Why are Christians voting for Donald Trump?

[John Young]

6 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Which one of you is running for President of The United States?

I may eventually.  but as it stands now my choice is Cruz. Second would be Kasich mainly because he knows how to run a state. Third would be Rubio. If they all drop out I may look into a third party candidate as a protest vote even though I know they will not win. I doubt I can in good conscience vote Trump even though he would be a better choice over Hilary or Sanders for our country.

[HappyChristian]

Trump is an immoral pervert. He will never get my vote. Cruz has our vote all the way through. As to the only adult in the room - Cruz never got involved in any of the personal insults. He is trying to highlight the fact that Trump has no real policy plans and sometimes he has to point out things people are ignoring. And when Trump tries to talk over and call him a liar, he has to do something to stop it. His "breathe, Donald, breathe" was perfect, because Trump was acting like what he is: a man-child.

Trump will not win in the general election. He has "won" a number of open primaries by Dems crossing over and voting for him - with the full intent on voting for the Dem in the general.

Again about the only adult...John Kasich told seniors that Congress stole their Social Security money (which is true) and "to get over it". Lovely.

[wretched]

Everything bad said about trump is probably true. It is obvious he isn't even religious but that is not the point.

Cruz is no more God's man in this election than hillary is. Noone has ever been in the past and none ever will be. Jesus called no one to run in politics, He calls all to lose their interest in this world and follow Him.

Cruz is another politician. Sure his only strength for us is that he claims to follow the Bible. But that main strength is what will ensure his landslide defeat in the general election. Please remember that this is 21st century America, Godless, depraved and self indulged. There will be no miracles occurring for him IMO and there will be no revivals through human government now or ever unless you consider the government created catholic church a revival.

Best keep our eyes fixed on the real prize; to defeat the democrats.

I would vote for Cruz if I thought he had legitimate chance of winning the big one. I am no trump fan but he will be far better for this country than any democrat. That is the best we can hope for.

[HappyChristian]

I have not said anywhere that Cruz is God's man for this election. However, that does not mean that I ignore biblical principle. I will not have on my conscience casting my vote for a man who has the history of Trump.

Following the Bible is not Cruz' only strength. He also follows the Constitution. THAT is vital in a POTUS.

My eyes are on the real prize: not just defeating the Dems, but putting a true consitutionalist in office. Ted has as legitimate a chance to win as Trump. I disagree that Trump will be any better for this country than a Dem. He will be as bad or worse. And, I'm  sorry, but I disagree that someone that low is the best we can hope for.

 

[Critical Mass]

3 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I have not said anywhere that Cruz is God's man for this election. However, that does not mean that I ignore biblical principle. I will not have on my conscience casting my vote for a man who has the history of Trump.

Following the Bible is not Cruz' only strength. He also follows the Constitution. THAT is vital in a POTUS.

My eyes are on the real prize: not just defeating the Dems, but putting a true consitutionalist in office. Ted has as legitimate a chance to win as Trump. I disagree that Trump will be any better for this country than a Dem. He will be as bad or worse. And, I'm  sorry, but I disagree that someone that low is the best we can hope for.

 

 Cruz is a dishonest man. Even Carson has recognized this. Cruz has also asked the party delegates to put aside the vote of the people and nominate him. Who cares what the voters say.

[Ronda]

10 hours ago, John Young said:

Second would be Kasich mainly because he knows how to run a state

 

9 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

John Kasich told seniors that Congress stole their Social Security money (which is true) and "to get over it". Lovely

I agree with "HappyChrisitan" on this. I hate to come right out and disagree with someone, but brother "John Young" I have to say I disagree with you on Kasich competely.   I live in Ohio (Kasich's state) and no, I would NOT say that he knows how to "run a state", unless it's to run it right into the ground. He is by far one of the most liberal republicans there is on many issues. My opinion is that he leans so far to the left he's fallen over in the mud.  I was SO relieved to see Kasich falling so far behind, but now I am concerned that someone will select him as vice pres. running mate. That's going to be a hard pill to swallow if he ends up (with whichever) of the candidates who makes it as nominee selected to run for presidency as VP... I hope that does not happen. Had to add my 2 cents  (nothing personal against you, brother John Young).

[1Timothy115]

Kasich forced my elderly mother onto the Obamacare rolls. She is a retired State of Ohio employee and part of the Ohio Public Employee Retirement System (OPERS). She had excellent health insurance through the state with Humana. Now she has a federal government insurance plan through the "exchanges." This was a further plan for Kasich to show a "huge savings" on future liabilities and deeply entrench Obamacare into Ohio retired employee's DNA.

If you listen closely to John Kasich, you can pick out the very liberal-progressive ideology. Another Rob Portman in the making. 

Unfunded liabilities tells a fiscal fiasco awaiting Ohio... http://www.usrbs.com/unfunded.html (This also provides every states unfunded public liabilities). For those who may not understand what liabilities are. Liabilities are real expense now and in the future. I am another Ohioan.

[HappyChristian]

15 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

 Cruz is a dishonest man. Even Carson has recognized this. Cruz has also asked the party delegates to put aside the vote of the people and nominate him. Who cares what the voters say.

No, Cruz is not dishonest. What is dishonest is spreading the lies of what happened in IA. It all emanated from the Carson campaign via CNN. You don't have to believe that, but it happens to be true. As to asking party delegates to put aside for whom they voted, it's 1 of 2 things: either he was speaking to delegates of those who dropped out or he didn't say that. I'm going with the latter.

[John81]

Da Coach has spoken:

Mike Ditka says Ted Cruz is dishonest. (also says Obama worst president ever)

[Ronda]

On 3/2/2016 at 8:43 AM, John81 said:

Some Christians can't in good conscience vote for a woman for president (which is moot at this point for Republicans since Fiorina dropped out)

I personally would never vote for Hilary, but my point is... WHY  is it that: "some Christians can't in good conscience vote for a woman president?" The presidential position is NOT a church leadership position. So what is your reasoning for this??? Sounds a bit more than chauvinisistic to me.

[wretched]

35 minutes ago, Ronda said:

I personally would never vote for Hilary, but my point is... WHY  is it that: "some Christians can't in good conscience vote for a woman president?" The presidential position is NOT a church leadership position. So what is your reasoning for this??? Sounds a bit more than chauvinisistic to me.

If only Margaret Thatcher were alive and wanted the job! 

[HappyChristian]

1 hour ago, wretched said:

If only Margaret Thatcher were alive and wanted the job! 

LOL - it would be nice if we had some Margaret Thatchers in this country. I think maybe there are women who would possibly come close (although I would wish them to be even stronger), but at this point, none that come to mind.

Ronda, God tells us about Deborah, the only female judge. I think there are a couple of reasons God put her in there for us to know about. First, to let us know that sometimes God will use a woman in governing authority and that it's not a sin. Second, though, is the fact that she was the only woman while there were many male judges. I think that's important, too, to realize that it would be the exception rather than the rule.

I don't believe that it would be a mortal sin for us to have a woman POTUS. Nor do I believe that it would be wrong to vote for a woman (and when I say "I", that includes my hubby...if he were in disagreement, I wouldn't even answer this) - as long as that woman is a constitutionalist.

However...I believe that it is a very unwise concept to consider a woman POTUS. Why? Because of the way God made women. Women are nurturers by nature. POTUS cannot nurture, nor can POTUS make decisions based on nurturing tendencies (which most women would do, even if unintentionally). Women are emotional by nature. POTUS cannto be emotional, nor make decisions based on emotions. Now, a true constitutionalist would endeavor to stick by the Constitution in decision making. But I guarantee emotions would win the day too often with a woman - again, even if unintentionally.

When McCain picked Palin as a running mate, we were not happy about it (well, to be honest, we weren't happy about him, either). But we voted - more as a protest vote against BO than a vote for McCain. Given time to really see what Palin is, though, we can see just how much of a mistake it would be for her to be anywhere near the White House. 

Most of the women who seek high office do it for the lust for the power it gives them. They put away their femininity, sacrifice their families if need be, and become hard and man-like in far too many ways. It coarsens our country at the same time it feminizes it because the converse is happening: men are getting in touch with their "feminine side".

Man-like women; feminized men. Not a good thing anywhere, but especially in the leadership of this country. When a woman gets the authority that naturally comes with being an elected servant (especially nowadays since folks don't understand that the elected are not our lords), it leeches into everyday life and will adversely affect her family. That right there is enough for me to say it's best not to have a woman POTUS.

John - that's funny right there! I honestly couldn't care less about Ditka's opinions on anything. 

 

[John81]

Da Bears country will be all in for Trump now!

More seriously: Are there many candidate signs in your area for the primaries? Thus far I've only seen two signs for a candidate this primary season, which is unusual. One in one small town, the other in another small town. The bigger towns and small cities I couldn't find a single one. Usually there are many signs supporting the various primary candidates but not this year for some reason.

Both signs I did see were Cruz signs, each one different from the other.

[Ronda]

Sister Luanne, I do agree with many of the things you said. Such as #1 Deborah was a fine example of how the Lord used a woman in a governing authority role. #2 It is obviously an exception rather than a rule (at least for Israel) #3 It certainly would not be a moral sin to elect a woman #4 Women (at least should be) nurturing. #5 If a woman had a husband and children (still at home) I would also agree that her priority should be there, unless her children be grown and her husband supports her in the decision, in which case I (myself) see no problem with it, and of course if she in single and has no children, I see no reason at all that she shouldn't run for office (governmental) #6 Sarah Palin is a mess and in my opinion was/is the biggest embarrassment/disgrace to women in general, and especially to the Republican party. 

All that said, I have to disagree that women are all emotional by nature. The reason I say this is because I do see Biblical evidence of the nurturing roles of women in the Bible, as well as the nurturing admonitions in scripture. But I do not see where (Biblically) evidence of woman's emotional nature more than man's. Yes... one could argue many point on this such as "Eve was driven by emotion to eat of the fruit", but remember that Adam was also compelled of Eve to partake as well... would that also not be emotional (if it were in fact emotional).  While I do personally know many women who you would consider "emotional", I also know just as many who are logic driven. One can be nurturing and not emotionally driven, I don't (personally) think the 2 characteristics necessarily have to go hand in hand (this is just my opinion, hoping no offense is taken in regard to your own opinion... as we both have opinions).  

I do agree that many women who run for office are in it for the power, as well as the prestige and the money (especially the money from "campaign contributions" which are nothing short of bribes), but I do not feel it is any different for the men in this area. They have the same driving factors.   I also have to disagree with the reason some men in society are "getting in touch with their feminine side" . I believe that reason is because God has given them over to a reprobate mind, and I do not believe that is a woman's fault... any more than I would believe that the rape of a woman is the woman's fault (as some cultures, such as islam) purport. This blaming the woman for the man's actions is not justifiable to me in any way. Each individual is accountable to God for his or her own self, and no one can "make" another's decisions for them, nor can any person be held accountable for the decisions/actions of another, be it a man OR a woman. 

So while I currently do not see ANY women on the presidential campaign field worthy to be considered for office, I also do not see many men worthy for the position either. And again, no ill will intended in difference of opinion. 

Edited March 7, 2016 by Ronda
spelling

[OLD fashioned preacher]

So if Hillary gets in, can we call her "Mr. President" and refer to Bill as the First Lady??