Recount Recount Recount

It is amazing watching the president-elect react to the concept of recounting the votes. He calls it a scam even though there is a legal process to have the votes recounted. And then he proclaims without any evidence that illegal votes gave the popular vote to Clinton.

Amazing.

If it were I, I would proclaim let all the votes be recounted throughout the United States. After all, the votes are more and likely going to be counted and the results not change.

But instead, we have this reaction.

A suspicious person might begin to wonder if his harping on a rigged election wasn't another example of him putting what he does on his opponent.

Too Much Regulations

It always makes me laugh when the Republicans complain about too much regulation and it hampering business. And people just buy it up.

The whole reason that there is regulation is because at some point, people or businesses were taking advantage of something that was deemed not good for society as a whole. The regulations were put in to stop it.

Which the whole point of a government is to keep society safe from those that would exploit, or terrorize, the rest of society. But for some reason, what is good for society has taken a backseat and now its all for the individual and how dare the government do anything to stop that individual from doing whatever they want. It seems to me we're making a trip back into the feudal system as the extreme right takes over the government.

Its kind of like how people now have been pushed into hating the unions. You know those organizations that prevent businesses from exploiting their workers. That won many things that people take for granted today like a 40 hour work week instead of an 80 or100 hour workweek.

Just look at how willing the businesses are to pay pennies for jobs overseas and people being worked to death. If it weren't for unions/regulations, businesses would be doing it here happily.

And then there's griping about the Environmental Protection regulations. There was a time when you couldn't hardly see around Pittsburgh because of the poor air quality. Then cleaner air regulations went into effect and the air got a whole lot more breathable.

But of course, regulations are bad because society as a whole should not be protected against those that want to profit at its expense. So just you wait for the coming years with the Republicans in complete control of all aspects of the government, the smog shall return.

And if they could, they'd be ruling back minimum wage too.

Uncle Scrooge would be pleased that his 10 cents a day would be a good rate.

Fixing the Electoral College

Some say going to a pure popular vote would result in lots of court challenges around the country. Another is the claim that the larger population centers would control the election.

Splitting the electoral college by the popular vote is an option. But then you have the problem of nobody reaching the 270 magic number. Because nobody gets enough votes. Although that is also possible with a winner take all apprach since the numbers can add up to 269 and 269 if the states fall right.

The problem with not getting to 270 is why in my opinion with the electoral college it shouldn't be a straight proportion of the popular vote. But I think the winner take all does exactly the opposite of what it was intended since it throws the entire population of the state on one candidate since its based on representatives + senators and the house of representatives  is based on population. (As mentioned before Madison and Hamilton the designers of the ec argued against the winner take all approach as not what the system was designed for and tried to get an amendment passed to block it but failed) I think the ec should be divided and there should be a threshold of like all candidates that get 20% or more of the popular vote has the electoral college split by the percentage of the that vote.

Like if the breakdown was

Candidate A gets 48%
Candidate B gets 35%
Candidate C gets 10%
Candidate D gets 7%

And to make it easy... lets say the percentages there is also the popular vote so there was a total of 100 votes. The EC on the line would be 20. Most likely the number is subconsciously based on the fact my state has 20 ec.

So Candidate A and B would divide the 20 ec by their percentage of the vote for candidates that got above 20% or 83 votes

A got 57% of the vote for the candidates that meet the threshold so they would get 12 of the 20 ec votes. 11.56 to be more precise

B would get the other 8.

Now if the election ended up with three candidates meeting the threshold with

A at 40%
B at 27%
C at 23%
D at 10%

With that there's 90 total votes among the threshold candidates. So the ec breakdown would be:

A gets 9 (8.88 to be more exact)
B gets 6
C gets 5

But anyway that's the way I think the ec should work.

Based on my system the electoral college this last election would have been:

Clinton 270
Trump 267
McMullin 1

If you decided to use fractions for the ec it would have been:

Clinton 270.8
Trump 266.9
McMullin 1.3

Democrats following the Republican Plan

So the Republicans have gone so far right that they run complete buffoons in the primaries. Now the Democrats are going to do the same only to the left by embracing Bernie Sander's pick to lead the DNC.

When the past election began I hoped that it wouldn't be Trump vs. Sanders because neither sounded good to me. The only way I would choose one or the other is if a gun was held to my head and I was told to choose or else.  I thought the choice was going to be Bush vs Clinton which didn't enthrall me at all but at least the choice wouldn't have been so disgusting. I hoped John Kasich would  get the Republican nomination because he was the only sane one running on the Republican side. And I would have voted for him.

But instead, we got the Clinton vs Trump hell...

So despite the fact Clinton got more votes than Trump and only lost because of a system that has been misused basically from day 1, the Democratic Party is going to throw out all sanity and run to the left. That's gone so well for them in the past.

Dear DNC, the sane people are in the center. That's why the Clinton years had the longest period in US history without a recession. 10 years. Last year of Bush when he broke his word and raised taxes, Clinton years, first year of Bush 2 when he wiped out the economy by insane tax cuts. But governing from the center is how the US prospers. When the good parts of the right and left are meshed together.

But you know, go ahead and run to the left and hopefully the party will go into oblivion. The same place I hope the Republican Party goes.

Someone needs to bring back the Whigs as a moderate party. Or Federalists. Or maybe just follow Washington's advice and obliterate all political parties.

Misinformation: The fight of Conservative Web

I originally saw this argument copied into the comments section of a comic book website known as Bleeding Cool.

 So the right wing sites are fighting back against the fact that Hillary Clinton is winning the popular vote. They are now claiming that absentee votes haven't been count. And that absentee votes go by a figure of 66 to 33 for Republicans.

They claim that Absentee votes are only counted by the state if they would effect the outcome of an election.

Their fight has taken them back to the 2000 election where Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral college. They claim that Bush also won the popular vote of the election because again Absentee votes were not counted. They claim that California had 2 million absentee votes. And based on their percentages that 1.3 million would have gone to Bush and 600000 to Gore.

This they claim would wipe out the 500,000 difference in the popular vote just using California alone. But what if you look closer at the numbers. And the actual vote tallies.

Well based on their own argument absentee votes are only counted if they effect the state's election. As I pointed out in the thread I found it in, the actual votes for the election were a difference of 1.3 million.

The actual totals were:

Gore 5,861,203
Bush 4,567,429

So if California only counts them if they would effect an election, 1.3 is less than 2 million so the absentee votes would have been counted if they numbered 2 million like is claimed.

But the claim is based on nothing but thin air. Much like the claim that 20 million Amish were going to come out in mass and vote for Trump when the reality is there are only 250,000 Amish living in America.

So their argument as it usually is is flawed.

The reason the "evil" left wing media doesn't report on their conspiracy theories is because most people aren't interested in stores that have as much fact as stories about Big Foot and alien encounters.

Stick with the real facts please.

Voter Turnout a 20 year low

Voter Turnout was at a 20-year low this year. It is believed that 55% of eligible voters cast votes this year. Guess all the attempts by the Republicans were successful in suppressing the vote. They should be really proud of themselves. Isn't it a great party that's only chance for success is to keep people from performing their right?

As I said in an earlier post, it is ridiculous that there were 2.5 hour waits in Washington County, PA this year. There is absolutely no excuse to have so few places to vote that it is like that. And its all the result of Republicans doing their best to make it as hard as possible to vote. And they want to add to the delays by having photo ids. I'm not interested in standing in line waiting while every person in front of me is checked to make sure that they are who they say they are.

If the people checking the names don't know the person, then fine. Let them check the ids. But when the people know the person, its ridiculous to have to wait while ids are brought out. My cousin is sitting across the table and knows me. My neighbor two doors down is also across the table. They know me. And between them and the other two people sitting there that I didn't know, they probably know a good many people voting.

But there is no excuse for the election to be held one day and on a weekday even. A person who has made up his mind once the campaigning begins should be able to cast a ballot when he wants to. Also there should be a system to allow voting online.

But that's all anathema to the Republicans. They want to make sure people can't do anything fraudulent. Even though their followers are the ones that are usually found to be doing it.

Another reason that people are not interested in voting is the fact that the system makes it kind of pointless for some to bother. Think of all the Republicans in California and the Democrats in the south. Do they really have a reason to vote? Here in Pennsylvania, I live in the rural area that is dominated by tea party people. I never get the Representative in the House that I vote for. I never get the candidate I want in the State legislature. And because of the Electoral college I didn't have a say this year in the Presidency. So why bother voting in the future when nothing I vote for has a chance to win?  It's a waste of time. If PA is now going to be a Republican state for the Presidency, I will probably be looking out of state for employment and move.

The Electoral College

It appears that like in 2000, the losing candidate received more votes than the winning candidate. This is one of the absurdities of the Constitution. Or at least how it has come to be used.

The original intent of the Electoral College is very different from what is has become. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison came up with the system. In their version the people elected electors to go to a convention to discuss who should become President and to examine the qualtities of the candidates that wanted to become President. So essentially there would be many many different campaigns by people across the states telling people what they would look for in a President. And then there would be an election and the people would select the thinkers who would get together for the actual Presidential election.

Once the Electors were chosen, they would go on to the convention or meeting and then they would hammer out who they were going to select to be President.

Soon the states began to force all the electors from their state to select the same person, ie a Party candidate. They did this in order to get more influence in the election. Madison and Hamilton both objected to this. They said it was not the intent of the system to have the districts all vote the same way in a state. They argued that the electors were supposed to get together and analyze who would be the best President. To go to the meeting already predisposed toward a candidate meant they were violating Article 2 of the Constitution because they were not getting together to analyze.

Both Hamilton and Madison wanted to add an amendment to the Constitution that forbid the states to send electors to the meeting that had to vote a certain way. They wanted all the electors to be free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives.

But the amendment did not get accepted.

So today we have this system in place that the original founders did not like and spoke out against. And really the whole point of the system was to help find the best candidate possible by having the electors come together and discuss things. Instead, it does the opposite where no discussion happens.

And supporters today claim that it helps the smaller states by diminishing the voice of bigger states. But think about it.

The number of electors is based on the number of representatives in the House and the 2 Senators in the Senate. Since the House is based on population, so are the number of electors. So that means a bigger state by not having its vote split among different candidates has a bigger say than the smaller states.

Many supporters of the EC say that California's say would dwarf all the smaller states if it was popular vote based. But with 55 electors it does anyway when the smallest states have 3.

By making it winner take all, California's voice in the Electoral college is actually increased. In a popular vote system, its vote would be split in 2016 with 5.5 million voting for Clinton and 3 millions voting for Trump. With the Electoral college as it currently runs, its like 8.5 million voted for Clinton.

The system as it currently runs is exactly what the founders were against. So those saying the founders' system is brilliant and should not be changed are actually arguing against the founding fathers since they objected to the winner take all system. The founders would be arguing against the current system as they did when the system was in its infancy..

Based on their argument they gave later in life and their attempt to get an amendment passed, they would be for either making the electoral college be distributed by percentage of the popular vote or they would go straight to popular vote. Because the original intent of the Electoral College was to send smart people together to determine who was the best potential candidate.

The people's say originally was simply who do they send to the conference to discuss it by district.

As much as I hate the tea party...

The liberal equivalent is just as bad. Several cities, all in liberal leaning states from my first glance, have passed soda taxes. Oh give me a break. So now that cigarettes have been shamed into having to go outside, liberals will commence going after soda pop.

Meanwhile, marijuana gets legalized. All it might do is put someone into a stupor while they're at work and if work is dangerous... it could cause a catastrophe because someone came under the influence and messed up.

Yep lets go after soda... A drink that only effects the health of the person drinking it. It doesn't cause anything to happen to anyone around the person. But we have to hold your hand because its not good for you and tell you no no no.

I hate the nanny state of Liberals.

I hate the selfish state of Conservatives.

Why do the politicians have to be from the extremes. Give us moderates please...

Protests in the Streets

I cannot believe that there are people protesting in the streets because Trump won. I read in the paper today about Pitt students protesting in Oakland (Pitt campus area of Pittsburgh) Now I see there are protests elsewhere. Protesting in the streets is accomplishing nothing. Burning stuff does not do any good. Its just making you look like a fool.

The only people affected are those trying to get somewhere. And then everything needs to be cleaned up. Its just like those silly protests a few years ago that protested something Iran was doing. Like they cared what you were doing in the USA...

The worst case scenario happened. Its a democracy. That's what sometimes happens. Now act like a grown up and get on with your life.

If you want to protest, then protest in Washington DC when Trump is in power.

Protesting in LA, Chicago, or Pittsburgh is just a waste of time.

The Backwardness of Pennsylvania

It is absolutely ridiculous that there are 2.5 hour waits to vote in Washington County. This is just one of many examples of Pennsylvania's continued ineptness. You should be able to go to your polling place and vote in under 10 minutes. There should not be halfwits outside standing in the way handing out pamphlets and there shouldn't be limited polling stations.

Most importantly, there should be early voting offered. It is stupid that voting is all done on the same day unless you have a good excuse for an absentee ballot. But that wouldn't fit the GOP's voter suppression agenda.

Also to be added to Pennsylvania's black eye is the ridiculous fact that we're a state that doesn't have driver's license that will also work as Federal IDs come 2017. This is outrageous. And the Pennsylvania legislature ought to make it possible for all Pennsylvania residents who want a card that works as a Federal ID to get one at the state's expense. These cards cost $55. All because Pennsylvania wants to act all contrary to the Federal ID law that President Bush signed in the 2000s.

And for years, it was cheaper for those living in western PA to attend college at Youngstown State and pay out of state tuition as a neighboring county than to attend the state's own Public Universities. That is outrageous. This year that cost has changed and now its only a little cheaper to attend Slippery Rock.

But I won't be holding my breath for early voting or an ID. Pennsylvania prefers to not make things easy for its citizens. It would rather find more and more ways to drive people to other states.

How did the Republican Party get so Crazy?

They go from being the party of Family Values to this monstrosity. With people walking around with t-shirts calling for the lynching of journalists. And they were offended by being called deplorable... It is a disgusting display. Instead of discourse, they begin to yell and scream at anyone that doesn't agree with them. And they look like crazy people.

Is it all because of Trump demonizing the journalists? By pointing to them at his rallies and shouting rigged?

Or is there another cause?

In my opinion, the problem began years ago when anyone who would negotiate with the other side was demonized. This despite 93% of the population wanting people who will compromise.

Now if someone like Arlen Specter were involved he would be challenged by a Tea Party favorite like Pat Toomey, and would never make it out of the primary. Because the Tea Party has driven sane people out of the Republican Party and they switched their status to independent. This has made the candidates that come out of primaries to be from the crazy wing.

Its just like how the PCUSA was changed from a conservative theological Christian branch to a Christian branch that leans liberal theologically. Conservatives fled the church and created their own denominations with each decision that they couldn't agree with.

The only way for the Republican Party to regain its sanity, is if the moderates who fled to return. Or else they will continue to go down the path of fringe party destined for oblivion and only winning as they do because of gerrymandering. Like Pennsylvania who has more Democrats than Republicans but they continue to have control of the state legislature even though there are more votes for democrats the past few elections.

Wah The Media isn't covering...

So how many people are tired of reading that from the fringe voters? If you listen to those on the left, the media is a right wing rag. If you listen to tea party nuts, the media is a left wing rag. Oh woe the media didn't cover x...

The problem with that whine is that usually the media has covered it. They're just too busy whining about the media to notice. On twitter, I'll see them complaining and think I just read that on CNN like 2 hours ago.

Of course the ones that get the attention right now are the crazy right leaning sites. They come up with some real whoppers and then Hannity spouts the made up story. Like MIchelle Obama has cleaned her twitter feed of all references to Hillary.

A quick check of her feed would have shown that was a lie. But there goes Hannity. Blind to the fact that the right wing sites are fiction.

Another one, Obama has cancelled all campaigning for Clinton. Yet, he was campaigning at the time for her.

Or Bernie Sanders has broke with Clinton and will no longer be campaigning... Yet there he is on television saying that his followers should vote for Clinton.

Maybe Sanders and Obama are puppets and the real Sanders and Obama have been hidden away like King John did to his rivals in the Tower of London. They sure are lifelike though...

Oh and then there's the Amish have handed Trump the election because they're all going to vote this year. They claim all 20 million of them are going to vote Trump and guarantee the win. Um there's like 250,000 Amish in America... If something is not likely to be true, DON'T SHARE IT!!!!!!!!! Is it really that hard to tell that a site isn't legitimate?

Apprently so since Trump likes to share the whacko new sites on his twitter feed...

Oh wait I can sense it. They're claiming I'm a left wing nut. Nevermind the fact, I read CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, BCC, Al Jazerra, That every political poll I take puts me as a Centrist. And for those that tell leans that I lean toward Authoritarian.

Which side shows American values when hecklers come?

It is amazing the difference in how the two political parties handle hecklers at their rallies. When Bill Clinton was heckled at his rally for his wife a few weeks ago, he talked about the issue. And he told the crowd not to treat the protesters the way they treat protesters.

This wasn't a single event for Bill Clinton. He has gone right to the issue of the hecklers numorous times at places he's spoke.

Then there is Obama a couple of days ago in I believe North Carolina. A protester shows up and people start to shout him down. 

Again the Democrat calls on people to respect the protester and to not boo them. They should keep their focus and vote.

Now how does the Republican handle protesters. George W Bush had protest zones set up that couldn't even see the candidate.

Trump wants protesters thrown out in the cold without their coats:

Trump wants his followers to be proactive.

So he promises to pay the legal fees for anyone who attacks a protester. But then given his history, do you really believe him?

So which side is more American? The one that will actually engage with the protesters or attempt to? Or the side that wants to punch them out?

Here's Bill Clinton back during his first presidential campaign. As we see he still wanted to engage back then.

Where should Anger at Washington be directed?

For those that say they hate what is going on in Washington, why do you continue to send Republicans there? They have set the House of Representatives up to be gridlock since they took charge. They bragged one year that if people want a say in the House they need to send more Republicans. They do this with the anti-constitutional policy that any bill that will be brought up for a vote must have the support of the majority of the Republican caucus.

So any Bill that a Democrat comes up with will never see the light of day because it needs to get the support of half the Republicans in the chamber. Is that really a good principle? Or it the actions of a party that wants to be dictatorial?

The whole point of sending all these people to Washington is to get bills that are not too Conservative or too Liberal. By making it so only one side has a say in the bills that come up, Republicans hamper the brilliance of the founders and create a dysfunctional chamber that is too conservative. The middle way has been the way of the United States since the founding. The Constitution was built on compromise. Its stability is based on continuing to compromise.

Ben Franklin was instrumental in getting the compromise that became our Constitution. He talked about people like he was describing partisans today. He said, “Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error.”

When talking about bringing men together, he said, “For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does.”

It came so close to perfection because everyone had a say to what should be done. And the zealots were moderated by those that were between the extremes. Zealots result in dysfunction and in order for the system to work, the zealots must be talked away from the edge. When the only ones that have a say in the piece are those on one side, the zealots have too great a say. Nothing gets done or what does angers those with no say.

And the zealot followers of the Republicans crow that the dysfunction was because of the Democrats in the Senate and the Presidency. If you don't allow input in the bills passed why would you expect the other party to pass the zealot bills that were passed in the House? It was designed to create gridlock and result in the anger.

He then described what the enemies of the United States wanted. He said, “I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.”

Who do those words seem to describe today? People who will not compromise and those are the same people likely to be re-elected on Tuesday. They are performing their job in the interests of no one but themselves because they have the hubris to believe that they have all the answers.

Ben Franklin also spoke about how the differences he had with the Constitution and how he handled it. He said, “The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partisans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects and great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity.” What political party again sent a letter in opposition to the President to Iran? They speak of wanting to do the founder’s intent with the Constitution and instead they spit on it.

Compromise is the absolute foundation of the Republic. As Ben Franklin said, “When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner here, both sides must part with some of their demands.” As the Tea Party has taken over, Republicans will not give up some of their demands. They want 100% or they want nothing to happen. That is not a position that is acceptable with the Constitution.

People who are angry at Washington should be angry at those who are causing the problem to begin with. And they continue to proclaim their anti-Constitutional leanings as the days lead up to the election. They have refused to do their Constitutional duty regarding the Supreme Court justice and now they say they will not do it if a Republican is not elected president.

If a party will not compromise for the good of the nation, it should not be supported.

An Evangelical's Thoughts about Trump

When Donald Trump asked a crowd in North Carolina at one of his rallies to raise their hand if they were an evangelical, nearly every one raised their hands. And then he asked who wasn’t a believer: A couple of people raised their hands. Aren’t evangelicals supposed to be the ones spreading the good news of the Gospel? Aren’t they supposed to be following the literal interpretation of the Bible? I certainly thought so as I am an evangelical. I also spent time in Seminary. I was four classes short of a Master of Divinity when my financial aid fell apart so it wasn’t in God’s plan. But I have a pretty good idea of what the Bible says. Am I perfect on the Bible? Absolutely not.

Shouldn’t an evangelical also pick a candidate or candidates that also follow Biblical principles or at least someone who’s life doesn’t completely contradict them? Shouldn’t we look at Jesus’ actions as examples of how we should go forward.

When Jesus picked his twelve apostles, he did not select all the same type of person. He picked a tax collector on one end, Matthew, and a zealot, Simon, who was against the government on the other end. It was a vast difference of opinion among the twelve and the political discussions were undoubtedly brutal. Evangelicals should want people who will bring a coalition of different ideas and find the middle ground. It is the basis of the U.S.A.’s entire system of government.

Are the Republicans doing that now? Saying No to everything is not finding the middle ground. Refusing to bring up a single bill in the House of Representatives that a majority of their own clique doesn’t support is not finding a middle ground. Finding a middle ground means negotiating with everyone to find a bill that a majority of the entire house will find acceptable. The use of the clique of Republicans as a stopgap for all bills is why the Congress is in eternal gridlock. Why should they be rewarded for doing that?

When Jesus was asked, what is the greatest command, he answered in Matthew 7:12, “To do to others as you would have them do to you.” That seems like a pretty good principle to live by.

Yet Donald Trump follows a far different principle. He seems to follow the principle to use someone for all that he can to enrich himself. For instance, he hired contractors to build his buildings. When they had finished work, he would not pay them the agreed amount. There’s videos of these contractors telling how he brought them in and told them that they did a terrible job and he wasn’t going to pay them. Or he tells him that he has already spent too much for the building and they were going to have to take less. Or they could go to court and spend a lot of money on lawyers while his lawyers dragged it out as long as possible and hid as much of the documentation as they could. Does that sound like someone who is following the golden rule?

Or someone that has read Romans 4:4? In it wages are not optional. They are a requirement for the one who wanted the work done. Or James 5:4 where the unpaid wages cry out against the perpetrator. The Bible is clear they should be paid. How can anyone vote for someone who unjustly withholds the amount due the worker?

James 5:1-5 appears to be talking directly to Donald Trump. How could anyone who takes the Bible seriously, as Evangelicals are supposed to, vote for this rich man?

Donald also has the habit of using people for his own pleasure at the expense of the other person. As his video boasting about his sexual assaults show. The Bible does not condone sexual assault. In Deuteronomy 22, the assaulter is to be stoned to death. If the Bible finds such actions to be so horrible that it requires the death sentence, how can evangelicals disregard the video of his confession? And before you dismiss it as him not being serious, people caught on tape boasting about their actions have found themselves convicted and sitting in jail. Do you want to open the floodgates and release everyone convicted for something they said on tape that were just words? In Matthew 5, just being angry with someone is the equivalent of murdering them to God. And what does Matthew 5 say about lusting?

Donald also has admitted in the debates that he has not paid federal income in years and that it shows that he is smart. So it is smart violating Matthew 22:21? I do not think it is smart to not follow the Biblical principles that Jesus set forth. It also has hurt the country greatly by people doing so. Deficits happen because of rich people like Donald doing this and the debt rises. In addition, reports show since he doesn’t give himself a salary he has avoided paying social security as well. His avoiding his dues causes the rest of us to have to make up for what he has stolen from the federal government. Or to at least try to as deficits show we are failing. What does the Bible say about hoarding riches? Look at Luke 12 and Matthew 6.

Donald has been lying throughout his campaign about big things and little things. He claimed he didn’t know a mobster that a photograph has been found showing that he did indeed know him. He claims he has never met Putin after months before saying that he met with him and got a gift from him. He claimed to be unfamiliar with David Duke when he was endorsed Trump even though he has condemned him in videos in the past. His lawyers have said they must meet with him in pairs because he must be reminded about what he agreed to in prior meetings. He even lies about things that aren’t important. Such as in 2005, he said he voted for George W Bush both times. In 2009, he said he did not vote for George W Bush either time. Now in 2016, he is back to voting for George W Bush. If he can’t even tell the truth about that, what can you believe that he has said. There are claims that Trump lies 70% of the time he speaks. What does the Bible say about lying? In Proverbs 12:21, lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.

When his father was dying and presumably didn’t know what was going on around him, Donald convinced his father to give his one brother’s family less than the others. His brother had died before his father. So naturally the brother’s family was not pleased with that outcome so the family sued the estate to use the will that had divided the estate equally among the siblings’ families. Donald used his 18-month grand-nephew’s health against the family. He cancelled the health policy that was covering the $300,000 health bill to make them give up the fight for their share. To use a toddler to make yourself even richer… that is an act of a monster.

James 2:14-26 lets everyone know that faith without works is dead. Works are people’s actions in life. If someone doesn’t pay contractors, boasts of sexual assaults, doesn’t pay taxes, lies about everything, and treats children as stepping stones to wealth, he shows his true self. Those actions are deplorable. And those that support such actions are also deplorable.

If Evangelicals ignore these things about Donald when they cast their vote, they might as well forget about candidates in the future ever being to their liking. They show they will vote for anyone that has an R by their name by voting for Donald Trump so they can be taken for granted. They will have no input in the platform of the Republican party in the future. Why should the party listen to those who will not stand up for their principles? Simply they won’t.

And if Evangelicals do vote for such a candidate they should never again be taken seriously when they speak of moral values. Because Trump has none. And by their action of voting for him, neither do Evangelicals take their moral values seriously. So why should anyone else?