Christians voting for Romney or Giuliani

[Pastor Larry]

1) First off, I reject that by not voting for the Republican nominee for president, just for example - Rudy Giuliani, that I am helping to solidify Roe for another 30 years.

You immediately run to the extreme of Guiliani. He is probably the least likely to appoint a pro-life justice, but not out of the question. The chances with him are greater than with what your vote will give us.

2) You have, in essence, just spit on the grave of every brave American soldier who gave his life protecting our liberty, including the right to vote, by making what has to be the most asinine statement ever posted on Baptist Board.

If you really think this, your critical thinking skills are worse than I had imagined. I can see no legitimate way to make this charge. Our liberty has been provided for by brave men and women for more than two centuries, and I think we should try to preserve it. You don't. That is a key difference, and if the preservation of liberty is asinine to you, then so be it.

There is no legitimate way to debate that voting for someone who cannot win is the same as not voting. You are not impacting the process that way. You are merely satisfying yourself. I don't think that is a good way to live.

 

[Pastor Larry]

We in American have such a lack of vision, excellence, and respect for this nation, we as the voters are willing to settle for the likes of a Clinton vs Giuliani election.

Sad isn't it.

No doubt God will be pleased when you vote for abortionist A over abortionist B, not a third party, to keep the other major candidate from winning.

I think God will be pleased that we vote with wisdom from an imperfect field. I think God will not be pleased that we mortgage the future for a paltry drink that will quench only our own thirst. As you said above, we have such a lack of vision, excellence, and respect for this country, that some will vote to cast our country into great malaise rather than voting to prevent it. I simply disagree with that stance.

The numbers are there. If everyone who could have voted in 2004, then Bush would have gotten 13% of the vote to Kerry's 12.5%.

This makes no sense.

We can elect a third party. It takes a leader who can inspire. We need a coalition of independents, Democrats and Republicans who are sick of their parties selling out the American people, those who don't vote, and those not registered, and throw all the present rats in power out, never to return.

I agree, but until we have that, we can't just throw the country away.

 

[saturneptune]

That's what I mean by "all or nothing." If you don't get the candidate you want in teh general election, you will not vote. (Voting for a third party that cannot win is the same as not voting.) I disagree with that. I think Roe should be overturned, and I think a Democratic president will ensure that that doesn't happen. With a Republican, there is at least a chance, and we must have the courage to give it a chance.

Where there is no vision beyond the present corrupt two party system, the people will perish, to paraphrase.

What a bunch of baloney about a chance with the Republicans and abortion. They have had their chance. Since 1973, Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush have done NOTHING. Since 1973, Republican Congresses from 1981-1985 and 1994-2006 did NOTHING. By contrast, since 1973, the Democrats only had the Presidency 12 years.

The notion that voting for a third party is a "cop out" strikes of a mindset of selling out the American people, a lack of understanding of our Constitution, and history.

 

[KenH]

The chances with him are greater than with what your vote will give us.

1. God gives us the winners of elections. Don't you agree?

2. Even if I had the ability to "give us" a winner the only winner I could "give us" is the candidate that I vote for. If the candidate I vote for doesn't win, then I haven't "give[n] us" anything.

 

[saturneptune]

Sad isn't it.


This makes no sense.

If you understand voting patterns, it makes lots of sense. In 2004, Bush got 50% of the popular vote to Kerry's 48%. 50% of registered voters turned out. 50% of those who can vote are registered. That means is everyone had voted, their vote would be about 25% of what they got. That means a very small minority is selecting our leaders.

Your notion that a third party is unelectable makes no sense.

 

[KenH]

You are making excellent points, saturneptune.

However, it is about 50% of eligible voters who turned out in 2004, not 50% of registered voters.

Still, we basically had an election where, counting all eligible voters, Bush defeated Kerry about 25.5% to 24%.

 

[saturneptune]

You are making excellent points, saturneptune.

However, it is about 50% of eligible voters who turned out in 2004, not 50% of registered voters.

I stand corrected. That is true.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where there is no vision beyond the present corrupt two party system, the people will perish, to paraphrase.

Aside from being a wrong interpretation of the verse (the "vision" there is revelation from God), I agree. I think we need a third party. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ONE. That's the point. Voting for somethign with no viability is not an act of courage.

What a bunch of baloney about a chance with the Republicans and abortion. They have had their chance. Since 1973, Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush have done NOTHING. Since 1973, Republican Congresses from 1981-1985 and 1994-2006 did NOTHING. By contrast, since 1973, the Democrats only had the Presidency 12 years.

First, the Republicans have done something. The PBA, and other acts have been "something" but not enough. They have appointed justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, that provide a solid core that may overturn it. But there must be more good appointments made. But a president alone cannot do it.

The notion that voting for a third party is a "cop out" strikes of a mindset of selling out the American people, a lack of understanding of our Constitution, and history.

Speaking of balogna, I am the one trying to get us not to sell out America. I am saying we must act to preserve the future.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1. God gives us the winners of elections. Don't you agree?

Yes, but he does it through secondary causation -- through voters.

2. Even if I had the ability to "give us" a winner the only winner I could "give us" is the candidate that I vote for. If the candidate I vote for doesn't win, then I haven't "give[n] us" anything

I was speaking of your approach to voting. And your approach will give us a liberal president who will appoint liberal justices.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you understand voting patterns, it makes lots of sense.

Go back adn read what you wrote. It is missing a verb or something in there. It makes no sense, grammatically.

In 2004, Bush got 50% of the popular vote to Kerry's 48%. 50% of registered voters turned out. 50% of those who can vote are registered. That means is everyone had voted, their vote would be about 25% of what they got. That means a very small minority is selecting our leaders.

I understand all that, but the fact is that the world is run by people who show up.

Your notion that a third party is unelectable makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense, given your numbers above. 25% of America is satisfied to vote for two parties. That means a third party is unelectable because the other 75% dont' care enough to even show up.

 

[KenH]

And your approach will give us a liberal president who will appoint liberal justices.

That is a lie and I request that you cease making such a statement.

The only person I can help put into office is the person that I vote for.

You cannot prove otherwise, so please stop lying about what my vote does.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That is a lie and I request that you cease making such a statement.

It is not a lie. It is the truth. By voting for an unelectable person, you will be helping to elect a liberal who will appoint liberal justices. That is a fact.

The only person I can help put into office is the person that I vote for.

That's not true. Your vote is not just a positive vote. It is also a vote against. This would be true if we had a system where a person was only out of office if someone else displaced them. But come Jan 2008, someone will leave office and someone will be put in. And you will help whoever is there by your vote.

You cannot prove otherwise, so please stop lying about what my vote does.

Yes, I can. Apart from mere common sense that is plainly obvious, serious thinking shows it to be true. When there are two or three names on the ballot, with a guaranteed winner, you are not only voting for someone, you are voting against someone else. I can't figure out how you can't see this.

And don't accuse me of lying unless you have proof. Your lack of understanding does not constitute a lie on my part.

 

[KenH]

Your vote is not just a positive vote.

Yes, it is. Only in your obviously misguided thinking is my vote anything other than a positive vote.

Maybe yours is a negative vote. You can describe yours that way and that's fine.

However, to describe my vote in that way is a lie. I have explained it to you and if you persist in doing so there is no other way to describe what you are doing other than as lying.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, it is. Only in your obviously misguided thinking is my vote anything other than a positive vote.

You don't want to elect Guiliani, so you are voting against him. You don't want to elect Hillary, so you are voting against her. It is as much a negative vote as a positive one. When you are given options with a required choice, it is both positive and negative. My thinking is not misguided. You are simply not seeing it clearly. Your vote, however you cast it, is a vote both for something and against something else, given the fact that turnover is guaranteed.

However, to describe my vote in that way is a lie. I have explained it to you and if you persist in doing so there is no other way to describe what you are doing other than as lying.

No, your lack of understanding does not mean I am being dishonest. It means you don't understand. You need to stop saying this.

 

[KenH]

No, your lack of understanding does not mean I am being dishonest.

No, it means you are just too stubborn to admit that you are wrong in this case.

For instance, I agree with Ron Paul almost 100% on his stances. There is no reason for me to vote against another candidate. If Ron Paul was the only candidate running I would still vote for him.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, it means you are just too stubborn to admit that you are wrong in this case.

Now you are lying. I am not too stubborn to admit that I am wrong. I am simply not wrong.

For instance, I agree with Ron Paul almost 100% on his stances.

Fine

There is no reason for me to vote against another candidate.

Yes, there is. There is the good of the country. You are voting against those who do not agree with you.

If Ron Paul was the only candidate running I would still vote for him.

If Ron Paul was the only candidate running you woulnd't need to vote for him.

 

[KenH]

You are voting against those who do not agree with you.

No, I am not. Again, as a fellow Christian, I request that you stop using such language in reference to me.

Good evening to you, PL, and may you have a great Sunday.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, I am not.

Then why aren't you voting for Hillary? Or Rudy? Because you don't agree with them and you don't want to see them elected. That, by any reasonable definition, is a vote against.

Good evening to you, PL, and may you have a great Sunday.

Same to you. Seriously, we have our differences, though they are likely not all that great. But I hope you have a great Sunday and a great holiday time.

 

[steaver]

You have yet to show how voting in a political election is a "yoke" in biblical terms. That is a key omission on your part.

Failure for one to acknowledge the truth does not equate to the truth not being shown them. Many reject that Jesus is Lord, have they not been shown in the scriptures?

But in an election, we are not yoking with anyone. Your point may stand if you get involved in a political campaign, but not merely in a vote.

Now Larry, voting is telling a candidate that you want them to represent you in government. It is going the same dirrection.

I agree. that's my whole point is that you are separating your voting from your relationship with Christ, it seems to me. You cannot use the Bible wrongly to support your views. You can't abandon your Christianity and your civil responsibility just becuase there is no perfect candidate.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion with my post. I am the one advocating that we Christians DO NOT seperate our Christianity from politics. You are confusing me here with somebody else.

Short of Jesus Christ running for an election, I am not aware of someone who does not violate the Word of God. All votes for humans are votes for the lesser of two evils.

Come now brother, you are a pastor of God's flock. Christians are not "evil". Being a sinner by nature does not equate to running after sin nor yoking up with those who do.

Yes, and what if your vote for a third party candidate helps to elect a liberal who makes appointments to the SCOTUS that solidify Roe for another 30 years, when you could have voted for someone who may have appointed a more conservative justice? How will it sound at the JSOC to say, "Well, at least I satisfied myself"? I don't think it will sound too good.

So I must know the future to vote? I have no desire to satisfy myself in this. As I have said over and over, I desire to satisfy the Word of God in all my deeds. You are placing your vote on political rhetoric of "I will do this and I will do that if elected". We cannot know what they will really do, so our best choice is to elect a Christian and pray God will guide them.

Did anyone know G.W. Bush would pound the war drum for Iraqu? We will be judged by what we knew, not by what was unknown.

Maybe Romney will get elected in spite of my Christian vote against him and a year later get saved. Does that mean I will be judged for not voting for him since he then became a Christian? Praise God if he gets saved, but I do not fear my judgment.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

With the current make up of SCOTUS, the next president will have 2 and perhaps 4 nominations. With your approach to voting, you will help to elect a liberal who will appoint liberal justices. With my approach, we will elect someone who is more conservative, who may appoint conservative justices. Then the blood of babies won't be on my hands by voting for someone who cannot win. That is the problem I see. Voting for someone who can't win is of no use whatsoever to anyone but yourself. And to me, that is too self-centered. At times, I have to bite the bullet of self and do what is best for others.

1) you do not know 100% for sure the appointments any President will make, and remember the Congress must approve as well. Was Reagan a social conservative? Did he appoint a social conservative Justice? How far did Reagan set us back with Roe v Wade?

2) you do know 100% for sure that Rudy is pro-murder. Therefor you absolutely would have blood on your hands if you yoked up with him with your vote.

3) you cannot know 100% for sure who will not win, unless you somehow have access to God's will. And please stop including those people who are not running for office, we are speaking of those who have declared the race.

4) The only selfless vote would be a vote for the candidate that follows God's word. Any other vote is self motivated.

Do what is right in God's eye and let the chips fall where they may. God is not going to say.... "Larry, you should have had a pretty good idea that Rudy was going to appoint conservative justices, so you should have ignored the fact that he has appathy towards the murder of innocent babies and voted for him".... Fact verses Pretty good idea!

You believe that will fly with God?

God Bless! :thumbs: