Are you pro-life or Republican first?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LCMS_No_More
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would surel vote a pro-life candidate that was pro-DP & war, deportation; anti gov’t svcs, reg. of business, taxes, unions

long before I would consider a pro-abortionist that was:

anti-DP & choice war; pro gov’t svc, reg. of business, prog tax, immigration reform (incl legalize) & unions
But neither of these two option were presented.
 
I would surel vote a pro-life candidate that was pro-DP & war, deportation; anti gov’t svcs, reg. of business, taxes, unions

long before I would consider a pro-abortionist that was:

anti-DP & choice war; pro gov’t svc, reg. of business, prog tax, immigration reform (incl legalize) & unions
But neither of these two option were presented.
Of course they weren’t!

Did you think this thread is anything other than an exercise in branding some people as “bad” and others as “good” – without respect to their actual merits?😉
 
Wow, this has got to be the most confusing poll I’ve ever seen! 😃

Short answer:

I’m pro-life first … Would definitely vote Democrat if the Democrat candidate was in favor of protecting the unborn, and if he/she were running against a liberal Republican who was not pro-life. 🙂

Normally though, I’m a Republican. :cool:

~~ the phoenix
👍

I wrote to the Republican National Committee and told them that I could not support a candidate that supported abortion. I will sit this one out if my choices are all pro-abortion.
 
👍

I wrote to the Republican National Committee and told them that I could not support a candidate that supported abortion. I will sit this one out if my choices are all pro-abortion.
Good for you.

Early on, I got an invitation to join the “team” of one of the candidates. I wrote back and told him since he didn’t support the Constitution, I certainly couldn’t support him.
 
I could never claim to be a Christian and then turn around a support the murder of millions of children nor support anyone else who supports it. Being Christian and pro-abortion is not possible.
👍 Well said fellow Pennsylvanian.
 
Of course not because the life issues are switched. Is it or is it not true that, after removing the Big 5 issues, the Repbulican party is:

Pro-death penaltyUnsure where the leading Repub contender stands on this
Pro-warThe leading Repub contender is.
Pro-deportationThe leading Repub contender isn’t.
Anti-taxThe leading Repub contender isn’t
Anti-regulation of businessThe leading Repub contender isnt
Anti-publicly provided servicesThe learind Repub contender isnt
Anti-unionThe leading Repub contender is mixed.

Is it or is it not true that, after removing the Big 5 issues, the Democratic Party is

Anti-death penaltyThe leading Dem contender isnt.
Anti-warThe leading Dem contender isnt.
Pro Immigration Reform (including earned legalization)The leading Dem contender is
Pro progressive taxLikely the leading Dem contender is. Says so anyway.
Pro regulation of businessNot for Walmart, but possibly for others.
Pro publicly provided servicesFor the middle class. Not for the poor.
Pro laborYes, except for the culinary workers’ union.

This poll is based on reversing compliance on the Big 5 and seeing what would happen.

The motive is to see whether or not people are pro-life or Republican first. It’s quite simple. I believe that some people are so loyal to the Party that they’ll vote for it even if it didn’t have a pro-life plank. If I’m wrong, I’ve yet to see proof.** But your tests are really left wing stereotypes rather than accurate descriptions of the parties themselves.**
 
I am not pro-war. I am a professional soldier (and have the bullet holes to prove it) and can claim to **understand **war better than those who have never seen the elephant. And I still have a lot of contacts in service.

I am not pro-death penalty, although I have had a little experience working with the Bureau of Prisons, and understand the need for the death penalty in the case of those who kill police, witnesses, prosecutors, Corrections Officers and so on.

I am for deporting those who are here in violation of the law.

I am for reducing taxes, and allowing people to keep more of what they earn. I am also for educating people on the need for savintgs and investment.

I believe regulation of business should be held to the minimum needed to protect the public. For every good regulation, I can show you a bad one.

I don’t even know what “anti-publicly provided services” is.

I lived through one major strike – the Detroit Newspaper Strike, and did not unions to be the wonderful things some say they are.
Good grief, I agree with you.🙂
 
Seems to me that you bare the one trying to pigeon-hole everyone with YOUR perception of pro-this and pro-that.

Count me as pro-God.👍
OH, I hear you.

As to pigeonhole, let’s look at the Republican Party platform from 2004.

Pro-death penalty:
Page 73: “We support courts having the option to impose the death penalty in capital murder cases.”

Anti-Tax
Page 2: “President Bush worked with Congress to lower taxes, so Americans can keep more of their own hard-earned money to spend, save, or invest, thereby growing our economy and putting people back to work.”

Pages 39 and 40 are a summary of Republicanism and taxes. They even include the ever-present straw-man relative to what the Democratic party wants to do.

Pro-deportation
Page 79: “Border Patrol agents now have sweeping new powers to deport illegal aliens without having first to go through the cumbersome process of allowing the illegal alien to have a hearing before an immigration judge.”

This is lovely…the government doesn’t even have to prove a person is an “illegal alien” before he or she is kicked out of the country. Is it possible that US citizens have been kicked out of their OWN country because there’s no review of these cases?

Anti-regulation
Page 23: “enforcing trade agreements and laws against unfair practices, including staunch opposition to regulations that impede farm exports and improved agriculture;”

Page 42: “In many areas, housing prices are higher than they need to be because of regulations that drive up building costs. Some regulation is of course necessary, and so is sensible zoning. We urge states and localities to work with local builders and lenders to eliminate unnecessary burdens that price many families out of the market.”

Page 44: “America’s economy is the strongest in the world, and it is getting stronger thanks to lower taxes, fewer burdensome regulations, and a focus on encouraging investment.”

Allow me a moment to say: :rotfl:

Page 58: “The President and Republican Congress have supported efforts to improve workplace safety without burdening businesses with costly and unnecessary regulations. And these efforts are showing results – overall workplace fatalities and injuries are at record low levels.”

May I point out that it’s because most of the work that leads to injuries has been off shored for the most part?

Page 62: “Republicans are working to reduce burdensome regulations that discourage broadband investment.”

Page 76: “High taxes and unreasonable regulations stifle new and expanded businesses and thwart the creation of job opportunities and prosperity.”

Anti-public services
Page 39: “Furthermore, we believe that the federal government should be limited and restricted to the functions mandated by the United States Constitution. The taxation system should not be used to redistribute wealth or fund ever-increasing entitlements and social programs.”

Of course, it’s based on a limited view of the Constitution and ignores the “necessary and proper” clause.

Anti-union
The Republican Platform has pretty language about the rights of workers to organize on page 57 but removes their teeth by taking away the only power a union has to ensure an employer will work with them. “We affirm the time-honored right of individuals to voluntarily participate in labor organizations and to bargain collectively. We also believe that no American should be coerced into an association they do not wish to join.” In other words, it’s a nice thing if you want to get together and try to get your employer do deal with you collectively but they don’t have to listen to you.

So…I’ve shown that everything I’ve said about Republicanism in this thread is true…by their OWN words. I await apologies.
 
Personally, I am a Christian above all things, including political parties. I vote spilt ticket based on who I think will do the best job and who closest expresses morality. I guess the technical term would be a conservative with no party affiliation. Why do I need to be part of a political party when I’m already a member of Jesus’? 🤷
 
So…I’ve shown that everything I’ve said about Republicanism in this thread is true…by their OWN words. I await apologies.
Whoa LC! stand back just a minute. Where did anyone say the Repubs didn’t stand for those things in the platform for 2004. THAT PLATFORM WAS THE REASON I VOTED G.W. LOL. I don’t deny it! Nor does any other conservative here.

But once again your forgot to mention PROLIFE was also on that list, and when confronted with stem research legislation, the President shot it down in flames. Now you tell ME, what the situation would be with stem research had* Kerry *won the election.

I’m mature enough to remember when the dems were conservative. I remember President J.F.K. (3rd grade) what do you think he woulda done if Congress had sent HIM a stem cell research bill?

I’ve read your posts here,and in other threads, I admire your passion in your political beliefs, even if I think they’re wrong:shrug:

I know what side I’m coming down on EVERYTIME. I’m fortunate I’m not in the situation my liberal leaning friends are in. It is not your fault, that for whatever reason, those that favor prolife are so much in conflict with your other views.

The dems such as yourself need to enter the arena of the dems, and do as Vern suggested, purge out pro choice candidates. Support and find candidates that are liberal but pro life. Now I dunno how you do that, because it is obvious liberalism in its essence breeds pro choice, at least it has so far. I can’t name a single nationally known liberal that is prolife. Mayber you can?

In the south there are pro life dems, but they are conservative.
 
Whoa LC! stand back just a minute. Where did anyone say the Repubs didn’t stand for those things in the platform for 2004. THAT PLATFORM WAS THE REASON I VOTED G.W. LOL. I don’t deny it! Nor does any other conservative here.

But once again your forgot to mention PROLIFE was also on that list, and when confronted with stem research legislation, the President shot it down in flames. Now you tell ME, what the situation would be with stem research had* Kerry *won the election.
The point of this thread and the poll is to find out whether Republicanism overrides pro-life. I don’t see how it can naturally lead to pro-life considering Republicans’ penchant for war and the death penalty.

[qoute]I’m mature enough to remember when the dems were conservative. I remember President J.F.K. (3rd grade) what do you think he woulda done if Congress had sent HIM a stem cell research bill?

I’ve read your posts here,and in other threads, I admire your passion in your political beliefs, even if I think they’re wrong:shrug:

You’re entitled to your own opinion.
I know what side I’m coming down on EVERYTIME.
Which side is that? What would you do if the Republicans dropped the abortion plank from its platform and started flogging for gay marriage, research on stem-cells from unborn children, etc? What if the Democrats take up those issues? Will your economic conservatism be enough to keep you voting Republican or will you be forced to rethink your positions all the way around?

What if an actually pro-life Democrat ran for office against a pro-choice-on-abortion Republican?
I’m fortunate I’m not in the situation my liberal leaning friends are in. It is not your fault, that for whatever reason, those that favor prolife are so much in conflict with your other views.
The dems such as yourself need to enter the arena of the dems, and do as Vern suggested, purge out pro choice candidates.
I’m not a “dem,” whatever that is. I’m not a Democrat, either. Believe it or not, I used to be a Limbaugh listening right-wing Republican. Then, I looked around, took a real listen and saw the pride, anger, envy, and avarice that comprise Republicanism. I’m sorry, but in spite of the tenor of my posts here, I’m a pretty nice guy and I can’t stand a lot of what Republicanism stands for. In spite of this, I’m still registered Repubican…simply because I can’t bring myself to register as a Democrat.
Support and find candidates that are liberal but pro life. Now I dunno how you do that, because it is obvious liberalism in its essence breeds pro choice, at least it has so far. I can’t name a single nationally known liberal that is prolife. Mayber you can?
One would think so and since the Democratic Party is, at present, not friendly to anti-abortion candidates, it would take a lot of Catholics and other Christians taking the entirety of their faith seriously to make that change.
In the south there are pro life dems, but they are conservative.
Considering the south’s history, I don’t expect anything BUT a “conservative” to be allowed to live there.
 
Considering the south’s history, I don’t expect anything BUT a “conservative” to be allowed to live there.
I take it you don’t like the South very much?
 
I strongly believe that Republicanism is an ideology based on the notions that a tax is the worst possible evil in the universe and that business can do no wrong.
How charitable to slander your fellow Catholics who are Republicans this way (more so on the other thread).

I vote pro-life, then pro-2A, then Republican, in that order.
 
Considering the south’s history, I don’t expect anything BUT a “conservative” to be allowed to live there.
I must respectfully disagree with you. I have lived in the South for my entire life, and it is much more diverse than you claim. I know many liberals who live right here in my area, and they haven’t been deported from the South. Over the course of my life, I have met both conservative and moderate Republicans as well as conservative and liberal Democrats here in the South. I have met many people who both support and oppose abortion. The South has its Democrats and its Republicans just like any other area of the country. It isn’t fair to make a general blanket statement about a particular geographical area, especially when one doesn’t live in that area. From what I learned in school, LA doesn’t have a spotless history either.
 
The point of this thread and the poll is to find out whether Republicanism overrides pro-life. I don’t see how it can naturally lead to pro-life considering Republicans’ penchant for war and the death penalty.
What does that have to do with being pro-life? This is one of there reasons I prefer anti-abortion, or anti-euthanasia. They leave less room for tampering with the meaning. For the record, if abortion was the only issue that reversed and another party became the champions against abortion, I would join with them in a heart beat.
 
I’m not a “dem,” whatever that is. I’m not a Democrat, either. Believe it or not, I used to be a Limbaugh listening right-wing Republican. Then, I looked around, took a real listen and saw the pride, anger, envy, and avarice that comprise Republicanism. I’m sorry, but in spite of the tenor of my posts here, I’m a pretty nice guy and I can’t stand a lot of what Republicanism stands for. In spite of this, I’m still registered Repubican…simply because I can’t bring myself to register as a Democrat.
Then I stand corrected. The nature of a internet forum wrong conclusions can be made. Would it be safe to say, you are a liberal with pro life stance, and feel left out of either party?

If that is the case, 2 roads to take. (1) Work in the dem party to get a pro life guy, with a liberal resume on everything else. (2) work in the GOP and to push a more liberal view on everything but abortion.

But be warned there will be folks like me to resist that.

This is like anything else. The same takes place in the Church. For sure stuff went/goes on I don’t/didn’t like, you’re always gonna have that. I cringed bigtime at how liberal the Church went in the 70s, but I never once thought of leaving it. No, you stay in the family and debate. One thing I learned over the years in politics both in the Church and secular-you win some and lose some. Up years and down years, when you’re down you keep plugging to get things changed
Which side is that? What would you do if the Republicans dropped the abortion plank from its platform and started flogging for gay marriage, research on stem-cells from unborn children, etc? What if the Democrats take up those issues? Will your economic conservatism be enough to keep you voting Republican or will you be forced to rethink your positions all the way around?
What if an actually pro-life Democrat ran for office against a pro-choice-on-abortion Republican?
If a conservative dem ran against a liberal repub no question I vote dem. I vote idiology (sp?) not party. If a dem took up conservative issues I’d definately take a look.

In the case of a pro life dem vs. a pro choice Repub I vote the dem. I know he’s gonna mess stuff up going in, but I rather deal with higher taxes etc then a pro choice agenda.

For now friends, I have the latest episode of “Lost” on Tivo (so I can zap commercials) Later.
 
Quote: BamaRider
In the south there are pro life dems, but they are conservative.
Then LC said:
Considering the south’s history, I don’t expect anything BUT a “conservative” to be allowed to live there.
Just yesterday 2 liberals came out of the closet on my street, so we stuck “for sale signs” in their respective yards, and had the water turned off. I hope they got the hint. 😉

But I wonder how long I’d last in NJ “tawkin like this heah” in a neighborhood where they “toik like dis.”
 
How charitable to slander your fellow Catholics who are Republicans this way (more so on the other thread).

I vote pro-life, then pro-2A, then Republican, in that order.
Excuse me? I spoke of an ideology, not persons.
 
There is usually a substantial difference between the party platforms of the two parties. But I’m not sure I see a whole lot of difference between the leading candidates of the two parties. One, I think, is not resolutely prolife, but more so than the totally pro-abortion other. Both seem to be ready to support the war. (Remember Kosovo? There was less justification for that than there was for Iraq). Neither has anything to offer the truly needy. It’s doubtful that there is any significant difference between them when it comes to raising taxes or amnesty for illegals. One seems likely to be a bigger spender on middle-class welfare (vote-buying), but I’m not sure there’s much to choose between them on that. Both are pretty nasty personalities, though one seems to be marginally nastier than the other.

The real contrast seems to be between the second-place holders in the two parties. If they were the leaders, there would be more of a choice. But I suspect we might be looking at a choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dum if the leaders remain the leaders. Maybe, as things unfold, we’ll see more difference than now appears, but I’m doubtful.

I keep wondering how it ever came to this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top