"Chearacter" issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter didymus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

didymus

Guest
Just wondering how much weight folks give to the candidates’ character – NOT referring to anyone in particular.

Let’s say that you have a congresscritter or state rep who has always “brought home the bacon for your district” but has cheated on all four of his wives and has barely survived several financial investigations.

His opponent is squeaky clean but is inexperienced and won’t have the seniority to do as much for the district as the incumbent. They are equally good (or equally bad) on the issues you care about.

So do you kick out the louse just because he’s a louse? Keep him because he keeps jobs in your hard-pressed area?

Sorry to say I’d probably keep him.
 
didymus said:
Just wondering how much weight folks give to the candidates’ character – NOT referring to anyone in particular.
Click to expand...
95% character- 5% experience.
So do you kick out the louse just because he’s a louse? Keep him because he keeps jobs in your hard-pressed area?
Click to expand...
Kick out the louse.
 
Our form of government is representative democracy. We don’t personally vote on the laws. Instead we elect representatives to do that for us.

No one can predict what issues will come up in the future – we rely on our elected representatives to do the right thing. Therefore we must vote for men on whom we can rely.

If we vote for the crook who can “bring home the bacon” we are liable to wind up stranded in a flooded city, with hundreds of drowned busses that could have been used to get us out.
 
The louse may be able to get the job done, but you will always wonder what specific job he/she is doing…And nearly always know that the job he/she is pursuing is not in the interests of the values they were elected for.

If you have no character, you have no business in an elected office.
 
Character counts. Look at what we have with all the experienced men and women in Congress…
 
didymus said:
Just wondering how much weight folks give to the candidates’ character – NOT referring to anyone in particular.

Let’s say that you have a congresscritter or state rep who has always “brought home the bacon for your district” but has cheated on all four of his wives and has barely survived several financial investigations.

His opponent is squeaky clean but is inexperienced and won’t have the seniority to do as much for the district as the incumbent. They are equally good (or equally bad) on the issues you care about.

So do you kick out the louse just because he’s a louse? Keep him because he keeps jobs in your hard-pressed area?

Sorry to say I’d probably keep him.
Click to expand...
If he supports killing people, he is disqualified.
 
I think Character and Integrity are much more important than experience. I think the perfect litmus test of a person’s Character and Integrity or lack of it is…

Are You Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion/Pro-Choice?

Anyone who would not want to protect the weakest among us (unborn babies) definitely shows their LACK of Character and Integrity and won’t get my vote.

I also vote for people based on their actions (voting record/etc) and not what they say or comes out of their mouths.

To this is an easy answer.
Also anyone who voted against the IL UNBORN INFANTS PROTECTION ACT (which would protect babies from being killed after they are born) Should NEVER ever run for any public office as far as I’m concerned.
Politicians are supposed to SERVE the people, not KILL the people!

–Fr. Frank Pavone
 
PLAL said:
I think Character and Integrity are much more important than experience. I think the perfect litmus test of a person’s Character and Integrity or lack of it is…

Are You Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion/Pro-Choice?

Anyone who would not want to protect the weakest among us (unborn babies) definitely shows their LACK of Character and Integrity and won’t get my vote.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A politician who supports killing people, and dishonestly tries to hide behind euphamisms and the like such as “pro-choice” rather than honestly state he supports killing people has no business being in a place of leadership. Further even if he were honestly and directly state that he supports killing human life, he is likewise disqualified.
 
Character is important, but we never know all the factors. I saw a email once comparing the Hitler to Churchill. Hitler looked a whole lot better.

I think a persons stance on major issues matters for more than the current fads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top