Here we go...(from my thoughts and reflection): 

In the light of the most recent US Presidential election outcome, there has been much debate over the legitimacy of the outcome itself. First, one must consider the objects most at stake in the 2020 election. On one side there is the freedom to choose, yet there is much debate over who actually retains the right to choose. On the other side there is freedom to choose, but much more defined and transparent (with religious liberty at the forefront) and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for (all). On both sides you have people spit down the middle; each claiming "not my president" and with different views of the election outcome. Still, there is something deeper at the core of this election which has yet to be revealed: Truth. Truth is divine and reigns over all. So how do we arrive at the truth? Is it objective, or is it relative.   If one considers oneself to be objective, this person expresses facts (over opinion) as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. To consider oneself to be relative is to not acknowledge an absolute and must be comparative by means of interpretation. The question is, can one actually arrive at the truth by comparison? What would one choose to compare and how would one understand what to compare without distortion or other interpretations of the objects to compare? So it must be understood that one cannot seek truth out of any form of relativism, and in fact must be objective both morally and socially.  

No presidential candidate is ever perfect. I personally didn't vote for a man, I voted for policies. On one side you have policies which support life and liberty and on the other side you have the full onslaught support of the freedom to choose, but choose what? Life? Liberty? Again, one must first decide what to accept and what to deny; this suggests a very present risk to anyone on either side.  No candidate in this election (or any election) is perfect and neither is necessarily likeable, though each also possess their own likeable traits. However, we should vote for policy, not superlatives which lead to relativism.   

There are really only two things you need to consider when supporting a candidate for political office and it should be this: Life and Liberty ( especially religious liberty, for this is the framework of our US constitution). The policies of the candidates should speak for themselves. However, there is something present today which blurs the lines between what is truth and fiction. This thing is called moral relativism and it possesses no boundaries, but rather acknowledges that there is no moral absolute; the only way to achieve truth in this way is to decide for yourself based on quantitative (not qualitative) efforts, and it distorts evidence based on comparative analysis. This is not good for any Republic or any Democracy, and it destroys the integrity of the election process.  

Life and Liberty summed up in a single verse of scripture:  

"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." - Romans 8:5-8  

You cannot possess liberty apart from life; neither shall you live freely without liberty.