Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter CMatt25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
So your point is, and I may well have missed it in that post, that singing in the choir is a “sign of the times?”

Personally, I do not think it a selling point that his current wife, after he left his second wife during serious illness…again, who was a twenty-seven year old staffer that Gingrich had an affair with. (he was fifty), who now sings in the choir. I don’t see why that should be anything but a warning sign for me. I still count character as a necessary qualification for office. In this respect, I have more in common with the current president than this particular candidate.
Click to expand...
Well…come to think of it …singing in the choir can also be taken as a sign of the times - like in the Great Sign that appeared in the sky - The Woman clothed with the son , moon under her feet …and the dragon that is after her ( ironically , this year is even the Chinese year of the Dragon ! ) 😉

As to the character issues , true , the nation has the right to have questions and concerns and that too would help others to recognise how much long term repercussions there can be , from past mistakes …yet , there too , the mystery of God’s mercy has to be discerned , when we see what path they have subsequently taken - like that of St.Paul even and who knows , if God would have foreseen and was pleased enough with that future path , to have thus helped Gingrich, to be pulled out of an illicit relationship , into a blessed one, even through such weaknesses !

For the rest of the weak willed , since there is no assurance as to how steep and sure the place of no return of the fall can be ( even the pres. ominoulsy hinting of such ! ) , far better to stay in the narrow and difficult path of being truly faithful and joyfully close to The Lord and the oaths taken , in Him !
 
SamH said:
I could see where Castro thinks our election process is stupid. In Cuba he would have had all the Republican contenders shot and he would be reelected in a record landslide.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe he’s mellowed since the early days. In those days he would line up businessmen and anyone not fervently pro-revolution against the wall to be shot by firing squad. It made a lasting impresion on me at the time, and seemed to silence much of the U.S. media which had hailed him as a hero. Too much blood, too many executions, too many political prisoners.

Maybe he’s mellowed. Maybe now he would just throw them in jail. But probably not. The firing squad is presumably still available.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
What we want is for LIBERALS to vote for a third-party candidate.
Click to expand...
I’ve voted 3rd party candidate for governor and we ended up with the Tea Party. Don’t intend to make the same mistake on the Presidential level. In 2000 I didn’t decide until on my way to my polling place not to vote 3rd party so as not to aid George W. And I imagine enough liberals in FL remember how voting for Nader in 2000 cost the candidate receiving the most votes nationwide from being sworn in. Had most of their votes gone to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, there would have been no SCOTUS decision nor 8 yrs of George W.
 
CMatt25 said:
Nor the rape victim’s
Click to expand...
Which is why I’ve never understood why rape isn’t up there with murder in terms of severity, death penalty, etc…

In raping rape someone, you’re making a conscious deliberate decision for evil at a threshold far above things like stealing a candy bar or lying. It’s essentially torture.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Since when is the opposite of “orthodox” “progressive”?

Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been described as progressive for a number of things they’ve done. The implication that these popes might not be orthodox is uncalled for IMO.
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
Nec5 said:
Which is why I’ve never understood why rape isn’t up there with murder in terms of severity, death penalty, etc…

In raping rape someone, you’re making a conscious deliberate decision for evil at a threshold far above things like stealing a candy bar or lying. It’s essentially torture.
Click to expand...
I think that the rapist should be found guilty of the baby’s death if the woman chooses to abort (God forbid).
 
gilliam said:
Interesting development. Most of the Right media has now rallied around Mitt. With a few notable exceptions who are remaining neutral. See: The right drops a bomb on Newt

What do you all take of that?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a new development, John Gibson, Brian Kilmeade, Sean Hannity have all been defending him for awhile now. Mark Levin and a couple of others don’t seem to care too much for him.
 
CMatt25 said:
Nor the rape victim’s
Click to expand...
So if the Rapist does not impregnate his victim does she have the right to have one of his children killed? If not please explain the difference between what you are endorsing and this. it would seem this was settled thousands of years ago

DT 24: 16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, **nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. **
 
gilliam said:
Interesting development. Most of the Right media has now rallied around Mitt. With a few notable exceptions who are remaining neutral. See: The right drops a bomb on Newt

What do you all take of that?
Click to expand...
What I took from the article is that these people are a lot more anti-Newt than pro-Mitt. Seems like it’s basically a matter of Republicans falling in line rather than falling in love. Romney just happens to be the one the GOP is stuck with, because for whatever reason everyone buys the sole argument for his campaign–that he’s the only electable Republican running right now.

The article mentions Ann Coulter…when I think of her, I always remember that oft-repeated clip where she tells a crowd that if we don’t nominate Chris Christie, we’ll end up with Romney and we’ll lose.
 
AlwaysCurious said:
What I took from the article is that these people are a lot more anti-Newt than pro-Mitt. Seems like it’s basically a matter of Republicans falling in line rather than falling in love. Romney just happens to be the one the GOP is stuck with, because for whatever reason everyone buys the sole argument for his campaign–that he’s the only electable Republican running right now.

The article mentions Ann Coulter…when I think of her, I always remember that oft-repeated clip where she tells a crowd that if we don’t nominate Chris Christie, we’ll end up with Romney and we’ll lose.
Click to expand...
Ironically, Coulter is one of the one chirping loudest for Romney now. 🤷
 
AlwaysCurious said:
Yep. Falling in line.
Click to expand...
In line with whom? The “establishment?” You better check under your bed and in your closet! :eek: 😛

Ann Coulter has been in support of Romney since Christie said he wouldn’t run. He also supports Romney. It’s not a conspiracy. There is no set establishment pushing one candidate. Of the four left, there are still many who agree more with Romney’s stances and/or think he is our best shot at defeating Obama. He may or may not win the nomination. It’s up to the voters to decide, as usual.
 
rlg94086 said:
In line with whom? The “establishment?” You better check under your bed and in your closet! :eek: 😛

Ann Coulter has been in support of Romney since Christie said he wouldn’t run. He also supports Romney. It’s not a conspiracy. There is no set establishment pushing one candidate. Of the four left, there are still many who agree more with Romney’s stances and/or think he is our best shot at defeating Obama. He may or may not win the nomination. It’s up to the voters to decide, as usual.
Click to expand...
I am going to tell everyone here straight up. If Romney wins the GOP nomination, Obama is going to paint him as everything that is wrong with the GOP. Rich white guys who don’t pay enough in taxes and destroy wealth and jobs. True or not true, that is what he is going to be painted as and it is going to work on the vast swathes of uneducated voters.
 
rlg94086 said:
In line with whom? The “establishment?” You better check under your bed and in your closet! :eek: 😛

Ann Coulter has been in support of Romney since Christie said he wouldn’t run. He also supports Romney. It’s not a conspiracy. There is no set establishment pushing one candidate. Of the four left, there are still many who agree more with Romney’s stances and/or think he is our best shot at defeating Obama. He may or may not win the nomination. It’s up to the voters to decide, as usual.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But I would be willing to bet that most people who are preparing to vote for Romney are settling on him rather than truly supporting him, as if he represented a message they really identify with or care about. How many people are going to be proud and ecstatic to have a “Romney/______” sign in their yard this fall? That’s basically what I mean by falling in line–accepting a candidate you don’t really care about because it’s what everyone else is doing.

Either way, I suspect Coulter wishes she could erase this moment:
youtube.com/watch?v=vo6SOpOE788
 
AlwaysCurious said:
Maybe. But I would be willing to bet that most people who are preparing to vote for Romney are settling on him rather than truly supporting him, as if he represented a message they really identify with or care about. How many people are going to be proud and ecstatic to have a “Romney/______” sign in their yard this fall? That’s basically what I mean by falling in line–accepting a candidate you don’t really care about because it’s what everyone else is doing.

Either way, I suspect Coulter wishes she could erase this moment:
youtube.com/watch?v=vo6SOpOE788
Click to expand...
What do you think those who are complaining about Newt Gingrich will do, if he wins the nomination? Continue to be against him? Of course not. Your understanding of the political process is a little lacking. I would support Ron Paul in the general election, even though I would be settling.

Who is the “perfect” candidate that no one will have to “settle” to vote for?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I am going to tell everyone here straight up. If Romney wins the GOP nomination, Obama is going to paint him as everything that is wrong with the GOP. Rich white guys who don’t pay enough in taxes and destroy wealth and jobs. True or not true, that is what he is going to be painted as and it is going to work on the vast swathes of uneducated voters.
Click to expand...
Big deal, Scott. If Gingrich is the candidate, Obama will have plenty to attack…ditto Ron Paul. You are telling everyone “straight up” something they already know. 🤷

Is there a candidate that Obama is cowering in fear over?
 
rlg94086 said:
What do you think those who are complaining about Newt Gingrich will do, if he wins the nomination? Continue to be against him? Of course not. Your understanding of the political process is a little lacking. I would support Ron Paul in the general election, even though I would be settling.

Who is the “perfect” candidate that no one will have to “settle” to vote for?
Click to expand...
Ron Paul, of course. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top