Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You better take that back! I believe in Jesus.

Evolution is simply another example of clueless scientists stealing from the Bible and trying to get credit for it because they lack any creativity. Darwin's crime is not blasphemy, in fact I wouldn't even blame him for plagiarism. His crime is not giving credit to the Bible for his ideas.

It's just that Evangelicalism and 7 day Creation usually go hand in hand, like the words Ken and Ham. So Awareness's assessment of you being the only evangelical he knows who doesn't support Trump, might be a misinterpretation on his part about what Evangelicals believe.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's just that Evangelicalism and 7 day Creation usually go hand in hand, like the words Ken and Ham. So Awareness's assessment of you being the only evangelical he knows who doesn't support Trump, might be a misinterpretation on his part about what Evangelicals believe.

Yes, only around 85% of evangelicals supported Trump. So 15% didn't. Bro ZNP might be in the 15%. But then, it sounds like even he voted for Trump.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, only around 85% of evangelicals supported Trump. So 15% didn't. Bro ZNP might be in the 15%. But then, it sounds like even he voted for Trump.

I have already stated plainly that I did not vote for president, I opted to not vote. I have also repeated this. If 20 million others who didn't like the person they voted for did that as well it would have forced a bigger political movement than what we are seeing now.

So how could it possibly sound like "he voted for Trump"?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have already stated plainly that I did not vote for president, I opted to not vote. I have also repeated this. If 20 million others who didn't like the person they voted for did that as well it would have forced a bigger political movement than what we are seeing now.

So how could it possibly sound like "he voted for Trump"?

Sorry about that.

I think the non-voters should be counted ; as those that disbelieve in the choices, or as those that are disenchanted with the political system. Their voices, or lack thereof, should be considered and factored.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry about that.

I think the non-voters should be counted ; as those that disbelieve in the choices, or as those that are disenchanted with the political system. Their voices, or lack thereof, should be considered and factored.

A good friend of mine wrote in "John Kasich" for President. Coming from a crucial swing state, his vote, in effect, helped Hillary, even though he hated to see her win.

When it comes to voting, we should not vote with their hearts, rather with our minds.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A good friend of mine wrote in "John Kasich" for President. Coming from a crucial swing state, his vote, in effect, helped Hillary, even though he hated to see her win.

When it comes to voting, we should not vote with their hearts, rather with our minds.

In my mind I did not want either candidate to claim a "mandate".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my mind I did not want either candidate to claim a "mandate".

Regardless of who wins, a "mandate" will be claimed, even if it's by a hanging chad.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry about that.

I think the non-voters should be counted ; as those that disbelieve in the choices, or as those that are disenchanted with the political system. Their voices, or lack thereof, should be considered and factored.

Yes, I completely disagree with those who say you are obligated to vote. If we had only had 20 million people vote in the last election (the amount that probably felt very strongly for one or the other candidate) the entire process would have been invalidated. It would have been pointless to claim who got the most votes or who got the most electoral college votes. It would be like a Superbowl that no one watched or turned on. That makes a very loud statement of disapproval of the entire system.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I completely disagree with those who say you are obligated to vote. If we had only had 20 million people vote in the last election (the amount that probably felt very strongly for one or the other candidate) the entire process would have been invalidated. It would have been pointless to claim who got the most votes or who got the most electoral college votes. It would be like a Superbowl that no one watched or turned on. That makes a very loud statement of disapproval of the entire system.

I'm not sure I can agree. If one side tries to play fair, and the other side cheats, then the good guys lose.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not sure I can agree. If one side tries to play fair, and the other side cheats, then the good guys lose.

There were no "good guys". It was guaranteed that the "bad guys" were going to win, I just wanted that to be an empty victory.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not sure I can agree. If one side tries to play fair, and the other side cheats, then the good guys lose.

I agree bro Ohio. Like the pubbies blocking Obama's supreme court appointee, and then ramming down our throats Gorsuch. They didn't play fair. Or is it okay when pubbies don't play fair?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's just that Evangelicalism and 7 day Creation usually go hand in hand, like the words Ken and Ham. So Awareness's assessment of you being the only evangelical he knows who doesn't support Trump, might be a misinterpretation on his part about what Evangelicals believe.

Hey, I am very evangelical and don't support Trump (in the sense that I wish he didn't get his way too much). And I don't simply believe in a 7-day creation (or actually 6-day), and am not that enamored with many of the modern apologists, including Mr. Ham.

[OBW]

Heard a podcast yesterday that had ideas for improving the election outcomes.

Debates with no one in the room so that audience applause or boos do not affect the TV audience more than the things said.

Possibly requiring that everyone who can vote be required to show up at the polls even if they don't want to vote. (Australia actually does this.)

A lot of others.

One of the things that was pointed to as the most problematic in the U.S. is that the focus during campaigns is so much on what are truly marginal but hot-button issues and the result has been the polarization of the parties. The vast middle-ground is not even thought about. They have many normal issues that are worthy of discussion, but since there is no evidence that they are even listened to, and they are not necessarily in sync with the extremes (in terms of the hot-button issues), they just stay home. And we get gridlock in a way that hasn't been seen since the late 1800s.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Heard a podcast yesterday that had ideas for improving the election outcomes.

Debates with no one in the room so that audience applause or boos do not affect the TV audience more than the things said.

Possibly requiring that everyone who can vote be required to show up at the polls even if they don't want to vote. (Australia actually does this.)

A lot of others.

One of the things that was pointed to as the most problematic in the U.S. is that the focus during campaigns is so much on what are truly marginal but hot-button issues and the result has been the polarization of the parties. The vast middle-ground is not even thought about. They have many normal issues that are worthy of discussion, but since there is no evidence that they are even listened to, and they are not necessarily in sync with the extremes (in terms of the hot-button issues), they just stay home. And we get gridlock in a way that hasn't been seen since the late 1800s.

The bipolar party system has split in such a way that there is little middle ground. This is the system that gave us Clinton and Trump as the only realistic options for POTUS in 2016. That fact alone should be enough to warrant radical rethinking and reform of the system.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The bipolar party system has split in such a way that there is little middle ground. This is the system that gave us Clinton and Trump as the only realistic options for POTUS in 2016. That fact alone should be enough to warrant radical rethinking and reform of the system.

Could have been worse. The establishment wanted to give us Bush and Clinton in 2016.

How could you ever vote for another Democrat after you watched what the DNC did to you and Bernie?

Just recently the DNC chair Perez just excluded me and every other Pro-Life from his party. I can't ever vote for another Democrat. . .

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Could have been worse. The establishment wanted to give us Bush and Clinton in 2016.

I would rather had any of the governors, including Bush, over Trump. I even liked Rubio much more, though he did seem a little short on the experience side (no pun intended). Couldn't put support behind either of my Texas candidates. Just not fit for the task.

We need some moderates. That means either both parties climb down off of the wall at the boundaries of the extremes, or there needs to be a group of significance that represents the middle and forces a different kind of result.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would rather had any of the governors, including Bush, over Trump. I even liked Rubio much more, though he did seem a little short on the experience side (no pun intended). Couldn't put support behind either of my Texas candidates. Just not fit for the task.

We need some moderates. That means either both parties climb down off of the wall at the boundaries of the extremes, or there needs to be a group of significance that represents the middle and forces a different kind of result.

I agree. Although Jeb is more of an autocrat at heart than you might think, he is not the dictator Trump would like to be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would rather had any of the governors, including Bush, over Trump. I even liked Rubio much more, though he did seem a little short on the experience side (no pun intended). Couldn't put support behind either of my Texas candidates. Just not fit for the task.

We need some moderates. That means either both parties climb down off of the wall at the boundaries of the extremes, or there needs to be a group of significance that represents the middle and forces a different kind of result.

The left, with Schumer, Pelosi, and the Press, will demonize ANY Republican, so we have no idea what a moderate would look like.

I thought Dubya, McCain, and Romney were fairly moderate.

I agree with you that Governors are far better suited for the task, except for pseudo-Christian Jimmy Carter. The problem, however, is that none of them would be willing to go thru what Trump is enduring in order to shake up Washington.