Wayne Grudem on voting for Donald Trump

[tango]

I found this an interesting article. It's too long to post here, so feel free to read it by following the link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/wayn...onald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

I'm not sure I agree with it entirely but it does make a lot of good points, particularly where concerns about a Clinton presidency relate to things like abortion, bathroom usage, Christian businesses and most of all the compositions of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I found this an interesting article. It's too long to post here, so feel free to read it by following the link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/wayn...onald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

I'm not sure I agree with it entirely but it does make a lot of good points, particularly where concerns about a Clinton presidency relate to things like abortion, bathroom usage, Christian businesses and most of all the compositions of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

The article starts by saying: Some of my Christian friends tell me they can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump because, when faced with a choice between “the lesser of two evils,” the morally right thing is to choose neither one. They recommend voting for a third-party or write-in candidate. That reads like the author wants to make a case for voting for Donald Trump. Which is what he does. He says I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. Isn't that statement little more than an attempt to diminish the craziness evident in Donald Trump's public statements? I think that Donald Trump's xenophobic racist remarks about Mexicans are too wicked to overlook. And his remarks about Muslims are too wicked to be overlooked. His stated intention to build a wall along the USA-Mexico border is incendiary. His remarks about using nuclear (did he say nucular?) weapons are unhelpful. Thus, for Wayne Grudem (the author of the article) to characterise Donald Trump as merely a flawed candidate is enough to dismiss the article as too wedded to Donald Trump to be useful for anybody who is not similarly committed to a Trump presidency.

 

[tango]

The article starts by saying: Some of my Christian friends tell me they can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump because, when faced with a choice between “the lesser of two evils,” the morally right thing is to choose neither one. They recommend voting for a third-party or write-in candidate. That reads like the author wants to make a case for voting for Donald Trump. Which is what he does. He says I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. Isn't that statement little more than an attempt to diminish the craziness evident in Donald Trump's public statements? I think that Donald Trump's xenophobic racist remarks about Mexicans are too wicked to overlook. And his remarks about Muslims are too wicked to be overlooked. His stated intention to build a wall along the USA-Mexico border is incendiary. His remarks about using nuclear (did he say nucular?) weapons are unhelpful. Thus, for Wayne Grudem (the author of the article) to characterise Donald Trump as merely a flawed candidate is enough to dismiss the article as too wedded to Donald Trump to be useful for anybody who is not similarly committed to a Trump presidency.

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. He recognises that both Trump and Clinton have major flaws, it's easy to make a case that neither of them should be anywhere near the White House (Trump for reasons you cover, Clinton for issues relating to honesty etc), but that instead of simply sitting out the vote it's an acceptable solution to vote for a bad candidate on the basis the other is worse.

Someone in a position like mine but with a right to vote (I think I've made it quite clear I don't think either of the two major candidates have any business being in the White House, but would prefer Trump over Clinton even if only in the same sense that I'd prefer two broken legs to a heart attack) might be struggling with the issue of whether to vote for a third party candidate, whether to vote at all etc, and what he is doing is merely highlighting that, since Clinton is also a candidate who represents her own collection of issues, a vote for Trump intended to do no more than keep Clinton away from the White House is an acceptable thing to do. Looking over the issues he raises, predominantly relating to hostility towards Christianity, gay rights and transgender issues, I think he arguably overstates some issues and I suspect a lot of the silliness will continue whoever takes the White House, but someone who wants to preserve a more conservative society would be justified in voting Trump even if he does have major flaws as a candidate.

I don't honestly think he was trying to win over hardline Clinton supporters, more reassure people who might ordinarily vote Republican but who are wavering because of the low quality of the Republican candidate.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. He recognises that both Trump and Clinton have major flaws, it's easy to make a case that neither of them should be anywhere near the White House (Trump for reasons you cover, Clinton for issues relating to honesty etc), but that instead of simply sitting out the vote it's an acceptable solution to vote for a bad candidate on the basis the other is worse.

Someone in a position like mine but with a right to vote (I think I've made it quite clear I don't think either of the two major candidates have any business being in the White House, but would prefer Trump over Clinton even if only in the same sense that I'd prefer two broken legs to a heart attack) might be struggling with the issue of whether to vote for a third party candidate, whether to vote at all etc, and what he is doing is merely highlighting that, since Clinton is also a candidate who represents her own collection of issues, a vote for Trump intended to do no more than keep Clinton away from the White House is an acceptable thing to do. Looking over the issues he raises, predominantly relating to hostility towards Christianity, gay rights and transgender issues, I think he arguably overstates some issues and I suspect a lot of the silliness will continue whoever takes the White House, but someone who wants to preserve a more conservative society would be justified in voting Trump even if he does have major flaws as a candidate.

I don't honestly think he was trying to win over hardline Clinton supporters, more reassure people who might ordinarily vote Republican but who are wavering because of the low quality of the Republican candidate.

Why do you mistrust Hillary Clinton more than you mistrust Donald Trump? Numerous lies come out in every speech and public statement made by Candidate Trump. A study showed that Donald Trump lies on average every 3 minutes 15 seconds. That is a strong indication that Donald Trump is more inclined to tell lies in public statements than Hillary Clinton. If it is a matter between trust then I would not be giving it to Donald Trump. I stick by the assessment that Wayne Grudem's article is too wedded to Donald Trump to be useful for anybody who is not also wedded to him.

 

[Highlander]

I think that Donald Trump's xenophobic racist remarks about Mexicans are too wicked to overlook. And his remarks about Muslims are too wicked to be overlooked. His stated intention to build a wall along the USA-Mexico border is incendiary. His remarks about using nuclear (did he say nucular?) weapons are unhelpful. Thus, for Wayne Grudem (the author of the article) to characterise Donald Trump as merely a flawed candidate is enough to dismiss the article as too wedded to Donald Trump to be useful for anybody who is not similarly committed to a Trump presidency.

Leftists tend to draw from the hip with their "xenophobic racist" charges faster than Ovrille R. can make popcorn. His comments are not racist and do have some validity in why they were spoken.

And his remarks about Muslims are NOT wicked. They should be respected, not overlooked. Leftists also love to lie about and twist things said that they do not like. Trump did not say Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to this country simply because of their religion. It is because we cannot tell who, among them, are terrorists or potential terrorists. And he did not say that all Muslims should be permanently disallowed entrance to the USA.

Indeed, he said that those -- who come from areas or nations that are known to produce terrorists -- must be prohibited from the USA on a TEMPORARY basis until a way is found to do 100% background checks on them so we know who is being allowed to come here. The problem is that -- since there is virtually no record keeping in these countries -- there will NEVER be a way of really knowing who is flooding in among us. Just ask the "generous" European nations about this and you may not like the answer you get because they have learned this lesson through the flesh & blood of their own innocent citizens as they are murdered in acts of terrorism from some of these people.

To continue ushering in tens of thousands of unknown individuals -- which is what has been going on under Obama/Clinton -- is idiotic and inebriated.

A President Clinton would continue ushering people, from these nations, into the USA with no background checks at all -- which automatically means that terrorists will be imported onto our soil BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Absolutely stupid.

Another thing that people are confused about is immigration, itself. There is NOTHING in our constitution that says that people from other nations are automatically allowed to enter the USA. They can be allowed in ONLY if they are invited in. For example, from around 1924 until around 1974, there was almost NO immigration allowed into the USA. That might be surprising to most people, but it is true. Because any nation, including our own, has a right to deny entrance to any aliens.

And I do believe that this country probably could use another moratorium on immigration for the next 25 years or so -- until the current aliens here have completely assimilated and become real Americans instead of aliens just living here for the benefits we offer.

 

[brinny]

Leftists tend to draw from the hip with their "xenophobic racist" charges faster than Ovrille R. can make popcorn. His comments are not racist and do have some validity in why they were spoken.

And his remarks about Muslims are NOT wicked. They should be respected, not overlooked. Leftists also love to lie about and twist things said that they do not like. Trump did not say Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to this country simply because of their religion. It is because we cannot tell who, among them, are terrorists or potential terrorists. And he did not say that all Muslims should be permanently disallowed entrance to the USA.

Indeed, he said that those -- who come from areas or nations that are known to produce terrorists -- must be prohibited from the USA on a TEMPORARY basis until a way is found to do 100% background checks on them so we know who is being allowed to come here. The problem is that -- since there is virtually no record keeping in these countries -- there will NEVER be a way of really knowing who is flooding in among us. Just ask the "generous" European nations about this and you may not like the answer you get because they have learned this lesson through the flesh & blood of their own innocent citizens as they are murdered in acts of terrorism from some of these people.

To continue ushering in tens of thousands of unknown individuals -- which is what has been going on under Obama/Clinton -- is idiotic and inebriated.

A President Clinton would continue ushering people, from these nations, into the USA with no background checks at all -- which automatically means that terrorists will be imported onto our soil BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Absolutely stupid.

Another thing that people are confused about is immigration, itself. There is NOTHING in our constitution that says that people from other nations are automatically allowed to enter the USA. They can be allowed in ONLY if they are invited in. For example, from around 1924 until around 1974, there was almost NO immigration allowed into the USA. That might be surprising to most people, but it is true. Because any nation, including our own, has a right to deny entrance to any aliens.

And I do believe that this country probably could use another moratorium on immigration for the next 25 years or so -- until the current aliens here have completely assimilated and become real Americans instead of aliens just living here for the benefits we offer.

Sir, i have given you a standing ovation.

God bless you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was thinking of a sitting booooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

:smirk:

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Sir, i have given you a standing ovation.

God bless you.

I could be snarky about this, but not to you, brinny...

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

There is NOTHING in our constitution that says that people from other nations are automatically allowed to enter the USA. They can be allowed in ONLY if they are invited in. For example, from around 1924 until around 1974, there was almost NO immigration allowed into the USA. That might be surprising to most people, but it is true. Because any nation, including our own, has a right to deny entrance to any aliens.

And when did Native Americans send out the invitation?

As to the article, it did feel that Grudem was trying to form any type of defense he could for still voting a Republican ticket - even if it is Trump. He must not be that appalled.

 

[psalms 91]

I am sure that every woman who has been the victim of sexual assault as well as your daughters wives and mothers are cringing at the thought of this man being president, if you give him a pass on this then all that behavior ought to be decriminalized. He belongs in jail, not the white house

 

[Josiah]

I found this an interesting article. It's too long to post here, so feel free to read it by following the link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/wayn...onald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

I'm not sure I agree with it entirely but it does make a lot of good points, particularly where concerns about a Clinton presidency relate to things like abortion, bathroom usage, Christian businesses and most of all the compositions of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

I get it.... and it's all valid points (especially the Supreme Court thing). And there might have been a couple of hundred million candidates running against Hillary that I could then vote for. But the alternative isn't one of them.

I confess..... being a ready strong conservative, the thought of Hillary REALLY concerns me. And not just for the reasons given, I think she is a profound liar, a security risk that makes her disqualified, a woman who hates women and sweeps the stuff pigs (like her husband and the Donald) under the rug, someone throws soldiers under the bus - and knowingly lies about it, someone who frankly should be in jail. Almost any pro-life Republican - really any of the other 16 Republicans running for President this year - would have had my enthusiatic support and I think would have won this election. But...... in something that I IN NO WAY REMOTELY understand..... we ended up with the Donald. And while - among all the DISGUSTING (and often very liberal) things he says, we can find tidbits of stuff here at there that he's NOW saying (in direct conflict with what he use to say) that I agree with. Chiefly, the Supreme Court. But he is SUCH a loose cannon, SUCH an egomaniac, So unglued - there's no way to have a clue what he's actually going to do or say -and to whom. Americans IMPEACHED a president for a whole lot less than we know is the case with Donald, and we pushed a president out of office with the threat of impeachment for a whole lot less than what we know about the Donald - how can we ENDORSE this man? How can I tell my kids I ENDORSED this man?

Sadly, there is no alternative. I realize not voting for either ultimately accomplishes nothing because one of them WILL get the 270 or more electorial votes. Even if only 10 people in the USA vote. But I just lament that. What a sad.... pathetic mess we've gotten ourselves into.



I saw that TV documentary about JFK and the Cuba thing again the other night. And all the way, I kept thinking what if Clinton or Trump were in that spot....... I actually began to think I'd vote for Hillary, less scared of what she'd do, how she'd handle that - more sure Trump would be the idiot to cause it or fly off the handle and end humanity. But then....



How sad.



- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

I get it.... and it's all valid points (especially the Supreme Court thing). And there might have been a couple of hundred million candidates running against Hillary that I could then vote for. But the alternative isn't one of them.

I confess..... being a ready strong conservative, the thought of Hillary REALLY concerns me. And not just for the reasons given, I think she is a profound liar, a security risk that makes her disqualified, a woman who hates women and sweeps the stuff pigs (like her husband and the Donald) under the rug, someone throws soldiers under the bus - and knowingly lies about it, someone who frankly should be in jail. Almost any pro-life Republican - really any of the other 16 Republicans running for President this year - would have had my enthusiatic support and I think would have won this election. But...... in something that I IN NO WAY REMOTELY understand..... we ended up with the Donald. And while - among all the DISGUSTING (and often very liberal) things he says, we can find tidbits of stuff here at there that he's NOW saying (in direct conflict with what he use to say) that I agree with. Chiefly, the Supreme Court. But he is SUCH a loose cannon, SUCH an egomaniac, So unglued - there's no way to have a clue what he's actually going to do or say -and to whom. Americans IMPEACHED a president for a whole lot less than we know is the case with Donald, and we pushed a president out of office with the threat of impeachment for a whole lot less than what we know about the Donald - how can we ENDORSE this man? How can I tell my kids I ENDORSED this man?

Sadly, there is no alternative. I realize not voting for either ultimately accomplishes nothing because one of them WILL get the 270 or more electorial votes. Even if only 10 people in the USA vote. But I just lament that. What a sad.... pathetic mess we've gotten ourselves into.



I saw that TV documentary about JFK and the Cuba thing again the other night. And all the way, I kept thinking what if Clinton or Trump were in that spot....... I actually began to think I'd vote for Hillary, less scared of what she'd do, how she'd handle that - more sure Trump would be the idiot to cause it or fly off the handle and end humanity. But then....



How sad.



- Josiah

Totally agree

 

[tango]

It would appear Wayne Grudem has changed tack and urged Trump to withdraw from the race.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...onald-trump/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

Question for people who know more about US elections than I do (which is probably most of you)... what happens if Trump were to withdraw? Would it become a single-name ticket with Pence standing for president? Presumably it's far too late to choose another candidate, and presumably at least some number of ballot papers will have been printed by now?

 

[MoreCoffee]

It would appear Wayne Grudem has changed tack and urged Trump to withdraw from the race.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...onald-trump/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

Question for people who know more about US elections than I do (which is probably most of you)... what happens if Trump were to withdraw? Would it become a single-name ticket with Pence standing for president? Presumably it's far too late to choose another candidate, and presumably at least some number of ballot papers will have been printed by now?

Grudem, whose earlier endorsement column has been removed from Townhall.com, said the comments Trump made in a 2005 video revealed Friday as well as comments he made on Howard Stern’s radio program in the past were the tipping point for him in pulling back his endorsement.​

(source)

The change of mind is one of the signs that Wayne Grudem was willing to compromise sound sober Christian judgement until he heard of the salacious talk on the bus. How tragic that trivial - but vile - gutter talk would outweigh substantive policy evils like bombing the hell out of one's alleged opponents, jailing one's election opponent, and building a wall between the USA and Mexico. Donald Trump's unfitness for office was evident the moment he characterised Mexican illegals as rapists and killers. He (Donald Trump) ought never have been selected by republican primary voters as their candidate. Wayne Grudem - if he wanted to sway Christians to vote republican - ought to have tried to sway them not to select Donald Trump and once he was selected Wayne Grudem ought to have urged Christians not to vote for him. That he comes out against Donald Trump now - only to the extent of asking Donald Trump to withdraw, and it is too late for that anyway - because of the bus gutter talk is a serious blemish on Wayne Grudem's credibility as a guide for Christian voting.

 

[tango]

Grudem, whose earlier endorsement column has been removed from Townhall.com, said the comments Trump made in a 2005 video revealed Friday as well as comments he made on Howard Stern’s radio program in the past were the tipping point for him in pulling back his endorsement.​

(source)

The change of mind is one of the signs that Wayne Grudem was willing to compromise sound sober Christian judgement until he heard of the salacious talk on the bus. How tragic that trivial - but vile - gutter talk would outweigh substantive policy evils like bombing the hell out of one's alleged opponents, jailing one's election opponent, and building a wall between the USA and Mexico. Donald Trump's unfitness for office was evident the moment he characterised Mexican illegals as rapists and killers. He (Donald Trump) ought never have been selected by republican primary voters as their candidate. Wayne Grudem - if he wanted to sway Christians to vote republican - ought to have tried to sway them not to select Donald Trump and once he was selected Wayne Grudem ought to have urged Christians not to vote for him. That he comes out against Donald Trump now - only to the extend of asking Donald Trump to withdraw, and it is too late for that anyway - because of the bus gutter talk is a serious blemish on Wayne Grudem's credibility as a guide for Christian voting.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Depending on views of the two candidates it's entirely possible, as Grudem originally did, to paint Trump as a seriously flawed candidate but still believe him to be the lesser of two evils. Given the choice between two candidates seen as seriously flawed the options are either to decide which collection of major issues are more acceptable, or vote third party, or not vote at all. Clearly when he wrote the first article Grudem was of the opinion that Trump (who he described as "seriously flawed" at the time) was still a better candidate than Clinton.

Suggesting reasons why someone could/should vote for a certain candidate doesn't mean endorsement of everything they have done or tolerance of every misbehavior they have committed. It's perfectly possible, and indeed I suspect for most people necessary, to look at two seriously flawed candidates and attempt to determine which candidate's flaws are more acceptable in a Presidential candidate.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Tango, Wayne Grudem did endorse Donald trump. He says he is withdrawn his endorsement now that he knows of the bus gutter talk.