Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Brother Rick

Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Recommended Posts


Good Morning folks! Did I miss the talk on separation? Why would we ever consider voting for an unsaved person, a heathen? Neither Romney, nor Gingrich or Santorum has made repentence toward God and put his faith in Jesus Christ. Ron Paul's testimony is questionable and very shallow at best.

Romans 16:17 - "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

What is it this election for? It's an election for a secular position as ordained in law for this nation (The U..S. Constitution).

So, you will never be voting in any election for anyone outside the local church?

Under the U.S. Constitution there will be no "religious test" for a public office.

I like separation but, I can't agree with you it applies to voting in elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



From what I've read and seen of Newt's idea of seeking forgiveness, it seems much more of the Catholic sort and not biblical. From many statements he's made, and the way he's talked about his adulteries, he doesn't seem sincere.

The Constitution would indeed restrict the desires of most running for office, which is why they ignore the Constitution, admit by their stated plans they won't follow the Constitution, and rule according to their worldview, not what the Constitution says. The Constitution was meant to be a chain to bind the federal government to its limited roles and to bind those in federal government to their limited roles. Those chains have long since been cast off and whoever wins the Dem or Repub nomination and becomes president will not seek to restore those constitutional chains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What is it this election for? It's an election for a secular position as ordained in law for this nation (The U..S. Constitution).

So, you will never be voting in any election for anyone outside the local church?

Under the U.S. Constitution there will be no "religious test" for a public office.

I like separation but, I can't agree with you it applies to voting in elections.

What does apply is voting as Christians.

Even if one chooses not to consider their Christianity and only want to go by the Constitution, one would be hard pressed to find a candidate who would actually take the oath of office seriously and actually do all they could to follow and restore the Constitution.

Would a voter be following the Constittution if they voted for a man who has put forth his plans that mostly are unconstitutional and has no plans for restoring the government and country to following the Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What does apply is voting as Christians.

Even if one chooses not to consider their Christianity and only want to go by the Constitution, one would be hard pressed to find a candidate who would actually take the oath of office seriously and actually do all they could to follow and restore the Constitution.

Would a voter be following the Constittution if they voted for a man who has put forth his plans that mostly are unconstitutional and has no plans for restoring the government and country to following the Constitution?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. But, I hope those people stay home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a "write in" candidate as a real candidate. I feel the best thing to do is vote for the best candidate.

I'm really not trying to be a bugger about this, but why do you "feel" this way? Is God not able to make a write-in candidate win? Really, what is the ONE DIFFERENCE between a write-in candidate and an official Repub candidate (other than that the write-in guy has better principles, character, and policy ideas than the official candidate)? The one and only difference is that the Repub candidate is more electable, right? Might this be why you "feel" that you should vote for a "real candidate"? I have absolutely no problem with this perspective (in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with it); the problem I have is if/when those who have taken me to task for considering "electability" as a factor in my decision about whom to vote for, and who say that they vote "on principle only" do not act in accordance with that claim. They say one thing out loud in a forum (and talk vitriolically about people who would "compromise their principles" by taking "electability" into consideration), while at the same time choosing to vote for a candidate whose principles they do not completely share instead of writing someone in or selecting "none of the above." You say "po-ta-to," I say "po-tah-to," but it all boils down to the same thing: both of us consider "electability" in our decision about whom to nominate for President.


There's a difference between whim and desire. Whims come and go, but desires do not. The American people desire to have good jobs, they desire to be able to take care of their family without leaning on the government, they desire to be able to have a leader that is consistent and moral, they desire to have their troops at home unless there's a good reason to not, they desire to have less taxes, and they desire to have more freedom. Those are real substantial desires, and they are best represented by Ron Paul.

The people do not desire Ron Paul to be their President. Not even the Republicans desire to have him as President. They never have, in any poll to date. It's not a whim, but a consistently expressed aversion.



The reason Paul's followers are fiercely loyal is because they've figured this out. If Paul won the primary, people would notice and there would be a clear choice between a huge government and a small government candidate. If Newt or Mitt gets it, we'll be choosing between a big government candidate and a huge government candidate.

I could be WAY wrong (it's happened a few times before ;) ), but I don't see any way that Paul is going to win the primary. Not even his own party likes him. So, really, the point is moot. I would not vote for Ron Paul in the primary; the only time I would vote for him (holding my nose) would be in the general election against Obama.

If Paul got it, over the course of the election process the American people would be educated to the principles that Paul embraces, and his electability would grow as a result of it. Paul's followers generally support him out of principle and real desire, which is why you don't see his ratings bounce around like crazy. The other guys are all over the map and a single news article or debate can throw them off kilter - there is no principle behind their "electability" and there won't be any when either one of them gets in the ring with Obama.

Paul has had enough media exposure over the course of his political career (1976 to the present, including three runs for President to date) to provide ample opportunity for him to "educate" the American people about his principles. Yet he has still, after 35 years, not been able to attract a following of any significance; could this inability be due, not to a lack of education and understanding, but to a lack of agreement? He has remained on the fringe; his policies do not resonate with the vast majority of Republicans, let alone the rest of the country.

Look, I sure don't want to vilify Ron Paul. There are certainly some things about him that I find refreshing. But he's way off in other areas, IMO. He doesn't reflect what I'm looking for in a President. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As many are quick to point out, there are not perfect candidates. What strikes me as ironic is that of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who truly respects the Constitution, would take his oath to the same seriously, and has a plan to work within the bounds of the Constitution and to begin restoring the government and country to following the Constitution. Ron Pauls positions with regards to the federal government are far closer to those of the Founders than any other candidate.

Yet, the vast majority of those who claim to want to abide by the Constitution, who claim they want the government and country to obey the Constitution, who say they want a return to the principles of the Founding Fathers, won't support Ron Paul and even denounce is constittutional positions and his positions in keeping with the Founders.

It's not just Ron Paul who receives such treatment. Patrick J. Buchanan received similar when he ran for president. Candidates for other offices have enountered like treatment.

What seems to actually be the case is that most so-called conservatives, constitutionalists, traditionalists and those of similar mind, either have a false or deluded view of what that means, or they are simply clinging to a lable while not understanding it's actual meaning. At the same time, they don't actually want what they claim to stand for. They don't want the federal government limited down to it's constitutional place, they don't want to give up all their pet unconstittutional programs, agencies and benefits, they don't want to see America follow the ideals set forth by the Founders and followed for over a hundred years successfully.

What most voters want is a politician that will tell them what they want to hear. So long as their ears are tickled, they are happy and enthusiastic. If they have money in their pockets and entertainment, they willingly turn a blind eye to the rest.

This is why we see one president after another, along with one congress after another, that continues to defy the Constitution, grow and expand unconstitutionalism, and run America faster in the wrong direction. It's what most of the people want whether they even see it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you say about Ron Paul is true, then why don't Republicans like him? Could it be that his quirks and his inability to lead outweigh any value his policies may have? Having the right ideas is no good if you can't implement them, or if you can't communicate them effectively enough to get people on board with you. In this way, my dad would make just as great of a President as Ron Paul. He's a man of principle, a Consitutionalist, etc., but would have no clue how to work with people in Washington, or how to command respect as an effective leader of a nation.

IMO, Paul comes across as a whiner, a complainer...as almost angry, even. He can talk a lot about what's wrong with this country (can't we all!) but doesn't offer solutions that appear realistic or workable.

Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you say about Ron Paul is true, then why don't Republicans like him? Could it be that his quirks and his inability to lead outweigh any value his policies may have? Having the right ideas is no good if you can't implement them, or if you can't communicate them effectively enough to get people on board with you. In this way, my dad would make just as great of a President as Ron Paul. He's a man of principle, a Consitutionalist, etc., but would have no clue how to work with people in Washington, or how to command respect as an effective leader of a nation.

IMO, Paul comes across as a whiner, a complainer...as almost angry, even. He can talk a lot about what's wrong with this country (can't we all!) but doesn't offer solutions that appear realistic or workable.

The problem is most who call themselves constitutionalists don't really know what that actually means or implies. The same with most conservatives who claim to want the government to abide by the Constitution.

Ron Paul has put forth workable plans that would restore the economy, the federal government and country back into the bounds of the Constitution.

One reason many don't understand Paul's message is because his message isn't a sound bite designed to tickle ears. Like statesmen of old, Paul actually addresses the issues rather than coining catchy sound bites that are virtually meaningless. Look at how debates were once held in this country. Men running for office would stand up and debate, actually debate, their positions for hours. No "one minute response" or "30 second rebuttals". They would lay forth their views in detail and then, in detail, each side would debate the issues.

Another reason some don't understand the message is because they are ignorant of their own history and of the Constitution.

Several past presidents, by todays standards, would have been considered poor communicators, coming off in some negative way, but much of that is due to television and time constraints.

If one were to read just a couple of Patrick J. Buchanan's books they would know more than the average college graduate with regards to American history and the Constitution.

Most Republicans, while they claim to want limited government, would raise as much a cry as would most Democrats if a plan was implemented to restore the federal government to its constitutional limits. This is why folks like Patrick J. Buchanan and Ron Paul could only get limited support when they ran for president. Any time prior to FDR either of these men would have stood a good chance at being elected president. With Americans today being so used to unconstitutional government and so much in love with much of it, only those who will perpetuate the ruination of the constitution and country can get elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exodus 18:21 was one verse our Founders used to form the basis of our American government.

"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:"

Men who fear God is the first prerequisite. None of the current top tier candidates fear God. What does God say about the heathen; men and women who do not fear Him? He refers to them as Proud, Know-nothing and Fools. I highly doubt that God would have us vote for any of these proud, knowing nothing fools to lead our nation. As New Testament Christians, me included, we have failed to cultivate candidates who love and fear the Lord. Ron Paul is the only one running who might be saved according to the Scriptures. Biblically, that's our only choice.

Edited by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is most who call themselves constitutionalists don't really know what that actually means or implies. The same with most conservatives who claim to want the government to abide by the Constitution.
It's not as cut and dried as you indicate here, John. The Constitution is like the Bible (or any document, really, which lays out principles): people disagree on interpretation at times, and even have different approaches to intepretation. There's a spectrum here, not a strict division between "constitutionalists" and "nonconstitutionalists." Ron Paul appears to be on one extreme end of the spectrum.
Ron Paul has put forth workable plans that would restore the economy, the federal government and country back into the bounds of the Constitution.
That might well be, but he has been unable to convince people that these plans will work (or even that his way of looking at the Constitution is valid). I'm one of those people. As I said, a guy might have some great ideas, but if he's not an effective leader (can't work with people, can't negotiate and compromise, can't get people on board with him, can't inspire people to follow him, can't convince people that his ideas have merit, etc.), then he'd make a poor President, because none of his ideas would ever be implemented.
One reason many don't understand Paul's message is because his message isn't a sound bite designed to tickle ears. Like statesmen of old, Paul actually addresses the issues rather than coining catchy sound bites that are virtually meaningless. Look at how debates were once held in this country. Men running for office would stand up and debate, actually debate, their positions for hours. No "one minute response" or "30 second rebuttals". They would lay forth their views in detail and then, in detail, each side would debate the issues.
Again, this could be true, but the debates aren't the only chance the candidates have to interact with people. There are town hall meetings, loooong speeches, Q & A sessions, press conferences, etc., etc., etc. And Ron Paul has (if I'm not mistaken) been at this a whole lot longer than any of the other Repub candidates (except maybe Newt...I haven't really researched it). His political career began in 1976, and he ran for President back in the '80s. He has had plenty of time to get his ideas out there. Yet he has been unable to garner a large following even in his own party.
Several past presidents, by todays standards, would have been considered poor communicators, coming off in some negative way, but much of that is due to television and time constraints.
Yep. The times, they are a-changin'. To be elected President today, a man must be able to state his principles clearly and concisely. If he is able to connect with people effectively, they will want to hear more (and then he can go into more detail). Ron Paul has apparently been unable to do this.
Most Republicans, while they claim to want limited government, would raise as much a cry as would most Democrats if a plan was implemented to restore the federal government to its constitutional limits. This is why folks like Patrick J. Buchanan and Ron Paul could only get limited support when they ran for president. Any time prior to FDR either of these men would have stood a good chance at being elected president. With Americans today being so used to unconstitutional government and so much in love with much of it, only those who will perpetuate the ruination of the constitution and country can get elected.
Right...Ron Paul is unelectable. (I don't agree necessarily with your reasoning here, but I do agree that Paul is unelectable, and I don't know why anyone would vote for him in the primary.) Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one thing if the Republicans had some really likeable and flamboyant candidate to go to, but to put your vote on Newt or Mitt based on "electability" is just plain silly. Newt is a charmless arrogant blowhard that women despise because he has the morals of an alley cat, and Mitt is a corny, plastic, un-relatable, big-government, big business suit. If I'm supposed to ditch Ron Paul for someone that is "electable," then by golly show me someone that is electable. What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're all frustrated, Rick. I know I am...I'm not completely happy with any of the Republican candidates. They all have major baggage. But (going back to where we agree) it's my duty to vote for the lesser of two evils...and since ANY of the Republican candidates would be better than Obama, I'm voting for the one I think is most likely to beat him (who also happens to be the one I agree with most policy-wise). Nominating a guy who has no chance of beating Obama is casting a vote for the greater evil.

No one is asking you to "ditch Ron Paul." You've got to vote how you think is best. I am just trying to point out what I see as inconsistencies in your thinking (which you have not addressed yet). Like, why not write in someone or vote none of the above if you're really voting only on principle and are not taking electability into account at all? Surely you know someone who agrees with you more completely at all levels of policy than Ron Paul does.

Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see write-ins as legitimate candidates, so I don't vote for them. To try and draw equivalence between a write-in and Ron Paul is crazy.

Ronald Regan said the following about Paul, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Also, as far as current electability, the men who fight, bleed, and die for our country overwhelming support Ron Paul. I'm guessing they are more concerned about the substance of a man instead of whims of the fickle masses. He gets more military support than our current commander-in-chief does, and he get more support than all other Republican candidates combines. That is not someone who is unelectable, and it certainly isn't the same as a write in.


Watch this video: http://vimeo.com/36084205


2011-Q2-Q3-Q4-graph.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see write-ins as legitimate candidates, so I don't vote for them. To try and draw equivalence between a write-in and Ron Paul is crazy.

So, my question is this: why don't you see write-ins as legitimate candidates? You've used the word "available"..Well, write-in candidates are just as "available" as any other to vote for. And, I'm not at all drawing equivalence between a write-in and Ron Paul. I am saying that Ron Paul is more electable than a write-in candidate...and that's the reason why you vote for Ron Paul over a write-in. You cannot tell me that you are voting completely on principle, not taking electability into account, when you vote for Ron Paul over a write-in candidate. Your position is inconsistent (unless you really support the legalization of prostitution, heroin, and cocaine).
Ronald Regan said the following about Paul, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Also, as far as current electability, the men who fight, bleed, and die for our country overwhelming support Ron Paul. I'm guessing they are more concerned about the substance of a man instead of whims of the fickle masses. He gets more military support than our current commander-in-chief does, and he get more support than all other Republican candidates combines. That is not someone who is unelectable, and it certainly isn't the same as a write in.



So, now you are saying Ron Paul is electable? And you say at the same time that you don't take electability into consideration? I'm confused about what you really think. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exodus 18:21 was one verse our Founders used to form the basis of our American government.

"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:"

Men who fear God is the first prerequisite. None of the current top tier candidates fear God. What does God say about the heathen; men and women who do not fear Him? He refers to them as Proud, Know-nothing and Fools. I highly doubt that God would have us vote for any of these proud, knowing nothing fools to lead our nation. As New Testament Christians, me included, we have failed to cultivate candidates who love and fear the Lord. Ron Paul is the only one running who might be saved according to the Scriptures. Biblically, that's our only choice.


I don't know if I could apply the above to our election. These men were chosen by Moses to apply the Law given of God to Moses. We're not allowed to apply a religious test under the laws of this nation. We have to vote to chose a man to a purely secular position, not to administer the Mosaic Law.

It would be great if God would send Moses to chose leaders for our nation but I don't expect it. We who are Christians passing through this world have to do the best we can with what God has provided. Maybe we're fulfilling God's will to set in place the government which "as a nation" we deserve. This nation is out of God's will, and we were out of God's will when Obama was elected. Maybe the confusion over who should replace Obama is God's will for a nation which has refused to "humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways." Edited by 1Tim115

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one thing if the Republicans had some really likeable and flamboyant candidate to go to, but to put your vote on Newt or Mitt based on "electability" is just plain silly. Newt is a charmless arrogant blowhard that women despise because he has the morals of an alley cat, and Mitt is a corny, plastic, un-relatable, big-government, big business suit. If I'm supposed to ditch Ron Paul for someone that is "electable," then by golly show me someone that is electable. What a joke.


Have you noticed, presidential elections seems to cause more divisions among Christians more than anything else.

Looks to me like Mr. Rommy will be able to write a book on how a rich man can buy the presidency of this United States of America, or at least the republican party nomination.

Either way the Mormon faith will gain more respectability in this nation than it has ever had, with many Christians thinking its just another Christian group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've explained myself very clearly several times here. If you want to strain at gnats to find inconsistencies in what I'm saying than have at it.

What you have said very clearly is that people who take electability into consideration are "unstable," "just plain silly," "sacrificing their values," and "leaning on their own understanding." (As far as I can recall, I don't think I've lobbed any such insults your way.) What you have not explained clearly is how you yourself are not taking electability into consideration when you would vote for a man who is in favor of legalizing prostitution and heroin and cocaine usage over a man whom you could write in who agrees with your principles. I like ya, Rick--I really, really do--and I don't mean to frustrate you. Could you explain how what you are doing by voting for RP is any different than what I'm doing (as far as considering electability goes--I'm not talking about comparing the qualities/policies of the two candidates)? How can you be "voting on principle" and not on "electability," since the only thing Ron Paul has on the write-in guy is that he has more people voting for him, and thus is more electable? Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you noticed, presidential elections seems to cause more divisions among Christians more than anything else.

If that is true, it's sad. My husband was "de-friended" on FB because he doesn't support Santorum. People take this WAY too seriously and personally. I love a good discussion; that's why I'm in here. I honestly don't care who my friends are voting for; it's between them and the Lord. But I like to make people think, and have my own thinking challenged as well. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone have a problem with taking "electability" into consideration when making a choice about a primary vote. I'm having a good time discussing it, and I assure you my feelings aren't getting hurt. :)

And, I don't "like" ANY of the Republican candidates; I can't get excited about any of them. But if one of them beats Obama, the nation will be better off for sure, if only a little. (I'm not holding my breath.) Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What you have said very clearly is that people who take electability into consideration are "unstable," "just plain silly," "sacrificing their values," and "leaning on their own understanding." (As far as I can recall, I don't think I've lobbed any such insults your way.) What you have not explained clearly is how you yourself are not taking electability into consideration when you would vote for a man who is in favor of legalizing prostitution and heroin and cocaine usage over a man whom you could write in who agrees with your principles. I like ya, Rick--I really, really do--and I don't mean to frustrate you. Could you explain how what you are doing by voting for RP is any different than what I'm doing (as far as considering electability goes--I'm not talking about comparing the qualities/policies of the two candidates)? How can you be "voting on principle" and not on "electability," since the only thing Ron Paul has on the write-in guy is that he has more people voting for him, and thus is more electable?



In this country people have decided that the federal government is God. The “godverment” provides for all our needs and also tells us what is right and wrong. Most people believe that something is right or wrong based upon whether it is legal or not. Ron Paul is in favor of removing the power of God from the federal government and letting the states decide what they believe is right or wrong.

Ron Paul isn't in favor of legalizing those things. What he is in favor of is following the Constitution when it says things like that should be decided by individual states. If what Ron Paul supported on this issue actually went into effect Roe Vs Wade would dissolve and every state would decide on its own what to do about abortion, and most states would outlaw it.

You are straining at gnats about the electability thing. If you keep it up might get a headache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Have you noticed, presidential elections seems to cause more divisions among Christians more than anything else.

Looks to me like Mr. Rommy will be able to write a book on how a rich man can buy the presidency of this United States of America, or at least the republican party nomination.

Either way the Mormon faith will gain more respectability in this nation than it has ever had, with many Christians thinking its just another Christian group.


I'm with you...Mormonism is a cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If that is true, it's sad. My husband was "de-friended" on FB because he doesn't support Santorum. People take this WAY too seriously and personally. I love a good discussion; that's why I'm in here. I honestly don't care who my friends are voting for; it's between them and the Lord. But I like to make people think, and have my own thinking challenged as well. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone have a problem with taking "electability" into consideration when making a choice about a primary vote. I'm having a good time discussing it, and I assure you my feelings aren't getting hurt. :)

And, I don't "like" ANY of the Republican candidates; I can't get excited about any of them. But if one of them beats Obama, the nation will be better off for sure, if only a little. (I'm not holding my breath.)




Haven't you noticed the division that shows up on these 122 post & 7 pages right here in this topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





Haven't you noticed the division that shows up on these 122 post & 7 pages right here in this topic?

I don't think of it as "division," but as "discussion" among friends. That's how I see it, anyway. I don't see it as a serious enough thing to "divide" Christian brothers and sisters. Anyone who does shouldn't get involved in discussions like this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 18 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...