A Completely Dispicable President

Wow! A major party candidate has a better chance of becoming president than a third party candidate. We agree.

I still won't vote for a candidate who thinks it is okay to kill a baby.

 

So your solution is to vote for a non Christian abortionist. Smooth move.

 

Yep, and your solution is to throw away your vote and help a more radical and die-hard abortionist back into office.

 

Not a better chance, the only chance. A third party candidate has exactly ZERO chance of being elected. A vote for a third party candidate is the exact same as not voting.

 

Once again I ask, what are you all doing to get your third party candidate elected? Besides, moaning and complaining on this insignificant internet forum?

 

So does that mean you are actively giving and campaigning for a man who believes it is okay to kill children?

 

Nope...I won't need to campaign for either one of the two. They both have a chance to win already.

I'm giving and campaigning for Ron Paul right now with the hopes that he will win the primary.

If it comes down to Romney/Obama, I won't campaign for Romney, but I'll vote for him.

You folks seem to think that if it comes down to Romney/Obama that your third party vote will count. The question is, what are you doing to help make it count?

 

You have misinterpreted, at least my attitude. My view is simple. I will not for for a candidate who supports killing children. That's all there is to it.

 

This is a poor analogy.

Instead, you are standing in a room full of people, electing someone to be your boss. One guy nominates two guys for the election, puts them up in front of the crowd, and gives a rousing speech about how you HAVE to vote for one or the other. Then one of the guys says if he is elected he is going to kill everyone's children. The other guy says he will only kill half the children.

The right thing to do is not to listen to the guy up front telling you you only have two choices, and that you have to at least kill half the children. The proper response is to stand up, and inform the people that they don't have just two choices.

If Ross Perot could get the number of voters he did (with almost a 50/50 split between Republicans and democrats), we ought to be able to put up someone who can do better.

 

Let me know when you have something practical instead of philosophies.

 

The most important thing a president does is appoint Federal judges, particularly those for the Supreme Court.

President Bush appointed Justices Roberts and Alito, both apparently believe the Constitution means what it says.

Obama appointed Kagan and Sotomayor, both believe the Constitution means whatever they say it does, as do many members of Congress.

Yet I suspect many, if not most, people never consider this fact when they vote for president!

 

Actually I believe that it is worse than not voting because it takes a vote away from the better of two candidates.

Romney was once pro-abortion, now says he is pro-life. I have no idea whether he is telling the truth or not but I have as much reason to believe that he has had an epiphany as has Gingrich.

One thing I do know. Obama fought against a bill in the Illinois Senate that would protect aborted children who are born alive. I can think of nothing that is worse.

 

Somehow Romney's epiphany has prevented him from signing the pro-life/personhood pledge(s).

 

Who are you supporting and what have you done to further their campaign?

 

To me from matt wade: Who are you supporting and what have you done to further their campaign?


At the moment I am supporting Rick Santorum and I made phone calls from home for him, talked non-stop in person to many people for him, wriote friends about him, posted for him on fb page, and voted for him. If I had money to spare, ie my son not in college, I would have sent it to his campaign. I believe that strongly in him "at the moment". (I explain this phrase a bit lower down) I still am doing some of those things since I have friends in other states who haven't voted yet. matt, I know you don't like him and you and I have been round and round about the life issues regarding his change for the better since 05 or 06 on the rape and incest in at least a couple threads. Please let's not do that again, but if you still want to, ok. And I know he has other issues/flaws, but I look at life issues first, plus character. I believe he has the best character of the lot. The reason I say "at the moment" is that upon chatting with a few people here and a comment made by Ron Paul during the debate Monday night (re other violent crimes belonging to the states), I have done more research about Ron Paul and the life issue. After talking to a friend on FB about the states rights/abortion issue he espouses I now understand it - how it works - and see its value. However, that has also caused me to want to revisit and study the whole issue of states' rights because at this point I still believe as Rick does that the life issue belongs at the Federal level. My state's vote came up early - we voted on Saturday - so at that point I had to vote my conscience at the moment which was Rick Santorum. We'll have to wait and see by the time November rolls around, if this world and I are both still here.

 

I don't have a big problem with Santorum. He's my second second behind Ron Paul. The point of our earlier debate still stands though. Santorum would compromise on bills (by allowing exceptions for rape and incest) in order to stop some abortion. I agree with him on that. My preference is that their is no exception for rape or incest, but if we can get most abortion stopped with a bill that has those exceptions then I'll take it and work on eliminating the exceptions later.

The hypocrisy from you comes in that you excuse this compromise on Santorum's part, yet out of the other side of your mouth say that you will never vote for a candidate that allows for abortions. Santorum would allow for abortions, and yet you would vote for him (and even campaign for him).

You've yet to show anything where he retracts his earlier statements that he would sign a bill for a compromise. I understand that his personal opinion is that the exceptions are still murder and that his personal opinion has always been that. The fact remains though that he WOULD vote for a bill with those exceptions (and we can conclude he would sign a bill as President with those exceptions).

Again, I agree with him. What I'm arguing is that it is hypocritical for you to vote for him when you say you will NEVER vote for a candidate that would allow abortions.

[also, please check out the quote button]

 

sorry about the quote button, matt. I know how to use it in a simple quote but once or twice today it has not worked for me that way - don't know why. and with the multiple quotes still working on that. maybe you can just overlook that. (And I see it didn't work for me again - editing this now - perhaps there is a glitch for the single quote with my computer or something today)

I understand what you are saying but the thing is that I DON"T know that he will compromise. I had a quote or a clip - and I can't remember which and it is "my bad" as they say that I don't have it bookmarked anywhere, saying that he no longer holds that position, ie, changed for the better. ( I do however have the clip from the debate where he was asked if his view is not too extreme, and he confirms he is against the exceptions.) If I misunderstand what he is saying and you are right, ok, but do understand that I don't believe that is the case, so I am not being hypocritical. It is very possible and probably likely - and I'm not being sarcastic here, so don't get offended - that you understand the ins and outs of politics and how our system works much better than I do. That should be plain just from what I said in my previous post about having to research and talk to many people to understand that other issue, and that I still need to research. I did pray about my vote and I continue to do so. Believe me, if I honestly thought Rick would get into the Oval Office and promote a bill that would allow for rape and incest, I wouldn't have voted for him.

 

I believe that the biggest issue in this campaign is to get Obama out of office. Four more years of him as president and we will be like Greece or Spain, dead in debt.

I believe the best candidates have dropped out of the campaign, Perry, Pawlenty, and Huntsman! Of the candidates now left I believe Romney has the best chance of beating Obama. Hopefully a better candidate will appear or be drafted at the convention, assuming none of the four have sufficient delegates to win!

 

I vehemently disagree.

I would rather see Obama, than Newt, Santorum, or Romney.

Here's why.

Right now the G.O.P. has the house, and will most likely get a stronger majority there, and take the senate, in 2012. Put in a Bush-type Republican, we will see both of those flip to the Dems, in 2014, and we will have a one term president, in 2016 we will see an even more radical government than we had with team zero's first two years.

If Obama wins, we will at least have gridlock for 4 years.

My interest is getting a real conservative president in, who will be able to hold onto congress.