Just for clarity, are you saying that we should throw aside our conscience-based principles on a vote?
I contend that if the choice is either Trump or Clinton, the irreparable harm is already done.
-
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!
McConnell: Disrespectful not to vote for Trump
- Thread starter church mouse guy
- Start date
Just for clarity, are you saying that we should throw aside our conscience-based principles on a vote?
I contend that if the choice is either Trump or Clinton, the irreparable harm is already done.
Which is what I believe voting for Trump would do as well as Hillary.
Ah, I think that Mitch was lying anyway.
Not even close.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
If you can't spell it, it's probably just another scare tactic being used by a bunch of scared party loyalists with convictions for nothing but the letter R.
We know who you want in, but you avoided answering the question asked in the other part of my post.
Again, are you saying that we should sin by setting aside our conscience-based principles on a vote?
Umm, no our principles include not voting for an immoral man no matter who is in opposition. We have to stop making these kind of votes. We also need to stop downplaying their behavior like lying just because they are politicians as if it is expected from them. It should not be and we need to stop voting for people like that just because we get what we want out of them.
Then by all means don't vote for either of them. The only way this all would work is to convince every voter in American to do what you say, and that's not going to happen. This is around every election cycle, too bad the principles these people have don't include repeating their election boycott over and over again - if American politics is so corrupt and immoral, talking about it isn't going to help.
No you don't. You only know who I don't want to be elected.
This would actually be a valid argument if this were 2008. Politics is dynamic, though - there is one open seat on SCOTUS that is crucial, and, unlike Obama's appointments/replacements, this one was a solid conservative on the 2A in particular.
So you're still alive after eight years of Obama, and you still have Obamacare, an unstable Mideast, and a stagnant economy, among other things because of Obama and there's younger clones on SCOTUS of their liberal predecessors. Elections really do have consequences, Obama was right once on that.
Now that's true but you know what you're going to get with a Hillary appointee and she has made her 2A views known.
That one person Obama tried to get in this year is fine but his 2A views are atrocious. Just depends on what you want - Hillary, it's a sure thing, though that it's be a gun-grabber.
That one person Obama tried to get in this year is fine but his 2A views are atrocious. Just depends on what you want - Hillary, it's a sure thing, though that it's be a gun-grabber.
Most of the time, you do. Roberts was a sell out. No one could see that one coming. Kennedy has always been middle of the road. Obviously, I disagree with him at times, but that's better than all the time. The rest are exactly as predicted. There was no chance at all that the lightweight leftist, Sotomayor and the the leftist idealogue, Kagan, could be anything other than what they are.
For the record, Cruz did not think that John Roberts was a good appointment.