Is the Republican Nomination over?

You are missing the forest for the trees. How do you justify yourself wanting to see any unbeliever blaspheming God by placing their hand on a bible? Both are unbelievers and thus agents of the devil. One just tickles your ears better than the other. Careful of the one's who don't appear so evil, they are the more dangerous.

 

taking an oathe is now blaspeming God? Only believers are allowed to be president of the US? So, it is better to vote for a national pastor ensuring Obama is the one placing his hand on the Bible...because that is the ramifications behind your approach.

 

Thanks, will do, and I do not want to get into a running battle with you. I consider you a very intelligent, reasonable poster. I enjoy your posts about your experiences with NY politics.

 

When you go down in flames in a thread, you do in very brightly.

 

Beg the question much?

 

Begging the question means avoiding the question or a logical fallacy. Since you never understood the point in the first place, that is quaint. Following the posts makes the outcome obvious. Go back to pounding on Calvinists.

 

By the Grace of God our legislative branch can get things done overriding either ones vetoes

 

At this late date in the election cycle, it would be nothing short of a miracle to get decent leadership for President or a Congress like you speak of. Up to this point, I can only remember voting for one Democrat since my first vote for Nixon. I voted for Carter when he ran for his first term. That turned out to be a disaster. He had two houses of Congress in his party, but it did no good.

One of the reasons I think it is so important to nominate decent nominees for President is the amount of power they have. I like your idea about Congress, but that is a lot of individuals. The closest we ever came in my memory to accomplishing what you say in Congress was 1994. Although the Republicans gained a majority, which was a good thing, it tell short of a two thirds veto proof Congress. However, it did keep Clinton in check, and the economy was actually pretty good through those years.

 

Well, wouldn't an unbeliever placing their hand on a Christian bible and taking an oath on that bible be blasphemy? I don't think an unbeliever who gets ellected President should, it is obvious that an unbeliever could care less what that bible says and we see how unbelievers govern the people with ungodly principles. Abortion for example.

I never suggested that only believers are allowed to be President, however, I would hope that CHristians would have enough reverence for God to only vote for CHristians. Christians should vote on the side of Christ and let the cards fall where they may. We are responsible for out actions, not for the actions of God. God may very well have Obama to be President for 4 more years, or He may have Romney, either way, God already knows and we do not. We will be judged by our allegance to Christ. Let God be God and appoint the President He has in mind for his own purpooses. We only concern ourselves with our Judgment Day before Christ and the choices we made.

 

I'm glad you brought that up. Yes, Reagan won in 1980. But remember third party candidate John Anderson? Early in his career as a House Republican from Illinois he made waves as an overtly conservative Christian even introducing a constitutional amendment that would recognize Jesus Christ's laws and commandments as the law of the land. In 1980 he ran as an independent for President and for a while there was serious talk about a scenario where neither Carter or Reagan would get the necessary 270 electoral college votes to win the Presidency. Newspaper articles outlining how the House of Representatives would pick the President were abundant and some predicted the House would be unable to select a winner meaning Walter Mondale would be the sitting President.

Or consider the election of 2000 when Ralph Nader ran as a third party candidate and essentially gave the election to George W. Bush. Had Nader stayed out of the race the bulk of the votes he received in Florida would have gone to Gore and we never would have learned about hanging chads.

These sorts of things DO happen when you vote for minor candidates. If Romney is the nominee, I'll vote for him. I won't like it, but the specter of Obama winning a 2nd term and with no restraints on his agenda is truly frightening.

 

It would help for you to understand what it means before commenting. You declared I was going down in flames, and in doing so was doing it brightly, which is nothing more than your assumption I was "going down in flames", the entire point up for debate. Go back to researching your perfect mystery candidate we all should vote for who you won't share with us.

 

Had you read the posts of the thread, I made it quite clear who I would vote for. My first choice is Santorum getting the Republican nomination. My second choice will be the nominee of the Constitution Party. My third choice would be to go vote and leave the choice of President blank. Once again, a lot of the back and forth could have been avoided by reading first, before engaging mouth.

There is no mystery candidate. What is a mystery to me is why a person who claims conservative values and worried about national defense (wonder how long you served) would look for excuses to prop up Romney. Then again, I am not a liberal Republican apologist.

 

Wow, I have to admit I gave you too much credit. Instead of the lesser of 2 evils you have a lesser of 4 evils plan, topped off with pulling the biggest blunder of...not voting at all. From here on out you really have no business criticizing anyone who would vote for the GOP nominee over Obama.

 

Thank you for the civil response. Everyone has their line where they have had enough. We agree on most political issues. It is just my tolerance of liberal Republicans ran out with John McCain. You have to vote what you think is best.

Also, you come up with a good point, which others on this thread fail to recognize. Third parties save us from certain people who would have won the Presidency as well as elect people like Obama. Because of a third party, this nation was spared a President Gore. I am not so sure about Anderson. Reagan crushed Carter so badly, I am not sure it would have made any difference. Sometimes it goes badly also, or could have. George Wallace almost cost this nation having to endure a President Humphrey. I have heard two theories about the 1992 election and Perot. One is that if Perot would not have run, Bush would have won. The other is that Clinton would have won anyhow. Perot attracted voters from both sides, so not sure. Actually, if one ignores the morality issues, Clinton and Bush the First were pretty much moderates, or much more so than the two liberals running this year.
I would be interested in knowing how you think the 92 election would have come out if Perot had not run.

 

That was the third choice, doofus. It is better than voting for a pro abortionist, oh thats right, you are looking for a Abortionist in Chief. Or was it Gay Rights Advocate in Chief, Chief Cult Leader??

 

It was over before it started. We'll have another globalist for president whether he meets the constitutional (legal) requirements or not.

 

Aparently thats what you desire with your infamous "I'm taking my vote and going home" plan. You must not care that king Zero is ensured a second term with the ignorant plan you have come up with. Thats right, the best person to lead this country is a Mary worshipping conservative in name only, who has the wacky notion of needing BIGGER gov't to implement conservative ideals...and if this God given perfect leader of our nation is not nominated, lets vote for someone nobody ever heard of...or better yet, nobody at all!

 

With today's easily hackable evote machines no one can be sure their vote is going to the candidate of their choice to begin with. It's a big leap of faith to believe in a system that's already proven to be fraudulent to say the least.