Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Texas Elector Resigns, Claims Trump Not 'Biblically Qualified' to Serve as President

Recommended Posts

Staff

Texas resident and Republican elector Art Sisneros chose to resign rather than cast a vote for Donald Trump or become a “faithless elector” and vote for someone else.

 

Writing about his decision in a November 26th blog post, Sisneros reviewed the difference between a constitutional republic and a direct democracy. The framers of the Constitution set our government up so that it was governed by representatives the people chose rather than the people themselves. One example of this is the electoral college, which is ultimately tasked with electing the President of the United States.

 

In contrast to the first several presidential elections, many state political parties now ask their electors to take a pledge to vote for the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the state’s General Election. Sisneros took this pledge, but then found himself in a dilemma because, as he stated, “I believe voting for Trump would bring dishonor to God.”

 

He explained his reasoning for this conclusion in a blog post the day before the election.

 

In light of this conviction, Sisneros believed that he only had three options moving forward. He could swallow his conscience and vote for Donald Trump, break the pledge and vote for someone other than Trump, or resign his position as an elector. To be true to his conscience and his word, he resigned.

 

The electors in Texas will choose a replacement in time for the December 19 vote.

 

Source: http://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/scott-slayton/texas-elector-resigns-claims-trump-not-biblically-qualified-to-serve-as-president.html

Share this post


Link to post

Having perused his blog post I wonder what his stance would have been should Texas had gone to Hillary. Would he have resigned then also because she is a woman? His choice to resign almost smells of cowardice.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

I actually respect Sisnero's integrity. This is a perfect example as to why there are so few "Men of Faith" in politics. At the end of the day, we can wash our hands clean, but there are things like conscience which do not wash clean so easily.

 

Personally, I don't understand why the electorate would go to whoever won a states popular vote. What's the sense to have an Electoral vote then? What kinda check and balance would that be?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

Why would it not go to whoever won the popular vote. If it didn't it would mean the electoral system is a sham, and holding a general election would be irrelevant.

 

Personally, I think he is really dodging his duty by resigning because they will just choose another elector who will then have the obligation to vote for Trump. If he really wanted to make an influence he would remained in his position and then used his influence to push forward changed that need to made.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Why would it not go to whoever won the popular vote. If it didn't it would mean the electoral system is a sham, and holding a general election would be irrelevant.

 

 

Likewise, explain this to me like a four year old. If the electorate vote is only going to go to whoever won the state, why not do away with the electorate vote and allow just the popular vote to decide?

 

Why does America look like the PCUSA, Knotical? Don't get me wrong, I understand how a disconnected Electoral College can go against the will of the people, but isn't that the point? A Check and Balance...

 

This actually has worked in Trump's favor today.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

This came in from Allen B. West:

 

Less entertaining were the violent protests which were paid for erupted in cities across the nation.

 

Putting aside Jill Stein’s quixotic effort to force a recount, the left has been loudest with its demands to dismantle the Electoral College.

 

After all it’s unfair: Hillary Clinton won the “popular vote” so she should win, right?

 

Wrong.

 

Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

 

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

 

Share this with as many whiners as you can.

 

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

 

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

 

There are 62 counties in New York State.

 

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

 

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

 

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

 

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

 

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

 

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

 

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

 

Amen.

Share this post


Link to post

True, but if you believe some of the stories coming out about the popular vote this could have gone Hillary's way. Now I am not a truly big supporter of the electoral college, but it does expedite things when it comes to something as big as the presidential election. Think of controversy should we go completely by popular vote and we have more races that are as close as this one.

 

It is said that having the electoral college levels the playing field for all of the states giving the smaller states the same influence as the bigger ones, but that is really a fallacy. If they really wanted to level the playing field they would limit the amount of electoral votes to two per state. Currently it is based on population, so indirectly it is the popular vote that decides elections, it is just that the electoral college makes coming to these decisions faster and easier. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set this up.

 

Just ask yourself this: would we be better off as a true democracy or as a representative republic (as we are now).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Just ask yourself this: would we be better off as a true democracy or as a representative republic (as we are now).

 

Of course I am against a true democracy. Hillary is now 2.5 million votes ahead of Trump, and while I understand what you're saying, it just doesn't make sense to me, or at least the Electoral College being an "indicator" for the Popular vote for quickness of a tally fails considering she's actually ahead. At least Hillary's argument is that the Electoral College isn't meant to override the popular vote - that's a question? Does the Electoral College have the authority to override the popular vote? Yes, it seems so today.... . this is now twice in my lifetime that I have seen the Electoral College decide the next president in my Party's favor. What I am trying to understand was whether that was a forethought and a power by design that our forefathers had planned?

 

I read a comment on a site that answers my question, but the site isn't one that I hear of or offers a comprehensive explanation:

 

The electoral college decides the presidential vote because they wanted a division of power between the gov and people. They wanted to give people some power, such as voting for the president they want. The electors usually vote for the president that the majority of the people from his/her state, but they can override it. However, people vote for electors as well, so most of the time the electors will vote for what the people want. They do this because they want a boundary of power between government and people. Hope this helped!

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • ‘Save The Dreamers’: WaPo Implores Pelosi To Take Trump’s Wall Deal

      By Chris White - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats are losing one big voice in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s push for a border wall: The Washington Post’s Editorial Board. WaPo noted in a Sunday editorial reasons why Pelosi should rebuke the president’s most recent offer to temporarily extend protections for the so-called Dreamers. But the paper eventually explained that taking the deal would ultimately help those who came here through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. “He should not be rewarded for having taken the government hostage. Any piece of a wall would reinforce his hateful, anti-immigrant rhetoric,” WaPo noted. “He’s unreliable, having made and withdrawn similar offers in the past.” WaPo’s editorial board has blasted Trump in the past for what its writers call pushing immigration policies that would “cripple the economy.” It’s taking a different approach now. Sunday’s editorial explains why young people who came to the U.S. through the Obama-era program are in peril of being deported. If nothing happens soon, then the Dreamers could get the short end of the stick, WaPo noted. “If no deal is reached, the Supreme Court is likely at some point to end that dispensation, as Mr. Trump has demanded, and they will be sent back into the shadows, or to countries of which they have no memory.” Trump offered Pelosi and congressional Democrats a deal on Saturday. His deal included $800 million in urgent humanitarian assistance, $805 million in new drug detection technology, and three years of legal relief from deportation for DACA recipients in exchange for the $5.7 billion for “strategic deployment of physical barriers” Pelosi was not impressed. She preemptively shot down the proposal in a statement before the president’s announcement. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] ‘Save The Dreamers’: WaPo Implores Pelosi To Take Trump’s Wall Deal is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • BuzzFeed Doubles Down On Trump Story, But Won’t Discuss Documents Or Sources |

      By Chuck Ross - BuzzFeed is doubling down on its report that Michael Cohen has told the special counsel that President Trump instructed him to lie to Congress about his dealings in Russia Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued a rare statement rebutting BuzzFeed’s story, but BuzzFeed reporter Anthony Cormier said on CNN on Sunday that he has “further confirmation” that his report is accurate But Cormier also acknowledged on CNN that he is still in the dark about specifically what Cohen told the special counsel, and what precisely Trump allegedly told Cohen BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith and reporter Anthony Cormier doubled down Sunday on their bombshell report that President Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Russia. “I have further confirmation that this is right. We are being told to stand our ground. Our reporting is going to be borne out to be accurate, and we’re 100 percent behind it,” Cormier told CNN’s Brian Stelter during an interview about their report, which has been directly disputed by the special counsel’s office. “The same sources that we used in the story are standing behind it, and so are we.” But while Smith and Cormier expressed unwavering confidence in their story, the pair declined to discuss the specifics about how their report came together. Cormier dodged Stelter’s questions about documents that his colleague, Jason Leopold, claims to have seen as part of the reporting process. Cormier also acknowledged that he is not certain what Cohen specifically told the special counsel or what Trump allegedly told Cohen. Cormier and Leopold reported Thursday night that Cohen told the special counsel’s office that Trump directed him to lie to Congress in 2017 about his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. Citing two unnamed law enforcement officials, the reporters claimed that documents and other witness testimony would corroborate Cohen’s version of events. Democrats jumped on the story, calling for investigations into whether Trump suborned perjury or obstructed justice. Nearly 24 hours after the story appeared, a spokesman for Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered a devastating rebuttal to the report. “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement. The New York Times and Washington Post have since reported that the statement was intended to be a full-throated rebuttal to the claim that Cohen told Mueller’s office that he was told to lie by Trump. But Smith and Cormier remained confident in the face of the Mueller pushback. “What if the sources are just wrong?” Stelter asked Cormier, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2016. “They’re not. They’re not. I’m confident,” Cormier replied. But while BuzzFeed is refusing to back off of their story, numerous questions remain about what sources and documents were used for the report. In an interview on Friday morning, prior to the Mueller statement, BuzzFeed’s Leopold told MSNBC that he had seen documents referred to in the report. Cormier said in a separate interview with CNN that he had not seen documents. Cormier avoided Stelter’s question about that apparent discrepancy. “Can’t really get into, like, the details there,” Cormier said. “Really at this point because of the calls for a leak investigation and the sort of sensitivity around that matter, we really can’t go any further at all in order to not jeopardize our sources,” he added, noting that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani had called for an investigation into who leaked information for the BuzzFeed report. BuzzFeed’s spokesman, Matt Mittenthal, issued a similar statement on Saturday, even before Giuliani had called for a leak probe. “In the interest of protecting … sources, we aren’t going to speak further on the details of who saw what and when, beyond what’s in the reporting,” Mittenthal told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Cormier also suggested that BuzzFeed is not quite certain exactly what Cohen may have told the special counsel and what he and Trump may have discussed regarding the former Trump lawyer’s congressional testimony. “We’re trying to figure out how to parse the statement from the Mueller team, and what’s happening now only behind the scenes at DOJ and the special counsel, but we’re trying to get deeper inside the room where this happened,” Cormier said. When asked by Stelter what is known about Trump’s remarks to Cohen, Cormier replied: “We’ll get there eventually, Brian.” When Stelter suggested that perhaps Trump offered something less than a full-throated order to lie to Congress, Cormier said, “we don’t know.” “We’re trying to get the exact language that was used in this conversation, and we’ll get there one day,” he added. “We continue to report like mad, as we always do. But what we reported, that the President of the United States directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress is accurate. That is fundamentally accurate. We’re going to get inside the room where it happened and bear it out. We’ve taken this to ground here; we’re going to go even further to get inside that room.” In another exchange, Stelter pressed Smith over Leopold’s efforts to request comment from the special counsel prior to running the story. Leopold contacted Peter Carr, the Mueller spokesman, hours before the story ran to say that BuzzFeed was planning to report that Cohen claimed that Trump instructed him to lie to Congress. The request did not say that Cohen made the claim during interactions with the special counsel. Carr, who rarely offers comment to reporters, declined comment. But according to The Washington Post, Carr has since claimed that if he had known precisely what BuzzFeed was planning to report, he would have pushed back harder on the allegation. Stelter blasted Smith and BuzzFeed for what he called a “shockingly casual way to ask for comment for such a serious story” and a “dereliction of duty.” Smith attempted to shift blame to the special counsel, saying that “it has not been our experience that the special counsel has been forthcoming with information.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] BuzzFeed Doubles Down On Trump Story, But Won’t Discuss Documents Or Sources | is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal

      By Kevin Daley - President Donald Trump proposed an immigration deal to reopen the government Saturday, which included a three-year extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Trump’s overture to congressional Democrats comes as the Supreme Court considers whether it will intervene in ongoing litigation over the president’s attempts to rescind DACA, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who came to the U.S. as children. The administration initiated DACA’s termination in September 2017. Those maneuvers were immediately challenged in federal court. A federal district judge in California ordered the government to continue administering DACA in January 2018. At that juncture, the government broke from normal judicial process and appealed directly to the Supreme Court, instead of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices rejected that appeal, returning the case to the 9th Circuit with orders to resolve the case quickly. Over eight months passed without a ruling from the 9th Circuit, so the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court in November 2018 and asked the justices to take their case. The government’s petition has been pending before the Court since that time. The 9th Circuit issued a decision upholding the district court’s order three days later. Challenges to the president’s attempts to rescind DACA are also pending before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C. In the short term, Trump might command a stronger negotiating position if the justices intervene in the DACA cases, since the government can reasonably expect to prevail in the high court. Therefore, Democrats might wish to strike a deal with Trump that includes DACA protections, lest the Supreme Court affirm the president’s power to end the program unilaterally. That the justices have not yet acted on the petition does not bode well for the administration, however. The high court hears arguments from October until April and disposes of its cases by June. As a general matter, the docket for each term is finalized in the middle of January. If the Court intended to grant the administration’s request and hear the case, it likely would have done so by now. As such, the prospect of Supreme Court action on DACA looks dim as of this writing. The high court will next announce action in pending cases on Tuesday. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Trump offers compromise in border battle, McConnell promises to bring it to a vote, Pelosi says NO

      By R. Mitchell - President Donald Trump offered a serious compromise on immigration reform to Democrats during a live address from the White House Saturday. The proposal includes items that Democrats have been demanding for years, the border patrol has been begging to get and Republicans have asked for all in return for some funding for physical barriers along the U.S. – Mexico border. For Democrats, Trump offered $800 million in urgent humanitarian assistance, a 3-year extension for 700,000 DACA and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) aliens, and his plan would allow minors to apply for asylum in their home countries so they may avoid the dangerous trek through Central America and Mexico only to be turned away at the border. For those that support protecting our nation’s borders, Trump put on the table $805 million for drug detection and interdiction and an additional2,750 border agents and law enforcement professionals. In return, the president asked only for funding for additional physical barriers at the border. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that Trump’s proposal “could actually resolve this impasse” because it “takes a bipartisan approach to re-opening the closed portions of the federal government” unlike the bills coming from the Democrat-led House. McConnell said he intends to move this week on legislation containing the proposal so that a bill can be sent to the House quickly. “The situation for furloughed employees isn’t getting any brighter and the crisis at the border isn’t improved by show votes,” McConnell added. “The President’s plan is a path toward addressing both issues quickly. The head Democrat, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, quickly poo-pood all over the compromise from the president. “It is unlikely that any one of these provisions alone would pass the House, and taken together, they are a non-starter,” Pelosi said. “For one thing, this proposal does not include the permanent solution for the Dreamers and TPS recipients that our country needs and supports.” Pelosi’s only offer was that Trump should stop negotiating and just give her what she wants now and then they can talk about anything he might want later. America has seen this show before and it is unlikely that Trump is going to give in to her uncompromising, childish approach to governance. Content created by Conservative Daily News is available for re-publication without charge under the Creative Commons license. Visit our syndication page for details. Trump offers compromise in border battle, McConnell promises to bring it to a vote, Pelosi says NO is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Justice Department Is Hiring Lawyers To Take On Property Seizures For Trump Border Wall

      By Jason Hopkins - In a strong indication that the Trump administration is preparing for the next phase of the immigration battle, the Department of Justice is now hiring lawyers to handle border wall litigation in South Texas. The two attorney positions — which are advertised to pay between $53,062 and $138,790 — are to be based in the southern Texas towns of Brownsville and McAllen. Preferred candidates are to have “at least four (4) years of civil litigation experience in litigation of land condemnation cases, oil and gas disputes, and real estate matters,” according to the posting on USAJobs, adding that knowledge of the Spanish language “is helpful, but not required.” The jobs were first posted in December, with the deadline for applications closing on March 5. The attorneys will likely be tasked with eminent domain and other property seizure legalities — issues that will undoubtedly arise if President Donald Trump is able to move forward with construction of a wall on the southern border. The federal government is on the 28th day of a partial shutdown — the longest in U.S. history. Trump is demanding Congress send him a budget that includes $5.7 billion in funding for 200-plus miles of new and replacement barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, but liberal lawmakers have stood sharply opposed to the proposal. The budget standoff between the president and Democratic leaders has reached a fever pitch. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday told reporters she would delay the State of the Union address, an annual speech by the president that is held in the House of Representatives, because of the government shutdown. Trump responded the following day by cancelling Pelosi’s planned trip to Europe and the Middle East. Trump’s letter reportedly came minutes before the speaker and Democratic staffers were to board a bus for the trip. Trump, however, told Pelosi she was free to fly commercial if she so chooses. Should the White House ultimately prevail in the border wall fight, the administration would then have to negotiate with property owners who reside on the wall’s path. While the law typically favors the government in eminent domain cases, property owners could possibly drag out court cases for over a decade. “Eminent domain is something that has to be used, usually you would say for anything that’s long, like a road, like a pipeline or like a wall or a fence,” Trump told reporters earlier in January in the Rose Garden. He made clear that the White House would wield eminent domain authority only if landowners refuse to sell the land needed for the wall, and he pledged that all landholders would receive fair prices. “I think it’s a fair process. I think it’s a process that’s very necessary, but I think it’s fair,” he explained. “A lot of times we’ll make a deal, and I would say a good percentage of time we’re making deals.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Justice Department Is Hiring Lawyers To Take On Property Seizures For Trump Border Wall is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.