Are you a one issue voter?

[FaithManor]

But I'm pro-life and don't see the Supreme Court thing as crucial. As stated before, we can't legislate abortion away - esp in these modern times. We could potentially make it illegal as it was before, but that won't really stop anyone from getting one.

 

These next questions are primarily directed at Christians (because it's many Christians who tend to believe this way in my IRL experience).

 

Where does Jesus or Paul or anyone in the NT advocate using gov't to set Christian standards for all? When I read it, I see oodles of places where it's a voluntary change of the heart and a choice to live following God - and many specifics of that is between God and the individual. There were all sorts of similar things going on back in the NT times (humans are humans), yet I see us being told not to judge the world - just to live our own life within it. We can make more judgments within our church (money makers in the temple anyone?), but outside of it? And protesting to Caesar (or any leader) to change anything for all? I'm just not seeing it anywhere.

 

And if we were to do it anyway, how does that make us any better than some other countries that more or less mandate belief in their god, many of which countries get condemned by Christians. I don't see God ever mandating that we force belief - or even that we can do that if we wanted to.

 

I'm all for protecting babies, both unborn and born, but I just can't see that happening in the real world merely by changing laws. It's hearts and conditions that need to change to give babies better odds. Even then, I never expect 100%. It's simply the way the real world is - and has been pretty much forever.

 

Then too, I'm really curious what makes this so important of an issue that other aspects of our (collective) lives - the way people are treated, the way we care for God's world, the way we care for the alien (foreigner) living among us, the way we support widows and orphans - most of the "stuff" that is actually addressed more in the Bible I read, pales by comparison to that one issue (or two, because sex lives of others outside the church are often a biggie for some too - yet aren't addressed nearly as often as how we are to treat others).

Hear hear!!

[MyLittleBears]

But I'm pro-life and don't see the Supreme Court thing as crucial.  As stated before, we can't legislate abortion away - esp in these modern times.  We could potentially make it illegal as it was before, but that won't really stop anyone from getting one.

 

These next questions are primarily directed at Christians (because it's many Christians who tend to believe this way in my IRL experience).

 

Where does Jesus or Paul or anyone in the NT advocate using gov't to set Christian standards for all?  When I read it, I see oodles of places where it's a voluntary change of the heart and a choice to live following God - and many specifics of that is between God and the individual.  There were all sorts of similar things going on back in the NT times (humans are humans), yet I see us being told not to judge the world - just to live our own life within it.  We can make more judgments within our church (money makers in the temple anyone?), but outside of it?  And protesting to Caesar (or any leader) to change anything for all?  I'm just not seeing it anywhere.

 

And if we were to do it anyway, how does that make us any better than some other countries that more or less mandate belief in their god, many of which countries get condemned by Christians.  I don't see God ever mandating that we force belief - or even that we can do that if we wanted to.

 

I'm all for protecting babies, both unborn and born, but I just can't see that happening in the real world merely by changing laws.  It's hearts and conditions that need to change to give babies better odds.  Even then, I never expect 100%.  It's simply the way the real world is - and has been pretty much forever.

 

Then too, I'm really curious what makes this so important of an issue that other aspects of our (collective) lives - the way people are treated, the way we care for God's world, the way we care for the alien (foreigner) living among us, the way we support widows and orphans - most of the "stuff" that is actually addressed more in the Bible I read, pales by comparison to that one issue (or two, because sex lives of others outside the church are often a biggie for some too - yet aren't addressed nearly as often as how we are to treat others).

 

 

Creekland I actually agree with you. I am not advocating for a repeal or anything.(This is what I mean by the open-borders thing as my big issue) The problem is that the government is mandating paying for things with my tax money that my conscious cannot live with. It really does feels forced down my throat. The problem seems to be on both ends. Also, I don't think government is the answer to the rest of the "stuff" that is addressed in the bible. It was supposed to be up to the church. Sad to say, that's were we ( the church as a whole) dropped the ball.

Edited October 11, 2016 by MyLittleBears

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The next president will likely appoint multiple justices to the Supreme Court. If there is ever a hope of overturning Roe v. Wade, that will have to happen by having the right people on the Supreme Court.

 

There have been conservative majorities on the court at times since the 70s, and Roe has never been over turned.  Thinking it will be over turned with a couple of new justices is a pipe dream.

[Crimson Wife]

 

Women in abusive situations will be more trapped than ever before. 

 

Girls and women in abusive situations need legal help, not abortions. It has been shown that Planned Parenthood has repeatedly violated the law by not reporting statutory rape cases. Do you really think they're reporting domestic abuse of their adult patients?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Girls and women in abusive situations need legal help, not abortions. It has been shown that Planned Parenthood has repeatedly violated the law by not reporting statutory rape cases. Do you really think they're reporting domestic abuse of their adult patients?

 

But some of them want and/or need abortions and should be left to make their own decisions.

[ktgrok]

I'm not so sure though. There is one candidate that IS for open borders, even though they don't necessarily say it in public. I guess I'm just not willing to chance it, especially with the current trend of abuse of executive order.

 

That candidate talked about a utopian idea of a northern hemisphere with open borders and trade, similar to the EU. So an expansion of the EU into all of the northern hemisphere one day. 

 

But as I don't think we're about to have open borders with Russia or China, lol, and there is ZERO chance of that being passed in the congress, I don't think you have to legit worry about it. 

[ktgrok]

There's always reasons and excuses for why we all need to conform to the status quo of the two party system, and it all boils down to fear that the other party will gain too much power. And this system which divides our country and makes sure that power stays with both those parties will NEVER go away so long as people believe that it'll be the End of the World if the other party wins. The best thing that could happen for our country is if everyone got sick to death of it and voted third party. Even if the third party was kinda weird.

 

No, because the electoral college requires 270 electoral votes, so if a significant number of people are split over 3 parties versus two (or 4 or 5...I don't think people realize sometimes that even if everyone voted third party, they wouldn't vote for the SAME third party), there wouldn't be enough to declare a winner. And then the House of Reps determines the President. You want that on a regular basis? If not, then the way to fix it is to change the electoral congress, which happens in congress, not by who you vote for for president. 

[poppy]

Girls and women in abusive situations need legal help, not abortions. It has been shown that Planned Parenthood has repeatedly violated the law by not reporting statutory rape cases. Do you really think they're reporting domestic abuse of their adult patients?

My concern is not 'women will not get as many abuse screenings at planned parenthood ', and I think you know that. My concern is that currently women have some options when it comes to being pregnant in an abuse situation and lots of lawmakers want to remove those options. Unless the abuser is the pregnant girls father, sometimes.

[frogger]

This is exactly why I don't understand not voting, or voting third party or whatever, specifically by those who choose to be pro-life. It seems the supreme court justice thing is crucial.

Throw-away votes are still votes.

So you will keep voting for evil because of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That folks is why we are stuck with our current nominees. It is entirely the fault of the mindset of the American population. Fear

 

We have Congress and the Supreme Court to temper the actions of the executive power in domestic policy but not so much in foreign policy especially because the Executive branch can now authorize acts of war without Congress declaring war which is unconstitutional but common.

[MyLittleBears]

So you will keep voting for evil because of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That folks is why we are stuck with our current nominees. It is entirely the fault of the mindset of the American population. Fear

 

We have Congress and the Supreme Court to temper the actions of the executive power in domestic policy but not so much in foreign policy especially because the Executive branch can now authorize acts of war without Congress declaring war which is unconstitutional but common.

 

 

 

I like to think of it as voting against evil in this case. 

[MyLittleBears]

That candidate talked about a utopian idea of a northern hemisphere with open borders and trade, similar to the EU. So an expansion of the EU into all of the northern hemisphere one day.

 

But as I don't think we're about to have open borders with Russia or China, lol, and there is ZERO chance of that being passed in the congress, I don't think you have to legit worry about it.

But I don't like the EU either. It feels like we would be giving up our sovereignty.

[Mimm]

But I'm pro-life and don't see the Supreme Court thing as crucial.  As stated before, we can't legislate abortion away - esp in these modern times.  We could potentially make it illegal as it was before, but that won't really stop anyone from getting one.

 

These next questions are primarily directed at Christians (because it's many Christians who tend to believe this way in my IRL experience).

 

Where does Jesus or Paul or anyone in the NT advocate using gov't to set Christian standards for all?  When I read it, I see oodles of places where it's a voluntary change of the heart and a choice to live following God - and many specifics of that is between God and the individual.  There were all sorts of similar things going on back in the NT times (humans are humans), yet I see us being told not to judge the world - just to live our own life within it.  We can make more judgments within our church (money makers in the temple anyone?), but outside of it?  And protesting to Caesar (or any leader) to change anything for all?  I'm just not seeing it anywhere.

 

And if we were to do it anyway, how does that make us any better than some other countries that more or less mandate belief in their god, many of which countries get condemned by Christians.  I don't see God ever mandating that we force belief - or even that we can do that if we wanted to.

 

I'm all for protecting babies, both unborn and born, but I just can't see that happening in the real world merely by changing laws.  It's hearts and conditions that need to change to give babies better odds.  Even then, I never expect 100%.  It's simply the way the real world is - and has been pretty much forever.

 

Then too, I'm really curious what makes this so important of an issue that other aspects of our (collective) lives - the way people are treated, the way we care for God's world, the way we care for the alien (foreigner) living among us, the way we support widows and orphans - most of the "stuff" that is actually addressed more in the Bible I read, pales by comparison to that one issue (or two, because sex lives of others outside the church are often a biggie for some too - yet aren't addressed nearly as often as how we are to treat others).

 

I agree. I cringe when I see other Christians talking about a "culture war" that we have to win, and by this they mean electing people who will impose their set of morals on everyone else. How does that work? How has that EVER made anything better? Stop legislating Christianity! This harms Christians and non Christians alike. :(

 

I agree that I would rather fight abortion on better sex ed, more accessibility to birth control options for everyone, but especially teens, and more assistance for young mothers so that having a child isn't something that burdens their future quite so badly.

[Mimm]

Ideally yes, but it will never happen. For me its about voting against something, especially when supreme court justices can alter the coarse of nation almost irreparably. In my mind it would be devastating.

 

It's always devastating. It's always the most important election ever. I've never seen anyone say, "Do whatever you want, this one's no big deal." You bought into a lie, that it's the end of the world if the Other Guy wins. People on both sides buy into this lie, they do it all the time, because it's in the best interests of the parties to maintain the two party system and to do that, they have to convince you that it would be catastrophic if they lose. It's always the same! I think there was a South Park about this...

 

Personally, I vote my convictions, not my fears. At least, I try to.

[MyLittleBears]

It's always devastating. It's always the most important election ever. I've never seen anyone say, "Do whatever you want, this one's no big deal." You bought into a lie, that it's the end of the world if the Other Guy wins. People on both sides buy into this lie, they do it all the time, because it's in the best interests of the parties to maintain the two party system and to do that, they have to convince you that it would be catastrophic if they lose. It's always the same! I think there was a South Park about this...

 

Personally, I vote my convictions, not my fears. At least, I try to.

 

I diagree I really think it is worse this time because of the Supreme Court picks coming up.

[Mimm]

I diagree I really think it is worse this time because of the Supreme Court picks coming up.

 

Am I missing something? Is there some kind of guarantee those guys are going to die in the next four years? Supreme court justices are always in danger of dying because they're always old human beings. So this never ever goes away.

 

The only thing different about this election is just how revolting and unlikable both main choices are. It's a very contentious election because of that. But it's no more important or significant than any other US election.

[MyLittleBears]

Am I missing something? Is there some kind of guarantee those guys are going to die in the next four years? Supreme court justices are always in danger of dying because they're always old human beings. So this never ever goes away.

 

The only thing different about this election is just how revolting and unlikable both main choices are. It's a very contentious election because of that. But it's no more important or significant than any other US election.

 

 

There is a vacancy for Justice Scalia's seat, and two of the others are over 80yrs old. Anything can happen and just imagine all three being replaced in the next four years with liberal activist judges. That could devastate the constitution. I guess we can agree to disagree. :)

Edited October 11, 2016 by MyLittleBears

[Janie Grace]

I used to be. This election has changed me.

[ktgrok]

But I don't like the EU either. It feels like we would be giving up our sovereignty.

 

Well, like I said, ti's not going to happen. Certainly not in the next 4 years. I mean, it's just not something worth worrying about. It won't/can't happen. 

[Lecka]

When my husband was getting deployed all the time and the elections were Bush/Kerry and Obama/McCain, I would say I voted on the single issue of foreign policy and their plans for the military.

 

But I didn't pay attention to it nearly as much for Romney/Obama.

 

And, it is just one factor for me now.

 

But if I like what people are saying, or even the way they talk, on that ------ it goes so far for me, and in a different circumstance I think it could be a single issue for me again in the future.

 

But this year and for Romney/Obama, it has not been that way.

 

I don't have a single issue otherwise. Many of my views in general are either fairly neutral or more consistent with one party.

 

I do pay a lot of attention to "the other party" on this issue and during the primaries there were candidates from "the other party" who, if I really liked what they were saying on foreign policy, it would be enough for me to vote for them.

 

This is also the issue where I probably fit the least with my usual party, and where I often have a lot of agreement with the other party.

[frogger]

I like to think of it as voting against evil in this case.

I know you wouldn't approve of these actions (hopefully) but what I hear you saying is, "I'm going to vote for the rape to occur because I'm really voting against a murder and therefore I'm voting against murder not for rape. But in action you are voting for rape. " Because of so many variety of issues which I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about on this board that is exactly how your statement comes across to me.

[WoolC]

But I'm pro-life and don't see the Supreme Court thing as crucial. As stated before, we can't legislate abortion away - esp in these modern times. We could potentially make it illegal as it was before, but that won't really stop anyone from getting one.

 

These next questions are primarily directed at Christians (because it's many Christians who tend to believe this way in my IRL experience).

 

Where does Jesus or Paul or anyone in the NT advocate using gov't to set Christian standards for all? When I read it, I see oodles of places where it's a voluntary change of the heart and a choice to live following God - and many specifics of that is between God and the individual. There were all sorts of similar things going on back in the NT times (humans are humans), yet I see us being told not to judge the world - just to live our own life within it. We can make more judgments within our church (money makers in the temple anyone?), but outside of it? And protesting to Caesar (or any leader) to change anything for all? I'm just not seeing it anywhere.

 

And if we were to do it anyway, how does that make us any better than some other countries that more or less mandate belief in their god, many of which countries get condemned by Christians. I don't see God ever mandating that we force belief - or even that we can do that if we wanted to.

 

I'm all for protecting babies, both unborn and born, but I just can't see that happening in the real world merely by changing laws. It's hearts and conditions that need to change to give babies better odds. Even then, I never expect 100%. It's simply the way the real world is - and has been pretty much forever.

 

Then too, I'm really curious what makes this so important of an issue that other aspects of our (collective) lives - the way people are treated, the way we care for God's world, the way we care for the alien (foreigner) living among us, the way we support widows and orphans - most of the "stuff" that is actually addressed more in the Bible I read, pales by comparison to that one issue (or two, because sex lives of others outside the church are often a biggie for some too - yet aren't addressed nearly as often as how we are to treat others).

I agree with everything you said here. I do not believe that Christians should try to legislate morality. To me, abortion is a different issue because the legislation either protects or harms a completely vulnerable population. From my view, it's not about legislating a woman's morality but protecting the unborn. With that being said, just because a candidate claims to be pro-life doesn't guarantee that I will vote for them. Like others said, for me it is a litmus test. So far, I haven't encountered a candidate that I align with on other issues that is pro-choice anyway. I've decided to vote third party in this election cycle.

[Mimm]

I know you wouldn't approve of these actions (hopefully) but what I hear you saying is, "I'm going to vote for the rape to occur because I'm really voting against a murder and therefore I'm voting against murder not for rape. But in action you are voting for rape. " Because of so many variety of issues which I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about on this board that is exactly how your statement comes across to me.

 

This. It's really dishonest to pretend that by voting against an evil, you're not still voting FOR evil. This is why I'm so against fear based voting.

 

But really, there's no motivation for the party to support decent people (probably because there are so few available) because no matter who the nominee is, people will vote for them. They'll defend them and overlook their flaws and make excuses for them and vote for them. And comfort themselves that they're voting against an evil.

[Twolittleboys]

I know you wouldn't approve of these actions (hopefully) but what I hear you saying is, "I'm going to vote for the rape to occur because I'm really voting against a murder and therefore I'm voting against murder not for rape. But in action you are voting for rape. " Because of so many variety of issues which I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about on this board that is exactly how your statement comes across to me.

A hypothetical question (as I really don't see the current election in that way):

 

Let's assume one of the two HAS to occur. One WILL occur. So you have a choice to vote for either rape or murder. Let's say if you don't make a choice dice will be thrown to determine one of the two. Would you let chance decide or would you vote for the one you think the lesser evil?

[MyLittleBears]

I know you wouldn't approve of these actions (hopefully) but what I hear you saying is, "I'm going to vote for the rape to occur because I'm really voting against a murder and therefore I'm voting against murder not for rape. But in action you are voting for rape. " Because of so many variety of issues which I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about on this board that is exactly how your statement comes across to me.

 

 

It is really unfortunate that this is the way it is interpreted. I think it is a very big jump to assume that the words of one candidate actually=actions. AND that this means what is said above. To me this borders on intellectual dishonesty.

[MyLittleBears]

 

 

 

And to be clear I do NOT think I am voting for evil.

Edited October 11, 2016 by MyLittleBears

[frogger]

Sorry duplicated in attempt to quote. Response is below.

Edited October 11, 2016 by frogger

[ktgrok]

I know you wouldn't approve of these actions (hopefully) but what I hear you saying is, "I'm going to vote for the rape to occur because I'm really voting against a murder and therefore I'm voting against murder not for rape. But in action you are voting for rape. " Because of so many variety of issues which I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about on this board that is exactly how your statement comes across to me.

 

And in reality, if those were my two choices, yup, I'd vote for rape. Because better than dead. As they said, if the choices are chicken or steak, you can write in fish all day long, but you're going to be served chicken or steak. So yeah, if I am either going to be raped or murdered, and I have no other option, well, yeah, I'd pick rape over being murdered. 

[frogger]

It is really unfortunate that this is the way it is interpreted. I think it is a very big jump to assume that the words of one candidate actually=actions. AND that this means what is said above. To me this borders on intellectual dishonesty.

Nobody said anything about words versus actions. I'm not claiming that any specific action is something that any specific candidate did which I'm not sure would be allowed on this board. I'm making a comparison of saying I'm going to vote for these evil policies instead of these other evil policies. To be honest both policies will result in very similar results in my mind. I care more about policies than personal issues because they affect more people. It is sad that our politicians are so morally bankrupt that people can't tell that that is what I was doing.

[MyLittleBears]

Nobody said anything about words versus actions. I'm not claiming that any specific action is something that any specific candidate did which I'm not sure would be allowed on this board. I'm making a comparison of saying I'm going to vote for these evil policies instead of these other evil policies. To be honest both policies will result in very similar results in my mind. I care more about policies than personal issues because they affect more people. It is sad that our politicians are so morally bankrupt that people can't tell that that is what I was doing.

I guess then, I'm not understanding your reference in saying I am voting for rape?

 

I

[frogger]

And in reality, if those were my two choices, yup, I'd vote for rape. Because better than dead. As they said, if the choices are chicken or steak, you can write in fish all day long, but you're going to be served chicken or steak. So yeah, if I am either going to be raped or murdered, and I have no other option, well, yeah, I'd pick rape over being murdered.

So in America we have a three candidates on every ballot in every state but American's will choose murder or rape anyway because they are told the other option won't win. I'll hold out at not voting for evil and I will blame all those who choose evil when they have another option because they actually voted for it. I choose another option and you choose rape. Who's to blame when the rapist wins. Really.

Edited October 11, 2016 by frogger

[Mimm]

A hypothetical question (as I really don't see the current election in that way):

 

Let's assume one of the two HAS to occur. One WILL occur. So you have a choice to vote for either rape or murder. Let's say if you don't make a choice dice will be thrown to determine one of the two. Would you let chance decide or would you vote for the one you think the lesser evil?

 

But you can support one of those two actions or you can opt out and refuse to throw your support behind either the rape or the murder. That is an option. The thing still will occur but you will be someone who didn't support it.

[Twolittleboys]

I guess then, I'm not understanding your reference in saying I am voting for rape?

 

I

I may be wrong but I didn't read "rape" as refering to any specific candidate but just as one of two bad/unacceptable outcomes (kind of like plague or cholera).

[Twolittleboys]

But you can support one of those two actions or you can opt out and refuse to throw your support behind either the rape or the murder. That is an option. The thing still will occur but you will be someone who didn't support it.

I hear what you are saying but see it differently. One of the two will happen through no fault of mine (in the hypothetical scenario). Now if I have any preference (e.g. I think rape is preferable to death or the other way around) I feel I need to make a choice. Because otherwise, if the worse of the two happens I can maybe say "I didn't vote for it" but really I did because I didn't choose the lesser evil and so luck (or other votes or whoever) chose. So I am just as much as fault as if I had voted but have no say in the outcome.

[frogger]

I guess then, I'm not understanding your reference in saying I am voting for rape?

 

I

Well, just whatever you think is a "lesser evil". Personally I guess I'd take a risk that I can do something good than choose that someone gets hurt. If everyone thought that way we might have better options but they don't and I have to accept that.

[MyLittleBears]

Ok I see. I guess I must one of the few that sees a much much bigger contrast.

[Mimm]

I hear what you are saying but see it differently. One of the two will happen through no fault of mine (in the hypothetical scenario). Now if I have any preference (e.g. I think rape is preferable to death or the other way around) I feel I need to make a choice. Because otherwise, if the worse of the two happens I can maybe say "I didn't vote for it" but really I did because I didn't choose the lesser evil and so luck (or other votes or whoever) chose. So I am just as much as fault as if I had voted but have no say in the outcome.

 

If you vote for it, it IS your responsibility and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. You voted for it. You share in that responsibility. That's what that means. If you vote for one of these candidates, knowing all you know about them, that's something you are putting your voice behind, your support, your approval and yes, when that person gets to the White House, it does become partially your fault when they do something awful after that. That's what voting means.

 

We have to stop pretending it's not our fault when we have terrible politicians when we KNEW ahead of time what kind of men and women they were when we cast our vote! It's dishonest and cowardly.

[frogger]

Mylittlebears-That is probably true. They try to sound very different but when I examine them closely I see similar attitudes or the previous 4 administrations I see mostly similar actual actions.

Edited October 11, 2016 by frogger

[ktgrok]

So in America we have a three candidates on every ballot in every state but American's will choose murder or rape anyway because they are told the other option won't win. I'll hold out at not voting for evil and I will blame all those who choose evil when they have another option because they actually voted for it. I choose another option and you choose rape. Who's to blame when the rapist wins. Really.

 

Well, considering it is mathematically impossible for someone other than those two to win, I can sure, vote for another choice. I'll feel principled about it. But I'll still get either raped or murdered, and now I don't get to pick which one. 

 

I'd rather sell out and live than stick to my guns and get murdered. 

[ktgrok]

But you can support one of those two actions or you can opt out and refuse to throw your support behind either the rape or the murder. That is an option. The thing still will occur but you will be someone who didn't support it.

 

Yes, but now "the thing" that occurs might be murder. I'd be dead. That's worse, to me, than being raped. So not worth the 50/50 risk of being murdered. 

[Twolittleboys]

If you vote for it, it IS your responsibility and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. You voted for it. You share in that responsibility. That's what that means. If you vote for one of these candidates, knowing all you know about them, that's something you are putting your voice behind, your support, your approval and yes, when that person gets to the White House, it does become partially your fault when they do something awful after that. That's what voting means.

 

We have to stop pretending it's not our fault when we have terrible politicians when we KNEW ahead of time what kind of men and women they were when we cast our vote! It's dishonest and cowardly.

Yes, I realize I would be partly responsible. And honestly, in the above scenario (which again is hypothetical and does only very remotely pertain to the current election) I would be good with being partly responsible for rape, knowing that my choice has prevented a certain murder.

 

Obviously, real life is quite different as none of us knows for certain what really would be the result of voting for someone. Also, my reasoning would be different if there is any possibility of neither of the two occuring. So if someone believes there is even a remote chance that a third party candidate stands a chance (are there really enough people deeply unhappy with both major candidates? if so, would they all vote for the same third party candidate? and is the third candidate truly a better choice?)voting third party does make sense.

[Mimm]

Yes, but now "the thing" that occurs might be murder. I'd be dead. That's worse, to me, than being raped. So not worth the 50/50 risk of being murdered. 

 

I feel like the metaphor is being taken a little too literally at this point. Yeah, most people would vote the same way if that were literally the choice.

 

But it's just a metaphor. You aren't metaphorically voting to be murdered, but just for a murder to take place. Or maybe voting for more murders to happen. It kind of breaks down if you are talking about not surviving past the vote if you happen to vote wrong...

[ktgrok]

I feel like the metaphor is being taken a little too literally at this point. Yeah, most people would vote the same way if that were literally the choice.

 

But it's just a metaphor. You aren't metaphorically voting to be murdered, but just for a murder to take place. Or maybe voting for more murders to happen. It kind of breaks down if you are talking about not surviving past the vote if you happen to vote wrong...

 

Even still, if either a rape or a murder is going to happen, and I don't have the power to stop both, but I can stop one, then I'm going to stop the murder and then do what i can to help the rape victim. 

[Mimm]

Even still, if either a rape or a murder is going to happen, and I don't have the power to stop both, but I can stop one, then I'm going to stop the murder and then do what i can to help the rape victim. 

 

And so, nothing changes...

[ktgrok]

And so, nothing changes...

 

Better to allow the murder? And still nothing changes, because me voting third party will change nothing? The way to have better candidates is to vote in the primaries. To change state rules about allowing independents to vote in primaries. That is how we get better candidates. Me allowing a murder won't get us better candidates. 

 

Now, if I thought both were equally evil? If it was between murder and murder? Sure, I might vote 3rd party. But in this case, i can prevent a more previous problem by voting for the less grievous issue. 

[frogger]

Better to allow the murder? And still nothing changes, because me voting third party will change nothing? The way to have better candidates is to vote in the primaries. To change state rules about allowing independents to vote in primaries. That is how we get better candidates. Me allowing a murder won't get us better candidates.

 

Now, if I thought both were equally evil? If it was between murder and murder? Sure, I might vote 3rd party. But in this case, i can prevent a more previous problem by voting for the less grievous issue.

And this is pretty my much where I am. Most of these big policies are going to cause death somewhere. It could be in the back of a box truck where some coyote abandoning their human cargo to die of heat and dehydration, it could be Syrians murdered by weapons supplied by the US to rebels who became ISIS, it could be in Libya or American soldiers who have to follow these chicken hawk orders. Sadly, others pay more for our choices than we do. Doesn't seem fair. My family will likely be safe no matter what but I would rather others be safe too.

[ktgrok]

And this is pretty my much where I am. Most of these big policies are going to cause death somewhere. It could be in the back of a box truck where some coyote abandoning their human cargo to die of heat and dehydration, it could be Syrians murdered by weapons supplied by the US to rebels who became ISIS, it could be in Libya or American soldiers who have to follow these chicken hawk orders. Sadly, others pay more for our choices than we do. Doesn't seem fair. My family will likely be safe no matter what but I would rather others be safe too.

 

Ok, well murder vs murder is a whole different question. Equal evils is different than the lesser of two evils. 

[Nan in Mass]

I almost am - I think dealing with environmental issues is time-sensitive enough that provided the candidate isn,t going to percipitate a war, I will vote for the person who will deal with that and hope we can straighten out whatever other damage the candidate does later. War comes with such a high environmental price that I can lump avoiding it under that environmental issue.

 

Nan

[DawnM]

Nope

[Murphy101]

I think all people make some things of far greater priority than other things. We do it in every day life and I see no reason why people shouldn't do so wrt to voting in many cases.

 

We might disagree about what we all think should be that imperative, but I see nothing wrong with it in general.

 

For me personally, it makes no difference this election bc I think all the options are full of BS.

 

I don't at all think abortion is the only issue voter type either.

 

There's health care, gun control, jobs, international issues, a woman president.... I know people who feel very strongly on those individual issues deciding their vote.

[MercyA]

These next questions are primarily directed at Christians (because it's many Christians who tend to believe this way in my IRL experience).

 

I'm a Christian, so I'll answer.  :)

Where does Jesus or Paul or anyone in the NT advocate using gov't to set Christian standards for all?  

 

Nowhere that I see. We are to obey God, love our neighbors, live as salt and light, and preach the Gospel. That said, there are things we can do to stop abortion that have nothing to do with government policy. 

 

I believe the basic principle found in Proverbs 24 still applies:

 

"Deliver those who are being taken away to death,

And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.

If you say, 'See, we did not know this,'

Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?

And does He not know it who keeps your soul?

And will He not render to man according to his work?"

 

I do wish more people would consider personally talking to women who are considering abortion. Share information and truth. Offer help. What they do with that truth and that help is up to them.

 

Then too, I'm really curious what makes this so important of an issue 

 

Because it is the deliberate killing of human beings. The only other issue I'd put on par with it would be unjust wars. There is no Presidential candidate for whom I can vote in good conscience. 

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by MercyA