Well, you can vote for anyone you'd like. But realistically, there are only two candidate who have a shot at winning this election. The most effective way to prevent either of them from winning the Presidency is to vote for the other. You are choosing not to vote for either of those two candidate, and are instead choosing to vote for someone who has no realistic chance at winning.
So yes, you are technically not abstaining from the election. But you are refusing to choose between the only two candidates with a chance of winning.
Honest question here. If it was Trump versus someone even worse than Hillary -- a Chavez, Al-Baghdadi, Stalin, Castro, etc.., and those were the only two candidates with a realistic shot at winning, would you still vote 3rd party?
I'm asking because i'm trying to figure out how much of your position is "they're not much different" versus "I wouldn't vote for anyone like Trump under any circumstances.".
Best way to answer your question is relaying a conversation and discussion I had with several Christian pastors of different denominations regarding "purity of the faith". In their estimation, those of us who adhere to strict biblical interpretations regarding Islam and other non-biblical religions and Homosexuality/fornication/adultery were 'harming' the church because we refuse to 'smell reality' and "adapt" to the changing times so as to 'save the church' from it's declining growth in America.
To them, embracing sin and apostasy is permissible because biblical principles are no longer popular, and those who refuse to embrace things like Chrislam and Homosexual marriage are harming the faith. If we do not embrace Islam, we are Islamophobes, and if we refuse to endorse and accept homosexual behavior, we are homophobes. "Standing on the bible is outdated" and unrealistic they assured me. Tenets of the faith are apparently as disposable as Conservative principles when "prudence" is claimed.
So when I read your reply - in my mind it sounds like this to me:
'Well, you can worship how you like. But
realistically, you must accept gays and Muslims if you want a shot at saving or growing the church. By refusing to accept what is socially and morally acceptable today is choosing to operate a congregation with no realistic chance of growing.
There are worse sins than those you point out - racism and bigotry being the worst. They shame the Name of Christ and belittle the church'.
You see Maj., Conservatism to someone like me is a guiding set of immutable principles that govern everything in terms of how I look at this world. It's just another extension of my biblical faith. So to ask me whether or not I would choose murder or choose adultery as a better choice, my answer is neither is a better choice. The death penalty form The Lord is applied no matter which of those Laws I break and then justify as acceptable. Repentance is required, and efforts to 'go and sin no more' are expected. Justifying sin is not repentance.
I have repented of choosing persons of wicked character simply because everyone insists that the other guy is worse. Yes, we are all flawed - but I refuse to support someone whose character is marked by justified wicked behavior without a shred of humility.
It's time to do what is right, even if I am the only one left doing it and everyone else declares me evil.
