If anyone needs a reason to vote against Hillary ...

I actually don't want Trump to be our president, but I REALLY don't want Hillary.

The 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood is a great reason to vote against her. Take a listen to this podcast by Al Mohler. Informative yet tragic.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/10/17/briefing-10-17-16/

Professor_Valconian wrote:I actually don't want Trump to be our president,

I feel you.

but I REALLY don't want Hillary.

I really feel you!

The 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood is a great reason to vote against her.

If you mean by that she is someone who has lots of blood on her hands as she has supported the legalization of abortion in this country, supported the premier provider of abortions, PP, called it's founder a hero as a reason to not vote against her, then I strongly agree.

Take a listen to this podcast by Al Mohler. Informative yet tragic.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/10/17/briefing-10-17-16/

Excellent! Thanks for sharing. Yes, informative and tragic.

Beh. I'm not voting. I don't like the candidates, but I'm clearly Trump over Hitlery.

Its one thing to be a womanizer and say outlandish things, but its another to be a crooked politician working hidden schemes from the public.

I've seen a few "prophecies" online stating Trump will win.
Who knows...

Meh. I don't see a crooked, impulsive, bloviating, narcissistic businessman being better than a crooked politician. I do understand why abortion may be the single most important issue in an election for many though. But I think comparing Hillary to Hitler is unreasonable. If you really want to go down that route, some of Trump's rhetoric is pretty eerily Hitleresque... I wouldn't go down that route just to be clear. All the name calling in politics (Hitlery, libtards, any of the bigotry terms assigned to Republicans, etc) just strikes me as childish and dangerously divisive. I know my political opinions won't be popular here though, so I'll leave it at that. This election will be interesting and unsatisfactory no matter what happens...

Tom Hoefling for President.
http://www.tomhoefling.com/
https://www.facebook.com/thomas.hoefling

New Creation wrote:Tom Hoefling for President.
http://www.tomhoefling.com/
https://www.facebook.com/thomas.hoefling

What other qualifications does he have to be president?  Does he really think that waiting to get on the ballot simply as a "write on" will give him a chance to win?  I'd like to see a strong conservative Christian elected as much as anyone, but the tactics used here scream that they know they cannot even remotely believe they have a chance to win this.

alldatndensum wrote:

New Creation wrote:Tom Hoefling for President.
http://www.tomhoefling.com/
https://www.facebook.com/thomas.hoefling

What other qualifications does he have to be president?  Does he really think that waiting to get on the ballot simply as a "write on" will give him a chance to win?  I'd like to see a strong conservative Christian elected as much as anyone, but the tactics used here scream that they know they cannot even remotely believe they have a chance to win this.

Of course he doesn't have a chance to win, and he's open about that, and so am I. It's not about winning, it's about voting for a righteous man.

New Creation wrote: It's not about winning, it's about voting for a righteous man.

Which I totally respect.

undead toaster wrote:But I think comparing Hillary to Hitler is unreasonable. If you really want to go down that route, some of Trump's rhetoric is pretty eerily Hitleresque... I wouldn't go down that route just to be clear. All the name calling in politics (Hitlery, libtards, any of the bigotry terms assigned to Republicans, etc) just strikes me as childish and dangerously divisive.

Jeez I didn't think me saying Hitlery would have struck that kind of nerve. I was just trying to be cute.
Sorry. I thought it was clever when I first heard it.

ThomasEversole wrote:Jeez I didn't think me saying Hitlery would have struck that kind of nerve.  I was just trying to be cute.
Sorry.  I thought it was clever when I first heard it.

But you ARE cute. Don't let anyone tell you anything else.

Haha!

Can't argue with that I guess

I may have come on a bit strong there

My favorite moment from this last debate:

"No, you're a puppet."

Clinton is a criminal. Trump 2016!

Trump is a criminal. How can you all vote for a man that supports the murder of children, assaults women, and actively supports sexual perversion?

http://prolifeprofiles.com/donald-trump-on-abortion-not-pro-life

New Creation wrote:Trump is a criminal. How can you all vote for a man that supports the murder of children, assaults women, and actively supports sexual perversion?

http://prolifeprofiles.com/donald-trump-on-abortion-not-pro-life

Don't confuse me with the TRUth, my Mind is made uP.

New Creation wrote:How can you all vote for a man that supports the murder of children,

How can you say he supports the murder of children when in this third debate, he not only said he was pro-life, but even bashed Hillary for wanting to "rip a baby out of a woman"?

The information on that link is a stark contrast to what came out of his own mouth Wednesday night.

ThomasEversole wrote:

New Creation wrote:How can you all vote for a man that supports the murder of children,

How can you say he supports the murder of children when in this third debate, he not only said he was pro-life, but even bashed Hillary for wanting to "rip a baby out of a woman"?

The information on that link is a stark contrast to what came out of his own mouth Wednesday night.

He still believes in exceptions, which means he's compromised. At his site, he doesn't even have a pro-life/abortion section in his Positions/Policies section, which means it's not a priority for him.

I'm making a public statement now, that if he wins the election, he will not save a single unborn child

New Creation wrote:
He still believes in exceptions, which means he's compromised.

My conservative Christian cousin and his wife got pregnant early in their marriage. First ultrasound yielded horrifying results. The "baby" was little more than "a mass of cells" with "sort of" a head. Not only was the child given a 0% chance of survival out of the womb (liked by the doctors to a parasitic twin) but they said carrying "this" to full term could have serious, SERIOUS health problems for the mother, including total sterility. They got a second opinion and we're told the same thing.

So I guess I want to ask, would them terminating a pregnancy with zero chance of life outside the womb AND permanent damage to the mother be an exception?

...or would you say my cousin is now an accomplice to murder?

New Creation wrote:
At his site, he doesn't even have a pro-life/abortion section in his Positions/Policies section, which means it's not a priority for him.

That's a logical falicy. That would be like saying because I don't write songs about the importance of family, that family is not a priority to me. ...which isn't true at all.

ThomasEversole wrote:

New Creation wrote:
At his site, he doesn't even have a pro-life/abortion section in his Positions/Policies section, which means it's not a priority for him.

That's a logical falicy. That would be like saying because I don't write songs about the importance of family, that family is not a priority to me. ...which isn't true at all.

To my knowledge, Hillary has been at least somewhat consistent (for once) in supporting abortion and she's made that clear throughout the years.  I'm not aware of Trump making a strong stance towards it until the final debate when he's desperately trying to win votes.  My internal cynic/pessimist/skeptic is having a difficult time believing he'd do much to protect the lives of unborn children from this one time he said this one thing while under a lot of pressure to appeal to his party.  We don't know his true beliefs or opinions, but from what he's communicated - or NOT communicated - to us (the masses), I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make that it's not a high priority for him.  As voters, we have to make these types of judgment calls because the best we can do is to discern wisely from the information we are provided.  For many folks on this forum, abortion is THE #1 issue and therefore they're going to want to vote for someone who has instilled confidence that this is an issue they'll fight for.  I'm not aware of other ways Trump has done much in the way of instilling that confidence.

Anyways, I think Adam was just using that as an example.  But I do think it speaks volumes that abortion isn't included in his policies section, being that it is one of the hottest topics in politics...

We haven't heard from Trump much on any of his stances because so many people have figured out that once they dig their hooks in, he spends virtually all his time trying to pull hooks out or revenge planting his own.

If Chris Wallace wouldn't have asked, abortion wouldn't have been talked about at all. It's not a hot button issue in politics. Only to diehard Christians...

ThomasEversole wrote:It's not a hot button issue in politics. Only to diehard Christians...

Only Christians care enough about abortion to make it an "issue"? Huh? I'm pretty sure that not everyone who opposes abortion is a Christian ... or even religious. People who have a conscience (given to them by God) and listen to it also oppose abortion.

It is also certainly a hot button issue for Hillary and virtually everyone on the left. Their position is ... don't you dare take away their "right" to abort a human baby. There aren't two people involved ... a woman and a baby. There is only the woman ... as if what is growing inside of her is not a person. She has the right to do whatever she wants to with her "body". They try to cloak their position with respectability by euphemistically referring to it as women's reproductive health. Well, it's not really very healthy for the baby is it?

Professor_Valconian wrote:
Only Christians care enough about abortion to make it an "issue"? Huh? I'm pretty sure that not everyone who opposes abortion is a Christian ... or even religious. People who have a conscience (given to them by God) and listen to it also oppose abortion.

I can't quite wrap my head around someone who has a God given conscious, but yet rejects God / isn't a Christian.

All either one of us can do is speculate. In my experience, anyone with a passion for life (against abortion) also had a passion for God. The rest either had no comment or didn't know and were also pretty agnostic in regards to faith as well.

I'm sure it's possible, but I haven't seen it.

I agree with you about the pro choice people foaming at the mouth over women's rights. I'm sure that same group of people, if told women weren't allowed to catch rattlesnakes with their teeth, would probably picket for the "right" to do that - just because they were told "no".

I did the same thing in my active alcoholism. People told me to stop drinking, so I got drunk at them. "I'll show you, I'll hurt me" kind of thing.

ThomasEversole wrote:
I can't quite wrap my head around someone who has a God given conscious, but yet rejects God / isn't a Christian.

I'm not trying to quote the Bible AT you ... but let me quote the Bible ...

Romans 2:12-16 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³ For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. ¹⁴ For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them ¹⁶ on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

I would argue that people's conscience ... the internal grasp of right and wrong ... comes from somewhere, or rather from someone ... and that someone is God, even if the person doesn't know it comes from him. They don't need to know/believe in God to have a conscience, they just need to be human. If they are human then they were created in God's image and part of that image is an innate sense or right and wrong. Now everyone fights against that knowledge of right and wrong to a greater or lesser degree because of their sinful nature, but the sinful nature has not completely extinguished it from people. I grant that the conscience of many has been seared and doesn't work very well, but it is still there.

Romans 1:18-25  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.²⁴ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.