Excellent points. The Democrats have controlled the big cities for decades, and look at the conditions of those cities, and the lack of opportunities for those living in them. The Democrat party needs to keep a large groups of people in need of government programs/handouts because thats the source of their power - the ability to confiscate others’ wealth and give it out to other groups. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.
The money has already run out. It ran out years ago. Now they are spending our grandkids money.
This is why it is a bad idea to remain under government control for everything, you end up being trapped. I think the Democrats would lose a lot of votes, if inner city areas were turned in to more ‘‘middle class’’ areas where families were stable, better schools and more job opportunities. That is why Democrats have been in control for inner cities for 60 years but nothing is changing for the better.
The easiest way to control people to to control the information they receive. Why do you think that totalitarian regimes pick off media outlets as their first targets.
Sounds as though you’d vote for a Muslim jihadi, as long as he was anti-abortion (some of them ARE, BTW). No matter that Obama is a professed Christian. Sounds like even anti-Christian belief is trumped by an anti-abortion stance.
We should vote based on a person’s values, not their religion. If a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian or Atheist shares my values, and is the best candidate for president, there is no reason not to vote for them.
I say anyone who is pro-abortion is anti-Christian. I see no dichotomy of thought.
It wasn’t my post but I will respond : your comment is absurd. There is a difference betwe en a sect that broke off from Christianity in the 19th century that used to follow polygamy and some other wacky theological ideas but now in the 21st century is more known for riding around on bikes in matching suits to proselytise (but still holds to some of the wacky theology) and a muslim jihadi who is bent on a holy war to convert non-muslims by violent means.
I would say they are anti-human. They are in favor of allowing people to kill innocents.
I agree.
I think we were already aware that you thought that. The question was aimed at discovering whether you were okay with voting for a Muslim who espoused jihadi ideology (provided he were anti-abortion)? Think before you answer. A guy like that could be cooking up plans to undermine national security even as you enjoyed the glow of serenity in the voting booth.
No, I’m not trying to compare the Mormons to Islamist jihadis; and I think you knew that, and are being deliberately obtuse.
According to who? You? I don’t share many of the values of Mormons or Muslims. If these people are devout, their heretical error ridden faith will affect how they govern. Therefore I don’t vote for devout Muslims or Mormons as a matter of principle. Jews, protestants and agnostics are a different story for me personally.
I think common sense (rather than a need to extrapolate) would answer your question. Voting for a pro-life Mormon is consistent with our obligation to promote the sanctity of life. Ensuring that the pro-life Mormon in question is also committed to the protection and defense of our constitution would be consistent with our obligation as loyal American citizens. The jihadi might be against abortion technically, but still not be pro-life because he is for killing innocent (born) people in the name of religion. Again, one would hope common sense would prevail here - how many muslim jihadists are peace loving loyal Americans? How many Mormons want to kill infidels? Your question would make sense if there were Mormon candidates who were something other than pro-life, loyal Americans. As it is, your question is a silly one.No, I’m not trying to compare the Mormons to Islamist jihadis; and I think you knew that, and are being deliberately obtuse.
I’m extrapolating where this variety of litmus-test politics will end up when extrapolated out to its logical end. Will people who talk this way remain consistent to the principle even at that extremity? That’s the question I’m driving at.
That would be someone who doesn’t share my values, so it is a dumb question. And, you never asked me the question before, so I’m not sure why you are talking about what you were “aiming at discovering” that I was okay with.
So you’d vote for the agnostic over the Mormon? You’d vote for the agnostic, but “faith matters” ? In what way would the Mormon’s “heretical faith” affect how they govern? Are you implying that Mitt Romney or John Huntsman would not protect and defend the constitution of the United States? If so, on what basis do you say that? What has a Mormon politician done to lead you to believe that? Examples please.
So if we vote for pro life mormons now we will logically end up with muslim jihadists?
It isn’t a logical end. That said, I’ve had Democrats confirm that they would treat genocide and slavery as just one issue among many to weigh. Before you start trying to accuse Republicans of supporting a Muslim jihadi without evidence or confirmation, you should consider the fact that there are Democrats who don’t consider genocide something to automatically rule out a candidate.No, I’m not trying to compare the Mormons to Islamist jihadis; and I think you knew that, and are being deliberately obtuse.
I’m extrapolating where this variety of litmus-test politics will end up** when extrapolated out to its logical end**. Will people who talk this way remain consistent to the principle even at that extremity? That’s the question I’m driving at.
Something like that.
:whacky: