Every year around election time, candidates go all out for votes. They tell voters what they're going to do, and once voters get behind them & the candidate gets in office, (s)he pulls a switcheroo. This happens far too often that voters are tired of being played. Honestly, you can't trust politicians nowadays because they say one thing, then do another once they get in office. Someone said that politics is a game, and they weren't lying. If you have a group of candidates all vying for top office, expect backbiting. Candidates are going to pull out all stops to get elected, even if it means smear campaigns. If you've been paying attention to these campaign ads, it's the same thing: Such & such person can't be trusted; 600,000 jobs lost under this person, and so on. The thing is, those who work closely with the Governor, President, etc. know the truth. There's some stuff that can't be disclosed, because it could put the city or nation at risk.
My question is: If you're presented with two candidates, and you know both of them won't do what they promised, who do you vote for? You want to vote, but both candidates aren't working with anything. If you've critically looked at both candidates, and discover that neither one is going to do what they've promised, then don't vote. Of course, you'll get those who say "If you don't vote, you can't complain." They have a point, IF....one candidate is clearly the better choice. However, if one feels neither candidate is qualified for office, (s)he has the right not to vote. Sometimes, you can't go with the masses all the time because the masses can be wrong. I used to vote according to party affiliation, and while both sides have their good & bad, honestly, I'm going to start looking at each candidate with a critical eye. Biblically, you have candidates who stand for things that are contrary to God's word, and as a Christian I'm obligated to stand behind those who are for righteousness.
