The Way It Is

 So, recently I've been accused of the following:

"Trump love"

I don't see how simply acknowledging Trump's good work as president, and thus advocating another four years based upon that good work, constitutes "Trump love".   I love my Lord, my wife, my family, my country, my friends. 

"despising those who didn't vote the way I demanded"

First, I don't demand anything regarding how anyone votes beyond demanding they do so based on all the facts, which would result in them voting as I have, since I voted based on all the facts.  Secondly, I don't despise anyone who doesn't vote the way I vote.  I do however have issues with how poor the reasoning given for why one might vote differently.  I may indeed "despise" some examples of poor reasoning.  I have not used the term "despise" in any discussion regarding how or why someone votes differently than I do.

"name-calling"

While I won't say I'm above name-calling, I will insist that name-calling is neither something I do in the early stages of discussion with anyone of opposing points of view, nor something that is not explained in detail after implemented.  That is to say, whatever "name" I've employed is not so much an epithet as it is an appropriate description based upon the evidence presented in support of using said "name". 

More to the point, I haven't labeled anyone in the discussions that led to these accusations, but instead have described specific actions...in this case for whom one did or didn't cast a vote.  Intelligent people can make stupid choices now and then.  That doesn't make them stupid....no longer intelligent...but simply acknowledges a mistake made by an otherwise intelligent person. 

"accusation"

As implied above, accusing someone of making a stupid choice is not in and of itself a negative.  One cannot truly discuss much of anything regarding human behavior without some accusation being made...including accusing someone of positive attributes.  Here, however, I've no doubt it is meant to imply I've engaged in something rather sinful.  Disagreeing is not wrong, but merely a means to come to some understanding, hopefully one that benefits all parties involved. 

"what it has lacked completely is anything resembling love for the brethren"

This is one of the more curious charges against me.  It is clear that being emphatic, passionate or insistent is regarded as less than loving.  This makes no sense to me, given how parents can be all those and more in guiding or disciplining their children and still be loving.  If a friend insists on acting in a manner that will bring about harm to himself or others, is it not loving to forcefully insist on the wisdom of correcting that behavior...hopefully before harm is done?  Can such a person truly be accused of not loving his brethren in such a situation?  More importantly, how much love can one have for others if one does not speak forcefully toward a friend who insists on acting in a manner that will bring about harm to himself or others?  Again, a parent will begin to correct a misbehaving child with a loving tone, and escalate to a shout should the child not heed the initial attempt.  Such a parent yells, scolds and disparages out of love.  An uncaring person abandons the attempt to correct after the initial warning goes unheeded. 

"There has been no attempt to be "quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" in this dialog."

Uh...not at all.  It's not as if this was a one and done discussion.  It's been going on, truly, since the last election.  The same mistakes were made as they were then, but with fewer justifications given the president's remarkable track record since then.  Four years is "too quick"? 

"That is what I'm talking about when I say you don't believe in Sovereignty. You believe we thwarted God's Will. That Satan is capable of standing in His way. I don't. I believe God is in command always, in all things. You believe we can interfere."

Nothing in anything I've ever said in the discussions in questions suggest my position reflects any of this.  Nor has there been an actual connection made between what I have said and this accusation.  Indeed, there's been on justification for even making the suggestion simply because I present the facts regarding the consequences of voting one way as opposed to another.  No.  This argument is a rationalization for rejecting Trump, but an incredibly weak one.  Indeed, there's a far stronger argument that God has used the imperfect Trump to accomplish good things for the nation.  The real problem is that anyone would ignore those good things and refuse to get on board to support the positive direction Trump's policy have pushed us.  It's absurd to use this argument to rationalize not supporting his reelection.  It suggests that God's focus in narrow when it comes to how we choose our presidents...that only the character of the candidate rather than the benefits of policy are to be our concern.  It's as if it doesn't matter how much suffering occurs so long as the president is "good".  It's as if a "good" man is more important than the impact that man's policies will have on the people he is to serve.  Again, that's absurd. 

The true concern should be in why we vote as we do, and why we vote MUST take into consideration all the facts, which necessarily go far beyond the facts of a man's character alone.  Trump's character flaws have not resulted in anything more than annoyance, while he went about the business of improving the lives of Americans. 

The idea of God's Sovereignty is perverted by suggesting one is "OK" in rejecting Trump.  Trump stands as the best defense against what the other party has in store for America.  Pretending God will take care of things in this situation, when the choice was so clear, is akin to playing on the expressway and believing whether you live or die is God's Will.  It's tempting God...putting Him to the test.  There's no Biblical backing for this nonsense.