It sounds like he is against legalizing pot and is against abortion. I could never vote for a candidate that supported either.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Candidates in 2016
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
I think the top 3 republicans right now would be Christie, Jeb and Marco. However, Jeb and Marco will not run against each other. I don't think Jeb will run -- too much baggage from his brother. Unfortunately, Marco is still young, so he may not run either -- but would make a good VP candidate. (So would SC Gov. Haley.)
Ryan didn't win his home state in the 2012 election. Condi has stated she has no interest. And Jindal could not win. So I think those three are out.
The only other person that comes to mind to OH Gov. Kasich. At least he could possibly turn the state red again.
Bob Alkire
New Member
Of your top 3 Jeb is the only one I would vote for, Marco isn't read if he ever will be (hope he will), and I don't believe I could ever vote for someone as liberal as Christie.
I could, would vote for Jindal. I like how Rand Paul speaks and what he is saying but after seeing his dad for all these years it would be hard to vote for him, but I think I could.
Lets hope by the time it gets around one of these or some one else can get the ball rolling.
General Mung Beans
Member
What's wrong with pot legalization? If you oppose it I hope you supporting bringing back Prohibition and also banning smoking (which of course conservatives denounce as "nanny-statism" even if measures ban smoking only in public places).
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The fact that Ryan did not carry Wisconsin is not relevant. I suspect that many in the evangelical community there simply did not vote because of Romney's religion. Yet no one is really sure what Obama is.
Christie has already shot himself in the head in my opinion! And all that kowtowing to Obama did no good at all Fema is still the poster boy for the ineptness of the Federal government and Obummer.
Robert Snow
New Member
Hoover was a republican.
OldRegular, are you trying to see if I am awake? Who is Walker, other than a Texas Ranger?
:laugh:
What's wrong with Pot legalization???
A report in Scientific American states that chronic marijuana use is associated with anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and depression.
A 2010 study in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that young adults who smoke marijuana are two to four times more likely to experience psychotic episodes.
The DSM IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association to classify mental disorders, lists eight marijuana-related mental disorders.
Tens of thousands of people are killed or injured in car crashes from drunk driving. The number of deaths and injuries from impaired driving will increase if marijuana is legalized as more people will drive while under the influence of the drug.
In 2012, the British Medical Journal published a review of nine studies on marijuana and driver safety. It found that drivers under the influence of marijuana had twice the risk of being in a car crash compared with drivers who had not used the drug.
The White House website notes that marijuana smoke contains carcinogens and causes lung irritation. Legalizing marijuana would fly in the face of our decades-long effort to discourage smoking and drug use. Talk about sending mixed messages to children.
Smoking a joint is four times more carcinogenic than smoking a cigarette, it remains in the body for weeks at a time, and it is psychologically addicting. The marijuana available today is much more potent than the stuff hippies smoked in the 1960s and 1970s.
Marijuana is far more likely to cause addiction because it is usually consumed to the point of intoxication.
It has no known general healthful properties.
It is toxic and deleterious to health. In fact, compared to alcohol, marijuana is not safe. Long-term, moderate consumption of alcohol carries few health risks and even offers some significant benefits. For example, a glass of wine (or other alcoholic drink) with dinner actually improves health. Not so with pot.
Also its starting to look like taxpayers are going to have to fund the costs of healthcare and treatment of people who cannot afford it themselves. I don't particularly relish funding the addiction of a nation of potheads. Its bad enough already.
Shall I continue?
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
Last edited by a moderator:
To be honest with ya'll, I also liked Rick Santorum. I don't know if he could ever win, but I think he's a good man and believes strongly in traditional family values.
He has begun an organization called http://www.patriotvoices.com/about , which is a grassroots online community committed to promoting faith, family, freedom and opportunity.
Santorum has conservative values like promoting the dignity of every human life and opposing fed funding of abortion. He also favors defending and strengthening traditional marriage and opposes gay marriage. Furthermore he wants to
nominate and confirm constitutionalist judges.
He wanted to bring jobs back to America and strengthen the manufacturing base here. He wanted to make products in America again.
There are a whole bunch of other issues that made me like this guy, but I fear he'll never run again.
He has begun an organization called http://www.patriotvoices.com/about , which is a grassroots online community committed to promoting faith, family, freedom and opportunity.
Santorum has conservative values like promoting the dignity of every human life and opposing fed funding of abortion. He also favors defending and strengthening traditional marriage and opposes gay marriage. Furthermore he wants to
nominate and confirm constitutionalist judges.
He wanted to bring jobs back to America and strengthen the manufacturing base here. He wanted to make products in America again.
There are a whole bunch of other issues that made me like this guy, but I fear he'll never run again.
...and war. He is a fear mongering warmonger.
Please explain
saturneptune
New Member
I still think Rand Paul has a good shot at some spot on the Republican ticket.
For the fourth time:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1962242#post1962242
See also:
Santorum the Warmonger
I'm not trying to blast the sources given, but I did look at the 'Santorum Warmonger' link. I didn't look at the others. But the 1st link that popped up after clicking it was from the American Conservative.
Ok, sounds like a mag I'd be interested in so far.
The article was written by Daniel Larison in 2012. Back during the election.
In that article Larison is pretty critical of Santorum on a number of issues, as is his right. But this sentence caught my eye:
Ok, well I'm confused too whenever people imply that Iran's leaders are rational. This is sort of Ron Paul talk. Personally I don't think the leaders in Iran are rational at all. In fact, I think they are insane. What they did to the Iranian people during their protests a few years ago was barbaric. The statements Ahmadinejad made about Israel and the Jews were akin to something Adolph Hitler would have said. Denying the holocaust, declaring that Israel must be wiped off the earth, stuff like that.
That's not rational. That's loony toons man.
Then I looked up the American Conservative Magazine and it seems like the magazine has argued vigorously against American interventionism. Pat Buchanan (someone I've enjoyed hearing from time to time) was one of the founders. I agree with many of his ideas ,but admittedly he's a bit of an isolationist too. So this doesn't surprise me. And hey, its ok to have that view. That's Buchanan.
(That's Ron Paul too).
Now...I too am leaning closer and closer to staying out of these war zones. I want our troops to get out of the middle East and come home. I don't want to be sending arms and money to the Syrian rebels, many of whom are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Jihadist terrorists themselves.
But to imply that Iranian leaders are rational people who can be dealt with....I dunno about that. I'd be surprised if Pat B would call Iranian leaders rational.
I believe that rather than being a warmonger as the American Conservative charges, that magazine probably endorsed another candidate and was trying to demonize Santorum.
Santorum said in that article:
Larison calls this warmongering. That's his right I guess. I think, rather, it is merely sending a strong message to both Israel (we'll stand with them) and Iran (cool it buddy).
Its not like Santorum said we should put tanks and troops on Iran's border and invade the day after the election. Reagan used a tough stance against the USSR and Libya. I was there for much of it. But I don't think Reagan was a warmonger.
Anyway, its ok if some don't like Santorum. Personally I think he's a good guy.
:thumbs:
Ok, sounds like a mag I'd be interested in so far.
The article was written by Daniel Larison in 2012. Back during the election.
In that article Larison is pretty critical of Santorum on a number of issues, as is his right. But this sentence caught my eye:
Ok, well I'm confused too whenever people imply that Iran's leaders are rational. This is sort of Ron Paul talk. Personally I don't think the leaders in Iran are rational at all. In fact, I think they are insane. What they did to the Iranian people during their protests a few years ago was barbaric. The statements Ahmadinejad made about Israel and the Jews were akin to something Adolph Hitler would have said. Denying the holocaust, declaring that Israel must be wiped off the earth, stuff like that.
That's not rational. That's loony toons man.
Then I looked up the American Conservative Magazine and it seems like the magazine has argued vigorously against American interventionism. Pat Buchanan (someone I've enjoyed hearing from time to time) was one of the founders. I agree with many of his ideas ,but admittedly he's a bit of an isolationist too. So this doesn't surprise me. And hey, its ok to have that view. That's Buchanan.
(That's Ron Paul too).
Now...I too am leaning closer and closer to staying out of these war zones. I want our troops to get out of the middle East and come home. I don't want to be sending arms and money to the Syrian rebels, many of whom are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Jihadist terrorists themselves.
But to imply that Iranian leaders are rational people who can be dealt with....I dunno about that. I'd be surprised if Pat B would call Iranian leaders rational.
I believe that rather than being a warmonger as the American Conservative charges, that magazine probably endorsed another candidate and was trying to demonize Santorum.
Santorum said in that article:
Larison calls this warmongering. That's his right I guess. I think, rather, it is merely sending a strong message to both Israel (we'll stand with them) and Iran (cool it buddy).
Its not like Santorum said we should put tanks and troops on Iran's border and invade the day after the election. Reagan used a tough stance against the USSR and Libya. I was there for much of it. But I don't think Reagan was a warmonger.
Anyway, its ok if some don't like Santorum. Personally I think he's a good guy.
:thumbs:
As Si Robertson(of Duck Dynasty acclaim) would say
NOW YOU TALKIN', JACK!!!!!!
:laugh::laugh::wavey:
Well, it could be Democrats who vote in open primary states that could nominate her???????