Would You Vote For This Candidate?

Go down

Would You Vote For This Candidate?

Post by Miles1 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:05 pm

Would You Vote For This Candidate?

I come from an increasingly dying breed of political activists.  I’m someone who urges compromise while it seems much of the country has allowed the words to be a symbol for “weakness” and “defeat.”

We claim that we want a functioning government, yet continue to elect more partisan politicians than ever before.  While I see this far more often from Republicans, Democrats are not innocent of this either.

These days it seems people look to be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.  I can’t count the times I attempt to find a compromised solution on an issue, only to be blasted by both sides as somehow being both a radical liberal (by conservatives) and a conservative sympathizer (by liberals) at the same time.

Then I met a candidate who had strong aspirations for a political future, but believes their centrist and compromised views on issues would be their downfall.  They feel the only way they could have any chance at a political career would be to pander to either the right or left and sell short their true values.

And sadly, I had to agree.

But I thought I’d take down a few positions they took on “mainstream issues” just to see how people would react to them.

So I ask you, would you vote for the following candidate based on where they stand on these issues?

Abortion

They’re pro-choice, yet they don’t morally agree with abortion, they don’t feel it’s their place to make that call for someone else.  Though they support a 20-week limit on abortions, they feel the health of the mother is paramount to anything else.  If after 20 weeks the health of her, or the baby, is a question mark an abortion is still available as an option.  And they believe wholeheartedly in exemptions being given to those victims of rape or incest.

Death Penalty

They support the death penalty, but feel if there’s evidence that might prove innocence (such as DNA testing) it should never be denied into evidence for the defense of the person facing death.  If there’s even a slight doubt of guilt, capital punishment should instantly be stricken from consideration.  And in reality, only in cases where there’s indisputable evidence that links the accused to the crime should it be considered.  (An example they use is video, direct witnesses or overwhelming finger print/DNA evidence.)  However,  they also believe the death penalty should be extended to include repeat offenders of rape and child molestation.

Gay Rights

Simple.  Give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals–period.  Our First Amendment clearly defines the freedom of religion and believes that faith should be kept completely out of politics.  If God should happen to oppose same-sex marriage, that’s for God to decide, not us.  They believe homosexuals are born that way and should be given the same rights as everyone else.

Gun Rights

Supports our Second Amendment, but believes in universal background checks on all gun purchases.  Despises the NRA as a “group of clowns manipulating Americans to believe they’re a group for Constitutional rights, when all they are is a shrill for gun manufacturers to increase their profits.”

Campaign Finance Reform

Believes we should set strict limits on how much individuals can donate to a particular campaign.  Believes corporations aren’t people and the sooner we get big money out of politics, the sooner we can get the United States back on track.  All donations should be made public and PAC’s should be illegal.  Campaigns should be run with full transparency of where the money is coming from and only the money that comes from these donations should be allowed for political activities.  ”Donations” such as event halls, dinners and other things such as this are not allowed.  Everything in a campaign must be paid for from monetary donations.

They believe anyone who gripes about the inefficiencies in government, while opposing laws which could prevent millions of dollars funneled into campaigns by people trying to buy politicians, is a fool.

Media

Doesn’t care for either MSNBC, Fox News or any “mainstream media.”  Believes our news should be publicly funded, without influence from ratings or advertisers.  Believes our nightly news should report actual news.  Not the name of Kim Kardashian’s baby or which celebrity is getting a divorce.

Immigration

Believes it’s a ridiculous notion to think we can deport 12 million people.  Also believes it’s equally as ridiculous to want to deport people who were brought here as children, know nothing about whichever country they were born in, and believe themselves to be American citizens—because that’s how they’ve been raised.  Feels we need sensible immigration reform to deal with the immigrants who have been here and are solid members of the community but does believe we need to work on securing our borders from future illegal immigration and we need to do a better job patrolling our borders from crime that can spill over from Mexico into the United States.

Welfare

Strongly believes in programs that help the poor, but believes we have too many loopholes and poor oversight within these programs which opens them up for continued abuse.  We don’t need to cut funding for these programs if we focused on curbing the abuse within the system.  These programs need to be geared to help those who need them, not those who abuse them.  But blanket spending cuts targeting these programs which could hurt those who need them is irresponsible and foolish.

Tax Cuts

Believes you simply can’t have an economic plan built solely on “tax cuts to create jobs” nor can your plan for deficit reduction only be “tax the rich.”  We do need to simplify the tax code, but a flat tax only benefits the rich and puts the burden on the poor and middle class.  We need to fix tax loopholes that allow the ultra rich and big corporations to pay a lower tax rate than most middle class Americans.  But we also need to fix loopholes lower income Americans and some in the middle class use to pay no income tax whatsoever.  He proposed a “minimum” income tax charge of $50 for every American who gets a refund that didn’t pay any income tax after their taxes were finalized.

Education

Believes teachers are vastly underpaid (thinks they should start around $50-55k and have much larger annual raises with bonuses for number of passing students).   Thinks it’s ridiculous that we want “quality education” yet continue to increase the burden we place on teachers, while paying them less and providing them fewer resources.  Believes education should be earned, not just handed out.  If we have low graduation rates, that’s a sign we need to increase the quality of our educators with better pay instead of pandering our curriculum to just “pass as many people as possible.”  For our education system to work, not everyone is going to graduate.  We can’t sacrifice the quality of the information being taught in our schools simply to hand out diplomas because what’s the value of the diploma if it wasn’t earned?

Feels what we teach in our schools needs to be completely redone.  We need to teach finance, economics, psychology, politics, government, math, science, history, critical thinking and writing as mandatory classes, not “electives” (which many of these classes are).  Students should learn about the dangers of credit before they’re old enough to get a credit card, and we need to teach young people about the dangers of getting into debt.

But with an increased level of pay they feel teachers must be held more accountable for the quality of their work.  They feel too many bad teachers continue to stay employed because in many states it’s often incredibly difficult to fire a teacher for poor performance.

Climate Change

Strongly believes in climate change, though they feel too many people trying to prove it’s real go way too over the top with their claims, which then gives ammunition to the “climate change deniers” when their outlandish claims fall short.  They believe it does a disservice to the science to use “worst case scenario” numbers when presenting their arguments because moderates or people on the fence get turned off when the message seems every bit as radical as those who deny climate change is happening.  Believes “climate change deniers” are borderline insane.

Some other issues they support:

  • Making English the official language.  It’s the language the vast majority of Americans speak and doesn’t think it’s fair people are denied jobs seeking “bilingual applicants” simply because they might not speak Spanish.
  • Any politician who openly endorses using religion to craft public policy should be forced to resign their office as this is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
  • The fact that fracking continues to be legal is one of the biggest travesties this world might ever see.
  • Supports the Patriot Act, though believes there needs to be more transparency as it relates to surveillance of Americans.
  • Supported the war in Afghanistan but strongly opposed the war in Iraq.
  • Believes war should always be an option, but also believes it should only be used as a last resort when every other possible option has been exhausted, and it’s supported by the majority of our key allies.
  • If we want to honor our troops, their treatment once they come home should be top-notch, not bottom of the barrel.  Any politician who votes for any bill which reduces VA benefits should be forced to wear a patch every time they’re in Congress to let the American people know they voted to cut veteran’s benefits.
  • There’s nothing wrong with being a proud Christian, but there is something wrong when people think everyone else should be one as well.
  • Many of the people who built this nation from its foundation were Christians, but that doesn’t mean we’re a “Christian nation.”


I’ll end it there.  There are a bunch more, but this has already gone on long enough.

So what’s the verdict, would you vote for this candidate?

_________________
QVIDQVID LATINE DICTVM SIT, ALTVR PROFONDVS
avatar
Miles1

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2012-01-28
Age : 40
Location : Cork, IE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Would You Vote For This Candidate?

Post by Marconius on Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:34 pm

Miles1 wrote:Would You Vote For This Candidate?Maybe, let's see.
I come from an increasingly dying breed of political activists.  I’m someone who urges compromise while it seems much of the country has allowed the words to be a symbol for “weakness” and “defeat.”

We claim that we want a functioning government, yet continue to elect more partisan politicians than ever before.  While I see this far more often from Republicans, Democrats are not innocent of this either.

These days it seems people look to be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.  I can’t count the times I attempt to find a compromised solution on an issue, only to be blasted by both sides as somehow being both a radical liberal (by conservatives) and a conservative sympathizer (by liberals) at the same time.

Then I met a candidate who had strong aspirations for a political future, but believes their centrist and compromised views on issues would be their downfall.  They feel the only way they could have any chance at a political career would be to pander to either the right or left and sell short their true values.

And sadly, I had to agree.

But I thought I’d take down a few positions they took on “mainstream issues” just to see how people would react to them.

So I ask you, would you vote for the following candidate based on where they stand on these issues?

Abortion

They’re pro-choice, yet they don’t morally agree with abortion, they don’t feel it’s their place to make that call for someone else.  Though they support a 20-week limit on abortions, they feel the health of the mother is paramount to anything else.  If after 20 weeks the health of her, or the baby, is a question mark an abortion is still available as an option.  And they believe wholeheartedly in exemptions being given to those victims of rape or incest.
Nothing here that I disagree with
Death Penalty

They support the death penalty, but feel if there’s evidence that might prove innocence (such as DNA testing) it should never be denied into evidence for the defense of the person facing death.  If there’s even a slight doubt of guilt, capital punishment should instantly be stricken from consideration.  And in reality, only in cases where there’s indisputable evidence that links the accused to the crime should it be considered.  (An example they use is video, direct witnesses or overwhelming finger print/DNA evidence.)  However,  they also believe the death penalty should be extended to include repeat offenders of rape and child molestation.
Strongly disagree. Last estimates put the population of the wrongly convicted at approx 10%. One out of ten is too high for me. One out of a thousand is too high for me. I do not support the death penalty. I do support very, very hard labor for the convicted. Prison ain't supposed to be a country club.
Gay Rights

Simple.  Give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals–period.  Our First Amendment clearly defines the freedom of religion and believes that faith should be kept completely out of politics.  If God should happen to oppose same-sex marriage, that’s for God to decide, not us.  They believe homosexuals are born that way and should be given the same rights as everyone else.
Agree, but once incestuals, polygamists, and other abnormal couples want it......you can remember......I told you so.
Gun Rights

Supports our Second Amendment, but believes in universal background checks on all gun purchases.  Despises the NRA as a “group of clowns manipulating Americans to believe they’re a group for Constitutional rights, when all they are is a shrill for gun manufacturers to increase their profits.”
HAHAHAHAHA. NRA a shill (and it is shill, not shrill) for gun companies is a joke. The bulk of their money (and I do mean an overwhelming majority) comes from normal people like you and I. They are single minded in purpose and that is not a bad thing. Universal background checks??? So if I wanna sell my duck gun to my best friend or brother, or give it to my son......you think government knows them better than I??? That, in a nutshell is the whole "gunshow loophole" piece of crap.
Campaign Finance Reform

Believes we should set strict limits on how much individuals can donate to a particular campaign.  Believes corporations aren’t people and the sooner we get big money out of politics, the sooner we can get the United States back on track.  All donations should be made public and PAC’s should be illegal.  Campaigns should be run with full transparency of where the money is coming from and only the money that comes from these donations should be allowed for political activities.  ”Donations” such as event halls, dinners and other things such as this are not allowed.  Everything in a campaign must be paid for from monetary donations.

They believe anyone who gripes about the inefficiencies in government, while opposing laws which could prevent millions of dollars funneled into campaigns by people trying to buy politicians, is a fool.
Yeah, cause big money always causes the little people to vote one way or another. More important than campaign reform is a reformation of public unions and governmental kickbacks to corporate sponsors.
Media

Doesn’t care for either MSNBC, Fox News or any “mainstream media.”  Believes our news should be publicly funded, without influence from ratings or advertisers.  Believes our nightly news should report actual news.  Not the name of Kim Kardashian’s baby or which celebrity is getting a divorce.
Agree
Immigration

Believes it’s a ridiculous notion to think we can deport 12 million people.  Also believes it’s equally as ridiculous to want to deport people who were brought here as children, know nothing about whichever country they were born in, and believe themselves to be American citizens—because that’s how they’ve been raised.  Feels we need sensible immigration reform to deal with the immigrants who have been here and are solid members of the community but does believe we need to work on securing our borders from future illegal immigration and we need to do a better job patrolling our borders from crime that can spill over from Mexico into the United States.
The whole anchor baby tourism trend is troubling. Anchor babies in general are a sham to what the Constitution really meant. I do not agree with deportation. I also do not agree with militarization of the border. Work with our neighbors to improve their economy. That is better for national security than sending our men/women halfway around the world to die in a desert.
Welfare

Strongly believes in programs that help the poor, but believes we have too many loopholes and poor oversight within these programs which opens them up for continued abuse.  We don’t need to cut funding for these programs if we focused on curbing the abuse within the system.  These programs need to be geared to help those who need them, not those who abuse them.  But blanket spending cuts targeting these programs which could hurt those who need them is irresponsible and foolish.
Strongly agree
Tax Cuts

Believes you simply can’t have an economic plan built solely on “tax cuts to create jobs” nor can your plan for deficit reduction only be “tax the rich.”  We do need to simplify the tax code, but a flat tax only benefits the rich and puts the burden on the poor and middle class.  We need to fix tax loopholes that allow the ultra rich and big corporations to pay a lower tax rate than most middle class Americans.  But we also need to fix loopholes lower income Americans and some in the middle class use to pay no income tax whatsoever.  He proposed a “minimum” income tax charge of $50 for every American who gets a refund that didn’t pay any income tax after their taxes were finalized.
Sounds too simple. would have to read more into it. I got a good plan though. Get rid of the Federal Reserve, put the money back into government's hands, stop making government take out an annual loan just to put money into circulation and then realize that income taxes are not needed. How about that??? No income tax. Just the way it was intended.
Education

Believes teachers are vastly underpaid (thinks they should start around $50-55k and have much larger annual raises with bonuses for number of passing students).   Thinks it’s ridiculous that we want “quality education” yet continue to increase the burden we place on teachers, while paying them less and providing them fewer resources.  Believes education should be earned, not just handed out.  If we have low graduation rates, that’s a sign we need to increase the quality of our educators with better pay instead of pandering our curriculum to just “pass as many people as possible.”  For our education system to work, not everyone is going to graduate.  We can’t sacrifice the quality of the information being taught in our schools simply to hand out diplomas because what’s the value of the diploma if it wasn’t earned?

Feels what we teach in our schools needs to be completely redone.  We need to teach finance, economics, psychology, politics, government, math, science, history, critical thinking and writing as mandatory classes, not “electives” (which many of these classes are).  Students should learn about the dangers of credit before they’re old enough to get a credit card, and we need to teach young people about the dangers of getting into debt.

But with an increased level of pay they feel teachers must be held more accountable for the quality of their work.  They feel too many bad teachers continue to stay employed because in many states it’s often incredibly difficult to fire a teacher for poor performance.
Increasing pay for the world's most important job is important, but putting education back into the hands of the states is key. It builds competition between the states as they vie for industry. When tUSA's education levels were the highest, it was for that fact alone.
Climate Change

Strongly believes in climate change, though they feel too many people trying to prove it’s real go way too over the top with their claims, which then gives ammunition to the “climate change deniers” when their outlandish claims fall short.  They believe it does a disservice to the science to use “worst case scenario” numbers when presenting their arguments because moderates or people on the fence get turned off when the message seems every bit as radical as those who deny climate change is happening.  Believes “climate change deniers” are borderline insane.
OK......why is this a job for my president??? Private industry has alternatives on the horizon. As government, we can encourage, but we can't try to pick and choose winners. How much money has our government already wasted on dead-end tech???
Some other issues they support:

  • Making English the official language.  It’s the language the vast majority of Americans speak and doesn’t think it’s fair people are denied jobs seeking “bilingual applicants” simply because they might not speak Spanish. Ahhhh, no. Never has been and never should be an official language. Embrace the language most spoken by the nation's inhabitants, but also embrace the language of your heritage.
  • Any politician who openly endorses using religion to craft public policy should be forced to resign their office as this is a direct violation of the First Amendment.Agree
  • The fact that fracking continues to be legal is one of the biggest travesties this world might ever see.HAHAHAHAHA, even funnier than the NRA one. Shall we use science on this??? Fracking has been used since the late 40's. Why the problem now??? At what depth is the water table??? At what depth are gas/oil wells??? Get the picture???
  • Supports the Patriot Act, though believes there needs to be more transparency as it relates to surveillance of Americans.Ahhhh, no, never
  • Supported the war in Afghanistan but strongly opposed the war in Iraq.Support going after AQ alone. Quit meddling in other's affairs and we will stop seeing all of this blowback.
  • Believes war should always be an option, but also believes it should only be used as a last resort when every other possible option has been exhausted, and it’s supported by the majority of our key allies.Agree, but we should never let our allies drag us into a war. We have to be threatened.
  • If we want to honor our troops, their treatment once they come home should be top-notch, not bottom of the barrel.  Any politician who votes for any bill which reduces VA benefits should be forced to wear a patch every time they’re in Congress to let the American people know they voted to cut veteran’s benefits.OK.....maybe a scarlet letter "A"???
  • There’s nothing wrong with being a proud Christian, but there is something wrong when people think everyone else should be one as well.Strongly, strongly agree
  • Many of the people who built this nation from its foundation were Christians, but that doesn’t mean we’re a “Christian nation.”Yes and no. Yes quite a few of the FF's were Christians......not all. It doesn't matter what anybody says, the FF's writings clearly show that they used Christian VALUES as a basis for the Constitution. Of course they also realized that those very same values are found in almost every religion so we could safely say that our nation WAS based on religious values. Since it was based on values found across the religious spectrum, one cannot say that this is a Christian nation.


I’ll end it there.  There are a bunch more, but this has already gone on long enough.

So what’s the verdict, would you vote for this candidate?

Still a maybe. If he is the lesser of two evils, he is still an evil and will not get my vote.

_________________
"If guns are supposed to kill people, then all of mine are defective..."
-The Honorable Ted Nugent

"We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box". -- Ambrose Bierce (1887)

"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, and they're behind us. They can't get away this time!" -Gen. L. "Chesty" Puller, CO, 1 MARDIV, in Korea surrounded by 22 enemy divisions

Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass. -- Mike Vanderboegh.
avatar
Marconius

Posts : 1800
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 48
Location : Opelousas Louisiana

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Would You Vote For This Candidate?

Post by Sir Pun on Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:06 pm

Ditto pretty much

Sir Pun

Posts : 1621
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Would You Vote For This Candidate?

Post by Marconius on Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:26 pm

Sir Pun wrote:Ditto pretty much

I think this is one of those artificial people created by taking surveys of the people. Let's just forget that most of those people are friggin idiots.

_________________
"If guns are supposed to kill people, then all of mine are defective..."
-The Honorable Ted Nugent

"We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box". -- Ambrose Bierce (1887)

"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, and they're behind us. They can't get away this time!" -Gen. L. "Chesty" Puller, CO, 1 MARDIV, in Korea surrounded by 22 enemy divisions

Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass. -- Mike Vanderboegh.
avatar
Marconius

Posts : 1800
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 48
Location : Opelousas Louisiana

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Would You Vote For This Candidate?

Post by Dennis324 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:14 am

I doubt I'd vote for that candidate.  Depends on who they are running against.
 
I don't agree with their stance on abortion.
I only support the death penalty in cases of harming a child or terrorism.  If there is any chance the state may have convicted the wrong person, I'd hate to be the one to sentence that person to death.  I favor hard labor and chain gans for violent criminals, but maybe only community service for like, people who got caught holding pot.  Hard time from growers and pushers though especially for hard narcotics.  Mandatory rehab for addicts of like Meth or whatever.
 
Totally against their policy on gay rights, period.
 
I don't agree with their view of the NRA but do agree with background checks.
Not sure what the candidate means by 'sensible immigration reform'.  That could mean anything.  I believe in deporting violent criminals if they are illegals (AFTER they serve their sentence.  Perhaps a stretch on a chain gang like in 'Cool Hand Luke' will give them the attitude adjustment they need).  I believe in E-verify and securing the border 1st.  I don't think we should give the children of illegals free or reduced cost college education.  If they came here illegally even as babies, we should give them education to the high school level in public school.  Same if they were born here.  I don't like the anchor baby concept.
 
I don't like the candidate's tax plan.  I think we need a flat tax and tax returns should be no more complicated than what can be printed on a post card.  You fill out you income, and pay a certain % of that.  Simple.  I do believe that you can use tax incentives to encourage growth in business and create jobs.
 
On the education issue, the subjects the candidate wants taught would be fine in college.  I think, however that a core curriculum should be taught in high school.  Economics, Math, Science, English, Civics, Current affairs, Ethics (k-12), history etc.  I include history because the people in our country are clueless for the most part.  They know so little about the founding of our country and the values the FF had.  And we are desperately in need of ethics and good citizenship in this country.  I believe in standardized testing for teachers.  I don't necessarily think the state should HAVE to increase teacher pay.  Teachers gripe about pay but they still go after those jobs and major in education.  So there's no real shortage.  They work hard, but they get perks too.  They have the strongest union in the nation too.  Also think the Dept of Education is a huge waste and burden on the country.  Leave it up to the states.
 
I don't think the POTUS has any way to affect Climate change.  Climate is going to change from time to time as it always has.  Now if we want to fight pollution and clean up the environment, air and water, that's good.  Congress can regulate industry to affect pollution but that's about it.  Climate is still going to change.  If we believe in a little ice age and look around us today and see that we don't live in an ice age, that tells you that BEFORE industrialization, the climate change.  Always has and always will.  That's just nature.
 
I still support fracking an have yet to see proof it is dangerous.
 
I don't think that the govt should be able to spy on American citizens without a warrant.  Period.  (Non citizens otoh though?).
 
I no longer support the war in Afghanistan or Iraq or Tibuktu.  I'm not yet an antiwar activist, but I do believe we should loathe going to war.  I dont think ending war will stop terrorist attacks or make Islamic nations more friendly to us.  But its a waste of blood and treasure.  We haven't won a war outright since WW2 and we had tons of help with that one.  I do support targeting and either killing or arresting terrorist groups though.  We can do that now without invading a nation though through the use of technology, special forces, and spies.  Strengthen our defenses and help our allies. 
 
I've had to rethink my position on drone use though.  I like having the technology.  But I really don't think its a good idea to drop bombs on a country we aren't technically at war with.  While I like the idea of being able to kill terrorists with drone missile, I'm not sure its a good idea to hit em in Pakistan.  I hate Pakistan.  I think they hate us.  I think its ideological too.  They hated us prior to the war.  I didn't hate them prior to the war.  But that doesn't mean I think we ought to drop missiles in their territory.   I do support covert actions though to spy on terror cells and camps using any means necessary.  I support hampering their ability to conduct terrorism such as monitoring their communications and other means of spying or jamming their abilities.  Also I support methods of drawing terrorists out in the open where we can legally get em, maybe luring them into a region we are allied with.  And working with our allies in apprehending/or killing them.  But again, I don't think Pakistan would have ever helped us with Bin Laden.  I'm glad we killed him, but future Presidents probably ought to use the vast resources at our command to somehow lure another Bin Laden out so we can get him.  Maybe confront Pakistan with proof that Bin Laden is in their city and watch Bin Laden like a hawk.  Force Pakistan's hand and if they don't turn him over to us, they WILL lose billions in aid.  Plus you can pressure Pakistan's allies to do likewise to force then to capture and turn Bin Laden over to us.  For example, Pakistan is allied with China.  We could go to China and say "Look, we know Bin Laden is located at 'X' in Pakistan.  We want him but Pakistan isn't cooperating.  We would consider it a great favor and dramiatically improve relations between China and the Us if you could convince Pakistan to turn Bin LAden over to us".  And leave it like that.  The message should be loud and clear then.
 
Use diplomacy 1st and go to war only as a very very last resort.
 
Forcing a Congressman to wear a patch?  Really?  Rolling Eyes 
 
I agree that religion should never be forced on anyone!  But I also believe that religious people should be free to express their faith openly...anywhere as long as they don't disturb the peace.  A person should be able to wear a Christian cross openly to school if they like as long as it doesn't violate the school's written dress code.  But they must consistently enforce their dress code policy and not single out religious people.  Private corporations have the right to enforce dress codes.  The POTUS has nothing to do with this however.
 
Historically we are a Christian nation but have never been a theocracy.  Never.  Most FF fathers were Christian and their faith did influence their decisions.  Many have said that their faith was necessary in carrying out their duties and determining the direction of our country.  But we are not and have never been a theocracy.  This is a matter for the SCOTUS though and Congress.  The POTUS is only directed to carry out the laws enacted by Congress...not make law himself.  Obama doesn't understand that though.

_________________

 


                   Roll Tide!
avatar
Dennis324

Posts : 1689
Join date : 2012-01-28
Age : 55
Location : Alabama

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Would You Vote For This Candidate?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum