Mitt Romney vs Mike Huckabee?

I used to think that the probability of getting elected should be a factor in who I should vote for. Nowadays I just vote for who I think God would have me vote for because if God wants them to be president they are going to be president and any polls or surveys ultimately won't matter. In voting for candidates that have been defined as having a "chance of winning" it seems like the media, not the people, are electing them. That does not mean I am going to deliberately vote for a nobody, it just means I vote issues solely and not certainly biased survey polls/media exposure. Also consider that a person may not be elected in the first election he participates in, but, any support he garners in it could help him be elected in the next or possibly push other future canidates to run closer to their values.

Atown said:
In alot of ways i feel kinda misplaced though since this is the first election i can actually participate in.
Click to expand...

That's ok it's not like the fate of the free world and millions of lives could hang on your decision... no wait it's possible, never mind. :p
 
Last edited:
You're right! I believe in a sovereign God who is ultimately in control of all things both presently and to come. The implied and will and the deliberate will of God are different though. If we take this to the Nth degree we have a hyper-Calvinistic viewpoint in that it doesn't matter what we do because "God is in control". The opposite, apathy, is just as sinful.

Here is something that I struggle with in my own heart, when is it right for a Christian to speak out against the government he lives under (if at all). Christ didn't come for a political revolution, He came for a spiritual revolution which was much more powerful. And so I look at various Christians in history and for the majority are pacifists however you have great Christian men who founded our nation who stood up against the tyranny of England (which many colonists thought was foolish in the early days) and here we are as a nation today.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian theologian and author, lived during WWII in Germany and was a part of a plot to assassinate Hitler which lead to his eventual hanging by the German government. (Wow, I just realized that we hijacked this thread. Sorry.)

Anyways, its been fun talking tonight. I'm hitting the hay. I would love to hear more talk more about the role of Christians in government because it is a fascinating (and frustrating) topic.
 
To be honest I am so disenfranchised with the politics in this country that I hadn't even heard of Ron Paul till I read this thread. IMHO our government is broken. Our system of government can only work if honest people of integrity who are held accountable for their actions are elected to represent us. Corruption, special interest groups, and the godless media have taken over. Corrupt judges try to usurp the role of the legislature and make law from the bench. It's my opinion that in todays day and age there is no need for elected representatives. With computers and the internet people could vote directly on the issues and represent themselves. If there were no congressmen we wouldn't have people trying to legislate every aspect of our lives just to try to make a name for themselves and maintain their political power. If our founding fathers were alive today they would revolt and retake this country. The very same type of tyrany exists in this country today that we fought to free ourselves of during the Revolutionary war.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Atown said:
Honestly can someone answer the following question?

Its obvious for the christian voter Ron paul is teh man. however from a political standpoint, he is an extremist, he distances anyone who considers themselves "independent thinkers" which seems moderates and those annoyed with politics who currently seem the majority in most areas. and working off what lloren said, if hes going to be that much disruption then why would anyone who doesnt like hilary or obama vote for him over guilani or McCain? I really dont see the purpose in supporting an extremist who doesnt stand a chance to be elected. He wont even go on the Savage show and wasnt apart of the fox debates either which to me is a negative to showing what he can do compared to the others and ive heard amazing things about romney in that debate and others. and again, he just doesnt have any charisma whatsoever i really cant watch or listen to him when i try. And Huck has Chuck.... thats like half the internet right there voting for him
Click to expand...

Mr. Paul is not an extremist. He is a Constitutionalist. He believes firmly in a literal interpretation of that document, meaning that all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government are the rights and powers of the people and the states. It just shows how far from the vision our founding fathers had for our nation that when someone espouses the same beliefs that they all held that they are labeled an extremist.

As for electability - let us remember that Ronald Reagan was deemed "unelectable" as well.

But that is neither here nor there. We should not be voting AGAINST someone in a vain attempt to keep that person from office, but rather we should be voting FOR the principles and values which we espouse, and that we believe in. I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for any but Ron Paul, and if I have to write him in on my election form come November, then that is what I shall do.
 
Kidan said:
As for electability - let us remember that Ronald Reagan was deemed "unelectable" as well.
Click to expand...


In my mind that should be a misnomer since he was against jimmy carter and ive never heard or read anything good/impressive about him.

Capt.

Yeah, i noticed that too, the judges are what i consistently become aggravated over, but without getting involved and knowing our stuff we wont be able to provide feedback that loops into what can be positive changes until the end time.

Lloren.

For the most part i take it hand in hand with what the bible says about honoring your parents. Sure if your parents tell you to go wash the dog and the car, you go do it. if the government says pay your taxes, sure. If your parents tell you to go buy crack from the kids across the street.... well what are you suppose to do? obviously not sin since thats unbiblical. in the same way, we should honor our government to the extent of what is biblical reasonable. Pilgrims came to america to worship God in their own way, and be their own people, then Brittan was like neg T-1000 your still ours, so to insure future freedoms they did what they had to.
 
Atown said:
Y
Obama scares me though. He has mentioned being raised with koranic studies and if I remember right he swore into senate with not a bible but a koran. wikipedia has it that he was raised with koranic studies from a reference on a boston paper and I'm finding mixed stuff on the swearing on the koran but I think I heard it on the radio with sean hannity a few months ago.
Click to expand...

This statement is completely false. It is a mistaken reference to a different politician, Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison, not Barack Obama.

Obama has consistently said he is a Christian and there is zero evidence to prove otherwise.

Actually this is part of a major misinformation campaign against Obama. It is now the #1 urban legend as reported by www.snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/info/top25uls.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
 
looks like the reference i found in wikipedia about koranic studies has been pulled too i cant find it.
 
Captain_Tea said:
As far as Romney goes I think I would rather have an athiest for president than a member of a cult.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the case for many Christians I talk to but I don't understand why. Mormonism is one of the closest to Real-Christianity cults out there. They use and read the Holy Bible and they often know it better then most Christians. Yes, they are deceived in how they interpret it, but you can bet that a Mormon in office will do way more to protect our freedoms as Bible believers then an Atheist will. Just about every Mormon I have met (and thats a lot since my G-parents live in Salt Lake City) has been extremely kind, compassionate, health-conscious, studious, and all in all a model citizen. In my opinion they often do a better job of demonstrating God's love then Christians.

I just think that an Atheist would do way more to damage our freedoms as Christians then a Mormon would.
 
ewoksrule said:
That seems to be the case for many Christians I talk to but I don't understand why. Mormonism is one of the closest to Real-Christianity cults out there. They use and read the Holy Bible and they often know it better then most Christians. Yes, they are deceived in how they interpret it, but you can bet that a Mormon in office will do way more to protect our freedoms as Bible believers then an Atheist will. Just about every Mormon I have met (and thats a lot since my G-parents live in Salt Lake City) has been extremely kind, compassionate, health-conscious, studious, and all in all a model citizen. In my opinion they often do a better job of demonstrating God's love then Christians.

I just think that an Atheist would do way more to damage our freedoms as Christians then a Mormon would.
Click to expand...

so... you would have a servant of satan be our president... in my mind that equates having the anti-christ as our president....


Capt. I would vote lieberman >.> , and i dont even like the thought of a democratic president, none of them stand for anything close of what i would like to see in a president. hilary scarys me, and obama scares me. edwards' hair scares me too.....
 
An atheist is a servant of Satan just as much as a Mormon is. Anyone who is not in the family of God has Satan as their spiritual father.

I am just saying that in regards to a President, an athiest has the chance of being much more hostile to Christians then a Mormon who mistakenly believes that he/she is one.
 
I'll be 35 before the next election, so just vote for me. I will rule you with a kind and gentle machine gun hand. :p :D
 
Suggestion for improving the quality of discussion

I'm new to this forum, and certainly mean no offense to anyone, but after reading this thread I'm surprised by two things

The number of people making claims or not reporting the full facts of an article without submitting a source.(Thank you to those who provided links)

The number of people willing to the sources that are submitted and what's said on random websites for granted without what is called in research as original sources.

There was a link to an article that compared one Candidate to a pharisee, thats not a very impartial presentation of fact and is a subjective spin.

I think this is a worthwhile thread but would encourage people to be more careful, fair and accurate in their postings, and to remember that very few bills are simple and that the people we are talking about are human, and that no candidate is going to be perfect.

Even if you disagree with a candidate, and may vote for someone else, the way we comport ourselves in discussing them should reflect our knowledge and relationship with Christ. and to denote opinions as opinions and facts as facts.

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top