Platform Integrity Project seeks to preserve a pro-life stand in the GOP

Joel, thanks for your response. Because of length, I will quickly address only one aspect. Republicans are only going after "low hanging fruit" in regard to LBGT issues. But Democrats not only oppose those same issues but support the opposite. Would I prefer a stronger approach by Republicans? Yes, of course. Am I willing to waste my vote by failing to support those who oppose some of the LBGT agenda? No. I don't see what is gained by insisting upon Biblical qualifications when neither candidate qualifies. It seems to me that wise Christians will support the candidate who tilts in the right direction rather than the one who tilts the other way. We wish we had better choices, but given the ones we've got, we need to support those most likely to prevent some of the evil one party promotes and encourage the righteousness the other party opposes. I believe that is the right course of action. (And yes, I wish we had someone other than Trump as the Republican candidate, but we don't.) We must deal with what we've got, not what we wish we had.

Some other thoughts about Joel's comment. It goes well beyond plea bargaining.

• Most accusations don't receive a good basic investigation. A 2017 Star-Tribune study found that 80% of rape allegations in MN lacked at least one portion of a good basic investigation. Scarily, 26% of allegations were forwarded to prosecutors--meaning at least 6% of those indicted were indicted simply on the basis of initial police reports.
• Bail is often used as a means of obtaining a quick & dirty (emphasis on dirty) plea. Think of a poor accused person who does not have bail money, but will lose his job and his home if he doesn't get to his job.
• Poor defendants who use public defenders have to pay back that expense in many states, including MN. So there is another Hobson's choice--"you can have a defense and go bankrupt, or you can have a conviction and maybe keep your job and home, but...you'll always have to check the box."

If I were running for office, one of the things I'd stand for is serious punishment (i.e. "disbarment" or even "imprisonment" ) of prosecutors who withhold evidence, advance cases that don't have adequate investigation, use novel legal theories to advance cases (e.g. Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg), and in general use the process as the punishment.

Side note; my son-in-law has a forensic science degree, and the story he's getting from Minnesota police departments is more or less "pay for your own way through police academy, then hand out speeding tickets for a few years while you forget everything you learned in college, and then if you pass the political and dues-paying tests we administer, maybe....we'll consider letting you be a detective."

If you want to know why sexual assault is not being adequately investigated and prosecuted, just re-read that bit. It's obscene.

Larry, how would you describe this thinking? I only vote for republicans because no matter how terrible and unqualified the republican candidate may be, he or she is better than a democrat.

I would describe as an individual’s application of wisdom as they see it.

So, Larry, who controls my vote? Who determines the candidate for whom I vote? Is it me or the republican party?

You control it. As you said, it is your vote.

To pretend otherwise is not being honest with yourself and with others.

Again, I reject the notion that we should accuse others of dishonesty in something like this. Is it possible that someone in good faith can apply biblical principles differently than you do? Is your position really the only one that Christians can hold? Is everyone who differs from you someone in rebellion against God and Scripture?