John MacArthur thinks he can vote for a better worldview by voting for Trump
[David R. Brumbelow]When enumerating my blessings and privileges as an American, I prize our Constitution and system of checks and balances far above the right to vote. Especially when the vote is between two people who should probably be in jail. But even in the best case scenario, you’re still casting your vote for a sinner whom you do not really know and who will act in ways you can never fully predict. Especially in recent history we should note that for some people, in some countries, the right to vote has proven less a blessing and more a curse.“One of the freedoms men and women like Alvin York and Edgar Gaines fought for was the freedom to vote. Many brave men and women have died so we can have the privilege to choose our own leaders. They fought and died so we could have a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’
I believe voting is my patriotic duty as a citizen of the United States. I love my country and I thank God that I live in America. Is it perfect? No. But neither am I, and neither are you. Does America need to repent and turn afresh to Jesus? Yes. And so do I, and so do you.
The greatest issue in our land in my opinion is abortion…”
-Steve Gaines
http://bpnews.net/47846/nov-8—christians-should-vote
David R. Brumbelow
[dcbii]Jim wrote:
In my view, the greatest threat to our republic is the issue no one is talking about - the National Debt
And here, I thought I was the only one with this viewpoint!
….and it’s worth noting that when sound accounting principles are used—GAAP as opposed to government methods—the actual national debt is somewhere north of $100 trillion, depending on whose actuarial assumptions are being used. The big hitters are Socialist Insecurity and Mediscare for this, as Congress specifically took them, and their unfunded liabilities, “off budget”. Yeah, you’d go to jail if you tried to do this in the private sector.
Not that abortion and marriage are little issues by any stretch of the imagination, but public and private debt (I’ve seen claims of something like $270 trillion in derivative investments) do make it difficult for people to take moral stands—how many people would love to quote Johnny Paycheck and say “Take this job and shove it”, but know that if they do, they run into the teeth of their mortgage, car payments, credit card bills, and the like.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I trust Trump to nominate strict Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court like I believe the DOJ did everything possible to ensure a fair, just, and equitable investigation of Hillary’s email server.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Evidently a lifelong history of felonies constitutes a sound Presidential temperament…..sigh. (I’m no huge fan of Drumpf, either, but seriously?)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I have a serious question for those who believe it is beyond the pale for a real Christian to vote for Clinton.
Is it just the abortion issue? I can accept that if it is. But really, I fail to see how such things as universal health care, human rights for minorities (including homosexuals), and even socialist ideals disqualify Christians from voting for someone. Those that believe otherwise are possibly confused on where to draw the line between the Bible and political views.
Personally, I get sick to my stomach that I am associated with the Christian community that has gullibly bought into Trump and the hypocrisy of Christians who condemned Clinton for Lewinsky and declared him unfit for office but now are endorsing Trump. Not only are evangelicals hypocrites but they are also extremely stupid to fall for his lines.
I don’t agree with Clinton on lots of things but I do consider her a more sound choice than Trump. That is no endorsement of her. It is rather an indication of just how incredibly awful the competition is.
I’m afraid some Christians don’t understand that Clinton’s homosexual rights is actually a club to destroy Bible-believing Christians, whom she says must be re-programmed. It’s more than rights. It’s insistence that everyone must accept and endorse this lifestyle. True Christians cannot do this, and will become law breakers for holding beliefs contrary to the societal norm. It seems to me that anyone to helps such a candidate is throwing a faggot on the fire to burn Christians at the stake.
G. N. Barkman
[GregH]I have a serious question for those who believe it is beyond the pale for a real Christian to vote for Clinton.
Is it just the abortion issue? I can accept that if it is. But really, I fail to see how such things as universal health care, human rights for minorities (including homosexuals), and even socialist ideals disqualify Christians from voting for someone. Those that believe otherwise are possibly confused on where to draw the line between the Bible and political views.
Personally, I get sick to my stomach that I am associated with the Christian community that has gullibly bought into Trump and the hypocrisy of Christians who condemned Clinton for Lewinsky and declared him unfit for office but now are endorsing Trump. Not only are evangelicals hypocrites but they are also extremely stupid to fall for his lines.
I don’t agree with Clinton on lots of things but I do consider her a more sound choice than Trump. That is no endorsement of her. It is rather an indication of just how incredibly awful the competition is.
There are reasons to vote for Clinton, though I cannot. She is more stable, more clear-eyed about the global situation. Actually, she rather vigorously defended traditional marriage on the senate floor and even on Ellen’s TV show before that position made her untenable as a Democrat running for high office. She is running left, but I think her instincts are more moderate. Trump has never supported traditional marriage and spoke very strongly on behalf of big business pressuring North Carolina to reverse their law keeping men out of women’s locker rooms and bathrooms.
President and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse, Franklin Graham, encourages Christians and Millennials to hold their nose and vote on Nov. 8th, for Republicans and Donald Trump.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-millennials-hold-your…
David R. Brumbelow
[GregH]I have a serious question for those who believe it is beyond the pale for a real Christian to vote for Clinton.
Is it just the abortion issue? I can accept that if it is. But really, I fail to see how such things as universal health care, human rights for minorities (including homosexuals), and even socialist ideals disqualify Christians from voting for someone. Those that believe otherwise are possibly confused on where to draw the line between the Bible and political views.
Personally, I get sick to my stomach that I am associated with the Christian community that has gullibly bought into Trump and the hypocrisy of Christians who condemned Clinton for Lewinsky and declared him unfit for office but now are endorsing Trump. Not only are evangelicals hypocrites but they are also extremely stupid to fall for his lines.
I don’t agree with Clinton on lots of things but I do consider her a more sound choice than Trump. That is no endorsement of her. It is rather an indication of just how incredibly awful the competition is.
My take is that to vote for Clinton is to vote for a woman who’s been involved in ethics violations and crime ever since the 1970s, and also to empower a party that tends to overlook them, as they infamously did in 1998 by refusing to convict her husband for perjury and obstruction of justice. I don’t like Drumpf, and he’s certainly got ethical violations and possibly also crimes as well, but since a lot of Republicans hate his guts, he simply wouldn’t be able to get away with as much as Hilliary can.
(quick list of ethics violations/crimes: her conduct investigating Watergate, for which she was fired, getting multiple jobs via patronage in Arkansas courtesy of Bill, Whitewater, cattle futures, bimbo eruptions, stealing furnishings from the White House, selling out the Lincoln bedroom, selling access via the Clinton Foundation, classified information on private server shared with maid and others, perjury in testimony before Congress, destruction of government records, obstruction of justice, etc….the woman just drips sleaze in a way that not even Drumpf can quite match)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Clinton and Trump are both sleazeballs. However, listening to conservatives call her a criminal gets tiring. She has been convicted of NOTHING. That is not to say she is not guilty. That is not to say powerful friends might cover up her crimes. But armchair quarterbacks not in possession of all the evidence and not legal experts that make the proclamations that she is a criminal for this or that simply are not credible. There is a level of knowledge in these things greater than what you hear on your favorite cable news.
Bert, you don’t know the law or the evidence enough to call her a criminal in probably any of those matters. I know you think you but you don’t.
Greg, if you take a close look at the data, all you can really say is that prosecutors clearly dropped the ball. By the way, it is a fact that she was shown the door during Watergate investigations—that much is not in dispute. It is a fact that, in sworn testimony before Congress, she said she never sent nor received information marked classified—James Comey listed three emails he found where that was exactly the case. She also perjured herself by stating that the emails were carefully reviewed—reality was that an automated search was done.
A bit of history about myself; although I’ve never held a security clearance (apart from citizenship—that gets you access to some aerospace documents denied to non-citizens), I’ve worked two jobs where others did handle classified information, and the HR onboarding at both made very clear that if you were caught mishandling sensitive or classified data, you would have a very uncomfortable meeting with HR followed by an even more uncomfortable meeting with the FBI. If it was bad enough, you got to skip the meeting with HR, if you catch my drift.
Now, after years in the Senate and years as Secretary of State, including instances in which she personally fired people for mishandling sensitive data, I simply cannot believe that she didn’t know and understand the risk she was taking. I don’t know what possessed James Comey to ignore such obvious indictments as she offered—and Comey didn’t even do basic due diligence in investigation like issuing subpoenas or convening a grand jury.
Truth be told, I wouldn’t be surprised if the real story resembled something written by Mario Puzo. So sorry, but if you can look past the mountain of criminality evidenced by Mrs. Clinton, you need to get to the eye doctor.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Right Bert, I know you feel you are an expert in basically everything. However, I really do not think holding two jobs that dealt with classified information makes you an expert on national security. I really don’t think you know the laws regarding it nor do I think you know the evidence of this case. You know what has been leaked and spun through your favorite cable news channel and news websites.
I am not saying this as a person that is defending Clinton. I am not. I think her email server was careless and a deplorable action. I am just saying that you really have no idea or not whether a crime was committed because there is no doubt in my mind you do not know the nuances of the laws that apply or the exact nature of the emails.
Greg, given that I’ve never held a security clearance, I certainly have not held a job that dealt with classified information. ITAR, yes, but classified, no.
What I’m getting at here—and what the left and the media seem to either not get, or are willfully ignoring—is the degree to which defense contractors keep classified information private. At Space Park in Redondo Beach, the classified guys were behind locked doors, and if I were to “sneak” in, that would have resulted in my firing—and probably that of the guy who let me in. I certainly did not have badge access. At the other company, classified information was held in a safe room where the only keys were held by a couple of guys with the appropriate clearances. They take it very seriously.
So when I consider the known fact that Comey didn’t convene a grand jury or issue subpoenas, something really stinks….more or less, Hilliary kept it quiet until a hacker revealed some of her emails, which previously had been hidden (in clear violation of Congressional subpoena) from investigators.
And it’s a bigger deal than Mrs. Clinton; keeping it quiet means that none of her correspondents cared enough about the privacy of State Department business to raise the red flag. So it’s a rot that really ought to get a bunch of staffers there thrown out on their keisters, too, and really ought to result in a top to bottom review of the department culture to determine why so many people failed in this basic protocol. No company that desired to keep DOD business would dare do this—one company I worked for went so far with ITAR information as to name the one non-citizen working there so we wouldn’t share data with him.
The principle here is Deming’s: “Your system is perfectly designed to give you exactly the results you’re getting.” Comey’s lack of curiosity here is really an outrage in this regard.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Why do I feel completely under whelmed by the evidence that either of you are experts? :)
OK, let’s just call both of you experts so I can get something productive done.
Discussion