10 probing and penetrating reasons why Christians should not vote for Donald Trump

Posted by PeteEnns on October 14, 2016 in politics 61 Comments

trump1. Trump is completely crazy.*

2. Trump doesn’t even have hinges to become unhinged.#

3. Trump just can’t keep it zipped. His mouth, too.@

4. Why are we even discussing this?

5. Sweet Jesus, do something.

6. Just look at his eyes, people. Look. at. them.

7. Dear God, are you there? It’s me, Pete.

8. I don’t like how “apocalyptic scenario” has made its way into my daily speech patterns.

9. Won’t anyone think of the children?

10. Y’all can find Russia, fad diets, and financial advice in the Bible, so it shouldn’t be too hard to find a verse or two clearly telling you to not vote for Trump. I suggest leafing through Revelation 12 or 19.

*Google “Donald Trump” and watch any video.
#Google “Donald Trump” and watch any video.
@Google “Donald Trump” and watch any video.

***Alert readers will note that this post is not an endorsement of any presidential candidate, and so should not be taken as an endorsement of any presidential candidate. And I mean that. So don’t assume.***

[Please be patient as your comment is in moderation. Comments are normally posted within 6 hours but may take as long as 24—longer if you’re annoying. Bombastic and unhinged comments won’t be posted, so don’t bother. Life will go on for you so don’t sweat it.]

  • Christopher Thrutchley

    So true

  • http://timebottle.weebly.com/ Beau Quilter

    So, i assume that you’re promoting Hilary Clinton? (just kidding)

    Seriously, though, Michelle Obama said it eloquently:

    “I can’t believe that I’m saying that a candidate for president of the United States has bragged about sexually assaulting women. And I can’t stop thinking about this. It has shaken me to my core in a way that I couldn’t have predicted.”

    • Gary

      The First Lady’s was the best speech of the campaign season.

      This season, I’m almost convinced that Christians are categorically cray cray too. What a dismal vision. I think every pastor across the country needs to now assume that many good-hearted, level-headed, well-spoken Americans won’t be coming into their environs on Sunday mornings.

      I know a few gracious pastors that really wish Christianity weren’t the way it’s become. As such, they preach sermons to try to gently redefine Christianity to something good/better each Sunday morning. They’re not preaching to the choir, but they’re preaching to their audience, trying to nudge, gently, but certainly not disrupt the donor base and threaten their self-seen-as-noble task. From time to time, I have opportunity to listen to these sermons. Each one causes me to feel I’m-oh-so-not-one-of-them. It’s as if they’re trying to inject a basic humanism or simple Christ-following into a bunch of really hurt, angry, under-fed, under-led sheeple.

      Sheeple, angry sheeple with their guns, god, and hoped-for groper-in-chief.

      Gawd.

      • Occam Razor

        To me, evangelical demonization of liberals is even more offensive than their support of a pro-Kremlin sexual predator. To hear so many people say, well Trump may be bad, but (insert any Democrat) is (in effect) worse, or the devil, or whatever, that is so depraved. And you know, it doesn’t speak well of the truth of the Bible, if that is what it does to people.

        • Gary

          Ten years ago, I judged the Bible and the Christian faith modernistically–how well do they measure up in their historical and factual knowability and truthfulness?

          Nowadays, I judge them mythologically–how well do they create and shape a more charitable and just world?

          You mention the devil and the seeing others as depraved. Let me riff for a moment.

          We know–being grown up enough–there isn’t any devil, aren’t any demons, and such isn’t truthfully knowable about the world. Take demonization. In my personal collapse of faith, my wife has assessed that I, for instance, have a demonic spirit. While it’s metaphysical superstition, it says much about her.

          There are no “real” demons so take their casting out. Nothing [in the real world] happens. Or actually the only thing that happens is *in the believer’s mind*. (So I guess demons do “exist,” but in this very real way.) The demon doesn’t actually get cast out of the other, it only gets “cast out” of the mind of the believer. To the believer, the other is able to go from a state of dehumanization to humanization; they had a demon and now they don’t.

          Insert any outsider characterization–Democrat, liberal, devil, or whatever.

          While it’s superficially easier and more generous to see that the scheme offers the ability to “cast out demons” from another human, the more depraved necessitated darkness is that such beliefs also offer the ability to dehumanize the other using an untrumpable spiritualized language. I find this kind of demonization evilly worse than other forms of dehumanization, such as using animalistic or sexualized language and calling another human such as a “pig” or a “bitch.”

          I concur and do so firsthand–there are few things worse than evangelical demonization. While the Bible and Christianity can deftly be used as story of love and redemption, it seems much more commonly it’s used much more sadly to feel righteousness about self and in-group and yield disdain and disgust for outsiders.

          To question #4, why are we even discussing this? This is part of why.

          • Occam Razor

            Gary, can you email me at orazor923 at gmail dot com? I think we have some stuff in common would be interesting to discuss.

          • Gary

            Did. Thx.

          • Darrin Hunter

            Stop it, Gary. ***plugging ears, singing la-la-la-la-la***
            Strange demonic occurrences is one of the last few things that make me think that God really IS there.

          • Gary

            C’mon Darrin. God is bigger than the Boogieman.

          • Ross

            Sorry to hear how your wife is assessing you. I sort of wrestle with the whole Devil/Demon thing and whether it is metaphor or real (my latest theory being that weak-chinned accountants are to some way the Devil).

            If you are not estranged I truly hope that your wife may recognise that your “collapse of faith” may actually be a clarity of vision and that a purely “cultural Christianity” may not really be what Jesus aims us toward.

            With prayer.

          • Gary

            Thanks Ross. Hopefulness with regard to this might have been fitting five to ten years ago. Now, it is what it is.

      • http://timebottle.weebly.com/ Beau Quilter

        I’m no Christian, but I did say “amen” after the First Lady’s speech.

  • Carolyn

    I will tell you why a large chunk of Christians are holding their noses and voting for the republican candidate. It’s all about the Supreme Court justices and the ability to nominate. And hopefully overturn Roe v Wade. (Not me, just in case you think that)

    • Gary

      Right now Donald Trump has about a 10% chance of winning. I don’t think there are any oddsmakers on this slim scenario but I’d say if he gets in, there’d be a 10% chance or less of an overturn of Roe v Wade. It’s really not Donald Trump’s pressing agenda; it’s just not his cultural “thing”–appears to me *after* destroying ISIS, building a wall, and groping women. Likely it’s been words the historic religious right needed to hear from the new alt-right to get vote pledges. (Again, The Donald took them to a very high mountain and showed him all the states of the nation and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will elect me.”)

      I’d give it a 1% or less chance that Roe v Wade gets overturned.

      But as a thought exercise, let’s play out that scenario. [Much/most of] the culture has moved. The pluralistic coalition at this point will have seen very different kind of American leadership under a “strongman”–authoritarian, nationalistic, etc. If Roe v Wade gets overturned it’ll be very top-down and the most theocratic thing ever done in American history.

      In this cultural scenario, I think popular American Christianity would be even uglier than its become. The witness would be horrific. These are the folks who deny evolution, climate change, etc. It would be a religious nationalism with perhaps the most recent analog being the Taliban in Afghanistan in the years 1996 to 2001, when they ran the government.

      The clamoring for “religious liberty” is a religious liberty for us (not them) if not a religious “liberty” of us over them.

      If the Holy Spirit is guiding people to think this way, I don’t think He has it very thought out. The Christian project of ushering a new creation is already retrograding quite badly. This isn’t exactly the way of winning hearts to change the world.

      Besides, we have the impacts of climate change, water rights, etc. associated with high global population densities quickly impending in this century. I’ve heard the “Supreme Court justices” argument and it seems centered more in a desperation of nostalgia of the religious right movement of 1970s to 2000s than anything as deeply historic as the teachings of Jesus or as future oriented as the makings of a new creation in the world as it will be in the rest of this century and the next.

      To me, from the outside, it looks like very bad spirituality and quite contemptible citizenship.

  • charlesburchfield

    Trump’s presidency; the final frontier. These are the voyages of of the Nation face down in the Kool-Aid. Its 4-year mission: to exploit strange new ways to seek out and exterminate the weak & vulnerable, destroy civilization as we have known it: to boldly go where where are no demagogue has gone before.
    SAD! =(

  • IWillVoteAndYouShouldToo

    Yes Pete – I’m here – it’s me, God. Vote for Trump. You are making a big mistake if you don’t. Or it’s me, Sweet Jesus – vote Pete, he best represents who we are as a country and can lead us with authenticity (or would you rather have a phony?)

    Seriously – big mistake Pete – you really should vote, and you can’t vote for a candidate that doesn’t exist.

    The guy has run $Bs of businesses and lead 10s of thousands of people and very few if any (that I know of) in his industry have come after him for any of the things you say above. You are falling for the trap of believing that what we see in a campaign season is the real person. When has that ever been true? Name one.

    You have to go on his track record and decide if his track record as a businessman could serve us better than her track record as a politician. I think he wins very easily. (Everything else, and I mean everything, is noise – don’t mistake noise for the message)

    A campaign has one goal – to win! He picked a campaign strategy to be brash (which is easy for him) and egotistical and it’s kept him in the game. Romney picked a boring approach and he lost. He did not know how to win.

    This has nothing to do with being Christian, non-Christian, listening to God or even sweet Jesus. It has to do with picking one of two candidates. Don’t make complicated.

    • Pete E.

      Hahahahahahaah!! . . . . Oh wait. You’re actually serious.

      • IWillVoteAndYouShouldToo

        The funny thing is that’s the way I feel about the Christian response to trump. (“are you actually serious!?” – you don’t like his language or how he treats women (supposedly), inarticulate comments about illegal immigration or terrorism? – that’s your criteria for choosing a leader? (best we all crawl in a hole and wish for a different world)

        Question: why would you not put Clinton up there with the same list? biases, crazy talk, hinges, help us Lord, …the eyes…

        Why not use the same criteria for choosing the companies we work for, or products we buy, or churches we attend. The president of the US is not the supreme ruler of the universe for all time. We choose one every 4 years and he will probably need to be close in character to the society we live in (GoT-watching, reality-TV loving, sports-obsessed people). Let’s lighten up. Pick one and move on. Am I wrong?

        • Ross

          Surely not being close to the character of US society is a major plus for voting someone in.

    • Darrin Hunter

      Donald?
      Is that you?

    • Ross

      Really you can vote for a person who doesn’t exist, you can also vote for “none of the above”. All you have to do is write in your own candidate or “none of the above”.

      It may not technically “count” but it is possible. If enough people do this then there is the possibility of some sort of change. If everyone blindly votes for the candidates who are presented and think this is the only option then nothing will change.

      The argument that we must vote because x amount of people died so you can have a vote is also fallacious.

      So I would say it’s better to vote than not vote, but you don’t have to vote for the people on the paper. Let’s face it, anyone who wants to be in charge of something is probably not a good choice for actually being in charge of it.

      • IWillVoteAndYouShouldToo

        Of course you can do anything you want. The question is whether there is any value to the activity or the energy you spend. I can work for a company that pays me $0 to feel good about myself but no one wins, not even the company getting free labor!

        Writing in someone’s name who can’t win may feel good, but it’s useless behavior. Voting or not voting doesn’t bring about change. The people in office bring about change. If enough people want change, they will vote for it. Our system offers two candidates – that’s the present reality and its undeniable. You have to choose one of the two. Not choosing is bad humanity.

        • Pete E.

          I understand your point: everyone should vote and Trump is in your view the better candidate so voting for him is the best move to make. No need to keep repeating. Anything different you want to add?

  • Miriam

    The saddest (and I use that word carefully) thing about Trump (besides what Pete wrote and the photo he shows, which says it all) is that he is a person living completely in his false self. He has no idea who he really is. He truly is lost to himself. And lost people can harm many other persons.

    • IWillVoteAndYouShouldToo

      I think the logic is false. Name one politician or renown business leader who has a great idea of who they really are. You won’t be able to. Research suggests that 20% of CEO’s of large corporations are sociopaths. That’s just reality, and shouldn’t surprise anyone who has worked close to the top of an organization or in govt. We are looking for the candidate that doesn’t exist, by going after Trump because he offends us or is not as articulate as other candidates, or..or…or…his eyes! :-)

      Steve Jobs, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Jack Welch, John Kennedy – did they know who they really were? Who knows? (We all know Jobs was a nutjob, but he produced awesome product and changed the world for the better, except for the few close to him he destroyed) They could inspire, lead and influence and do the job they were given.

      • Miriam

        Obviously, that applies to many of us. But the conversation was about Trump.

  • Jax Teller

    You had me at “Top 10 Probing And Penetrating Reasons Why Christians Should Not Vote”

    I mean, who would Jesus vote for? We all know he wouldn’t. All his life he was completely indifferent towards the affairs of Caesar.

    Take the Jesus ground. Do likewise?

    • Bex

      Jesus was not indifferent to Caesar. Jesus paid his taxes.

    • IWillVoteAndYouShouldToo

      Not Vote?! Really – you are using the gospels to suggest we not vote? Jesus didn’t go to ball games either, so Pete should stop following and rooting for the Yanks? (which may not be a bad idea altogether…go Sox!)

      We get to make a decision on who will lead the country and you would pass on this unique global privilege because….? Not sure I’m following.

  • Ross

    Okay, admittedly seeing the irony of being smug as a Brit with a non-elected Prime Minister, after the Brexit debacle, I can smugly look at The USofA and truthfully say that if “Christians” in the US can seriously consider electing Trump they must be truly deeply stupid. However, when I look back at my own country I realise that all people are actually really, really, really stupid.

    As Winston Churchill reputedly said “the main argument against democracy is spending five minutes talking to the average voter”, but there again he was quite a Twatt too.

    Maybe it is the real proof of the existence of God that in some places the World seems to work okay despite the complete and utter stupidity of man and all his efforts to **** the whole thing up

    • charlesburchfield

      Quite!

    • Gary

      I’ve traveled a lot on business international. Turn on the television in any hotel room in the English-speaking world and you can seem to find both Joyce Meyer and professional wrestling. One would think any non-American could comprehend Donald Trump better than any American.

      And I love your English threepeat of “really, really, really.” Somehow, as an American, we just can’t pull that off. Rather than three “reallies” we’d have one F and a couple supporting words to complement.

      Alas. John Locke, we are so sorry. :-(

  • Bryan

    Alasdair MacIntyre wrote a piece for Notre Dame magazine years ago during the Bush/Kerry debate titled, “The Only Vote Worth Casting in November” and the similarities I believe are the same here if not more so: http://brandon.multics.org/library/Alasdair%20MacIntyre/macintyre2004vote.html

  • Dennis

    I agree with Dr. Norman Geisler on why to support Trump even after recent events: http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2016/october/evangelical-views-of-2016-election-follow-up-with-dr-geisle.html?utm_source=ctdirect-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=9457307&utm_content=470288895&utm_campaign=email

    I like these excerpts:

    Whether we like it or not, when we vote for president we are not voting for Pastor-in-Chief. Rather, we are voting for Commander-in-Chief. The qualifications for the two jobs are
    different. Further, Trump has expressed regret for offensive things he has said. Hillary has not shown regret for the numerous lies she has told—many of which the FBI has reported. Also, we must remind ourselves that we are all fallen creatures in a fallen world. We don’t have any perfect candidates. So we must choose among imperfect ones.

    All the candidates engage in offensive activities, some more than others. Most evangelicals would not vote for any of them to be pastor of their church. But we are not voting for a
    pastor but for a politician. Many evangelicals envision an ideal candidate who is superior to the ones we have. The problem is that we do not have the choice to vote for this ideal candidate but only for the real ones that are on the ticket. In an ideal world this would not happen, but we do not live in an ideal world but in a real one—a real fallen world. And in such a world we can only choose the best one available, not the best one conceivable. And as an evangelical Christian living in this real fallen world, it looks to me that Trump, as imperfect as he may be, comes closer to what we need in America now than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    • Pete E.

      Geisler is free to think what he wants, but he is not my trusted go-to for deep thinking, including on theology. And I would bet a lot of money that Geisler made the exact opposite argument when the subject will WJC.

      • Dennis

        I don’t agree with all that Geisler says in all areas. But, then again, I doubt if I agree 100% with anyone. However, I agree with Geisler on this: Despite Trump’s moral lapses, I would rather have Trump as president with his strong stance on fighting ISIS, securing the borders, and appointing conservative supreme court judges than I would Hillary. I will admit that there are other conservatives who could champion these causes and be more politically correct than Trump, but as Geisler says, we have to choose between the actual candidates on the ballot and not some ideal candidate.

        • Pete E.

          What down sides do you see about DT in those very areas you cite?

          • Dennis

            The general downside I see for Trump if he is elected president would be the continual bringing up of sexual abuse charges by the media (regular and social). But I could live with that because I think that the benefits of Trump’s conservative actions would override his moral failures. (As an aside, if we would have had the internet and social media during JFK’s time, we would have been very much aware of each woman that JFK slept with and that may have changed people’s opinion of his legacy.)

            I don’t see any downside of Trump in the areas I mentioned: fighting ISIS, securing the borders (Mexico as well as Middle Eastern refugee problems), and appointing conservative Supreme Court justices. I’m sure that people would accuse Trump of profiling (racial & religious) in naming the problem groups (illegal Mexicans & radical Islamic terrorists) and taking steps to prevent those groups from entering our country, but I think that is what is needed (similar to what Israel does) in order to be effective with the limited resources we have (border patrol & immigration screening). Career politicians (Republicans & Democrats) have tried to be politically correct and avoid profiling, but that has gotten us nowhere and has endangered the security of our country, esp. in regards to Islamic terrorists living in American cities and suburbia, and we don’t know where they will strike next.

            Trump is a pragmatist and a businessman. The rhetoric you now hear from him would not be the rhetoric you would see as president. He would work very well with a Republican Congress, and some great legislation and Supreme Court justices would be the results.

          • Pete E.

            So the only down side is in how he is perceived? Nothing with the man and his policies? Really? The concerns most voting Americans have are unfounded? You don’t see Trump as in any way misogynist? xenophobic/racist? And he is an above-board business man? You really think there is nothing to critique? And you base that on, what, your insight that he would not act as president as he does now? Don’t let your hatred for HRC keep you from exercising your critical faculties.

          • Dennis

            No, I’m not saying that the only downside with Trump is how he is perceived. I do think he has sexual misconduct issues. But so do many powerful men in America. I don’t think he is a misogynst, as his daughter and wife pointed out. He does boast about his sexual conquests and attempts, which I don’t approve of. I don’t think he is xenophobic/racist because of how he proposes to secure our borders as I mentioned in my previous post. So there is a lot to critique about Trump’s personal misconduct. But that does not disqualify him from being president in my opinion. As I said in an earlier post, agreeing with Geisler, Trump is not the ideal conservative candidate, but he is the only conservative presidential candidate on the ballot. I believe the conservative policies he would implement in four years of being president outweigh his personal problems. I think evangelicals are dead wrong in not wanting to vote for Trump because of his past and current sins. As Geisler said, we are electing a Commander-in-Chief, not a Pastor-in-Chief. Hillary is not morally pure either. So, Pete, what is your criteria for choosing Hillary over Trump? I don’t think you have specifically come out for Hillary. Yet, stating that Trump is not fit to be president is, in effect, endorsing Hillary because they are the only two presidential candidates on the ballot. (I’m not including third party candidates who don’t have a chance.)

          • Pete E.

            You didn’t catch my post: as I said, do not infer from it that I support another candidate. It is possible to conclude that neither candidate is qualified. I wish Trump supporters (= Hillary haters) would stop making torturous arguments for Trump as qualified leader of the free world. He’s not, in any sense of the word.

          • Dennis

            Yes, I see your post now about not endorsing any candidate. I think you misinterpreted my previous posts. I was not making an argument that Trump is the ideal, qualified candidate of the free world. He is not, and he certainly has his flaws. But I’m pragmatic about this. One candidate on the ballot will be elected in Nov. whether we like it or not. So I would rather that the imperfect one who is a conservative and would promote a conservative agenda for four years (Trump) get elected than I would the imperfect Democrat whose positions I don’t support. I don’t personally hate Hillary. I just don’t agree with her liberal agenda that she would promote for four years if she is elected.

          • Pete E.

            Ok. Thanks for clarifying!

        • Andrew Dowling

          His plans to fight ISIS strengthens ISIS. He has no clue on foreign policy and bizarrely appeases Russia at every turn.
          His rhetoric on immigration is pure racial scapegoating. We haven’t had net migration from our southern border since 2009. Violence by illegal immigrants isn’t a national problem.
          This is a guy who says he’ll fight the debt but proposes a multi-billion dollar boondoggle wall and whose tax plan would increase the debt by over 110%.

          His policies are pretty much uniformly horrible. Literally, pick a topic and he’s on the wrong side of it-his policies are backed by conspiracy theories and invented data.

      • Gary

        Oh Pete. I’ve thought so highly of you. You didn’t need to actually say “Geisler.”

        • Pete E.

          We’re not on a first name basis.

          • Gary

            Dr Enns, you’re a much better theologian than Dr Geisler and I appreciate all you do.

  • Brent Flory

    Pray for them Pete, it’s not your kingdom.
    It’s his message that resonates. He has thousands at his rally’s. Listen to one. Hillary has a couple hundred and uses a clapping machine.

    • Pete E.

      Indeed, it’s his message that resonates, which is what makes this so concerning.

      • IWillVoteAndYouShouldToo

        What about his message has you concerned? And you chose to highlight Trump not Clinton, so this implies that his message is much more offensive than her message, or you support her message. Is it his view on race, borders, trade, terrorism, justice, inner-city crime, political influence peddling, etc? What upsides do you see in Clinton’s approach to these areas?

        • Pete E.

          Uh uh, my little debater, I asked you first.

  • bunnyhunt

    I agree with April Love-Fordham’s assessment of conservative Christians who support Trump for president. It’s easy for people who believe God has given them “headship” and “dominion” to excuse the depravity of another man whom they think will fulfill their desires.

    “Evangelical leaders supporting Trump (is) a result of the “Evangelical Male Syndrome.” You see, these Evangelical male leaders believe the Bible teaches that God put them in charge — in charge of their families, their wives, the church, and the world. They believe that if they are happy then everyone else must fall in line. They also believe it is everyone else’s job to make them happy. They believe this is the way God designed the world. And anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their desires and happiness is going against God’s plan for the world.

    Trump makes them happy. He meets their personal needs. It matters little that he harasses and gropes women or insults African-Americans, Hispanics, or the disabled. Trump makes these Conservative Evangelical Leaders happy and if they are happy, no one else need be.

    I call this the Evangelical Male Syndrome. You know men who suffer from this. They are the ones who believe that God put them in charge and their desires and needs take precedence over anyone and anything else.” https://aprillovefordham.com/2016/10/08/the-evangelical-male-syndrome/

  • Pete E.

    I stopped reading for a moment when you put Trump in the same category as Churchill and Reagan. To suggest that their assessment of Germany/Russia as a threat to world peace is analogous to Trumps racism is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? With ISIS not so much, but Trumps xenophobic and flat out racism is rather obvious

    And o problem with how he views women? (And to anticipate a point, yes, I have huge problems with WJC on this.)

  • Pete E.

    Oh, I think you’re sure :-)

    I appreciate you channeling your inner Josef Goebels. I rather hear you say, “I hate HRC and the thought of her being president makes me vomit blood. I’d rather have anyone, ANYONE, even a cartoonish parody of himself like Donald Trump than Hillary.” I would understand that. But to defend him as actually qualified to be leader of the free world, on the basis, of all things, of his business dealings (!) is not going to convince a lot of people.

    • IWVAYST

      You are right. You caught me. Trump wins on that scale. Because when has Trump abused power in business? I can’t find any evidence.

      More importantly –> What’s wrong with business dealings as a criteria? Our world is now run by businesses and global deal making (read the news). Who is qualified to be the leader of the free world then? – I would assume if not trump it would need to be a senator or governor or CEO of a larger corporation? Yawn. Why not make it one of the guys who really drives or understands the world economy instead of a puppet?

      So far your argument against him and his character is he’s a racist, foreign hater, woman hater, etc and crazy and abuses power …just look at his eyes? There really is no evidence (going after muslim parents or naming islamic terrorists as such is not racist, unless you can explain how it is). Was Reagan xenophobic for calling out the Soviets? Is it possible that your hatred of his style, his brashness, his rawness, and hair makes you incapable of offering a serious prophetic critique. :-)

      Granted it’s not about Hillary and you are right to call that out, but when we do make it about Trump your answer is: 1) it’s obvious he’s a nut and 2) ‘you mean most Americans are wrong in their concerns?’

  • Pete E.

    Oh for heavens sake, IWVAYST. You can’t make an argument by comparison and then take it away. That’s not playing fair. I wonder, too, how you would feel if someone defended HRC with as much spin as you give DT.

    Ans yes, it is crazy to think that Trump would be responsible with power. You think MORE power is going to make him more responsible.

    I think whoever gets elected is either going to get impeached or get very little done. There would be too much resistance.

    • The Majors

      One candidate would get impeached because he is completely clueless in constitutional law and won’t listen to any of his advisors. (This i almost hate to miss). For all the Republicans out there, the conservative National Review just published a good article on how the country will fare under an HRC presidency. (Spoiler alert: we are going to survive after all).

  • Dennis Rice

    To be honest, I cannot get over the abortion issue. Right or wrong it has become my number one motive for who I will vote or vote against. After reading your last two books my beliefs have taken a new direction. I would sincerely like your thoughts on how a Christian should approach abortion.

    • Pete E.

      I understand.

    • Andrew Dowling

      Making abortion illegal is not necessarily the best way to ensure decreases in abortion rates.

  • Robert F

    Aside from everything else, the fact that he’s a proud, public bully who lies habitually, right to your face, was enough to for me to not vote for him. He’s served as a role model for all who like to bully. Let’s not forget his piloting of Birtherism for more than five years, which he obviously knew to be untrue, and which was a glaringly undeniable dog whistle to bigots and racists of every degree. He may be merely bigoted and not racist himself, but he is more than willing to make sounds that call out the hard-nosed racists, who’ve now moved from the backwoods of Washington State compounds to banquet halls in Washington DC in response to his whistle. It hardly matters if he was only using the whistle to exploit them by attracting their votes; they’ve now arrived, and they are flying their colors (the swastika and Confederate flag) for all to see.

    I’m concerned about abortion, too. But, while the NT doesn’t mention abortion, it does clearly express that Jesus did a way with the walls between people of different ethnicities. Racism, or ethnic identitarianism if that’s the Alt-right euphemism you prefer, is a denial of the gospel of Jesus, and heresy for those claiming to be Christian. A man who intentionally exploits and exacerbates racism in the national electorate to achieve his political goals is a type of the anti-Christ.