Are Christians in the U.S. concerned about whom they vote for?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maria72
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M

Maria72

Guest
Recently I've posted my opinion piece at one of the US Christian forums. But no one has replied to it. I sincerely believe that we Christians can't turn a blind eye to what is happening in our country and what policies our candidates for President will promote.

Here is what concerns me deeply.


Hillary Clinton always called herself a feminist, and now (as opposed to the 2008 election campaign) she makes extensive use of voters' false pride by offering them to contribute to participate in would be historical event – the election of the first female US president.

At the same time, you need to be aware of reasons why the former First Lady is so focused on the women's question, and what are her aims in this matter. First of all, the probable cause of it all is the absence or distortion of paternal love in her childhood. For example, Carl Bernstein in his biography of Hillary, "A Woman in Charge: the Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton," wrote that her father used to regularly abuse and humiliate her mother and had established strict physical discipline in their home. Perhaps, it is this distorted vision of traditional values as mere supremacy and authority that made Hillary Clinton a man-hater, if not even a misanthropist.

Well, June 10, 2016 the main US presidential candidate from the Democratic Party said that in the case of victory she would defend the right of women to abortion and public funding of the procedure. Thus, her promises go further than to aimlessly turn pregnant women and doctors into killers, she is going to make all taxpayers abetting in this crime.

Alongside with that, a possible "mistress" of the Oval Office is fully aware that "religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed" in order to accommodate abortions. Doing so she will destroy the very basis of our society! Moreover, Clinton is committed to deliver the fate of next generations into the hands of organ-traffickers – particularly into the hands of her sponsors from Planned Parenthood.

While expressing her pride for working with Planned Parenthood and StemExpress, happy mother Hilary could not be unaware of allegations against them for illegal and inhumane trafficking of embryos. What is more, she supported them against "unjust attacks"! In exchange for this, CEO of "StemExpress" Cate Dyer gave the former First Lady not only financial assistance, but also an explicit public support. And after that Clinton is trying to convince Americans that her feminism is "moderate" and traditional values are of great importance for her! How naive is that? Nonetheless, a lot of media publications seem to be issued with such an unattainable goal!

Clinton's position on abortions is far from common sense, and it seems like it never was supposed to be reasonable. It is merely a result of warped spirituality, mental depravity and even unhealthy subconscious aspirations. And all these diseases are still feeding it. That is why the former First Lady who is shown to be an example of humanity and progressiveness, fails to hear biologists saying that by 20 weeks after fertilization unborn babies are capable of feeling pain. Yes, when the unborn child in a womb is divided into parts – it hurts them! Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton attacked bill against cruel late-term abortions and other proposed legislative measures dealing with unborn pain, dismemberment abortions, informed consent, webcam abortions, parental involvement, etc.!

Did a feminist Hillary Clinton ever think how many girls she had depraved and sold into slavery to sin or pimps by her pandering to irresponsible behavior? How many girls – the very those who "matter to economic and political progress around the world", might have a chance "to work and earn as full and equal partners in society" and thus lead the country to prosperity, – haven't been born because of her?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
None too concerned. Vote for Jesus Christ and let God take care of the rest.
 
Voting for Clinton simply because she is a woman is no different than those that voted for Obama in 2008 because he's (half) black. Those people should have their voter registration revoked, because those are the two worst reasons to vote for a candidate.
 
Insightful Maria. The issues and policies are all that matter. To deviate from the principles of godliness which comes from the blinding corruption of [perceived] power will always bring suffering. We need to state and live the godly principles so they become societal salt and light.

Feminism is a part of a Hellenistic culture of corruption. Idol worship becomes the norm whether in the form of money, sex, sports, holidays, food, buildings or etc. Men corrupt themselves in these things and women are left with a response to stop it. They fall into the same idolatry of power trap and the system ends itself - the serpent has bitten it's tail.

As to abortion, we need to avoid the either-or fallacy --
...... 'EITHER you are Pro-Life OR you are Pro-Choice .....

The fallacy rejects the roots:
... What created the fetus - pride, lust, fear, jealousy, covetousness, that leads to fornication?

Without the false seed, the fetus and thus the fallacy does not exist. Church and Government needs power and control. Sex is one mechanism to attain this. Pimps is a good observation and warning.

Promote the issues and policies to awaken church and state that
..... "the government is upon His shoulders"
 
A friend of mine from Illinois has recently wrote me... Our mutual acquaintance committed suicide a couple of years ago that day. And the reason was her lesbianism. No, there was no public criticism, humiliation or misunderstanding in her family, and she didn't have to keep her habits in secret... It's spiritual illness itself that was the cause. And now this disease infects the whole our country. The scale is frightening. I don't want America to suicide. That's why I've decided to share my friend's article with you.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Lesbian President will lead America to decay and isolation[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Very few Americans have not heard of the so-called Hillaryland. However, not many people have wondered what keeps this narrow circle of confidants around the 42nd US President's spouse, what is the basis of their longstanding dedication.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As it’s known, Hillary Clinton's been acquainted with some of her closest advisers (eg. Maggie Williams, Diane Blair and Patti Solis Doyle) since her youth. She first met some others of them during her husband's presidential campaign, as well as in the White House while being the First Lady. However, regardless of how long she knew any of them, the relations established in Hillary Clinton's inner circle seem like familiar rather than working ones. She has thrown them wedding bouquets, gossiped with them, intervened in their medical care, and burped their babies. It's amazing how much involved into their personal lives she is! And to think that all Hillaryland inhabitants are quite successful and self-sufficient people![/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As a matter of curiosity, there are no men among the main Democratic presidential candidate's confidants, except for Neel Lattimore who is gay. This fact can only strengthen suspicion that Clinton's inner circle was formed not with regard to one’s professional skills. Isn't it strange that in the whole US she failed to find even one reliable man with the necessary political skills and experience, whose opinions are worth listening to, and who is straight?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Probably, the reason for such the selection of the closest advisers lies in Hillary's childhood memories of rigorous father (in the biography of former First Lady Carl Bernstein wrote that her father regularly humiliated her mother and establish a strict physical discipline in their home), as well as in the details of her adult family life.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]For example, since 2004 there are some assumptions about Hillary Clinton's sexual orientation spreading in the media. At the same time one can't claim that these rumors were the part of an organized campaign since there was no reasonable motive for it. On the other hand, how else can one explain the former First Lady's forgiveness toward her husband's numerous adulteries?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In addition, it is believed that Hillary Clinton withdrew from the 2008 presidential race exactly due to the fear that the information on her disreputable relations with women would be revealed. Let's remember that Hilary was against the legalization of gay marriage back then. Besides, she could be afraid of disclosing the exact names of her mistresses.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]According to the Weekly World News, an anonymous DoS official has confirmed that Hillary "is a lesbian and the Bill Clinton marriage is just a sham for public consumption."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Then, in 2013, Jennifer Flowers, who had been being Bill Clinton's passion for 12 years at that time, quoted his remarks on Hillary’s lesbianity or bisexuality. By the way, recently one another Bill's former mistress – Sally Miller – told the same thing: "I take him at his word, and he told me that she likes females more than men."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Meanwhile, plausibility of the Flowers' statements is indirectly confirmed by the recordings of her conversations with Bill Clinton, which were published in 1992 (James Carville and George Stephanopoulos have nearly paid a price in a court for their allegations that these records had been tampered with). As for the allegations of Hilary's bisexuality, – no objection have been ever made against them. On the contrary, in the same year (2013) Hillary released a video in support of gay marriage.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Moreover, the correspondence of the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, revealed in 2015, contains not only evidence of her lesbianity, but also the names of her passions. This case is an eloquent example of her proclivity for not separating work and personal life.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Given the above and the fact that the US president is empowered to receive foreign ambassadors and other public officials, propose legislation and return a bill to Congress for reconsideration, it is extremely undesirable to let Hillary enter into the Oval Office. For example, I wonder whether the Saudis would even talk to her or just stone her after they learn she is a lesbian…[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And most importantly, connivance to sodomy on the part of the President will further undermine the foundations of our society and change American people's mentality. Unbridled hedonism, thinking nothing of breaking the laws of nature and God's commandments, will supplant traditional American entrepreneurial spirit and industriousness, and this will inevitably lead the country to decay![/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Finally, the arguments of human rights, diversity and equal representation are not applicable in this case. If in the case of Barack Obama his appeal to the racial issue reposes on at least 12.6% of the population, who are African-Americans, in the case of Hillary her belonging to a marginal 1.6% of Americans, who identify themselves as LGBTI, for sure bodes ill to the majority of US citizens.[/FONT]
 
The majority of Catholics voted for Obama just as they did for Roosevelt and Kennedy. This is likely the same for other more adherents of liberal-moderate religions.
 
jsr1221 said:
Voting for Clinton simply because she is a woman is no different than those that voted for Obama in 2008 because he's (half) black. Those people should have their voter registration revoked, because those are the two worst reasons to vote for a candidate.
Click to expand...

You have to admit to some extent, that the masses are moved along by explicit embellishment or attack of core belief issues. I agree with you, up to pulling the right to vote from someone. But ask yourself why are these "issues" even issues? I'm talking about the social and cultural topics. We all know why unemployment, economics, spending, taxes are on the table...because no one ever solves them, try having the same perpetual challenges in your job from week to week, year to year, election cycle to election cycle and see what happens. What is it the Donald says? Your Fired!
 
I have a theory along these lines - that Trump might be a stooge candidate where the U.S elite oligarchs put forward a populist candidate that would initially satisfy the disenfranchised right who have in the last few years become mobilized (like the Tea Party Movement). Trump initially said many things that would ingratiate him to the disenfranchised right in order to win the Republican nomination but since then almost immediately has become a caricature of a ineptitude.

I find it difficult to believe a billionaire would have more in common with the disenfranchised right than the other billionaire elite cronies who run the political scene in the U.S. He seems to have come out of nowhere politically, again like Obama with no apparent history or track record with which to verify his credentials.

In terms of policy and implementation of said policy there is precious little difference between the Bush's Clinton's and Obama. They all have eroded the rights of the citizens, eroded U.S. sovereignty, enriched the shadowy oligarch's by transferring wealth from the citizens via the Federal Reserve scam. The U.S. government is becoming more and more authoritarian and operating outside their constitutional areas of authority. Just look at the militarization of local police forces and the way they are treating the citizen's.

Side Note:- Everyone of the recent Australian Prime Minister seems to radically change their tune immediately after visiting the white house - The US VP - Joe B just visited Australia immediately after the recent Australian election. I wonder what the need for that visit was?

I think the Republican versus Democrat hostility is a little like Pro wrestling - on camera they appear to hate each other but behind closed doors they count and distribute the cash from their little political enterprise in a much more collegiate manner.

I say again I think Trump was put forward to first gather the disgruntled right together - attach them to a candidate and then dissipate them politically (via the candidate's self destruction) them as a threat to the powers that be.

Obama was a Clinton stooge - he literally came out of nowhere, with a hidden past and strong ties to the Clinton's. Obama's rhetoric of change without specification did not have any real effect on the agendas, policies or practices of the Government.

There was no real practical political difference between Bush, Clinton, Bush W, Obama. They are all just stooges and front men for the real powers in control. It's just a pantomime drama for the masses - grab some popcorn and watch the show.
 
Will likely write in my own candidate choice.  Don't like either of the mainstream options I have been given to choose from.  Ultimately, I am more concerned with the election of my local government officials like county sheriff, state house officials, etc.
 
AnissaRoy said:
A friend of mine from Illinois has recently wrote me... Our mutual acquaintance committed suicide a couple of years ago that day. And the reason was her lesbianism. No, there was no public criticism, humiliation or misunderstanding in her family, and she didn't have to keep her habits in secret... It's spiritual illness itself that was the cause. And now this disease infects the whole our country. The scale is frightening. I don't want America to suicide. That's why I've decided to share my friend's article with you.


Lesbian President will lead America to decay and isolation


Very few Americans have not heard of the so-called Hillaryland. However, not many people have wondered what keeps this narrow circle of confidants around the 42nd US President's spouse, what is the basis of their longstanding dedication.
As it’s known, Hillary Clinton's been acquainted with some of her closest advisers (eg. Maggie Williams, Diane Blair and Patti Solis Doyle) since her youth. She first met some others of them during her husband's presidential campaign, as well as in the White House while being the First Lady. However, regardless of how long she knew any of them, the relations established in Hillary Clinton's inner circle seem like familiar rather than working ones. She has thrown them wedding bouquets, gossiped with them, intervened in their medical care, and burped their babies. It's amazing how much involved into their personal lives she is! And to think that all Hillaryland inhabitants are quite successful and self-sufficient people!
As a matter of curiosity, there are no men among the main Democratic presidential candidate's confidants, except for Neel Lattimore who is gay. This fact can only strengthen suspicion that Clinton's inner circle was formed not with regard to one’s professional skills. Isn't it strange that in the whole US she failed to find even one reliable man with the necessary political skills and experience, whose opinions are worth listening to, and who is straight?
Probably, the reason for such the selection of the closest advisers lies in Hillary's childhood memories of rigorous father (in the biography of former First Lady Carl Bernstein wrote that her father regularly humiliated her mother and establish a strict physical discipline in their home), as well as in the details of her adult family life.
For example, since 2004 there are some assumptions about Hillary Clinton's sexual orientation spreading in the media. At the same time one can't claim that these rumors were the part of an organized campaign since there was no reasonable motive for it. On the other hand, how else can one explain the former First Lady's forgiveness toward her husband's numerous adulteries?
In addition, it is believed that Hillary Clinton withdrew from the 2008 presidential race exactly due to the fear that the information on her disreputable relations with women would be revealed. Let's remember that Hilary was against the legalization of gay marriage back then. Besides, she could be afraid of disclosing the exact names of her mistresses.
According to the Weekly World News, an anonymous DoS official has confirmed that Hillary "is a lesbian and the Bill Clinton marriage is just a sham for public consumption."
Then, in 2013, Jennifer Flowers, who had been being Bill Clinton's passion for 12 years at that time, quoted his remarks on Hillary’s lesbianity or bisexuality. By the way, recently one another Bill's former mistress – Sally Miller – told the same thing: "I take him at his word, and he told me that she likes females more than men."
Meanwhile, plausibility of the Flowers' statements is indirectly confirmed by the recordings of her conversations with Bill Clinton, which were published in 1992 (James Carville and George Stephanopoulos have nearly paid a price in a court for their allegations that these records had been tampered with). As for the allegations of Hilary's bisexuality, – no objection have been ever made against them. On the contrary, in the same year (2013) Hillary released a video in support of gay marriage.
Moreover, the correspondence of the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, revealed in 2015, contains not only evidence of her lesbianity, but also the names of her passions. This case is an eloquent example of her proclivity for not separating work and personal life.
Given the above and the fact that the US president is empowered to receive foreign ambassadors and other public officials, propose legislation and return a bill to Congress for reconsideration, it is extremely undesirable to let Hillary enter into the Oval Office. For example, I wonder whether the Saudis would even talk to her or just stone her after they learn she is a lesbian…
And most importantly, connivance to sodomy on the part of the President will further undermine the foundations of our society and change American people's mentality. Unbridled hedonism, thinking nothing of breaking the laws of nature and God's commandments, will supplant traditional American entrepreneurial spirit and industriousness, and this will inevitably lead the country to decay!
Finally, the arguments of human rights, diversity and equal representation are not applicable in this case. If in the case of Barack Obama his appeal to the racial issue reposes on at least 12.6% of the population, who are African-Americans, in the case of Hillary her belonging to a marginal 1.6% of Americans, who identify themselves as LGBTI, for sure bodes ill to the majority of US citizens.
Click to expand...

Anissa, please accept my condolences!
 
SteelToedKodiak said:
You have to admit to some extent, that the masses are moved along by explicit embellishment or attack of core belief issues. I agree with you, up to pulling the right to vote from someone. But ask yourself why are these "issues" even issues? I'm talking about the social and cultural topics. We all know why unemployment, economics, spending, taxes are on the table...because no one ever solves them, try having the same perpetual challenges in your job from week to week, year to year, election cycle to election cycle and see what happens. What is it the Donald says? Your Fired!
Click to expand...

Being fired doesn't violate our faith. It's just about prosperity and comfort. It can hardly harm our souls. It's a challenge that can be coped with by God's mercy.
But sodomy is a spiritual disease indeed. It not only abuses our faith but poses a threat to the salvation of our loved ones' souls! We just can't ignore this.
 
AngeliqueRoss said:
Being fired doesn't violate our faith. It's just about prosperity and comfort. It can hardly harm our souls. It's a challenge that can be coped with by God's mercy.
But sodomy is a spiritual disease indeed. It not only abuses our faith but poses a threat to the salvation of our loved ones' souls! We just can't ignore this.
Click to expand...

The 'fired' statement was an anti-trump sentiment, not about people being fired from a job.

And that some men and women choose to have butt-sex is a threat to peoples salvation?
 
Judging by the two nominees I would say that US voters in general couldn't give a rats behind who they vote for.
 
It is the U.S. President who must protect the interests of the majority and strengthen the power of the state, including its moral foundations. Obviously, this is not something Hillary Clinton is going to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back