, to call Trump Christian in any meaningful sense is to drastically redefine Christian."
I feel the same about Dan and his troll, but I've never made the suggestion about Trump here. I would say that I've understood there to be Christian advisors to Trump, such as they are, though I don't believe I can vouch for their own dedication to Scripture. I just haven't spent any time looking into it. Trump's defense of religious freedom and conscience, however, makes it moot. Christian or not, his actions in that regard are more than we've seen from any previous Republican seen as better Christians.
"I'm not impressed with his SCOTUS picks which is one of the more compelling reasons to vote for him IMO."
I'd love to see you do a post on this subject. But I don't know if you'll have more than the recent Gorsuch misstep on which to base your opinion. One bad ruling. Stan has made similar comments, but in doing so he belies his claim that he isn't looking for a perfect candidate, and by extension perfect justices. But to rip him on the lack of it suggests otherwise.
"I think that your problem is that you are presuming that we all have decided 100% not to vote for Trump."
Between the three of you, only you have suggested voting for him is a possibility. But I'm not working on any such presumption. I'm hoping I can find a way to convince the three of you that doing so won't risk your salvation or the future of this nation.
"I think that your limited time would probably be better spent not trying to pressure other Christians into making a political decision that might go against your conscience."
I think there's more at stake which your conscience doesn't take into account, without which not voting for Trump would seem to align with a Christian worldview. Very little of significance regarding his character has come into play during his administration. Even a good deal of his tweets have more good going on than how they're portrayed.
(I have your last response to me waiting for publishing. I wanted to get this last comment of mine posted as it is the rest of my response to what you already had above. I also want to see if it puts your awaiting comment before or after this for future reference purposes.)
OK...holding up publishing a comment doesn't affect the order the date of submission determines. So much for that idea!
Anyway...
"Except you can't separate the person from the policies, and your ignoring the fact that his SCOTUS picks haven't been particularly impressive so far and the national debt (pre Covid) has been continuing to grow."
First, it works both ways. If you reject the person, you reject all the good he will accomplish (the hope based on his excellent track record). What's more, if you reject the person, you do so forgetting what you leave to chance, that being the other person and his destructive policies, which also can't be separated.
Though addressed earlier, I don't know what you're expecting from SCOTUS. They act on nothing unless it's brought before them, and that requires standing on the part of the complainants as well as things like their schedule and their own opinion on whether it's worth their time. But that aside, I say again that aside from Gorsuch's recent mistake, I don't know that they've done anything that should be of concern or that wasn't properly influenced by a good understanding of the Constitution, which is what I want to see out of any of them. Harder still, is seeing the performance of the many lower court judges appointed by Trump. Are they failing in your mind, too? I haven't been following them.
"I've seen nothing from Trump before or after election that doesn't agree with referring to him as immoral/amoral."
This is just silly. There is a moral aspect to most everything a president does in the policies he enacts and/or defends. His work on religious faith is indeed morally positive. Border protection and immigration is as well. So is lowering tax rates and the amount of burdensome and unnecessary regulations so that people can thrive and hire. I'm thinking his pro-life work is on the moral side of the equation. Building up the military to better defend the nation with which he is entrust to defend might also qualify. And how about providing rooms for as long as needed for Jennifer Hudson and the other surviving members of her family after some members were murdered? C'mon. You're either not looking or are indeed demanding moral perfection out of your choice for president. There are no such people.
As to his narcissism:
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/most-narcissistic-presidents-including-donald-trump.html/
I think his tweets accomplish more good than you'd want to admit. No argument that so many are just plain goofy and unnecessary, but that's a judgement call. However, many have drawn out the true character of his opponents in ways they can't really walk back. It also allows him to speak directly to the people without filter or media manipulation. Not always a good thing, but not really worth any great concern. I don't tweet (though I'm considering just as a means of staying more abreast of things), so I don't fret over any of it. The really notable things are publicized all over the place.
"Given that, I don't see how I can take such a cavalier attitude to Truth."
I don't. I'm just still waiting for someone to provide an example of some falsehood or lie that has caused any suffering on anyone's part. I've seen nothing on the scale of, say, "there are more than two genders", or "ACA will save people money", or "our diplomats in Benghazi died over a video". "Biggest crowd ever", or "Biggest tax cut ever"...those things don't compare and don't cause me worry at all. This is not to say that I'm not scanning for something more. I monitor politicians all the time, like most who care about their homes do. The thousands of "lies" listed by WaPo is a lie itself. Which one matters?
Before you suggest I don't think lying matters, I'm speaking only about severity and consequences. Running one's mouth doesn't necessarily matter if the falsehoods expressed are seen for what they are and dismissed as one running one's mouth...as it should be.
"An inability to take one's marriage vows seriously, doesn't give me much hope that one will take one's oath of office seriously."
If only his track record on presidential promise keeping wasn't possibly the best of any president, this would weigh more heavily. I don't dismiss the seriousness of his marital infidelity, and it was a major problem for me last time around for the reason you mention. After four years, it hasn't manifested as you seem to want to suggest. Just the opposite. Could it later on? Sure. But what will manifest if he's not elected? That for which we have no doubt. You're gambling on what might happen against what will happen, and we've been seeing it since Obama (before, actually) right on through the last four years and you're worried about that which hasn't manifested from this guy.
"You can keep going if you want."
And I will. Another post is formulating as we speak.
"If repeating the same old stuff and doubling down down on calling people stupid is how you think [persuasion happens, I can't stop you."
To borrow from Col. Honore, you're stuck on stupid. That is to say, you want to insist I'm calling you stupid, when there's a vast difference between doing that and what I'm actually doing, which is pointing out not voting for Trump is stupid. Again, smart people always do stupid things now and then because "smart" doesn't mean "perfect". To refer to this potential decision as stupid is not where your focus should be, but rather it should be on why it's stupid. I've been listing those reasons and providing arguments supporting that FACT and will continue doing so to right around Nov 3...because it's incredibly important.
"If you can't accept that a vote for Trump is not an essential tenet of Christianity, and therefore give others the liberty and charity they deserve, then I see no reason to prolong this."
I never once made that claim, and there's nothing I can do to interfere with your liberty and freedom to vote or not vote as your conscience demands. That doesn't mean I have to accept that you're conscience is fully informed and therefore it may lead you to, with good intentions, do the wrong thing that will lead to true suffering and disadvantage for all Americans, including yourself and your family and friends.
You vote your conscience and I'll vote mine. I won't denigrate you for doing so, you don't denigrate me.
Certainly you're always free to vote your conscience. That's always true regardless of whether I can or cannot persuade you.
I don't denigrate you by denigrating a choice you make. As I said earlier, good/smart people do dumb things now and again. It's actually how we get better and smarter if we learn from the mistakes we make.
I plan to vote my conscience. But having various aspects of my intelligence, character, and/or Christianity called into question from both sides is definitely pushing me away from voting for POTUS.
To be fair, no matter how I vote, certain idiots will lie about it anyway.
"I plan to vote my conscience."
Good. In the time remaining (assuming you wait until Nov 3), I hope to convince you that voting for Trump does not conflict with what your conscience demands of you.
"But having various aspects of my intelligence, character, and/or Christianity called into question from both sides is definitely pushing me away from voting for POTUS."
In my defense, I insist again that pointing out the folly of not voting for Trump is not an indictment on anything more than this particular decision. Again, smart people still do less than intelligent things quite often. Doing so tends to make them even smarter if they learn from it, but the damage from not doing this will not be so easily fixed without many suffering in the meantime.
In the same way, it's no slight on your character regardless of how you vote because I believe that, wrong though it may be, YOU'D be voting in good faith. I can't say that for so-called "progressive" "Christians".
More importantly, by voting in good faith...that is, a true desire to do the right thing in the sight of God...a misstep does not mean you're a bad Christian. Nonetheless, voting for Trump is indeed the Christian move come Nov 3.
"To be fair, no matter how I vote, certain idiots will lie about it anyway."
Here's where I will indeed be Dan/feo-like: F**k the idiots. They're of no concern or consideration with regard to this issue. Lying is what they do.
OK. No need to respond here. You can save if for my next post on the subject coming soon.
I'll say that if you want to waste your time telling people things they already know, feel free. I'd suggest that you have better things to do.
If you know, then why would there be an objection to voting for Trump?
Also, most of what any of us post (we of a right-leaning bent) are what people already know...when you really think about it.
I've been quite clear about my objections to voting for Trump. It's a question of balancing my objections with all the rest.
In a sense we do, but it's rarely intended (at least in my case) to beat a dead horse with people I generally agree with.
Post a Comment