"44 years a Republican, 1 year an Independent, today I'm joining the Democratic Party"

[Kenny]

And I'm wondering if much of "Christian conservatism" is even Christian at all? When we see 79% of American evangelicals voting for Trump after all he's said and done, what's "Christian" about that?

I can understand a person of faith not wanting to vote for Hillary (I didn't want to either, but I did btw), but why would one vote for Trump with all his unethical "baggage"?

That is a very good question and certainly one answer doesn't fit all since so much political banter goes back and forth. But I think it is unfair to say if someone votes for a certain person (or doesn't) equates that we should doubt their faith.

First you would have those who say "Well... I don't like anyone so I just won't vote". Many opted for this answer even though Christianity says "faith without actions is dead". (But I wouldn't call them dead)

Second you would have those who said, "I would never vote for Trump after all he's said and done"--there are actually Christians who went this route and voted for Hillary. These, of course, are DEFINITELY not Christians. (just kidding )

Third, you have those who said... "Either I vote for crooked Hillary or not so crooked Trump". (Of course, then you have the argument of who was crooked and who wasn't) But just stating facts here of what people thought.

Fourth, you had those who said... "It isn't about Hillary OR Trump but rather who will get on the Supreme Court" (long term thinking). These had no choice but to vote for Trump if they were conservative

But no one is less of a Christian because they voted.

Incidentally, ultimately the Christian shouldn't care who is on the seat of presidency for we should pray for that president no matter who he is and not speak evil of that president. We believe the heart of the king is in the hands of G-d and He can turn it whatever way He wants.

 

[metis]

That is a very good question and certainly one answer doesn't fit all since so much political banter goes back and forth. But I think it is unfair to say if someone votes for a certain person (or doesn't) equates that we should doubt their faith.

But I didn't say nor imply that all evangelicals, including some of those who may have voted for Trump, were being "unChristian" by doing so. But Trump's many statements and actions should have sent up a massive amount of red flags, and if one was following the news closely enough to see those flags but then chose to ignore them, then that's when I have to question whether they really take Jesus seriously enough or whether they're really thinking such things carefully through [see my next item below as an example]. There's all too often a sub-conscious drift to make God and/or Jesus in our own image and/or falling victim to "confirmation bias".

Fourth, you had those who said... "It isn't about Hillary OR Trump but rather who will get on the Supreme Court" (long term thinking). These had no choice but to vote for Trump if they were conservative

But single-issue voting is really a bad way to go. For example, a great many people of faith abhor abortion, as I do, but then vote for politicians who are willing to pass legislation that hurts children and adults or refuse to take actions that help them. Even the priest at my wife's church warned the congregation about voting single-issue. Also, there's no guarantee that a new justice(s) would change Roe v Wade anyway.

Incidentally, ultimately the Christian shouldn't care who is on the seat of presidency for we should pray for that president no matter who he is and not speak evil of that president.

I agree with that, and the president should reciprocate, so maybe you can drop him a message?

We believe the heart of the king is in the hands of G-d and He can turn it whatever way He wants.

I see no evidence that suggests God runs the U.S. or any other country, so you have much more faith in that than I do.

Shalom, and I hope I didn't stomp on your toes. If so, next time wear steel-toe boots.

 

[Kenny]

But I didn't say nor imply that all evangelicals, including some of those who may have voted for Trump, were being "unChristian" by doing so. But Trump's many statements and actions should have sent up a massive amount of red flags, and if one was following the news closely enough to see those flags but then chose to ignore them, then that's when I have to question whether they really take Jesus seriously enough or whether they're really thinking such things carefully through [see my next item below as an example]. There's all too often a sub-conscious drift to make God and/or Jesus in our own image and/or falling victim to "confirmation bias".

But single-issue voting is really a bad way to go. For example, a great many people of faith abhor abortion, as I do, but then vote for politicians who are willing to pass legislation that hurts children and adults or refuse to take actions that help them. Even the priest at my wife's church warned the congregation about voting single-issue. Also, there's no guarantee that a new justice(s) would change Roe v Wade anyway.

I don't disagree with anything of the above.

But (I think this is where most Christians stood on) -- "My candidate is not in the running any more. I have two choices... bad or worse therefore the Supreme Court is my deal breaker." At least that is my belief.

I don't think that the Supreme Court is a "single issue" vote. The Supreme Court is where issues of freedom of speech end up. It is where the definition of marriage ends up. It is where the sanctity of life ends up. It is where freedom ends up.

And it is a long term vote that seems to be panning out for us crazy conservatives.

I see no evidence that suggests God runs the U.S. or any other country, so you have much more faith in that than I do.

I've got enough faith for the two of us

Shalom, and I hope I didn't stomp on your toes. If so, next time wear steel-toe boots.

OUCH! Is what comes to my mind. Steel boots and my knee jerk reaction might hurt you!

 

[metis]

I don't think that the Supreme Court is a "single issue" vote. The Supreme Court is where issues of freedom of speech end up. It is where the definition of marriage ends up. It is where the sanctity of life ends up. It is where freedom ends up.

We could debate this, but let me just mention that whom marries whom is of little interest to me. Even if one of my grandkids wanted to marry one of the same sex, who am I to say no? "Marriage" is a legal contract, so if one believes SSM is wrong, then they probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex but allow others to make their own choices.

We had issues similar to this decades and centuries ago whereas whites couldn't marry blacks, Indians couldn't marry whites, etc., so why do we still supposedly have to meddle in other people's love affairs? Seems that a true conservative would allow people the right to choose on their own without being dictated to by government intervention in private affairs.

And it is a long term vote that seems to be panning out for us crazy conservatives.

With the Groper-In-Chief now as president, I really don't think things are "panning out" for anyone except the Russians.

OUCH! Is what comes to my mind. Steel boots and my knee jerk reaction might hurt you!

That's why when I post with you I have to wear my steel-plated jock-strap.

 

[Underhill]

George Will, of "National Review" fame, said today on "Morning Joe" that he quit the Republican Party mainly because of the racism that Trump spouted that Paul Ryan basically endorsed when he pledged to support Trump. When Trump blasted the Indiana judge and said he should disqualify himself because he was of Mexican heritage, Will said that this and Trump's anti-refugee (anti-Muslim bigotry) was too much for him to swallow.

Of course some of these "converts" are part of the problem in the democratic camp. Democrats in name only are the primary reason we don't have better, single payer health care.

 

[metis]

Of course some of these "converts" are part of the problem in the democratic camp. Democrats in name only are the primary reason we don't have better, single payer health care.

But these "converts" had nothing to do with why Obamacare couldn't go in the direction of single-payer as the Dems knew they couldn't get it through Congress, largely because of not having the support of Dem congressmen/women representing largely red states. If they had done this, the label of "socialists!" would have reverberated through these states and undoubtedly even the others.

Now, don't get me wrong as I have been strongly in favor of a single-payer system for 50 years now, so I think we're on the same page.

 

[Stevicus]

But these "converts" had nothing to do with why Obamacare couldn't go in the direction of single-payer as the Dems knew they couldn't get it through Congress, largely because of not having the support of Dem congressmen/women representing largely red states. If they had done this, the label of "socialists!" would have reverberated through these states and undoubtedly even the others.

This also points up a large problem within the Democratic Party. They're all so afraid of being labeled "socialists" that they have no real backbone or principles. They only pick the easy battles.

 

[Underhill]

But these "converts" had nothing to do with why Obamacare couldn't go in the direction of single-payer as the Dems knew they couldn't get it through Congress, largely because of not having the support of Dem congressmen/women representing largely red states. If they had done this, the label of "socialists!" would have reverberated through these states and undoubtedly even the others.

Now, don't get me wrong as I have been strongly in favor of a single-payer system for 50 years now, so I think we're on the same page.

Perhaps, but my point is these converts are in the same vein as those "blue dog democrats" some of whom were republicans before the swing during the Bush years.

 

[Kenny]

We could debate this, but let me just mention that whom marries whom is of little interest to me. Even if one of my grandkids wanted to marry one of the same sex, who am I to say no? "Marriage" is a legal contract, so if one believes SSM is wrong, then they probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex but allow others to make their own choices.

We had issues similar to this decades and centuries ago whereas whites couldn't marry blacks, Indians couldn't marry whites, etc., so why do we still supposedly have to meddle in other people's love affairs? Seems that a true conservative would allow people the right to choose on their own without being dictated to by government intervention in private affairs.

It was the principle that I was talking about--that being it is not a "one issue" but encompasses all issues. If someone wants to live their life with whosoever, I have no problem with it. It is their lives to live.

Personally, I think marriage is a blood covenant relationship but that's just my viewpoint.

With the Groper-In-Chief now as president, I really don't think things are "panning out" for anyone except the Russians.

LOL... Whether it is Russians for one and Chinese for the other... politics can be dirty.

That's why when I post with you I have to wear my steel-plated jock-strap.

LOL Better to be safe than sorry.

 

[metis]

politics can be dirty.

But, imo, we should be ignoring nor excusing it.

I was quite critical of Hillary on a few different matters, and I've been very critical of Trump as well. However, compared to Trump, Hillary is a saint.

Matter of fact, she's the church-goer whereas Trump almost never goes, plus she has been very active most of her life with helping others, whereas Trump does a magnificent job of helping himself, often doing so illegally. This is why he has been fined many times, including thee times in just the last year, and has had over 1000 law suits against him mostly for not paying sub-contractors.

Yep, "politics can be dirty", but Trump literally is filthy. And I certainly didn't vote for him-- just sayin'.

 

[Kenny]

But, imo, we should be ignoring nor excusing it.

I was quite critical of Hillary on a few different matters, and I've been very critical of Trump as well. However, compared to Trump, Hillary is a saint.

Matter of fact, she's the church-goer whereas Trump almost never goes, plus she has been very active most of her life with helping others, whereas Trump does a magnificent job of helping himself, often doing so illegally. This is why he has been fined many times, including thee times in just the last year, and has had over 1000 law suits against him mostly for not paying sub-contractors.

Yep, "politics can be dirty", but Trump literally is filthy. And I certainly didn't vote for him-- just sayin'.

LOL... well, that is a matter of opinion. Some people are just better at sweeping the filth under the carpet.

But I AGREE, we should ignore or excuse wrong. Wrong is wrong and it should be challenged.

 

[metis]

LOL... well, that is a matter of opinion. Some people are just better at sweeping the filth under the carpet.

C'Mon, you gotta realize that the above is just a false equivalency. How many lawsuits against Hillary? How many times has she been fined? How many times did she say and do things that are blatantly immoral, such as bragging about being able to grope others, calling people names, assuming guilt ("Lock her up!"), bragging about his daughter's breast size, etc. And then there's the Russian connection, all the denials and lies, and even more just came out today on this (watch the news tonight). If Hillary had done a small fraction of this, Republican heads would be exploding.

And doesn't her lifetime effort to actually help people count? Doesn't his illegally taking advantage of people count?

Just a reminder that I have never been a Hillary fan, easily deciding to vote for Bernie in the primary here. But Hillary is not like Trump, so let's not pretend that she is.

But I AGREE, we should ignore or excuse wrong.

You might want to reword this.

Wrong is wrong and it should be challenged.

Agreed. Also, "wrong is wrong" and shouldn't be voted for.

 

[Kenny]

C'Mon, you gotta realize that the above is just a false equivalency. How many lawsuits against Hillary? How many times has she been fined? How many times did she say and do things that are blatantly immoral, such as bragging about being able to grope others, calling people names, assuming guilt ("Lock her up!"), bragging about his daughter's breast size, etc. And then there's the Russian connection, all the denials and lies, and even more just came out today on this (watch the news tonight). If Hillary had done a small fraction of this, Republican heads would be exploding.

And doesn't her lifetime effort to actually help people count? Doesn't his illegally taking advantage of people count?

I agree that name calling etc is wrong. It is "despicable"! (pardon the pun)

I think that which is done under the guise of "legal" is just as bad as what is obviously wrong. And if we are going to paint what is wrong... let's not have an exception of people and whitewash what is wrong.

• Clinton Foundation hit with racketeering lawsuit
• http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02...ally-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/
• The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.
• Hillary Clinton email controversy - Wikipedia (And it was obvious that "I just didn't know" was a copout"

And so much more. Again... wrong is wrong and we should confront it and not wave it away because of position.

I can make a list for Trump too... but his are obvious, up front and not done in secret (like some). To list what is already is known is redundant.

Sooooo.... instead of voting for Hillary or Trump... I voted for............

Yes...........

Drum roll please......

US Supreme Court Judge Neil McGill Gorsuch

You might want to reword this.

oops!

Agreed. Also, "wrong is wrong" and shouldn't be voted for.

Please see above for who I voted for

 

[metis]

• Clinton Foundation hit with racketeering lawsuit

• http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02...ally-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/

Just a reminder that Bill and Hillary are two different people so, as my wife reminds me, she can't be blamed for my screw-ups.

 

[Kenny]

Just a reminder that Bill and Hillary are two different people so, as my wife reminds me, she can't be blamed for my screw-ups.

LOL... it's always my fault no matter what goes wrong.