Our Next President

[pnewton]

I have been called silly, non-thinking and accused of thinking I live in North Korea, and that is in just one hour. I have been told that the solution to not having a voice in the primary is that I could move. The answer is here and it is not a non-answer. The answer is that insults and the abandoning of Christian charity for the promotion of partisan politics will not promote either profitable discussion, or will it accomplish the goal of convincing people of the need to vote a certain way.

There is a serious lack of Christian charity here when it comes to politics. It is time for us to put our faith first, then let that faith form our conscience on how we are to vote. If we spent more time praying with and for our opponents than we do insulting them, we might find God would bless that effort.

 

[rlg94086]

I have been called silly, non-thinking and accused of thinking I live in North Korea, and that is in just one hour. I have been told that the solution to not having a voice in the primary is that I could move. The answer is here and it is not a non-answer. The answer is that insults and the abandoning of Christian charity for the promotion of partisan politics will not promote either profitable discussion, or will it accomplish the goal of convincing people of the need to vote a certain way.

There is a serious lack of Christian charity here when it comes to politics. It is time for us to put our faith first, then let that faith form our conscience on how we are to vote. If we spent more time praying with and for our opponents than we do insulting them, we might find God would bless that effort.

Wow. Calling your comparison between a late primary vote to single party dictatorship votes silly was the charitable response.

You are obviously hyper-sensitive and shouldn’t engage in political discourse.

 

[ishii]

I have been called silly, non-thinking and accused of thinking I live in North Korea, and that is in just one hour. I have been told that the solution to not having a voice in the primary is that I could move. The answer is here and it is not a non-answer. The answer is that insults and the abandoning of Christian charity for the promotion of partisan politics will not promote either profitable discussion, or will it accomplish the goal of convincing people of the need to vote a certain way.

There is a serious lack of Christian charity here when it comes to politics. It is time for us to put our faith first, then let that faith form our conscience on how we are to vote. If we spent more time praying with and for our opponents than we do insulting them, we might find God would bless that effort.

Pnewton, I was serious about saying you should move to a state with an earlier primary (or work to get your state to have its primary earlier). I didn’t mean to insult you. Furthermore, when you compare our elections to that of a totalitarian nation - don’t complain about being accused of thinking you live in North Korea. Your claim that people who disagree with you are insulting you and abandoning Christian charity is laughable. I think you are over reacting. I notice that rather than speak to the points I made in my earlier post, you merely cry “insult”. Complaining all the time won’t really facilitate a serious discussion.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Hi Ishii

I’m glad you like Ron’s ideas, or at least some of them. That said, I have to correct you on your “fringe” comments. The fact is, without Ron Paul as the nominee, it will be very difficult for the gop to win the presidency.

Thanks for your comments. You probably won’t like my response, but atleast you will see where I’m coming from. Ron Paul’s relative strength in the polls owes to how he hasn’t really been targeted by anyone in the GOP or by Obama. Reason? Because everyone knows he’s not a serious candidate. The Real Clear Politics average of six polls shows Obama leading Romney by 5.3 % It shows Obama leading Paul by 7.6%. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows Romney and Obama tied. Now considering that Romney has been in the spotlight being attacked by Santorum and Gingrich and also by Obama surrogates, it is no wonder that he’s down at this point. Ron Paul has been virtually ignored - if there was any focus on his ideas and previous statements by his opponents, he’d probably be polling worse than he is already. I realize this isn’t what you want to hear, but unfortunately its the truth.

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

The reason is actually very simple. To win, you NEED to appeal to the independents.

Agree. But you have made no case that Ron Paul could win more independents than Romney. In fact, Romney, being more moderate, could very well appeal to those independents who consider themselves moderates - not all “independents” are Ron Paul supporters, right?

Ron Paul is the only one in the race, republican or democrat, who is offering real change.

Disagree. Romney would repeal Obamacare, push the Ryan budget plan and nominate constructionist judges. That is real change.

Romney is simply Bush on drugs, as Obama was and is Bush on steroids. They're all essentially the same.

No, you’re wrong - they are not essentially the same, they are very, very different. But I see how you have to believe they are the same to justify your support for Ron Paul.

Paul is the only one who actually talks about, challenges, and wants to investigate the Fed, as well as eventually faze it out. He wants to overturn the 16th amendment, no other candidate will say something about the income tax so drastic as that. Paul is the only anti-war candidate - which, if we remember, was George Bush’s policy when he ran and won in 2000 as an non-interventionist. Paul would not spy on, assassinate, or indefinitely detain without trial American citizens without due process of law - in other words, he vehemently opposes the Patriot act and it’s worsened successor, the NDAA, while Romney and Obama both support it. All of these things and many others are reasons why he does so well among independents AND frustrated democrats.

Important issues, to be sure. But you’re ignoring the other issues - judges, spending, etc.

In Our Lady,

A Catholic

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So, you’re saying that a vote for a candidate who has no chance means you are just wasting your vote? You are starting to come around to my way of thinking…

Right! So why bother? I’ll just sit and watch the fireworks this year.

 

[pnewton]

You are obviously hyper-sensitive and shouldn’t engage in political discourse.

No, you are mistaken. I am not hyper-sensitive and have thick skin. I deal with very barbaric people and insults do not bother me. My concern is that Christians make Christ-like behavior a priority. Just because we are anonymous here, we are still known to God.

 

[pnewton]

(or work to get your state to have its primary earlier). I

This is what I favor, though I prefer to work to abolish the two party system and move to a nationwide primary date where every state has equal say.

 

[iluvburpees]

Thanks for your comments Ishii.

As I said before, in theory Ron Paul would take more independents than Romney would, simply because people are sick of the two-party system and the same candidates year after year. However, actual polling is always best. Here’s how Paul did against Romney on Super Tuesday:

dailypaul.com/220212/ron-paul-clobbered-romney-among-independent-voters-on-super-tuesday-virgina-37-to-31-ohio-37-to-31-tenn-38-to-25

Virginia:

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/mitt-romney-trumps-ron-paul-in-virginia-despite-losing-independents/

ronpaul2012.com/2012/03/22/ron-paul-more-electable-than-mitt-romney-in-latest-poll/

These polls and votes are all very convincing and confirm what have said.

As far as Romney bringing real change, I question that. Because he has flip-flopped numerous times, it is difficult to believe that he will carry out anything that he says he will. If a candidate is untrustworthy, you simply do not know where he will go once in office. And even if what he says is true, it doesn’t mean much. He has the same foreign policy, the same support for illegal searches, indefinite detentions, and assassinations of american citizens (support for the ndaa), he supported the TARP bailouts, he does not want to end the Fed, he supported gays while governor of Massachussets (“In 2002, while running for the Governor’s office in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney’s campaign circulated a flier at a gay pride festival stating that the Romney Healey campaign supported the gay pride weekend and that all citizens deserve equal rights.” - thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Gay_Marriage/), he provided the blueprint for Obamacare and I believe he even said he would like to see RomneyCare implemented for the whole country, so I do not trust him to try to overturn obamacare - these are just some of his many problems.

In Our Lady,

A Catholic

 

[rlg94086]

No, you are mistaken. I am not hyper-sensitive and have thick skin. I deal with very barbaric people and insults do not bother me. My concern is that Christians make Christ-like behavior a priority. Just because we are anonymous here, we are still known to God.

Again, describing your earlier comments as silly is not an insult or uncharitable. It was a silly, hyperbolic comparison, so that is what I called it. There is no indication from your reaction that you have thick skin at all. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings though. God bless.

 

[rlg94086]

Right! So why bother? I’ll just sit and watch the fireworks this year.

Enjoy! They should be spectacular.

 

[ishii]

Right! So why bother? I’ll just sit and watch the fireworks this year.

I hope you don’t live in a swing state.

Ishii

 

[rlg94086]

I hope you don’t live in a swing state.

Ishii

Good point. Swinging fireworks can be dangerous.

 

[ringil]

Though I am happy as a clam to have moved from NC to NY I will miss being in a state that could go either way (and went for Obama in 08 ).

Just like when we lived in MA; NY state is a forgone conclusion- a bit boring. . . .

 

[ishii]

As far as Romney bringing real change, I question that. Because he has flip-flopped numerous times, it is difficult to believe that he will carry out anything that he says he will. If a candidate is untrustworthy, you simply do not know where he will go once in office. And even if what he says is true, it doesn’t mean much. He has the same foreign policy, the same support for illegal searches, indefinite detentions, and assassinations of american citizens (support for the ndaa), he supported the TARP bailouts, he does not want to end the Fed, he supported gays while governor of Massachussets (“In 2002, while running for the Governor’s office in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney’s campaign circulated a flier at a gay pride festival stating that the Romney Healey campaign supported the gay pride weekend and that all citizens deserve equal rights.” - thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Gay_Marriage/), he provided the blueprint for Obamacare and I believe he even said he would like to see RomneyCare implemented for the whole country, so I do not trust him to try to overturn obamacare - these are just some of his many problems.

In Our Lady,

A Catholic

I think you are justified in questioning Romney’s committment to conservative ideals based on his flip flops and previous stands. The bottom line is I think electing Romney is a risk worth taking considering what Obama would be doing with a 2nd term - with the nomination of judges alone. Perhaps another way of putting it is giving Obama a 2nd term is the much greater risk to our country. Plus, I probably don’t think the risk associated with Romney is nearly as bad as you would think it is. Romney would sign the repeal of Obama care. A GOP congress would also encourage him to govern like a conservative he is campaigning as. Ron Paul is not a viable option. The primaries are over - it is now a choice between Romney and Obama, and while I respect those who have concerns about Romney, I don’t think those concerns rise to a level that would warrent not voting for him this November. The stakes are too high - re-electing Obama would be a disaster for our country.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Though I am happy as a clam to have moved from NC to NY I will miss being in a state that could go either way (and went for Obama in 08 ).

Just like when we lived in MA; NY state is a forgone conclusion- a bit boring. . . .

Based on your posts, I’m glad you’re not in a swing state anymore. Neither am I, though. Our governor’s race should be competitive - we have a chance to reject a big spending clueless liberal in favor of a common sense conservative. Hope the Democrats don’t magically “discover” boxes of votes to put their guy over the top, like they did last time.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

Though I am happy as a clam to have moved from NC to NY I will miss being in a state that could go either way (and went for Obama in 08 ).

Just like when we lived in MA; NY state is a forgone conclusion- a bit boring. . . .

I’m in a swing state. My home state where I previously lived is also a swing state. I will not be voting 3rd party nor sitting home on election day. Well I will actually probably vote early as I normally do. I along with 3% of the voters voted 3rd party in our governor’s race in 2010 and the Tea Party/Republican candidate won by just 1%. I am not intending to make that same mistake in the Presidential.

 

[ishii]

I’m in a swing state. My home state where I previously lived is also a swing state. I will not be voting 3rd party nor sitting home on election day. Well I will actually probably vote early as I normally do. I along with 3% of the voters voted 3rd party in our governor’s race in 2010 and the Tea Party/Republican candidate won by just 1%. I am not intending to make that same mistake in the Presidential.

I hope you are happy voting for a pro-abortion president.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

I hope you are happy voting for a pro-abortion president.

Ishii

While I don’t know if there are any cicumstances where the candidate I’ll be voting for personally would be in favor of his wife choosing an abortion or not, I do know they have children and did not abort. Both candidates and their wives have had children in fact. But nevertheless I don’t recall ever being 100% happy with either of the 2 candidates who have a chance at being POTUS, Ishii, in the many yrs I’ve been casting ballots in secular elections on earth. But then finding 100% perfection is something I believe is attainable in heaven. Peace.

 

[ishii]

While I don’t know if there are any cicumstances where the candidate I’ll be voting for personally would be in favor of his wife choosing an abortion or not, I do know they have children and did not abort. Both candidates and their wives have had children in fact. But nevertheless I don’t recall ever being 100% happy with either of the 2 candidates who have a chance at being POTUS, Ishii, in the many yrs I’ve been casting ballots in secular elections on earth. But then finding 100% perfection is something I believe is attainable in heaven. Peace.

I would expect nothing less from you Cmatt than a spirited (if illogical) rationalization for your support for the pro-abortion canidate. That they have not had an abortion themselves makes them not pro-abortion? Your logic is a joke. Here is the USCCB refering to pro-choice politicians as pro-abortion:

*"Most Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in certain limited circumstances; an overwhelming majority agrees that unmarried minors should not obtain abortions without parental knowledge or consent. Nonetheless, ***pro-abortion or so-called “pro-choice” groups **have mounted a campaign to convince legislators and others that Americans want abortion on demand".
old.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/resabort89.shtml

But I suppose you don’t put too much stock in bishops’ statements these days - they don’t seem to agree with your “we live in a pluralistic society, so let’s keep abortion legal” mentality.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

I would expect nothing less from you Cmatt than a spirited (if illogical) rationalization for your support for the pro-abortion canidate. That they have not had an abortion themselves makes them not pro-abortion? Your logic is a joke. Here is the USCCB refering to pro-choice politicians as pro-abortion:

*“Most Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in certain limited circumstances; an overwhelming majority agrees that unmarried minors should not obtain abortions without parental knowledge or consent. Nonetheless, ***pro-abortion or so-called “pro-choice” groups ****have mounted a campaign to convince legislators and others that Americans want abortion on demand”.
old.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/resabort89.shtml

But I suppose you don’t put too much stock in bishops’ statements these days - they don’t seem to agree with your “we live in a pluralistic society, so let’s keep abortion legal” mentality.

Ishii

Well I have voted for parental notification which the bishops state is the majority view. And they do seem to say most Americans do not believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I do disagree that we can equate everyone who is pro choice in regard to secular law as also personally being pro abortion. In regards to the topic of the thread, I’m not even 100% certain which Romney would end up residing on Pennsylvania Ave. The Massachusetts Romney or the Romney running in Republican Presidential primaries.