Who won the debate tonight?

[JonC]

So you are voting for Clinton?

If someone believes it unChristian to vote for Trump I doubt they would remotely consider Clinton. I don't think Zaac is saying he would cast his lot with either party.

But if you want to reason that not supporting one is supporting another, then think of it this way - by not voting for Clinton he would be voting for Trump...and that without actually binding himself by participation to that platform.

 

[blessedwife318]

But keep in mind sister, which ever one is elected, it is done by God for the ultimate glory of God.

Oh I agree, they both are a form of judgement from God. Still not going to vote for either on of them though.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[steaver]

Oh I agree, they both are a form of judgement from God. Still not going to vote for either on of them though.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I think when the rubber hits the road the swing voters will chicken out for the unknown of a true change candidate and stick with the same ole partisan gridlock.

 

[Revmitchell]

If someone believes it unChristian to vote for Trump I doubt they would remotely consider Clinton.

You might be surprised around here.

 

[evangelist6589]

I think Ms. Clinton won the debate. She did not do much to make herself likeable, but she pushed Mr. Trump's buttons and he predictably could not help himself and spent the latter half of the evening interrupting, ranting off topic, and admitting things he probably didn't intend to admit.

I found it surprising that he more or less confirmed he didn't pay taxes and it made him "smart." It just showed he does not have personal discipline and cannot handle it when he is not in control of a situation.

He did better toward the beginning of the debate, but Ms. Clinton just let him hang himself with his words and actions.

Oh for the love of the rabbit where do these people come from?

 

[Benjamin]

 

[TCassidy]

The way our present electoral system is set up, presidential elections are binary. You either vote for the Democrat or you vote for the Republican. Anything else (IE a 3rd party "also ran") is an abdication of your duty to vote. It is a form of abstinence.

There are, unfortunately, a few who claim the Name of Christ who will abstain from the binary process, most often out of a sense of profound selfishness. "If I can't have it all my own way I am going to take my toys and go home."

And if enough self-centered Christians do that, our way of life, Liberty under Law, will be so damaged it may take two or three generations to repair it, if it is able to be repaired.

US Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. If Hillary is elected she will appoint Justices who are radical left wing globalists, and they will vote their radical globalist views in every case before them. The US Constitution will be subjugated to international treaty and UN intervention in US affairs.

The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments will be gutted by a left wing activist court.

Freedom of speech will be subordinated to "political correctness" and telling the truth will be labeled "hate speech."

Freedom of bearing arms for the protection of self and others will be infringed.

The freedom from unreasonable search and seizure will be subordinated to "government need."

Government police powers will be greatly expanded in spite of the 5th amendment.

A speedy and public trial will be a thing of the past.

Federal courts will re-examine cases adjudicated in State courts if the federal government does not like the decision.

Excessive fines for violating the "political correctness" laws will be commonplace.

Federal law will be construed to deny or disparage rights supposedly retained by the people.

And States Rights will be a thing of the past.

I can't emphasize how important this election cycle is. We are at a fork in the road of life. To the left lies a Socialist Dictatorship of the political elite in Washington. To the right lies a return to the principles of a Constitutional Republic on which this country was founded.

The choice is yours. Think of the country and government you will be leaving to your children and grandchildren. Do you want them to live in freedom and prosperity, or do you want them to fight, and bleed, and probably die in the Second American Revolution?

Yes. It's that serious.

 

[Revmitchell]

There are, unfortunately, a few who claim the Name of Christ who will abstain from the binary process, most often out of a sense of profound selfishness. "If I can't have it all my own way I am going to take my toys and go home."

And if enough self-centered Christians do that, our way of life, Liberty under Law, will be so damaged it may take two or three generations to repair it, if it is able to be repaired.

Another example of pretending to know how and why everyone else is doing something you disagree with. You cannot know this and quite frankly it is childish.

 

[TCassidy]

I think Ms. Clinton won the debate.

She certainly had the more polished demeanor. She looked a lot more presidential than Trump.

She did not do much to make herself likeable, but she pushed Mr. Trump's buttons and he predictably could not help himself and spent the latter half of the evening interrupting, ranting off topic, and admitting things he probably didn't intend to admit.

And that is Trump's recurring problem. He just can't seem to learn to keep his big mouth shut. He needs a campaign manager who will walk out on stage and slap him every time he mouths off or mugs stupidly.

He is arguably the worst public speaker since George W. Bush. And Bush was just inarticulate. Trump can't formulate a complete sentence without going off on a tangent.

I found it surprising that he more or less confirmed he didn't pay taxes and it made him "smart."

Well, he didn't write the tax code. His accountants just followed it. I don't pay income tax either. My retirement is non-taxable. The law is the law. He shouldn't be faulted for following the law. But he should have made that clear rather than just the "smart" response.

It just showed he does not have personal discipline and cannot handle it when he is not in control of a situation.

I agree. His ego is much larger than his brain.

He did better toward the beginning of the debate, but Ms. Clinton just let him hang himself with his words and actions.

But right in the beginning he missed a great opportunity to make Mrs. Clinton look like an idiot and a liar. When asked what they would do about cyber security she responded by saying it had been a major concern for a long time.

Instead of trying to basically say the same thing she did he should have looked at her and said "You mean your unsecured server and classified emails? That type of cyber security?"

But they guy just can't seem to think on his feet. He won the debate in spite of his performance, not because of it. The people who voted that he won did so because they already favored him, which, by the looks of the polls, seems to indicate a lot greater number of people, a significant majority, then the main stream media is willing to admit.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Oh for the love of the rabbit where do these people come from?

Perhaps you would like to engage my opinions as Mr. Cassidy has done instead of posting exclamations?

 

[Baptist Believer]

The way our present electoral system is set up, presidential elections are binary. You either vote for the Democrat or you vote for the Republican. Anything else (IE a 3rd party "also ran") is an abdication of your duty to vote. It is a form of abstinence.

I agree.

I cannot vote in good conscience vote for Mr. Trump, so I am going to vote against him. I will mark Ms. Clinton's name on the ballot and then loyally oppose legislation that she promotes with which I do not agree. Marking Ms. Clinton's name on the ballot is not an endorsement of her, but a political reality I have to deal with since I do not believe Trump has the competence, temperament or knowledge to lead the nation.

 

[InTheLight]

The way our present electoral system is set up, presidential elections are binary. You either vote for the Democrat or you vote for the Republican. Anything else (IE a 3rd party "also ran") is an abdication of your duty to vote. It is a form of abstinence.

It's called a vote of conscience. Or, if you like, a protest vote. So long as people continue to blindly accept that elections are binary, yes, we will continue to have binary elections. We will continue to have only two choices, typically two bad choices. At some point the cycle needs to be broken and can only be broken by voting for third party candidates.

There are, unfortunately, a few who claim the Name of Christ who will abstain from the binary process, most often out of a sense of profound selfishness. "If I can't have it all my own way I am going to take my toys and go home."

You believe you have mind reading skills. You should become a psychic and work the carnivals.

And if enough self-centered Christians do that, our way of life, Liberty under Law, will be so damaged it may take two or three generations to repair it, if it is able to be repaired.

Self-centered Christians who won't vote for the lesser of two evils will damage our way of life. That's rich.

 

[poncho]

ITL, you've convinced me to vote for my conscience instead of voting to save the republic from Hillary and her ameriphobic internationalist benefactors!

On second thought . . . nope, the future of the republic is more important than me and my feelings.

 

[HankD]

FWIW Read my post on news/current events.

Hillary was nicely groomed, polished and well rehearsed.
In her personal presentation, diction and proper grammar she excelled.
She kept her arm flailing minimized and did not shriek like a 70 year old.

Technically speaking IMO, she walked all over the Donald.

But he presented himself in his coarse, blunt and ANTI_ESTABLISHMENT persona which probably garnered another boatload of followers who possibly saw him in action for the first time last night (The Bernie orphans for instance).

He's older than Hillary but seems younger and VERY healthy. Lots of energy. In the public eye constantly.
Big on family, Wife, kids, grandkids seen with him everywhere.

Hillary comes out of her woman-cave at the appropriate time with Bill. Maybe good, probably not.

P.S. Another huge problem that the left knows about but has put their collective head in the sand hoping for the best:
Polls are mainly land-line based with some internet based.

No one knows what cell-phone only millennials are going to do.
Studies are split as to whether they are anti-establishment or not.

My thoughts: Trump will continue in his momentum after Hillary gets a point (or so) lead due to the left press rejoicing.

HankD

 

[poncho]

I agree.

I cannot vote in good conscience vote for Mr. Trump, so I am going to vote against him. I will mark Ms. Clinton's name on the ballot and then loyally oppose legislation that she promotes with which I do not agree. Marking Ms. Clinton's name on the ballot is not an endorsement of her, but a political reality I have to deal with since I do not believe Trump has the competence, temperament or knowledge to lead the nation.

And if Ms. Clinton holds the legislative process in the same contempt Mr. Obama has and decides to rule through executive fiat, federal agencies and international organizations then what?

 

[JonC]

There are, unfortunately, a few who claim the Name of Christ who will abstain from the binary process, most often out of a sense of profound selfishness. "If I can't have it all my own way I am going to take my toys and go home."

And if enough self-centered Christians do that, our way of life, Liberty under Law, will be so damaged it may take two or three generations to repair it, if it is able to be repaired.

I’ve appreciated your ability and willingness to point out logical fallacies in our arguments (not really being factious here, I do appreciate it when you point out things to me). So in return …..I see an appeal to probability in that you are taking for granted something that might not be the case (you don’t know that even one Christian will abstain from voting for the reason that they are not getting their way). There seems to be a bit of argumentum ad consequentiam in the mix as well….perhaps a bit of moralistic fallacy.

While I am planning on voting for Trump (which is not “getting my way” at all), there are a couple of issues which may arise to persuade me not to vote (I’m on the fence on two issues). If I decide to abstain, it will not be that I’m not getting my way (I’ve never really “got my way” in an election to start with….we have to compromise). It will be that I believe sharing accountability for a platform by actively supporting that platform is contrary to the lives that we are called to live in Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

(you don’t know that even one Christian will abstain from voting for the reason that they are not getting their way)

And how do you know that? Crystal ball?

It will be that I believe sharing accountability for a platform by actively supporting that platform is contrary to the lives that we are called to live in Christ.

And what of equally Spirit led Christians who take the exact opposite stand? Can the Holy Spirit lead in two different directions at the same time?

For instance, if I vote for Trump because doing so will provide a significantly less dangerous environment for my grandsons to raise their families in and thus "love one another" and "provide for my household" would I be less spiritual than you, who does the exact opposite?

The point is, of course, that any claim that God is on our side is presumptuous, at best.

 

[JonC]

And how do you know that? Crystal ball?

....you're right....call it an "educated guess"....

And what of equally Spirit led Christians who take the exact opposite stand? Can the Holy Spirit lead in two different directions at the same time?

No, I don't believe so. I don't think that the Holy Spirit will convict people to vote for Clinton, Trump, or abstain all together. The Holy Spirit convicts us to stand for Christ (our consciences may determine exactly how that stand materializes).

For instance, if I vote for Trump because doing so will provide a significantly less dangerous environment for my grandsons to raise their families in and thus "love one another" and "provide for my household" would I be less spiritual than you, who does the exact opposite?

I don't think that a "Christian stand" necessarily has the best interest of our children (or, really, our nation) as the top priority. We are to love one another, but we are to love one another with the love of Christ. Therefore the early church was correct not to compromise their convictions, even if their stand resulted in persecution for those they loved. And no, if I abstain and you vote for Trump, that does not mean one of us is more spiritual than the other.

The point is, of course, that any claim that God is on our side is presumptuous, at best.

I agree. Christians need to stop playing politics with their faith, they need to stop thinking that God will take their side, and they need to take the side of God.

 

[Baptist Believer]

And if Ms. Clinton holds the legislative process in the same contempt Mr. Obama has and decides to rule through executive fiat, federal agencies and international organizations then what?

And you DON'T think Mr. Trump is going to try to rule that way? He has no experience working with disparate parties to build consensus. He makes a decision and everybody does it his way or they're fired. That's his whole persona. That's one of the main reasons I can't vote for him.

Mr. Trump is much more likely to do that as his standard style of rule than Ms. Clinton.

The misuse of Executive Orders needs to stop ASAP, but a vote for Mr. Trump is a vote for that to get worse:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265371-trump-obama-led-the-way-on-executive-orders

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ive-orders-to-sidestep-congressional-gridlock

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-pushing-trump-to-issue-hundreds-of-executive

http://www.redstate.com/diary/south...xecutive-authority-because-obama-led-the-way/

 

[poncho]

And you DON'T think Mr. Trump is going to try to rule that way? He has no experience working with disparate parties to build consensus. He makes a decision and everybody does it his way or they're fired. That's his whole persona. That's one of the main reasons I can't vote for him.

Mr. Trump is much more likely to do that as his standard style of rule than Ms. Clinton.

The misuse of Executive Orders needs to stop ASAP, but a vote for Mr. Trump is a vote for that to get worse:

First, I deleted the links to the regressive leftist sites. I've read them enough to know the truth is not in them.

No, I know Trump will not rule that way. You know how I know? I know the democrats. They'll throw a fit and have sit ins and mobilize the dying regressive media to pull out all the stops to smear Trump and paint anything and everything he does as if he was Hitler reincarnated. How do I know they would do that? That's what they do. They've already done it. They're still doing it.

Obama and Clinton is of the "establishment tribe" Donald Trump is not.

Donald Trump wrote the book on deal making and building consensus. Hillary Clinton wrote the book on using politics to become rich and powerful and escaping accountability. She hasn't spent any time in the business world learning to create wealth. She has spent her entire life in the field of politics learning to transfer wealth.

Trump is more apt to follow the law than someone who has spent their life skirting the law and covering up their lawlessness afterward. And unlike Obama and Clinton the democrats and the regressive media who have looked the other way and actively helped Obama and Clinton cover their criminality will hold Donald Trump to a much higher standard. He will be under their microscope every minute of every day and will not be able to toss a sideways glance without the democrats and the regressive media hammering and smearing him and lying about him and twisting his words to mean things he himself never even thought of.

There is zero chance of stopping the executive orders under a Clinton administration because the democrats and the regressives from Obama on down have shown they prefer to rule by fiat. Donald Trump on the other hand will be met with such resistance from the democrats and regressives we may long for the days of the relative calm of the racially charged street riots George Soros and the Ford Foundation paid so much to unleash on us.