2012 Presidential Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott_Lafrance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ishii said:
Go back and read up on the our country’s electoral history and see how many 77 year old congressmen have been elected president.

Ishii
Click to expand...
In 2007 it could be said go back to our country’s electoral history and see how many black men have been elected politics.

There is a first for everything. And while I agree, Paul will most likely never get the nomination, I am willing to stand up with him because this early in the game there is not other person I could stand behind and feel comfortable with knowing Dr. Paul is in the race. Once Paul drops out, I will look at the other candidates. Like I said, I really like Huntsman and would most likely support him. However, if the nominee is not libertarian leaning, I would have to really think hard about what I will have to do.
 
ishii said:
Go back and read up on the our country’s electoral history and see how many 77 year old congressmen have been elected president.

Ishii
Click to expand...
How many 35 year old Congressmen have been elected President?
 
SalesianSDB said:
In 2007 it could be said go back to our country’s electoral history and see how many black men have been elected politics.
Click to expand...
…who was a 47 year-old U.S. senator when he was elected president.
SalesianSDB said:
There is a first for everything. And while I agree, Paul will most likely never get the nomination, I am willing to stand up with him because this early in the game there is not other person I could stand behind and feel comfortable with knowing Dr. Paul is in the race. Once Paul drops out, I will look at the other candidates. Like I said, I really like Huntsman and would most likely support him. However, if the nominee is not libertarian leaning, I would have to really think hard about what I will have to do.
Click to expand...
Well, I respect your principled stand and I also like a lot of what Ron Paul has been saying over the years. Hopefully someone will win who is a small govt. enough conservative to attract libertarian voters like you.

Ishii
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
How many 35 year old Congressmen have been elected President?
Click to expand...
I don’t know any 35 year old congressmen who are currently running, but I do know a 75 year old congressmen who is running who’ll turn 77 by inauguration day.
 
ishii said:
I don’t know any 35 year old congressmen who are currently running, but I do know a 75 year old congressmen who is running who’ll turn 77 by inauguration day.
Click to expand...
So, is the point you’re making that someone that age can’t lead?
 
ishii said:
And comparing the election of a pope with the election of a U.S. president is absurd indeed.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Yea, you’re right. The Pope leads the largest Church in the world with over a billion members worldwide. The US has a population of around 300000000 plus people.

Come on, it’s easy to see the corner you’re painting yourself into with this age thing.
 
ishii said:
No, not necessarily. Just that they are very unlikely to be elected in our current political culture.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Yea, so we might as well give up now then? :rolleyes:

It is only hopeless when people keep pushing the spin you’ve been pushing. That’s the problem. People have accused Democrats of ‘hating’ Republicans. Yet when some state they’re supporting, or willing to support, a Republican, who isn’t conservative on all the other issues, it’s ignored, called hopeless and the accusations of hating a party continue. This clearly shows a lack of willingness to promote a genuine candidate that a majority can support, because the very conservative are not willing to give on other issues. Then it’s all the fault of those ‘liberal’, ‘Democrat’ haters. There’s enough blame to go around, it’s just some stand behind a single issue as if it places them on ‘higher ground’.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Yea, you’re right. The Pope leads the largest Church in the world with over a billion members worldwide. The US has a population of around 300000000 plus people.

Come on, it’s easy to see the corner you’re painting yourself into with this age thing.
Click to expand...
So you’re comparing the election of a U.S. president in a country of 300 million people with the election of a pope by a few cardinals? I’m making a statement about the political viability of a candidate based on advanced age not about the ability of a 77 year old to lead a country. If by some fluke Ron Paul won the nomination, the press and the Democrats would have a field day with his age (among other things). And he’d lose. Hopefully that will help you understand better what I was trying to get across in my last post.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
So you’re comparing the election of a U.S. president in a country of 300 million people with the election of a pope by a few cardinals? I’m making a statement about the political viability of a candidate based on advanced age not about the ability of a 77 year old to lead a country. If by some fluke Ron Paul won the nomination, the press and the Democrats would have a field day with his age (among other things). And he’d lose. Hopefully that will help you understand better what I was trying to get across in my last post.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Twist it if you want. I was showing a person of age can be a good leader. Is that clear enough?

Got news for you. If the wrong Republican represents the party, they’ll lose again this election. For instance, how many Catholics will sit out the vote if Romney gets the nomination? I know I am uncomfortable with his faith which is based on it’s belief that the Catholic Church is in apostasy, but politics supersedes our Church to some partisans.

Seems like instead of trying to blame everyone else, there would be a concerted effort to put up a candidate everyone could benefit from. As I said, I believe Ron Paul isn’t conservative enough and that’s why he’s overlooked. The Republicans need a pro-life that will give tax breaks to the upper class, maintain the lack of gun control, kick all the immigrants out, keep healthcare out of reach for the average person, just do away with as many social programs as possible while dropping the tax burden on the working people.
 
vz71 said:
No, just the majority that responded to the poll.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I stand corrected!
estesbob said:
What would you expect on a Catholic forum? Since a Catholic cannot licitily vote for Barack Obama it kind of limits our options, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
AND
ishii said:
Actually it makes perfect sense given that we know that the Democrat candidate will be Obama and that since I started voting I have been more or less okay with voting for the GOP candidate over the Democrat.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess there’s no possibility that a Republican candidate would ever come out as being pro-choice 😉 At least not, and win a primary… I concede to your logic as well.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Twist it if you want. I was showing a person of age can be a good leader. Is that clear enough?

Got news for you. If the wrong Republican represents the party, they’ll lose again this election. For instance, how many Catholics will sit out the vote if Romney gets the nomination? I know I am uncomfortable with his faith which is based on it’s belief that the Catholic Church is in apostasy, but politics supersedes our Church to some partisans.

Seems like instead of trying to blame everyone else, there would be a concerted effort to put up a candidate everyone could benefit from. As I said, I believe Ron Paul isn’t conservative enough and that’s why he’s overlooked. The Republicans need a pro-life that will give tax breaks to the upper class, maintain the lack of gun control, kick all the immigrants out, keep healthcare out of reach for the average person, just do away with as many social programs as possible while dropping the tax burden on the working people.
Click to expand...
Actually you seem to be the one who is twisting things around. I made the simple statement that I don’t think Ron Paul, in light of our current political climate, because of his age and other reasons, is a viable candidate for president. You then accused me of saying " I don’t think old people are capable of leading" which I never said. Talk about twisting!

I’ve got news for you. Far from being “not conservative enough” Ron Paul is a supporter of gun rights, is against socialized healthcare, and is also fairly conservative on the immigration issue.

As for Romney being Mormon, do you think he has some hidden agenda to use his office to persecute people of other faiths? Now you’re painting yourself into a corner…

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Actually you seem to be the one who is twisting things around. I made the simple statement that I don’t think Ron Paul, in light of our current political climate, because of his age and other reasons, is a viable candidate for president. You then accused me of saying " I don’t think old people are capable of leading" which I never said. Talk about twisting!

I’ve got news for you. Far from being “not conservative enough” Ron Paul is a supporter of gun rights, is against socialized healthcare, and is also fairly conservative on the immigration issue.

As for Romney being Mormon, do you think he has some hidden agenda to use his office to persecute people of other faiths? Now you’re painting yourself into a corner…

Ishii
Click to expand...
No corner, discernment. I am not willing to trade the Church for politics.

Christ did not try to legislate morality. God gave us free will, but we should apply ourselves to politics to save ourselves? That just doesn’t seem like ‘faith’. Protestantism came about because men didn’t think God could fix His Church. There was a lack of faith then, just as I see a lack of faith, or more precisely a misplaced faith in politics now.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
No corner, discernment. I am not willing to trade the Church for politics.

Christ did not try to legislate morality. God gave us free will, but we should apply ourselves to politics to save ourselves? That just doesn’t seem like ‘faith’. Protestantism came about because men didn’t think God could fix His Church. There was a lack of faith then, just as I see a lack of faith, or more precisely a misplaced faith in politics now.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could speak to my points in my posts?

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Perhaps you could speak to my points in my posts?

Ishii
Click to expand...
The biggest point you continue to make is Ron Paul is too old to be elected. If enough people keep saying it, he will not get the support then someone the majority can’t get behind will get the nomination and things will remain the same…and people will go around with a chip on their shoulder blaming everyone else.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The biggest point you continue to make is Ron Paul is too old to be elected. If enough people keep saying it, he will not get the support then someone the majority can’t get behind will get the nomination and things will remain the same…and people will go around with a chip on their shoulder blaming everyone else.
Click to expand...
I have said that his age, among other things, is the reason why he is not a viable candidate. It is a comment on our current political climate as well as a reflection on our modern policial history. If I was a supporter of Ron Paul and believed he had a chance to get the nomination and possibly the general election, I wouldn’t be so quick to raise the age issue, for the reasons you state above. I don’t think Paul is someone “the majority can get behind.” I would prefer to support candidates who I think can challenge Obama in 2012. Pawlenty and Huntsman are two possibilities, as is Romney. But I hope you understand that I don’t think older candidates can’t lead.

Ishii
 
Abortion is a major issue, with both parties. The first thing President Obama did was clear the way for US taxpayers to finance abortions around the world. When federal funding of abortion was challanged during the health care bill, Congresswoman Pelosi made it clear that if the federal funding were dropped, that was a deal killer; there would be no health care “reform”. In extending our budget, Senator Reed said he would rather shut down the government than cut funds to Planned Parenthood. Seems abortion is THE Democratic priority.
Lets limit this to something we can all agree on: helping those who need help. Both the Old and New Testaments tell us that it is incumbent upon us to help our neighbors. But neither Testament says anything about building a bureaucracy to do so. Both tell us to give to those who are in need. But neither tells us to take from others and give other’s money to those who are in need, much less a bureaucracy. One has to look to the Koran for that sort of thing (both points).
What do I have against “programs”? The bureaucracy that they spawn; as much as 75% of the money directed to them goes to administration; of how the remaining 25% will be spent. They tend to spawn a class who works, i.e. lives off of, the system; AND TO EXCLUDE some who really need the help. I have seen all three of these things, the last most grievous.
There are some specifically anti-Catholic things that the Democratic Party has passed since 2009, like the Hate Crimes Bill, that defined our daily Mass readings as “hate speech” (by party line vote) and the “Affordable Health Care” bill that yanks the license of everyone who won’t participate in abortion or euthanasia. How to lower costs? Kick 30-45% of the providers out of business?

Ron Paul has been marginalized by the media. Because he spoke out about the Federal Reserve. Has recently spoken out about the FDA. Imagine what would have been the reaction had he dared say “Peak Oil”? If you don’t know what that is, go back to sleep; trust me: you don’t want to know.
Enough Mickey Mouse; WE NEED A REAL LEADER! So far, Ron Paul is the only one on the radar.
 
ishii said:
So you’re comparing the election of a U.S. president in a country of 300 million people with the election of a pope by a few cardinals? I’m making a statement about the political viability of a candidate based on advanced age not about the ability of a 77 year old to lead a country. If by some fluke Ron Paul won the nomination, the press and the Democrats would have a field day with his age (among other things). And he’d lose. Hopefully that will help you understand better what I was trying to get across in my last post.

Ishii
Click to expand...
It certainly makes a case against the free, popular vote and in favor of giving the vote to a learned few who have the experience, wisdom, and discipline to vote for the most capable person and not turn the Presidency into American Idol, which is what we have now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top