Love your neighbor . . . Vote for Trump

[tieman55]

To vote against Donald Trump, is not loving your neighbor.

To love your neighbor, sometimes you must put aside your "wisdom", and vote for and or support a person who you may have particular problems with.

A good neighbor will vote for and support a candidate who is the better practical choice for their neighbor/neighborhood and has a real chance of being elected.

A good neighbor will vote against, and argue against a candidate who is the least practical choice, for their neighbor/neighborhood, and has a real chance of being elected.

If you vote for a candidate that has no possible chance of winning, your pride has taken the place of the love you should have shown towards your neighbor/neighborhood. If you love your neighbor you do what is best for them and not your pride.

We all have reasons for doing things, I find myself very often being pragmatic . . . and I don't always feel good about those pragmatic actions/ decisions. So, I try to use the test of "Is what I want to do, is it loving my neighbor? Wrong or right, I feel much better about doing those outwardly pragmatic things . . . when I consider my neighbor and I am voting for Trump!

Always, love your neighbor as you love yourself.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh, I reckon Trump loves himself enough without any more support...

How you equate a vote against Trump as "not loving one's neighbour" is just bizarre beyond words.

:freak:

 

[ok doser]

How you equate a vote against Trump ...

in the primaries, moron

understand the argument before you attack it

 

[quip]

in the primaries, moron

understand the argument before you attack it

Re: Brain's post. What's the difference?

 

[Clete]

To vote against Donald Trump, is not loving your neighbor.

To love your neighbor, sometimes you must put aside your "wisdom", and vote for and or support a person who you may have particular problems with.

A good neighbor will vote for and support a candidate who is the better practical choice for their neighbor/neighborhood and has a real chance of being elected.

A good neighbor will vote against, and argue against a candidate who is the least practical choice, for their neighbor/neighborhood, and has a real chance of being elected.

If you vote for a candidate that has no possible chance of winning, your pride has taken the place of the love you should have shown towards your neighbor/neighborhood. If you love your neighbor you do what is best for them and not your pride.

We all have reasons for doing things, I find myself very often being pragmatic . . . and I don't always feel good about those pragmatic actions/ decisions. So, I try to use the test of "Is what I want to do, is it loving my neighbor? Wrong or right, I feel much better about doing those outwardly pragmatic things . . . when I consider my neighbor and I am voting for Trump!

Always, love your neighbor as you love yourself.

This one of those issues that I have always been able to clearly see both sides of and have always had a difficult time deciding which side has the better argument.

How would you respond to the following...

The lesser of two evils is still evil and casting an affirmative vote in support of evil is not wisdom but foolishness. When good people support evil, the Devil can take a vacation and let his enemies do his bidding for him. If one is willing to vote for the lesser of two evils then where does that train stop? You'd vote for Trump over Clinton but would you vote for Clinton over Sanders, would you vote for Sanders over a modern equivalent of Mussolini, maybe vote for Mussolini over Hitler, Hitler over Stalin, Stalin over Mao? How far down into that bottomless pit are you willing to go?



As for me, that argument seems to be less of an argument about who to vote for (or not) and more of an argument against the idea of having a system where people vote their leaders into office in the first place. If the intent is to argue against democracy then it's makes a great point but once you find yourself in a democracy, the argument loses its punch because the result is to divorce good people from having any influence on who gets into office because, regardless of who's running, so long as they are human beings, the best you could hope for is still the lesser of two evils.

As such, I've always come down on the side that agrees with your opening post. We do not live in a Christian society but we have been given the right to influence this society with our vote and we should avail ourselves of that opportunity. We have a chance to cast our vote for our favorite candidate in the primary but once the die is cast and the general election has come around, it seems to me that Christians can only hope to stem the tide of evil, to hinder the advance of injustice and tyranny as best we can by voting for whomever it is that we are convinced will govern furthest to the right.

 

[ok doser]

Re: Brain's post. What's the difference?

Exactly

 

[ok doser]

This one of those issues that I have always been able to clearly see both sides of and have always had a difficult time deciding which side has the better argument.

How would you respond to the following...

The lesser of two evils is still evil and casting an affirmative vote in support of evil is not wisdom but foolishness. When good people support evil, the Devil can take a vacation and let his enemies do his bidding for him. If one is willing to vote for the lesser of two evils then where does that train stop? You'd vote for Trump over Clinton but would you vote for Clinton over Sanders, would you vote for Sanders over a modern equivalent of Mussolini, maybe vote for Mussolini over Hitler, Hitler over Stalin, Stalin over Mao? How far down into that bottomless pit are you willing to go?



As for me, that argument seems to be less of an argument about who to vote for (or not) and more of an argument against the idea of having a system where people vote their leaders into office in the first place. If the intent is to argue against democracy then it's makes a great point but once you find yourself in a democracy, the argument loses its punch because the result is to divorce good people from having any influence on who gets into office because, regardless of who's running, so long as they are human beings, the best you could hope for is still the lesser of two evils.

As such, I've always come down on the side that agrees with your opening post. We do not live in a Christian society but we have been given the right to influence this society with our vote and we should avail ourselves of that opportunity. We have a chance to cast our vote for our favorite candidate in the primary but once the die is cast and the general election has come around, it seems to me that Christians can only hope to stem the tide of evil, to hinder the advance of injustice and tyranny as best we can by voting for whomever it is that we are convinced will govern furthest to the right.

:thumb:

In the primaries, vote for the best candidate you can find.

In the general, vote against the worst candidate

 

[quip]

Exactly

Then you're the moron then? Ok.

 

[ok doser]

Then you're the moron then? Ok.

:darwinsm:


classic!

 

[Rusha]

To vote against Donald Trump, is not loving your neighbor.

Actually, you have this backwards. I refuse to support the evil that is trump because I DO love my neighbor. Well most of them.

 

[ok doser]

... the evil that is trump ...

it scares the hell out of you deranged feminists to realize that he will replace Ginsburg with a conservative justice, doesn't it? :darwinsm:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Re: Brain's post. What's the difference?

There isn't...

But, hey...

:rain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Actually, you have this backwards. I refuse to support the evil that is trump because I DO love my neighbor. Well most of them.

It's another one of those :dizzy: threads where it almost beggars belief that people can fawn over this clown to such an extent...

 

[jgarden]

To vote against Donald Trump, is not loving your neighbor.

To love your neighbor, sometimes you must put aside your "wisdom", and vote for and or support a person who you may have particular problems with.

A good neighbor will vote for and support a candidate who is the better practical choice for their neighbor/neighborhood and has a real chance of being elected.

A good neighbor will vote against, and argue against a candidate who is the least practical choice, for their neighbor/neighborhood, and has a real chance of being elected.

If you vote for a candidate that has no possible chance of winning, your pride has taken the place of the love you should have shown towards your neighbor/neighborhood. If you love your neighbor you do what is best for them and not your pride.

We all have reasons for doing things, I find myself very often being pragmatic . . . and I don't always feel good about those pragmatic actions/ decisions. So, I try to use the test of "Is what I want to do, is it loving my neighbor? Wrong or right, I feel much better about doing those outwardly pragmatic things . . . when I consider my neighbor and I am voting for Trump!

Always, love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Over 10 000 Kurds gave their lives defeating ISIS - ask them how much "LOVE" this President showed them once they had outlived their usefulness?

 

[quip]

:darwinsm:


classic!

Yep!
"....understand the argument before you attack it" :third:

 

[Clete]

Over 10 000 Kurds gave their lives defeating ISIS - ask them how much "LOVE" this President showed them once they had outlived their usefulness?

Turn off CNN! You're being lied too!

 

[quip]

It's another one of those :dizzy: threads where it almost beggars belief that people can fawn over this clown to such an extent...

...and whilst doing so one is being "loving to thy neighbor". Thus, I must ask how a pragmatist pragmatically defines 'neighbor'....probably at a literal range and scope, you think?