Funny. You seem to have based your choice of who should be the next President of the USA entirely upon a personal opinion of what you “think” the two candidates were thinking. Welcome to America.
Good to see that others in Arc actually identify that politics is about policies. (And that America obviously no longer cares about policies). Hillary’s policies were plainly elitist, unashamedly socialist and patently ungodly. Trump changed his tune to take many stances, ultimately introducing people into his administration many of who are seemingly godly men who stand for godly policies.
I could understand if you demonised Trump on the basis that it is clear to all that he was and is in it for whatever he can get out of it, and that he is a demagogue. However that in itself makes him a less dangerous option than HRC simply because Trump will then follow the winds of popular opinion whereas she is an angry feral dog bent on the destruction of much of what Christians should hold dearly. And after the recount you have to accept that Trump fed into popular opinion and continues to do so, therefore his choices are likely to be moderate based on this history, since popular opinion always tends toward the moderate. But then if your horror of the old woman in a pant suit and the old guy with a fake tan was real, your argument would be that you would vote for only a third option on the basis that you couldn’t support an out-and-out liar nor a deranged demagogue. But neither of these paths were taken — so in essence, you are simply writing a post-op piece on why you still want to vote for HRC, without owning up to it. This is disingenuous journalism, and feeds into precisely the thing that the chief editor of Arc was lamenting.
And yet you write for Christianity today. Amazing.