B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I’m sure he’d make the long list, but I don’t see any reason why he’d even be considered for the short list.
- Status
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Well, considering Obama has proven that you don’t need any sort of executive experience or capacity to make decisions, that quality is ruled out. ANd, he has actually acted like a Senator far longer than Obama ever did. He’s perfect.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
If you haven’t seen it, you should go to YouTube and watch the video of him addressing the Senate and scolding them for arguing over what part of the house while it burns to the ground.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Most decent folk recognize a hatchet job when they see it.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Obama, Romney even in 12 swing states, USA Today/Gallup poll says:
latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gallup-poll-swing-states-20111104,0,3009037.story?track=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=56325
latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gallup-poll-swing-states-20111104,0,3009037.story?track=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=56325
I
ishii
Guest
Why not? Think of the positives: He would help the nominee win Florida. He’s hispanic, so he might help with the hispanic vote, he’s extremely articulate - he’d be great on the stump - the only thing is he’d have to be careful not to upstage the presidential nominee. He’s a strong conservative - he’d help a presidential nominee who needs help shoring up his conservative credentials (is there a candidate that comes to mind?). The GOP would be helping develop the next generation of leaders by nominating Rubio. Who would make the short list that has more positives than Rubio?
Ishii
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I
ishii
Guest
If the Democrat is a christian, then they would have to be ok with the anti-christian policies of the Democrat party. Or they’d have to be ignorant. I wouldn’t want to be either.
Ishii
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
What about the very Christian ideal of confiscating a person’s “excess wealth” and redistributing it to the people that the state determines needs it the most. I mean, Jesus even advocated for this.
B
BVM_1221
Guest
There is a minor problem with that. A quibble, I suppose:coffeeread:
Those policies that you call anti-Christian are NOT considered anti-Christian by those Democrats. They would call them anti-establisment-of-religion policies.Really.:yup:
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I’m just assuming that by his own words he would not accept the nomination.
C
CMatt25
Guest
If the Democrat is a member of or adheres to beliefs of a more liberal denomination such as the United Church of Christ, Episcopal, Disciples of Christ, or another similar mainline Christian church, they are considered to be Christians by your church, Ishii. I’d think that alone should be good enough for you.
I
ishii
Guest
They always say that, as another poster already mentioned. Maybe he wouldn’t accept, but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t one of the best possible choices. Maybe he could be persuaded.
Ishii
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
Ishii, while the talk of VP potentials is always intriguing to me, and other political junkies (hey I’m not in denial about it, maybe some of y’all are though 
)
I think that at least some of the spirit of this thread is that we KNOW that the GoP Presidential slots are fixed in stone.
So, while it is interesting to talk about the fluctuations and speculations and rumors and gossip of the VP pick… this is not set in stone. So, we could speculate about it all day.
So, yeah, the 8 people currently running for President should be the focus of this thread. We need a Presidential nominee before we will get a VP. Wasn’t Palin chosen like a month and a half after the convention last go round?
)I think that at least some of the spirit of this thread is that we KNOW that the GoP Presidential slots are fixed in stone.
So, while it is interesting to talk about the fluctuations and speculations and rumors and gossip of the VP pick… this is not set in stone. So, we could speculate about it all day.
So, yeah, the 8 people currently running for President should be the focus of this thread. We need a Presidential nominee before we will get a VP. Wasn’t Palin chosen like a month and a half after the convention last go round?
I
ishii
Guest
And 'round and 'round we go Cmatt. No thanks. What you’re saying is that being a christian means whatever one wants it to - i.e. relativism - “there is no truth but whatever I decide is the truth. If I decide that Obama and the Democrat party is pro-Christian, then that is my truth.” That is essentially what you’re saying. I reject that relativist idea.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Fair enough, but I brought up the VP pick to see if perhaps more people could stomach Romney if he picked a conservative like Marco Rubio (or someone else). Do you think the nomination of Romney is a fait accompli?Ishii, while the talk of VP potentials is always intriguing to me, and other political junkies (hey I’m not in denial about it, maybe some of y’all are though
I think that at least some of the spirit of this thread is that we KNOW that the GoP Presidential slots are fixed in stone.
So, while it is interesting to talk about the fluctuations and speculations and rumors and gossip of the VP pick… this is not set in stone. So, we could speculate about it all day.
So, yeah, the 8 people currently running for President should be the focus of this thread. We need a Presidential nominee before we will get a VP. Wasn’t Palin chosen like a month and a half after the convention last go round?
Ishii
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
Through my use of context clues, I do not think the nomination of Romney is a fait accompli. Nice vocabulary there lol.
But no, I think if we look to the 2008 primary process we saw Giuliani and Hillary heralded for months by the establishment and the press as the people that were going to get the nomination. Somewhere along the line it became McCain and Obama.
An article I was reading today asserted that tiers of candidates have finally emerged, they contend that the tiers are:
1st tier: Herman Cain, Mitt Romnney
2nd tier: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry
3rd tier: Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman
I forget where they put Paul, but he polls somewhere above 3rd tier, but below 2nd tier.
Anyways, just because Romney is called the front runner, and has the most money, most organization, and most endorsements doesn’t mean he should get the nomination. Isn’t politics supposed to be about political platforms? Issues? Substance? Positions?
On all of those things, the things that actually affect the American people… most of the Republicans out there disagree with Romney. The conservatives must choose 1 guy to go against Romney, right now we have 3 (Cain, Gingrich, and Perry). I say that out of those 3, we should choose Gingrich.
Perry seems to have run for President, the developed ideas after he ran. Shouldn’t you run for President bc you want to solve our problems? Why did he release all his policies much later (and after consulting with a team of adviors?)
Cain is the opposite, he has zero experience. And quite frankly I think people have rightly compared him to Obama. We don’t know what happens when we put someone in the White House with zero experience. It could be good, it could be disastrous.
Gingrich. The most impressive command of the issues. The most impressive experience. The most proven record of conservatism. He should be the conservative guy to challenge Romney for the nomination.
P.S. How much do people care about Joe Biden these days? A conservative VP doesn’t change the fact of how bad the President is. Barack Obama could have picked Joe Liberman as his VP (the most conservative dem)… it wouldn’t change who the President is. IMO.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Yes, but like Christie I’m hoping Rubio isn’t one those “they always say that” kind of politicians.
Don’t get me wrong I love the guy and support him 100 percent if he does change gears. I just don’t see it happening.
I’d love to see a debate with Newt/Rubio vs. Obama/Biden.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Reject and believe whatever you may, Ishii, and I shall do the same. That’s one of the great things about living in a nation as ours. But since you’re a professed faithful Catholic, I know then you do not reject this.
From CCC 1271 - Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians… For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, they are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians"
So again, if a member of the Democratic Party adheres to the teachings of, just as a few examples, the Christian denominations I sited earlier, they are Christians. And I’ll leave you with that for now my good friend and brother in Christ. Peace.
- Status