OK… who then? Kennedy hasn’t got a chance
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
On "Throwing Your Vote Away"
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
KenH
Well-Known Member
I would say the odds are, at the moment, that Chase Oliver will be the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 2024.
"In unofficial results posted on X by the Libertarian Party of Iowa, Oliver had a plurality lead of 40.70% of the vote, well ahead of second-place Michael Rectenwald at 17.44%. The results were not yet official, and were still without three counties reporting at the time the Iowa Libertarian Party posted results just before midnight."
- from Chase Oliver Libertarian Party Iowa caucus result | 11alive.com
I was hoping that former U.S. Representative Justin Amash would run for the LP nomination in 2024, but he is not going to do so. I think that he and the Mises Caucus that took over the national party at the 2022 national convention do not get along with each other.
Christina1
Member
He's running as an independent now so by the time November gets here he should be on the ballot in every state.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Getting ballot access is hard row to hoe. Just ask the Libertarian Party, which has accomplished it, but it takes a LOT of effort.
Interesting article on the subject from a few days ago: RFK Jr. Starting New Political Parties In Effort To Expand Ballot Access
Christina1
Member
We need to make it so that it's fair for everyone. If you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution Party candidate, Green Party candidate, or just an Independent the number of signatures required should be the same.
KenH
Well-Known Member
The problem is that the two major parties(or the UniParty as they are sometimes referred to) control access to the ballot.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, Ted Cruze, Mike Pence, Donald Trump
peace to you
Thank you!
Anyone else?
'I'm wondering if anyone here thinks that in the past 80 years, if there has been a candidate running for president that was worthy of the 'Christian' vote.'
KenH
Well-Known Member
"Worthy"? No fallen human being is "worthy" to rule. Be extremely cautious of any fallen human being who is so puffed up that he thinks that he is "worthy" to rule.
The great king of Israel, David, did not think he was worthy to even be son-in-law to the king.
1 Samuel 18:18 And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king?
There is only ONE who is worthy to rule.
Revelation 5:11-14 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
I agree. Worthy was a little sarcastic on my part, but not in a mean way.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The question wasn’t about being worthy to “rule”. The question is worthy of Christian votes.
We don’t have “rulers”.
peace to you
KenH
Well-Known Member
Yes, they are. Romans 13:3 calls them rulers.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Okay. My answer is still the same - no fallen man is worthy.
At this point, I will post the following:
David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It.
“One of the signs of the great Apostacy, was the union of Church and State. Its chosen symbol was a woman upon the back of a seven headed and ten horned beast. It is almost uniformly admitted, among American Protestants, that this is a well chosen symbol to represent the absurd, and unnatural union of Church and State. It is generally conceded, that the woman represents the Church, and the beast the old Roman civil government. This being true, it would appear far more natural for her to be riding the beast, than for him to have his locomotion promoted by the help of the woman! When the State comes forward and proffers its assistance, and the Church voluntarily accepts of such help, it might be a question, which would be the most to blame; the Church for accepting, or the State for offering such assistance. But when the Church gives, unasked, her power to the beast, no excuse can reasonably be pleaded. If the State supporting the Church, is called an adulterous union, I am unable to see, why the union is not equally intimate, and criminal, when the Church supports the State, by participating in all its responsibilities. When the Church offers her fellowship, and co-operation in framing all the laws of the land, and in choosing its judicial and executive officers - when even her members refuse not to become legislators, and are even forward to fill all the offices of human governments, I cannot see, but the relation between church and State, is as intimate as ever, and just as illegal. Ezekiel chided the ancient Hebrews for seeking such union with the nations; and he compares Israel to a woman of the lowest infamy. It is exceedingly painful to me, to see how aptly these symbols of John and Ezekiel apply to modern professors. But how greatly would I rejoice, if the reformation of the 19th century would arise and put on her beautiful garments, and show herself to be the true spouse of Christ. May the good Lord grant that this noble brotherhood, that I so dearly love, may soon see the whole truth! But here, I am met with the objection, that these institutions are ordained of God. And he who resists them resists an ordinance of God, and shall receive punishment. Let me here pause, and remark, that I would sooner be understood as taking the popular view of this passage, rather than appear to countenance any kind of war. Nothing is further from my intention. But the fact of civil government being ordained of God, is no proof of Divine approbation. So long as it can be clearly shown that he has ordained that one sinner should punish another, so long as we read in Isaiah, that Cyrus was sent against Babylon, although he knew not God, so long as we find it not difficult to admit the application of the above passage, to civil government, whether such be its meaning or not. To make the admission saves much time, and leaves the argument much more compact. Something is gained and nothing lost by granting all we can to our opponents. That God can overrule sin, without being responsible for its commission, and without having any complicity with it, is a thing so plain, that to turn aside to explain it would almost be an insult to those for whom these columns are written. Let a hint suffice. Pharaoh was raised up by God for a certain purpose, although his behavior was far from being approved of God. With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him, who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.”
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Right. In AD 60, they had rulers. That’s why Paul called them, “rulers”. They had rulers for several thousand years in every country. That is how people were governed.
We don’t have “rulers” in the USA. Our founding fathers chose a different path. We have a representative republic, with our representatives voted on by the people on a regular basis.
peace to you
KenH
Well-Known Member
Yes, in the United States many of the rulers are voted on. They are rulers, none the less. Voting is simply a means that God uses to place those He has sovereignly chosen to be placed there.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Never Jimmy Carter. He was America’s worst president until obama took it away from him and now Biden has taken it away from obama.