Richard Brand: A Tough Choice?

What would happen if we accepted what one candidate says about the other? The campaign process being what it is, obviously one campaign has studied the other more intently than the general public.  How would you vote if what one candidate says about the other is accepted as accurate? 

There was an election for Mayor of Houston one year in which one candidate said that the other candidate was a crook, had ties to the criminal underworld, and a cheat. That candidate said that the one calling him a crook was a nice guy but completely incompetent, always disorganized, never able to finish, never knew what he was doing.  So the election was between a crook and an incompetent. If both of them were correct, how would you have voted?

Well, we now know what the Presidential election will look like. In the words of the two parties, we have a publicly acknowledged Mormon running against a closet Muslim. We have a Mormon, a member of a religious cult as it is called by many Christian people, running against a secretly Muslim President, who only pretense to partake in Easter Communion at an Episcopal church. 

We have an avowed Mormon who wants to cut taxes on the rich, who wants to send all the illegal immigrants back, who does not believe in his own Health Care program, and who believes science of global warming is a hoax.  This Mormon is running against a secret Muslim who wants to tax corporations and wealth to pay their fair share, who believes there is a need for a national health care system, who thinks that there needs to be immigration reform, who thinks we need to invest heavily in alternative energies. 

So good and faithful Christians who do you vote for? The Mormon or the Muslim?

For me there is no debate. The falsely accused Muslim knows basketball and he picked UNC to win the final four.