My Choice for President

[Josiah]

THAT'S my great problem with BOTH Trump and Clinton.... it's no SO much their views (survey says I agree with Trump 90% and Clinton 3%) - frankly, I could probably LIVE with the politics of either (and pray they don't get re-elected). It's THEM that is the problem. BOTH are disqualified, unacceptable as leaders, as the president. Trump seems to be an egomaniac (I HONESTLY wonder if he is psychologically okay), he is a jerk, he either MEANS what he says or does NOT - either way, we got a huge problem! There's a reason he's not disclosing his tax returns. He's an embarrassment, a loose-cannon, and frankly - with all the power of the White House at his fingertips, SCARY. Clinton is fundamentally dishonest, a liar, anti-women, anti-unborn, a very careless, reckless, declared BAD security risk (that alone disqualifies her!) - someone who seems MUCH worse than Nixon who was forced out of office, someone who should be in jail and not the White House. I find BOTH of these equally disqualified, embarrassing. NOT because of their politics so much as because of themselves. What I'm struggling with..... is how in the ______ did the United States of America end up with these two? What went so wrong? Is it politics in the USA today? The way elections have evolved in this country? Political parties? Or is it - as I fear - US?

 

[MarkFL]

Josiah, I think you have pinpointed the problem...--> US

We have a largely ignorant and apathetic constituency (into which I readily lump myself), who feel disenfranchised and unrepresented and who throw up their hands in despair.

 

[tango]

I don't fear a Muslim majority in the U.S., the only fear I would have is if we became a theocracy, no matter what the religion. As long as there is no state sanctioned religion and people are free to practice whatever religion they choose, or even choose not to practice any, then that's fine by me. This is what our constitution wisely guarantees us. Then what the majority practice should be of no concern.

The trouble is as soon as the constitution gets picked apart with lots of clever legalese about what the Founding Fathers might have meant (and with a few silly memes about how when the 2nd Amendment was written the most advanced weaponry was a musket, so 2A does nothing more than grant the right to own a musket) there's no obvious place for it to stop.

We already see ever-increasing attacks against the right to keep and bear arms, often wrapped up in emotive language as if someone who lost a family member to a nutjob with a gun is somehow more qualified to comment than someone who did not. You'd have to have a heart of stone to not feel at least a sense of anguish for their loss but to use that as a basis to ban bearing arms makes no more sense than using the anguish of someone who lost a loved one in an interstate pileup as justification to ban motor vehicles. Throw in the attacks on freedom of speech (so much these days seems to be considered "hate" even when it is little more than disagreement). It's not hateful to believe that homosexual acts are sinful, it's not hateful to believe that Muslims are worshiping the wrong god etc. The endless push towards tolerance seems to mean little more than tolerating everything except disagreement.

Separation of church and state is a good thing. I suspect if we ever did see a Muslim majority there would be a large enough group within that majority to be pushing for some form of Islamic law, just as we currently see people now who want to have Christian standards imposed upon others by force of law. It's often interesting to show how giving the government a power in one area could come back to bite us - as I said to a user on another forum if we expect the government to outlaw sodomy (as he was suggesting) then we give the government authority to intrude into our bedroom and once we give it that power there's nothing left to prevent the government from regulating heterosexual activity.

 

[tango]

THAT'S my great problem with BOTH Trump and Clinton.... it's no SO much their views (survey says I agree with Trump 90% and Clinton 3%) - frankly, I could probably LIVE with the politics of either (and pray they don't get re-elected). It's THEM that is the problem. BOTH are disqualified, unacceptable as leaders, as the president. Trump seems to be an egomaniac (I HONESTLY wonder if he is psychologically okay), he is a jerk, he either MEANS what he says or does NOT - either way, we got a huge problem! There's a reason he's not disclosing his tax returns. He's an embarrassment, a loose-cannon, and frankly - with all the power of the White House at his fingertips, SCARY. Clinton is fundamentally dishonest, a liar, anti-women, anti-unborn, a very careless, reckless, declared BAD security risk (that alone disqualifies her!) - someone who seems MUCH worse than Nixon who was forced out of office, someone who should be in jail and not the White House. I find BOTH of these equally disqualified, embarrassing. NOT because of their politics so much as because of themselves. What I'm struggling with..... is how in the ______ did the United States of America end up with these two? What went so wrong? Is it politics in the USA today? The way elections have evolved in this country? Political parties? Or is it - as I fear - US?

I think a large part of the problem is the endless hand wringing about how we shouldn't vote for third parties. As it stands both the Republicans and the Democrats know full well they could field a turnip as their candidate and probably 25% of the population would dutifully vote for it. Given the choice between the narcissistic Trump and the fundamentally dishonest Clinton it seems like an obvious time to vote for a third party, even if only to deliver the proverbial bloodied nose to the mainstream parties. But for as long as those on the right argue that a vote for anyone else is effectively a vote for Clinton and those on the left argue that a vote for anyone else is a vote for Trump nothing will change. If the only reason to vote for a candidate who should be disqualified is to keep a worse candidate out of office, maybe we should be looking to vote third parties en masse.

 

[tango]

Another interesting twist is the seemingly increasing prevalence of an attitude that is little more than "I don't like this, therefore it should be banned".

It has been said that if a conservative doesn't like something he doesn't do it whereas if a liberal doesn't like something he tries to ban it so nobody can do it. But that doesn't seem to apply in many social situations, particularly where people like the gay and transgender communities are concerned. Certainly it seems that if a libertarian doesn't like something he doesn't do it.

Simple example - I don't like smoking so I don't smoke. As a man I don't think I should marry a man, so I married a woman. It's not difficult

 

[MarkFL]

...Separation of church and state is a good thing. I suspect if we ever did see a Muslim majority there would be a large enough group within that majority to be pushing for some form of Islamic law, just as we currently see people now who want to have Christian standards imposed upon others by force of law. It's often interesting to show how giving the government a power in one area could come back to bite us - as I said to a user on another forum if we expect the government to outlaw sodomy (as he was suggesting) then we give the government authority to intrude into our bedroom and once we give it that power there's nothing left to prevent the government from regulating heterosexual activity.

Yes, it is the integration of church and state within the Muslim theocracies that is the problem, and not Islam itself. It wasn't until such integration began that the blossoming intellectual hub in the Middle East was strangled.

If we do see a Muslim majority here, then of course I would expect to eventually see "In Allah We Trust" on my currency and the children sequestered in public schools citing this country as being "under Allah" in their pledge of allegiance, but since these intrusions have already been mandated by the current majority, why should a new majority have any less power to change these things to suit them.. :scratchchin:

 

[tango]

Yes, it is the integration of church and state within the Muslim theocracies that is the problem, and not Islam itself. It wasn't until such integration began that the blossoming intellectual hub in the Middle East was strangled.

Sure, although I must admit I don't know enough about the Muslim faith to know whether setting up a theocracy is a fundamental part of Islam or just something that some adherents attempt to do. I can specifically say that Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world" and told us not to seek earthly glory with comments about being the servant of all, so it seems pretty easy to show how the idea of setting up some kind of theocracy in the name of Christ isn't Scriptural.

If we do see a Muslim majority here, then of course I would expect to eventually see "In Allah We Trust" on my currency and the children sequestered in public schools citing this country as being "under Allah" in their pledge of allegiance, but since these intrusions have already been mandated by the current majority, why should a new majority have any less power to change these things to suit them.. :scratchchin:

Sure, you make a good point. I must admit I don't really care one way or the other about "In God We Trust" on the money, I can't say I read the money other than to look at the numbers

 

[MarkFL]

Sure, although I must admit I don't know enough about the Muslim faith to know whether setting up a theocracy is a fundamental part of Islam or just something that some adherents attempt to do.

I don't know enough about it either to say if setting up kingdoms is a fundamental part of Islam. It just appears to me that the problem isn't the religion per se, but the marriage of it with government.

Sure, you make a good point. I must admit I don't really care one way or the other about "In God We Trust" on the money, I can't say I read the money other than to look at the numbers

It doesn't actually bother me either too much (although it does serve to remind me I'm a minority), but what does bother me is how few people here seem to know that these things were added fairly recently (as history goes) as a result of a manic fear of communism. And it only serves to weaken, at least by appearances, the concept of separation of church and state. It will simply make it easier for other intrusions in the future should another big scare present itself, and for the next majority to do the same.

 

[psalms 91]

THAT'S my great problem with BOTH Trump and Clinton.... it's no SO much their views (survey says I agree with Trump 90% and Clinton 3%) - frankly, I could probably LIVE with the politics of either (and pray they don't get re-elected). It's THEM that is the problem. BOTH are disqualified, unacceptable as leaders, as the president. Trump seems to be an egomaniac (I HONESTLY wonder if he is psychologically okay), he is a jerk, he either MEANS what he says or does NOT - either way, we got a huge problem! There's a reason he's not disclosing his tax returns. He's an embarrassment, a loose-cannon, and frankly - with all the power of the White House at his fingertips, SCARY. Clinton is fundamentally dishonest, a liar, anti-women, anti-unborn, a very careless, reckless, declared BAD security risk (that alone disqualifies her!) - someone who seems MUCH worse than Nixon who was forced out of office, someone who should be in jail and not the White House. I find BOTH of these equally disqualified, embarrassing. NOT because of their politics so much as because of themselves. What I'm struggling with..... is how in the ______ did the United States of America end up with these two? What went so wrong? Is it politics in the USA today? The way elections have evolved in this country? Political parties? Or is it - as I fear - US?

Remember that God puts leaders in place so we are getting what we deserve unfortunately

 

[visionary]

Sharia, or Islamic law, is a complex system of moral codes that governs all aspects of Muslim life. More than simply “law” in the prescriptive sense, it is also the methodology through which Muslims engage with foundational religious texts to search for the divine will. For devout Muslims, Sharia governs everything from the way they eat, wipe their buts with their right hand, to how they treat animals like sex with goats, and protect the environment like trying to bombing infidels off it as in the state of Israel, to how they do business for no words out of their mouth will be held against them if it is made with an infidel, how they marry right down to the infant they bought for purpose of sex for a moment, and women are nothing but slaves, and how their estate is distributed after death. If incorporated into the laws of the land, the land becomes Muslim because all must comply. All must become Muslim or die.

 

[visionary]

Sharia, or Islamic law, is a complex system of moral codes that governs all aspects of Muslim life. More than simply “law” in the prescriptive sense, it is also the methodology through which Muslims engage with foundational religious texts to search for the divine will. For devout Muslims, Sharia governs everything from the way they eat, wipe their buts with their right hand, to how they treat animals like sex with goats, and protect the environment like trying to bombing infidels off it as in the state of Israel, to how they do business for no words out of their mouth will be held against them if it is made with an infidel, how they marry right down to the infant they bought for purpose of sex for a moment, and women are nothing but slaves, and how their estate is distributed after death.

If incorporated into the laws of the land, the land becomes Muslim because all must comply. All must become Muslim or die. Hillary is all for it. They paid her good money to implement it when she becomes PResident.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/352195633340484503/

 

[Josiah]

I think a large part of the problem is the endless hand wringing about how we shouldn't vote for third parties. As it stands both the Republicans and the Democrats know full well they could field a turnip as their candidate and probably 25% of the population would dutifully vote for it. Given the choice between the narcissistic Trump and the fundamentally dishonest Clinton it seems like an obvious time to vote for a third party, even if only to deliver the proverbial bloodied nose to the mainstream parties. But for as long as those on the right argue that a vote for anyone else is effectively a vote for Clinton and those on the left argue that a vote for anyone else is a vote for Trump nothing will change. If the only reason to vote for a candidate who should be disqualified is to keep a worse candidate out of office, maybe we should be looking to vote third parties en masse.

As much as I don't WANT to agree with you.... I do. I WISH there was a good choice in the Constitiution or Libertarian Parties, but I consider both preferable to Trump or Clinton. While I think the Constitution guy lacks the experience and expertise (and I don't like his "evangelical Christian" agenda and foreign policy views) but he is solidly pro-life (that IS a deal breaker for me). The Libertarian is probably more acceptable to me but is pro-abortion and again, I have foreign police problems with him. But unless something HUGE happens (really HUGE), I doubt he'll get 5% of the popular vote and no electorial votes. The Libertarian might get twice the popular vote (but again, no electorial votes) but he is pro-choice and thus I can't vote for him. But I'm leaning toward voting (I was just going to skip the top of the ticket) - just not for the Republican or Democrat. I'm just struggling with the Third Party guys..... and if voting for such will send any message at all.

Yes, I agree: If the DEVIL were nominated as a Republican, he'd get 25-30% of the vote. And if as a Democrat, 40-50% of the vote. A LOT of people just vote party. The ODD thing is: Trump is anti-Republican running AGAINST his party. And Bernie was doing the same on the other side (although lost the nomination). Doesn't seem to matter.




.

 

[tango]

As much as I don't WANT to agree with you.... I do. I WISH there was a good choice in the Constitiution or Libertarian Parties, but I consider both preferable to Trump or Clinton. While I think the Constitution guy lacks the experience and expertise (and I don't like his "evangelical Christian" agenda and foreign policy views) but he is solidly pro-life (that IS a deal breaker for me). The Libertarian is probably more acceptable to me but is pro-abortion and again, I have foreign police problems with him. But unless something HUGE happens (really HUGE), I doubt he'll get 5% of the popular vote and no electorial votes. The Libertarian might get twice the popular vote (but again, no electorial votes) but he is pro-choice and thus I can't vote for him. But I'm leaning toward voting (I was just going to skip the top of the ticket) - just not for the Republican or Democrat. I'm just struggling with the Third Party guys..... and if voting for such will send any message at all.

Yes, I agree: If the DEVIL were nominated as a Republican, he'd get 25-30% of the vote. And if as a Democrat, 40-50% of the vote. A LOT of people just vote party. The ODD thing is: Trump is anti-Republican running AGAINST his party. And Bernie was doing the same on the other side (although lost the nomination). Doesn't seem to matter.




.

Like you I was worried about voting for someone pro-choice but having read a couple of articles about it I came to conclude that it really makes little difference. It's unlikely that any candidate will ever be able to make abortion go away and even if it were banned the outcome would most likely be little more than desperate and frightened young women turning to backstreet abortionists with little to no medical training and facing who knows what complications down the line. Voting for a pro-choice candidate isn't the same as voting for more abortions any more than voting for a pro-2A candidate is voting for more gun deaths. Pro-choice isn't about pro-abortion, it's about letting people make a choice rather than pushing them one way or the other.

If we're going to be pro-life we have to consider just what it means to be pro-life. It's easy to insist that pregnant women carry their baby to term only to abandon them in the same cycle of hopelessness and despair they were desperately trying to escape. It's very easy to deny contraception and merely insist, with finger-wagging righteousness, that they just learn to control their impulses. With the best will in the world, that's not going to happen. Personally I find it unacceptable to consider abortion as just the last line of contraception but the problem is that it has to be either outlawed, or allowed without restriction, or allowed with restriction. Those are the only options. If it's outlawed without exception then it's only a question of time before we see rape victims not wanting to carry their attacker's child to term, mothers dying because their bodies couldn't cope with a pregnancy and the like (I personally know a couple who were eagerly looking forward to the birth of their first child only to discover major complications and eventually decided to terminate the baby they so desperately wanted because the alternative was that mother and baby would die). If it's allowed with restrictions we'll see the lines blurred and blurred and blurred again, such that the young woman who simply doesn't feel like being a mother just yet claiming that having a baby would be damaging to her mental well-being or some such.

Being pro-life must involve more than shouting at frightened young women in line at the abortion clinic. It has to involve giving them a sense of hope, a sense of purpose, and a sense that they really can face the world as a mother even if the father is nowhere to be seen. It has to meet people where they are and provide options, it has to do so much more than moralising and finger-wagging and arguments that boil down to little more than "I wouldn't start from here" or even "I thank you, God, that I am not like this person here". It's entirely possible that the women seeking abortion don't particularly want an abortion but don't see any other options. If the option is the abortion clinic that promises to make the problem go away, or the pro-life group outside calling her a baby killer, showing her pictures of fetus remains in a bucket, and making her feel even worse about the situation, we can't be surprised if she takes the more appealing option.

Of course the often-forgotten aspect in all this is the other party. Typically pregnancies involve a man as well as a woman, and it's sad when the man has the option to simply walk away as if the child doesn't even exist and just as sad when the man desperately wants the child but the mother is allowed to terminate it without any reference to him. Assuming she consented to sex with the man I believe we have to take a view that she also consented to the possibility of pregnancy (we might arguably restrict this stance to cover only unprotected sex) and therefore has to take the father's wishes into account.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the end most of you USA chaps will vote for Donald Trump.

I mean most here in CH. One hopes that the majority in the USA will vote for another (successful) candidate which in all likelihood means Hillary Clinton.

 

[visionary]

This election is THE most important election, it is the tipping point of where US is going to be. There are a lot of things at stake here. The type of supreme court judges we have, those who are for Constitution and those who are for UN universal laws. UN, by the way, is now Muslim dominated. Sharia Law is the new UN unspoken moto. George Soros thinks that he can manipulate for and towards socialism/communism via UN NWO. Saudis thinks Sharia Law will be the answer and bought a candidate for the job. While neither candidates are something to be proud of, I believe this election has more to do with whether you want US to continue to have a constitution and the freedoms it embraces, or the UN and the NWO of sharia law/socialism combo, abortion after birth, and rfid marked, etc... We are in for a war no matter which we choose. It just matters which side you choose to be on. I would rather continuing most battles on their land rather than ours. This is something we are not going to recover from if we let things continue on the democrat platform.

 

[psalms 91]

This election is THE most important election, it is the tipping point of where US is going to be. There are a lot of things at stake here. The type of supreme court judges we have, those who are for Constitution and those who are for UN universal laws. UN, by the way, is now Muslim dominated. Sharia Law is the new UN unspoken moto. George Soros thinks that he can manipulate for and towards socialism/communism via UN NWO. Saudis thinks Sharia Law will be the answer and bought a candidate for the job. While neither candidates are something to be proud of, I believe this election has more to do with whether you want US to continue to have a constitution and the freedoms it embraces, or the UN and the NWO of sharia law/socialism combo, abortion after birth, and rfid marked, etc... We are in for a war no matter which we choose. It just matters which side you choose to be on. I would rather continuing most battles on their land rather than ours. This is something we are not going to recover from if we let things continue on the democrat platform.

I hate to tell you this but the UN will play a very important role in the USA and in Gods plan for end times, the choice we will make will be when it happens and what we are willing to stand up and do, those who dont will be killed. I agree that we are choosing how long before but make no mistake it is coming and as Christians we need to decide now if we are willing to die for our faith.

 

[tango]

In the end most of you USA chaps will vote for Donald Trump.

I mean most here in CH. One hopes that the majority in the USA will vote for another (successful) candidate which in all likelihood means Hillary Clinton.

I really struggle to see how people can support Hillary Clinton given her apparent issues with basic judgment and truthfulness. I really struggle to see how people can support Donald Trump given his apparent issues with narcissism and reckless comments (e.g. his comments about 2A people and stopping Hillary). To be honest it seems to me that the one reason to vote for one is to keep the other out of power. In fairness, at least Donald Trump offers something new, even if "something new" is something totally unknown it's a change from the established order that clearly isn't working for many Americans (whether he can deliver a fraction of what people want is another matter).

This is why I think, far from being the wrong election to vote for third party candidates, it's the perfect time to vote for a third party candidate. Both major parties have fielded seriously flawed candidates so what better time to tell both parties that they need to do better or We The People will remove them from government?

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, you make a great point...as both major candidates are so fundamentally flawed that voting for either (except as a vote against the other) should subject one to a prompt and complete psychological evaluation.

 

[visionary]

It is a "drather" vote... which is worse.. making your vote count against, more than for.

 

[tango]

Yes, you make a great point...as both major candidates are so fundamentally flawed that voting for either (except as a vote against the other) should subject one to a prompt and complete psychological evaluation.

I struggle to come up with terms more charitable than "pathetic" when a country of over 300 million people fields two candidates whose main qualification for the highest office in the land is that they are not the other.