Evidence for God from Science

Rick, when is the last time you voted in a presidential election?

Philip wrote:Rick, when is the last time you voted in a presidential election?

If I remember correctly, I believe It was way back in 1992. I just registered to vote this year, and was planning on voting, but my candidate dropped out.

1992?!!! Rick, please don't tell me that you haven't seen enough of a contrast between candidates in the elections since 1992 to not vote? I would find that extremely hard to believe.

Philip wrote:1992?!!! Rick, please don't tell me that you haven't seen enough of a contrast between candidates in the elections since 1992 to vote? I would find that extremely hard to believe.

Philip, there hasn't been any candidate who I thought had a chance to be president, that I could vote for in good conscience. Some people can vote for the lesser of two evils, in good conscience. I can't. The candidate has to 1) have a chance to win in my mind. 2). Have ideas that are similar to my own. 3). Not have those beliefs only to get elected(I need to believe they are true convictions).

Not a single candidate has met those requirements, to get my vote. Simple criteria.

RickD wrote:Moving to Canada can't be that bad...as long as it's not Quebec, eh?

Forget Quebec; you'd have to learn French. You'd best move to British Columbia. It has the mountains you miss and even has palm trees...and a Bible belt to boot!

RickD wrote: don't think it's apathy, as much as people just don't care.

Not caring enough to vote is apathy!

FL

Forget Quebec; you'd have to learn French. You'd best move to British Columbia. It has the mountains you miss and even has palm trees...and a Bible belt to boot!

Too much rain, and not warm enough=depressing.

RickD wrote:
don't think it's apathy, as much as people just don't care.


Not caring enough to vote is apathy!

I was being facetious. I know what apathy means. I'm not a complete moron, you know.

The candidate has to 1) have a chance to win in my mind.

As it is GOD Who puts people in office, then I'd say you should quit excessive worry over whether or not a candidate can win. And I believe God gives us leaders that reflect our collective personal values. But even in the current election, for one to not see tremendous differences between Romney and Obama, then I'd say he hasn't come close to doing his homework. No doubt I have many questions and concerns about Romney, but they don't come close to the KNOWN red flags I see with Obama. And the although 4 years ago such red flags were mostly reasonable assumptions, NOW we well KNOW them to be fact.

Obama is trying to lead us into socialism and to basically sustain a culture of dependency so as to remain in power. He apparently has a very low view of the constitution and merely sees it as an inconvenience. That he is willing to bypass it so frequently - especially in appointing his so-called czars - should make everyone shudder. But, especially devastating, is his willingness to remain entrenched in Chicago class-warfare tactics while simultaneously ignoring the massive tsunami of daily growing debt that will wreck this country if we don't quickly and effectively address it. So I can't imagine one not seeing Romney - from what we presently know of him - as being a far better choice than what we've seen in our current president. To say there is no great difference between Romney and Obama is to be not facing reality. And to say it doesn't matter which one gets in is a head-in-the-sand approach to politics.

As it is GOD Who puts people in office, then I'd say you should quit excessive worry over whether or not a candidate can win.

Philip, did something I said lead you to believe I worry excessively over who the president will be? There may have been a time a while back, when I got upset if a certain person became president. Ultimately, God is in control, and worrying about which candidate will be president, is futile.

But even in the current election, for one to not see tremendous differences between Romney and Obama, then I'd say he hasn't come close to doing his homework. No doubt I have many questions and concerns about Romney, but they don't come close to the KNOWN red flags I see with Obama.

Of course there are differences in the platforms each candidate is running on. I could make an argument for Obama. Have you ever heard the idiom, "better the devil you know..."? Well, that's what we have here, I'm afraid. Romney is just another "politician" claiming beliefs in something, only because he believes his beliefs will get him elected. The problem with Romney is that we can deduce that he's not sincere. He flip flops every time the wind changes direction. I'll say it again, when I lived in Massachusetts, Romney promised no new taxes. What did he do instead? He raised fees .
On another note, if you want an eye opener, do some research on the healthcare plan Romney backed, while governor of Massachusetts. He REQUIRED all citizens to purchase health insurance, or be fined. Is requiring someone to purchase a good or service, what our constitution has in mind? Where's the freedom in that? If we're going to call Obama "Socialist", we can't avoid Romney's "Socialist" ideas. He may be less "Socialist" leaning than Obama, but Romney does have a pair of Socialist flip-flops.
And also, while governor of the very "liberal" state of Mass., Romney was pro abortion. He pushed for a law that said underage girls who didn't have parental permission for an abortion, would be able to partition for an abortion anyway. Liberal Massachusetts=be a liberal governor. Looking for a conservative vote in a presidential election=be a conservative candidate. There's no conviction in him.

If someone thinks Romney will make a better president than Obama, then vote for him. If someone thinks Obama will make a better president than Romney, vote for him. Again, in good conscience, I can't vote for Obama, because there's too much I disagree with in what he stands for. And, I can't vote for Romney, because he doesn't stand for anything except what will get him in whatever office he's running for.

And, I won't vote for a 3rd party candidate, because no 3rd party candidate has a chance to be elected. I have no desire to vote just to "protest" the candidates we have to choose from.

That's just my opinion, and while possibly an unpopular one, it's one that I can live with, in good conscience.

Until either party produces a genuine conservative(fiscally and morally) candidate, I'm afraid I won't be voting. For a brief moment, I thought that candidate might be Herman Cain, but we all know how that went.

Jac summed it up pretty well here:

And if that means Obama wins again, don't blame me. Blame the Romney supporters who insisted I give up my convictions and demanded I accept their guy. They insisted on nominating someone I have said for six years I can't vote for. So fine. They get their wish. They nominated a guy I can't support. If he loses, and they say it's because people like me didn't get out and vote, maybe they need to consider the politics of insisting we hold our nose and vote for someone we don't trust.

Rick, while strongly disagreeing with you, I do respect what you are saying. And I have no reason to believe that you are not being sincere. However, you and I - and everyone, everyday - must make decisions based upon imperfect choices. And we do so, as they are the only choices we have been provided. And so we pick the less problematic choices in our decisions because we know that with each there are definite consequences, some of them much worse than others. We don't refuse to make a decision about other things just because we don't like the choices. We ride one of the horses we've been given a choice between. Why should politics be any different?

To not exercise a choice in political candidates DEFINITELY means a greater and faster deterioration of our FUTURE choices - perhaps one day leading to having NO choices at all. And I would certainly say that your viewpoint is a very tiny minority among conservative Christians. But to say that EVERY election since '92 has been devoid of vastly contrasting choices - without one candidate on the presidential ticket not being considerably better than the other? While I understand your frustration, I find that an idealistic, very troubling and scary viewpoint. But that's just me.

God bless.

RickD wrote:Until either party produces a genuine conservative(fiscally and morally) candidate, I'm afraid I won't be voting.

The West as a whole now seems to be leaning towards the left, so Obama will probably get a second term. God bless the USSA!

FL

RickD wrote:
Until either party produces a genuine conservative(fiscally and morally) candidate, I'm afraid I won't be voting.

Rick, please name just ONE presidential candidate, over the last 50 years, that you WOULD have voted for.

However, you and I - and everyone, everyday - must make decisions based upon imperfect choices. And we do so, as they are the only choices we have been provided. And so we pick the less problematic choices in our decisions because we know that with each there are definite consequences, some of them much worse than others. We don't refuse to make a decision about other things just because we don't like the choices. We ride one of the horses we've been given a choice between. Why should politics be any different?

Philip, I don't disagree with you here. You're going with the idea that you have 2 choices to choose from. Romney or Obama. And you are choosing whoever you see as "less problematic". I'm also making a choice here, but I see it as having 3 realistic choices. Voting for Romney, Obama, and not voting for either. Like I said before, I cannot vote for either, knowing what I know about each of them. If we have only two paths ahead of us, and must choose one, then I would do what you and many others are doing.

To not exercise a choice in political candidates DEFINITELY means a greater and faster deterioration of our FUTURE choices - perhaps one day leading to having NO choices at all.

Romney or Obama pretty much seems like no choice at all to me. When I see a candidate that I want to choose, then I will.

But to say that EVERY election since '92 has been devoid of vastly contrasting choices - without one candidate on the presidential ticket not being considerably better than the other?

There has always been one candidate that I felt was "better" than the other. But vastly better? Not in my opinion. What criteria you use to see the vast contrast between two candidates, may not be the same criteria I, or someone else uses. That's why we need to do as we feel God and our conscience leads us.

While I understand your frustration, I find that an idealistic, very troubling and scary viewpoint. But that's just me.

If either party ever presents a viable candidate, I'll cast my vote for that candidate. But make no assumptions, my hope for my future will NOT be in any presidential candidate.

i·de·al·ism (-d-lzm)
n.
1. The act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal form.

Philip, I have no idealistic ideas that some conservative "savior" will one day run for president. I'm not sure what's so scary about why I won't vote for someone that I don't agree with.

Rick, please name just ONE presidential candidate, over the last 50 years, that you WOULD have voted for.

Hindsight being 20/20? Kennedy, and Reagan. If I were alive and of voting age at the time, maybe I wouldn't have voted for either.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote:Until either party produces a genuine conservative(fiscally and morally) candidate, I'm afraid I won't be voting.

The West as a whole now seems to be leaning towards the left, so Obama will probably get a second term. God bless the USSA!

FL

Just remember, FL. Where the U.S. goes, its big shadow to the north will be right there as well.

Well, in my first presidential election, I voted for JC - which shows you how political savvy I was at 19. And I STILL can't believe I did that, even young and dumb as I was.

Philip wrote:Well, in my first presidential election, I voted for JC - which shows you how political savvy I was at 19. And I STILL can't believe I did that, even young and dumb as I was.

I'm secretly hoping JC means you wrote in Jesus Christ. But, I think you meant Jimmy Carter. Since you voted for Carter, I don't see why you wouldn't vote for Obama. More than a few people have compared the two.
After further review, you are hereby prohibited from posting anymore about politics, since you voted for good ole Jimmy.