Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Another Take on This Year's Presidential Election

Take Two! Or Three or whatever.

I recently heard first and then read the transcript of someone saying this about the 2016 presidential election:
So, personally, I have to find a way to vote to support that which is closest to what is right. But that’s the only choice I’ve got. I can’t stand idly by and say everybody’s bad. I’ve got to say that’s worse, and I’ve got to act in that way, personally.
This person didn't say whom he was voting for, but I am asking you to predict what he means.  I think he meant something.  Later I heard him say and then later read him say something more specific.
If we go down the train we’re going, and if it continues that way and we get Hillary Clinton as President, and everything that is part of that whole platform that is against God, against the Scripture, everything that is not just criminal but immoral escalates and escalates and escalates, in no way does that hinder Christ building His church.
Don't google who said it, yet.   I think, greater than any other election, churches are seeing divisions right in their own churches over the differing desired outcomes, so that there is more tiptoeing than ever in order not to cause unnecessary disunity.  That first statement, I believe, reflects that.  Someone else wrote about that possibility, because it is actually being seen as a reality.

I encourage you to celebrate the unity in Christ that transcends political diversity, while remaining steadfast in opposing the deeds of darkness, and making no provision for the flesh. If Matthew and Simeon can share a table with Jesus, then you can share fellowship with someone who will vote for Trump. And when either Trump or Clinton wins, the church’s unity will still stand. If the gates of hell cannot prevail against her, neither can a Super PAC.

It's obvious that churches, evangelical ones especially, feel tremors of disunity over this election.  The country is divided like it hasn't been in a long, long time, and that even includes churches.  People want to be able to talk about their preferred candidate, but they're afraid they'll offend someone and some kind of fight will ensue.  Pastors don't want to be dealing with these problems.  They want to be doing actual ministry.  On the other hand, can't someone be free to express who he'll vote for at his own church without being pummeled for it?

I think the issues that relate to this election are worth talking about.  They can help someone grow.  I think we have to be careful, but I don't think we have to run away from the controversy.  It's a time where people might have to talk about things they wouldn't talk about otherwise.  Evangelism and discipleship don't have to stop.  It's an opportunity to learn principles of discernment.

OK, so those first two quotes came from John MacArthur after coming back to his church on August 21 in a question and answer time with Phil Johnson.  I believe he signals what he's going to do "personally," the word he uses, as if, however, he is giving others freedom to act otherwise.  Or maybe not.  If someone followed his basis given to vote, what would he do?


Jim Peet said...

I'm voting Republican on the "down ticket" (US House race, MN Senate race, and MN House race). Not voting for either Trump or Clinton. Minnesota is heavy Democrat (actually called the Democrat Farm Labor party here!). Clinton will win Minnesota handily.

Prediction on the Presidential race: Clinton will win.

Senate: Republicans will hold

House: Republicans will hold

Kent Brandenburg said...


You're saying that in Minnesota that you're presidential vote is of no consequence, it seems. Isn't Minnesota in play, especially in lieu of the recent knife killings by the terrorist up there, and all the Moslem Somalis coming into the state? Minnesota has a history of voting for a character like Trump. Could this not be a year? It seems that Minnesota is closer to "in play" than any recent times that I have seen for a Republican.

Jim Peet said...

The last time Minnesota voted GOP was in 1972. Local polls report Clinton up in urban areas and Trump up out state.


Hi sir,
Would you consider your Moral Narcisssim post pummeling?

How many were killed in Minn?

Good read here:

Kent Brandenburg said...

Everyone, I'm leaving my comment to Jim, but it seems only 9 were hurt by the knife terrorist in Minnesota, no one killed. I say this in light of John's comment, asking how many were killed. I didn't check the news closely enough and my apologies to the one who only injured 9 with a knife, because I accused him of killing someone by saying "killings."

Farmer Brown said...

I am in Chicago this week, and visited the Trump Chicago today. I thought of these verses as I walked through:

1 Kings 10:4-5 And when the queen of Sheba had seen all Solomon's wisdom, and the house that he had built, (5) And the meat of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their apparel, and his cupbearers, and his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the LORD; there was no more spirit in her.

I am not comparing Trump to Solomon in any way but one; visit one of his properties. It is amazing. We stayed at the Langham across the street, a 5 star hotel and very nice. Trump is head and shoulders (and 60 stories) above that. We stayed at the Conrad in NY, another 5 star. Not even close to Trump.

I think the doormen at Trump hotel have more competence than the managers at most other Hotels. They are all tall, slender, broad shouldered, and tremendously attentive. They look like West Point Grad. The women in the lobby are similar. Tall, immaculately dressed, gracious. Even when no one is coming in the door or at the front desk, they stand straight and tall, with bearing. They are not slouching, joking, and smoking like their peers.

The property itself, like all Trump properties, is immaculate. The inside of the door hinges shine. All the little details most places miss, even the nice places, Trump does not miss. It shines, and is beautiful in design and in decor.

Why does that matter? It speaks to Trumps competence. That hotel (and the golf courses, etc) are a reflection of his character as a businessman. What has Hillary built? Does it shine? What about Cruz, for that matter, or Jeb? If you have never built something, or owned your own business, this might be hard to understand. The business reflects the character of the person at the top. It is extremely hard to have a business run like his run.

We are voting for, among other things, a chief executive. Trump will care that how he runs this country reflects on him just as how his doormen stand reflects on him. I think he will apply the same discipline to the Presidency he applies to all other areas. I much prefer a competent publican to a unproven pharisee (Cruzbeck) or an incompetent Jezebel.

Kent Brandenburg said...


Click bait, it seems, what Erickson wrote, because you don't put "rethinking Trump" and then don't actually rethink, unless "rethinking" means telling you exactly what I was already thinking, again and again, hence re-thinking. Like reheating in the microwave.

I think he has warped reasoning, informing us that Trump is immoral, including the worst possible reasoning for Trump used as some kind of representation of the reasoning for Trump.

Erickson voiced his opposition to the woman he will help elect, it seems, to provide more cover and deniability for the responsibility he will bear, if she is elected.

The only way Erickson can win is if Trump wins and he is a horrible president. If Trump wins and Trump is a great president, Erickson loses. If Hillary wins, Erickson loses. Trump has to win for him to win. Even then, has he really won? If Trump is horrible, there is always the argument that Hillary would have been worse. Let's say though that Trump wins, he's horrible, but he appoints three conservative Supreme Court Justices, one immediately for Scalia.

If Trump puts in three justices and builds a wall, and besides that, is horrible, could he even be horrible?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Farmer Brown,

Solomon had some good government. The glory of the flowers of the field created by God compared to Solomon's good government by Jesus Himself. Solomon himself, not so good. Christians very often don't believe in competency, sometimes proud of their incompetency, because then people will take knowledge they've been with Jesus. They emphasize ignorance and being unlearned as the key to that knowledge.

Then there is the church growth strategy. Trump haters will visit the church of a Trump hater. You want to keep that avenue open for church growth. Trump lovers are mouth breathing dumpster fires, who wouldn't know the difference anyway.

I scuffed my shoes today to look authentic and to protest shininess, that only draws attention to self.


You seriously believe he's going to build a wall?
The whole southern border?
Northern border?
Is he going to put a dome on top of the U.S.?


Mr. Brown,
Any experience with Trump vodka? University? Casinos with strip clubs?

Kent Brandenburg said...


One of the other reasons, I think, that Erickson has to write this new essay is because he's been embracing the idea of Trump not being able to win, another iteration of Trump won't build a wall and Trump won't win the primary. They aren't arguments, but they were still presented like they were, which were then lost, and now the Trump can't beat Hillary argument looks shaky too. I really don't know how Erickson stays relevant.

You're just repeating yourself too, John. If people are voting for Trump, they've already crossed those bridges. Bringing them up again at this point is more about you than about giving anyone a second thought.

Farmer Brown said...

John, I have never been to any strip club or casino, or consumed any alcohol.

My point was about his competence. Nothing you said challenges that. I am going to be at Trump Hotel Chicago again in a few minutes. I will let you know if it is still as competently run as it was this afternoon.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hello Everyone again,

Has anyone wondered or asked why the mainstream media (msnbc, cnn, cbs, nbc, abc), the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and almost all of Hollywood is against Trump if he is such a bad possibility as president?


If he’s competent then his businesses will grow. So, you are supporting a man who has a vested interest in more vodka and casinos with strip clubs in them in America? Why doesn’t he show his competency in releasing his tax returns. He tweeted this in February of THIS year: “Mitt Romney didn't show his tax return until SEPTEMBER 21, 2012, and then only after being humiliated by Harry R! A bad messenger for estab!” DJT 2/28/16 He said he would release his tax returns. I find he is quite competent at lying.

Before you accuse me of being a troll again, I’ve been reading here for years. I have probably read most of everything on WIT. I just searched and saw a comment I made in 2011. I like a lot of your stuff. I have linked here to your articles.

My initial comment was a question that hasn’t been addressed. You asked, “On the other hand, can't someone be free to express who he'll vote for at his own church without being pummeled for it?” If your Moral Narcissism Post isn’t pummeling, what is it? It honestly reads in a James White style you rightly decry. My second comment was a question to clarify an error you made.
The third was link to an article that seems reasonable. Was it a click bait title, sure. Do you and EE want people to come to your site? Is your post “Evidence that the Bible and Christianity are Not Scientific” click-bait? Say what you will about EE, he use to fill in for Rush and now he don’t so you really can’t write his motives off for $$ or relevance.
If HRC wins, we lose. If DJT wins, we lose. You think we are going to be happy when DJT is elected and is a terrible Prez so we can say see we told you so? No, we are going to be weeping for our country because he’s a terrible Prez. We’ve already lost because these are our 2 nominees. The GOP is done. Conservatism is damaged goods because so many conservatives have latched on to DJT instead of holding to principles they’ve espoused for years.

Who was the last R the MSM and Hollywood endorsed? How much air time has the man got on those networks? DJT is branding, show man, he knows even bad press that is free is publicity nonetheless.
Is there a reason there are no comments from TDR and/or Voegtlin?

The man is an irrefutable liar who is unfit for the Office. There are not levels of unfitness.

You ‘ve been conned, sir.

John M. Gardner

Kent Brandenburg said...


Voting for Trump, differing than your assessment and portrayal, is not supporting his casinos and strip clubs. Voting for Romney, which I did, was not a support of Jesus as the spirit brother of Satan. Romney was supported by strip club owners. They gave him campaign contributions. Should he have rejected all contributions from anyone like that to remain pure as a candidate? At some point this breaks down for you in your "it must be supporting the bad activity" as it relates to voting for someone. It's a bad argument, I'm saying. It's a shame tactic that I get, because I hate the idea of strip clubs, etc., and want to vote for someone who will get less than 1% of the vote to ease the shame I feel. That thought enters my mind for only a few seconds before I start thinking about it like you should, and like I do.

James White depends a lot on this condescending sneering as his means of argument. That's what I'm pointing out. Pummeling isn't the problem, so you are taking this somewhere I wasn't taking it. This is something I find you doing now. I would say my Moral Narcissist column is very dissimilar to James White. First, it was unique for me, not a regular feature. Second, it was obvious satirical as a device. The whole thing was satire, so if you took it as totally serious, then you were missing a lot. I have noticed people taking the Babylon Bee as serious, when it is satire. Sure, under all satire is the kernel of truth that it is stating, but it is doing so in a satirical manner. The satire was missed, it seems, on you.

When I read Eric Erickson, he reads like an opportunist to me. I'm not saying he is bereft of principle at all. He and I would agree on a lot. For what he's trying to do, I don't see how he stays relevant, because he's not very good IMO. He got your attention, so there is something out there for him, but I don't get it. My not getting it doesn't mean that it can't be explained.

I have a different evaluation obviously for this election. I think we're already done, but Trump will slow it down compared to Hillary. I'm very unhappy with "conservatives" trying to help Trump lose. They will own it if he does, because this is very close and they are the biggest reason IMO that he would lose, if he did.

If Hillary didn't have the press, she would be tanked right now, so it isn't helping Trump. The bad press is good press works only so far. This is the most negative the press has ever been about a Republican.

I don't know why or when Jeff comments here. Thomas and I do have an agreement that we will be careful to show a united front to a certain degree and keep whatever disagreements in the background. He is going to comment here, he has informed me. That will be coming.

On my being conned, OK. I've read that democrat talking point too. Last by Robert Reich, the socialist Labor guy, who worked for the Clintons: https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/hes-not-a-businessman-hes-a-con-man-robert-reich-stuns-trump-fan-into-silence/

Recently by Harry Reid: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/15/donald_trump_is_a_human_leech_who_will_bleed_the_country.html

And here by Michael Cohen of the Boston Globe: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/08/29/trump039s_immigration_con_game_390117.html

The "con" argument is a Democrat talking point. You have some interesting company there, John.

Kent Brandenburg said...

I forgot to comment on the taxes of Donald Trump. The IRS, I'm quite sure, will be making sure that Trump pays all the taxes he can pay. He's getting the attention of the IRS. If he is in fact being audited, then the IRS is looking into it. If the Obama administration wants him to show them, then they have control over an audit. I hope he pays the least amount of taxes he could. I don't trust the media with their interpretation of his taxes. I'm glad he's not showing them.

Farmer Brown said...

John, the whole idea that you cannot support unbelievers who support unbiblical things is divorced from reality. In fact, it really does not exist anywhere except in the mind of the nevertrumps, and then only about Trump. For example:

Did you swear off AT&T and GMC when for the last 20 years they were earning 80% or the revenue generated by porn? I guess, using your logic, if you drove a Chevy pickup you were are in favor of porn. Now Fox owns the pornography business of GMC. That includes wall street journal, fox, foxnews, newscorp, and many other media outlets. Read the Wall Street Journal? You are supporting companies that have a vested interest in something even worse than strip clubs. Make sure you avoid almost every hotel, they all do/have sold GMC/Fox's porn.

At least you can buy a Ford, right? Wrong, if you buy a Ford you are supporting alternative lifestyles. Subaru? Huge marketing budget for lesbians. Toyota, VW, Audi, Honda, Hyundai all support gay lifestyles, abortion, or causes that promote those things. You (literally) cannot buy a car, if you really hold your position.

What about food? Hope you are never at starbucks, Whole Foods, Target, Trader Joes. Also, general foods, the maker or distributor of half the food products in the grocery store is both the largest importer and exporter of booze. If you like cheerios you support drunkenness. Forget Amazon, Walmart, Target, Sears, Nordstroms, Kohls, Autozone, Bridgestone, Levi, and Ryder. Do business with any of them you support unbiblical ideals.

I suspect that if Amazon had a sale on Levis and you needed Levis, you would buy them even though you would be supporting companies that have a vested interest in things far worse than strip clubs. I think you would not be quite so picky. Are you driving a horse, John? This is not about morals.

KJB1611 said...

Dear John,

There are definitely levels of unfitness for office.

If I were not in a swing state, I would definitely vote Constitution Party for reasons such as those you mentioned, and many others (Trump's support for torture; utter ignorance of the Constitution; lies, ridiculous conspiracy theories; leftist history; etc.)

However, I am in a swing state, so while I may not vote FOR Trump, I am very seriously considering voting FOR the Supreme Court, as a liberal majority on the Supreme Court could do damage for generations or even permanently destroy the Republic, while Trump's major damage will be limited to four years. I am concerned that he will tarnish the Republican brand for a long time, but the populace is generally too fickle and ignorant to think about anything for a long time. However, a liberal Supreme Court means all voter IDs are unconstitutional; guaranteeing future Democrat victories through voter fraud; all restrictions on abortion are unconstitional; pastors not performing sodomite weddings may be unconstitional; a balanced budget may be unconstitional; reducing entitlement spending may be unconstitional; raising taxes may be required by the constitution; the second amendment is no longer part of the constitution; single-payer health care may be required by the constitution; sodomy always is superior to religious liberty for businesses, individuals, and probably churches; enforcing immigration law may be unconstititional; Christian schools not hiring sodomites is probably unconstitutional; home schooling may be unconstitutional; spanking is probably unconstitutional; and so on. I may very possibly be willing for Trumpian tarrifs and protectionism to destroy the economy, and Trumpian sympathy for Putin allowing the Russian thug to take ovr Eastern Europe, etc. and possible incredible Republican losses in 2018 midterms because of Trump's incompetence, to avoid a leftist supreme court. If I were in Egypt, I would vote for the current Egyptian tyrant rather than the Muslim Brotherhood, because Christians would have more freedom under a more secular tyrant. I think Christians are very likely to have more freedom under Trump than under Hillary. We need to face the fact that religious liberty is no longer a bipartisan, but is now a partisan issue.

Do I trust Trump to appoint conservative justices? No, of course not. But he might, because it would be in his own self-interest.

Do I trust Hillary to appoint constitution-haters? Yes, absolutely.

Would voting for Trump be the hardest vote of my electoral lifetime? Yes, absolutely. I would love to have Trump win, appoint a good replacement of Scalia, and then resign or get impeached and let Pence govern the country. If Trump tries to build a wall on day one as he promised----that is, without Congress--that would be an impeachable offense, and it would be great to have him impeached and have Pence be president. If he does "unspeakable things," like he promised, that go far beyond waterboarding,in torturing people or in killing innocent civilians who have relatives that are bad, that would be an impeachable offense, and there might be enough Republicans who love the Constitution to join with Democrats in impeaching him. If Hillary wins, the Democrats will not join Republicans to impeach her no matter what she does to the Constitution.

Jeff Voegtlin said...

Wow. I got named in a comment!

Kent may disagree with me, but since I live in Indiana, and I think my vote is of little electoral consequence, I will be voting either Constitution Party or America's Party. I don't actually know which "other" parties will be on my ballot.

My thought is that it might make a statement if there are good numbers of votes for these other better parties.

There you go, John.

David Barnhart said...

Living in a battleground state as I do, 3rd-party is not a good choice for me. I feel a bit like a vote for Trump is like playing Russian Roulette, but voting for Clinton is like filling all the chambers and just shooting myself in the head. And who knows, as others have said, with Trump there is at least a possibility of constitutionalist Supreme Court justices being nominated...


So to recap,
TDR is voting for the man for whom he is praying gets impeached.

JV and DB only vote what they think is right when it don't count.

And KB and FB, are voting for the supposed Alpha male who brags about his genita$ia size on national TV in front of my kids.

Great work GOP.

John from North Carolina

Kent Brandenburg said...


If I used your reasoning, I couldn't vote for Trump, but your reasoning is so terribly flawed, I can't use your reasoning. You should look at Ted Cruz's reasoning, revealed today for why he is voting for Trump. It looks pretty sound.

By the way, you used the two words that were so abhorrent to you on my blog. No one else, I don't think, has ever used such language here, except you.


He's keeping his word that he shouldn't have given.

2nd paragraph: no idea what you mean.

Kent Brandenburg said...

You had to use a dollar symbol so that you could avoid the filter.


That's not true sir. I had no thought about a filter. I was thinking about folks googling my name and seeing that and trying to sully my witness with something out of context. False accusations racking up on this post sir. I'll await the apology.

Kent Brandenburg said...

You didn't put the dollar sign because of a filter. You put the dollar sign so that others wouldn't see you use the word, even though used the word, not a filter. You self-filtered. You used your own filter. You didn't want them to see you use the word, because that's offensive in front of children?? (question mark) I stand corrected.


I'm trying to abstain from all appearance of evil, which is sadly difficult, in describing your presidential candidate's behavior/speech on national TV.

Was what trump said at the debate vile, offensive, unsuitable for children and not worthy of the Office of presidency?
So Cruz is trusting Trump, whom he called a “pathological liar”, to appoint the SCOTUS nominees he said he would and trusting McConnell, whom he called a liar, to fight for and pass those nominees (probably from the minority position in Jan. 2017 since the top of the ticket is so weak). That’s reasonable?

Prediction: Dem’s win Senate, filibuster nominees till someone like or Trump’s actual sister is nominated and appointed.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Nobody made you write it, John.


LOL beither



Thomas E Kresal said...

I am surprised that there were no comments in regards to Trump's running mate, Mike Pence. As a business man Trump understand's the importance of surrounding himself with high quality people. Pence is very good on foreign affairs and a myriad of other political concerns. he is a tremendous asset. My hope in a Trump Presidency is for him to run America like a business. His platform is to reduce our debt (we are the largest debtor nation in the world - our only life line is oil being traded in US dollars - change that to a oil being traded in EUROS and we become a 3rd world country - we've got to get a handle on our debt), renegotiating trade deals, taxing USA companies that build plants in other countries (Mexico for example)and are rewarded with free or reduced import taxes. Reducing corporate taxes will not only stimulate the economy but make it more desirable for corporations to keep their business stateside. Hillary will do none of these things. She is a tax and spend liberal. Just like Obama she will continue his policy of taxing corporations (plus expensive over regulation) to pay for more social programs. Obamacare doesn't need to be fixed it need's to be repealed and replaced with a workable solution. Hillary will lead us to a one payer system.

Strictly speaking from an economic perspective based on our choices Trump is the only answer.