Are white evangelicals the biggest hypocrites?

[Firestorm]

King Solomon had, um, quite a few moral failings and yet he is generally looked upon favorably. So too did Charlemagne, so was Henry VIII. If Trump does go to Hell for the life he's lived then he's going to share it with an awful lot of Christendom's greatest defenders.

Probably won't do as good as them, but he can't possibly do any worse than born-again Christians like Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Do y'all really think we'd be better off under some pious doddard like Kasich, Huckabee, or Santorum?

(Remember Santorum? The kind of Christian Republican who seems to have taken it seriously and even had a few remarkably centrist/populist economic views? His opponents named a form of anal leakage after him. That's what being a nice guy gets you.)

Anyway... who give's a damn if supporting Trump makes us hypocrites?  We could pick a candidate who agrees with us 100% on biblical teachings and lifestyle choices and we'd still be called hypocrites. Everything we do is apparently some form of hypocrisy, so if we're forced to choose between a bunch of pious losers and a sinful winner then why shouldn't we try to win for once?

If anything, y'all should just be glad that the forebearer of the Secular Right/neo-Rockefeller Republicans got to be Donald Trump and not Rudy Giuliani...

[Firestorm]

And if I do so, and that candidate wins, what becomes the consequences?

+++ SCOTUS Justices that will expand abortion rights beyond what is in place now

+++ SCOTUS Justices entrenching euthanasia in law

+++ Use of the IRS to persecute religious schools, charitable organizations, and legitimate ministries.

+++ Justice Department officials that will actively move against Christians who preach the Biblical view of homosexuality as "hate speech"

+++  Justice Department officials taking action to force Christian schools and organizations (and other religious schools and organizations) to employ open homosexuals, even when being a believing Christian manifesting a Christian lifestyle is a legitimate job requirement (including forcing churches to ordain women and homosexuals, regardless of doctrine)

+++ Initiatives to remove church tax exemptions

+++ Political operatives infiltrating churches in deliberate attempts to change their doctrines (the "Catholic Spring" of Podesta's e-mails)

There is no proof that Donald Trump "sexually assaults women".  There is certainly proof that Bill Clinton did, and that Hillary Clinton ran a smear campaign to discredit his accusers (for HER benefit, not his).  

Hillary Clinton is anti-Evangelical.  If she could, she would use her Presidential power to silence churches that preach that homosexuality is sin.  The Bible says it is, and Evangelical Christians believe that Scripture is authoritative.  Hillary Clinton is a candidate that would actively work to force believers to disobey their God and conform to a humanist vision of how things should be.  The election of 2016 was a binary choice, and one choice would have the effect of inviting persecution onto the Church.  Neither Clinton nor Trump are particularly Godly folks, but policy matters, and I am not favorably disposed to supporting someone whose desire is to twist my arm when it comes to what I know God's Word to be.

So what you are saying is that you would vote for the devil so as long as he purports to be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

Also, "grab them by the p****" is sexual assault.

In reality, only one devil exists (Satan himself) and if we are going by Biblical standards, every single person is both an adulterer and a murderer in God's eyes (and would be judged guilty as such without the saving power of Christ) because the Lord Jesus himself said that looking at a woman with lust constitutes adultery in the heart and hating a brother is seen as the same as murder at heart.  So the reality is, unlike your straw man, is two bad candidates, neither of whom are the devil (and neither is any human).  Both are no doubt not very sanctified, and the real choice for Evangelicals was between the policies of the two candidates.  I supported Castle (flipped a month before the election) because of the Access Hollywood tapes, but many of my brothers in Christ supported Trump and I fully support them in that.  Quit distorting scripture to fit your own worldview.

As an aside, this thread illustrates why Democrats do so badly with Evangelicals:  they don't understand our theology or foundational beliefs, so their caricatures of what we believe and our reasoning are so distorted that it's downright comical. 

I agree with all of the above.  I underlined the part which I view to be the heart of the issue.

At one point, I said I would vote for Johnson.  After a while, I thought about things; the Trump video, raunchy as it was, was from 2005 or 2007 (I'm not sure), and that's a long time ago.  I found the allegations against Trump rather dubious; why are people coming forth now, when Trump has been a huge celebrity billionaire for some time now?  (I noted that a number of GOP intelligence officials had backed Hillary, and I concluded that coming up with folks to accuse Trump of old indiscretions 30-40 years later was a covert operation that wouldn't tax their abilities all that much.  I don't believe in Bullet 399, either.)

Of course, I live in Florida, where the "binary choice" concept is real.  I wonder if folks' decisions to vote 3rd party was driven by where they live.  If I lived in California, I MIGHT have voted a protest vote because I don't sign off on many of Trump's personal behaviors.  (Something for feminists who voted for Bill Clinton twice, as I did, to think about.)

This is a good argument for either abolishing the electoral college or devolving it to the level of congressional level (which would its own problems; gerrymandered up the wazoo). I suspect that there are quite a few people who either don't vote or don't vote the way they would like because they either don't or do live in swing states. I know quite a few Alabamans who didn't vote because they knew exactly which way their state would lean, so why bother?

(Most people who oppose the EC do so from some concern about "fairness" or democracy. I freely admit that I care neither for fairness nor democracy; I just want a better way of keeping score.)

[Firestorm]

^ ^ This does not say abortion is murder, and is based on turns of the phrase, such as "conceived a son" in a larger passage about fertility, and drawing inferences from that. In Luke 1:36 the pregnancy is already in its sixth month, and in Genesis 25:22 the stage of pregnancy isn't known. This is good evidence that God considers personhood prior to birth, but not necessarily at conception. In contrast, there is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This passage, unlike the above, addresses the value of the fetus directly and is by no means clear. It seems to suggest that no 'life' is given if the pregnancy is terminated 'yet no mischief follow.'

This one is written by a 'skeptic' but makes some good points-
http://joycearthur.shawwebspace.ca/pages/view/anti-choicers_don_t_have_a_bibli/

"I don't actually believe in your Holy Scripture but I'm still going to tell you why you're reading it wrong."

A Muslim will behead for pulling Shi'ite like that on them. I'm a lot more sympathetic to Muslims than some.

You guys keep saying 'abortion is murder' to justify supporting Trump no matter what he does. But can someone point to me where, in the Scripture, does it say that abortion is murder, or even mentions the word abortion?

It's in the Didache, which might as well be Scripture.

Bumping this, even though I doubt that anyone asking questions on this thread is actually looking for cogent answers.