I must respectfully disagree with the argument that you put forth.
Politics is a nasty business. Politicians are slimy individuals. The candidate that you propose would exemplify the morals that we (as followers of Christ) support is inherently the type who would not get into politics in the first place.
The Georgia senatorial race looks like a choice between a bad or worse option, I do not deny that. However, I would prefer the hypocrite to the man who supports abortion on demand up to and after the moment of birth.
Dana Loesch, in this sense, is correct from a political, pragmatic point of view (baby eagles aside).
As to the game being cynical, when was it not? We can complain about abortion all day long (in fact, the pro-life side did that for nearly 50 years), but it was a flawed, bullying, sometimes vulgar businessman that made the overturning of Roe possible. [I do not mean to detract from the work done by pro-life activists since Roe, but there seems to be a common denominator here.]
I must respectfully disagree with the argument that you put forth.
Politics is a nasty business. Politicians are slimy individuals. The candidate that you propose would exemplify the morals that we (as followers of Christ) support is inherently the type who would not get into politics in the first place.
The Georgia senatorial race looks like a choice between a bad or worse option, I do not deny that. However, I would prefer the hypocrite to the man who supports abortion on demand up to and after the moment of birth.
Dana Loesch, in this sense, is correct from a political, pragmatic point of view (baby eagles aside).
As to the game being cynical, when was it not? We can complain about abortion all day long (in fact, the pro-life side did that for nearly 50 years), but it was a flawed, bullying, sometimes vulgar businessman that made the overturning of Roe possible. [I do not mean to detract from the work done by pro-life activists since Roe, but there seems to be a common denominator here.]