If You're On the Fence About Your Vote, This Pastor Clarifies How the Very Future of America Is At Stake

[RoosGirl]

http://www.charismanews.com/politics/opinion/59206-if-you-re-on-the-fence-about-your-vote-this-pastor-clarifies-how-the-very-future-of-america-is-at-stake

I have been asked "the question" so many times regarding Trump or Hillary. By way of background, I have followed every national convention—Republican and Democrat—from the time I was age 9, and have attended most of the GOP Conventions from 1984 to the present. I have watched the news virtually every day from the age of 8. I have never seen anything like what we are observing.

In spite of the unprecedented nature of this election cycle, I will attempt to respond to "the question." I am not demanding that anyone else share my view. But I was asked. Here is my best attempt to answer as I am able to see things at this time:

1.   The Democratic and Republican party platforms are as different as night and day, in my opinion, as far apart as evil vs. good. The 51-page Democratic platform is the most leftist ever. (I don't care for the "right vs. left" nomenclature. I am far more concerned with "right vs. wrong.") The Democratic platform contains many points which are anti-biblical. (Time does not permit me here to identify what is meant by "anti-biblical," which is covered in my new book Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today's Tough Issues.) It is thoroughly socialistic (a socialist is a communist without a gun). The 54-page GOP platform is one of the strongest GOP platforms ever. A biblically alert person could be comfortable with almost all of it. Party platforms are a big issue to me. Although some "blow off" party platforms, I do not. Nor do many people up and down the ballot who are running for office. This is a serious and very important item. I have a hard copy of both platforms in front of me now. Most people have never checked out what the party platforms say. They should. If a person is not drawn to the "top-of-the-ballot" candidate, they ought to at least consider voting for the candidate attached to the best party platform.

Continued...

[Oceander]

Congress, not the President, puts a party's platform into place.  If you like the GOP platform, that only implies you should support the GOP Congress.  It does not mean that you should support whatever dreg the GOP has put up as the presidential nominee.

So, please, vote GOP downticket if you want to do what you can to stop the democrats from doing more damage.  As for the president, rely on your conscience, and your conscience alone.

[Night Hides Not]

Congress, not the President, puts a party's platform into place.  If you like the GOP platform, that only implies you should support the GOP Congress.  It does not mean that you should support whatever dreg the GOP has put up as the presidential nominee.

So, please, vote GOP downticket if you want to do what you can to stop the democrats from doing more damage.  As for the president, rely on your conscience, and your conscience alone.

All I know is that the Texas Congressional delegation has been a major disappointment, with very few exceptions.

[Oceander]

All I know is that the Texas Congressional delegation has been a major disappointment, with very few exceptions.

And the president, by his lonesome, is going to stop a determined DNC-controlled Congress, let alone be able to enact his political agenda?

[HonestJohn]

Every single election has been the "one that would determine that fate of America" since I could vote.

It's the political version of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Furthermore, aren't churches granted tax-exempt status on the basis of separation of church and state?  By that logic, churches are supposed to refrain from state matters, such as influencing election (ie: telling somehow how to vote). 

This pastor has violated that.  He and his church could (and probably should) now be taxed as it is not a house of worship, but a political action committee.

[Oceander]

Every single election has been the "one that would determine that fate of America" since I could vote.

It's the political version of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Furthermore, aren't churches granted tax-exempt status on the basis of separation of church and state?  By that logic, churches are supposed to refrain from state matters, such as influencing election (ie: telling somehow how to vote). 

This pastor has violated that.  He and his church should now be taxed.

Tax-exempt status isn't granted because of the separation of church and state; however, a requirement for getting and keeping tax-exempt status is that the organization cannot engage in certain types of political action.  Whether this violates the rules or not I do not know.

[Night Hides Not]

And the president, by his lonesome, is going to stop a determined DNC-controlled Congress, let alone be able to enact his political agenda?

The Uniparty controls Congress. Texas delegation, except for Cruz and Gohmert, has been coopted.

[geronl]

If you vote for the liberal New Yorker we are doomed!!

 

[Oceander]

The Uniparty controls Congress. Texas delegation, except for Cruz and Gohmert, has been coopted.

Really?  There certainly didn't seem to be unanimity amongst everyone other than those two.  One would have expected that the GOP would have voted with the DNC on Obamacare if that were the case; however, not a single republican voted for Obamacare.

[geronl]

Really?  There certainly didn't seem to be unanimity amongst everyone other than those two.  One would have expected that the GOP would have voted with the DNC on Obamacare if that were the case; however, not a single republican voted for Obamacare.

They also did not vote to cut its funding, the GOP leadership fought tooth and nail to keep funding ObamaCare.

[Oceander]

They also did not vote to cut its funding, the GOP leadership fought tooth and nail to keep funding ObamaCare.

No they didn't.  But they did realize that any bill that tried to do that would be vetoed, period.  What's the point of trying to do something that you know is doomed to failure, and especially if you know you'll get blamed for that failure (rightly or wrongly)?

[geronl]

No they didn't.  But they did realize that any bill that tried to do that would be vetoed, period.  What's the point of trying to do something that you know is doomed to failure, and especially if you know you'll get blamed for that failure (rightly or wrongly)?

Yes, they did not just roll their eyes. They actively opposed any effort to remove the funding. Boehner and McConnell fought Ted Cruz harder than they have ever fought Obama.

[Sanguine]

All I know is that the Texas Congressional delegation has been a major disappointment, with very few exceptions.

No kidding!