Not The Philosopher Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Would anyone's views about gun rights/control change if Zombie Hitler were at large? What if GLAAD and the NRA merged into a single political pressure group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Would anyone's views about gun rights/control change if Zombie Hitler were at large? What if GLAAD and the NRA merged into a single political pressure group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Power in the US is to centralized and too big for us peasants to do much about it, unless you get a lot of people who want to undertake a bloody revolution, which is never a sure shot. I like sitting on my couch better. So do most Mericans. Also republicans and democrats are not that different. Both slaughter innocent people and both groups are largely incompetent. Even with the best of intentions it's impossible for a single person or even a single body to adequately govern 300-something million people. But good luck with your crusade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Why does everyone think we should only vote for either democrats or republicans? Why don't we try someone else for a change? No third-party candidate has ever won the US presidency (unless you count Lincoln the first Republican president - to have been a member of a third party. There have been a few third-party senators and representatives, but they usually ran as members of the Democrats or Republicans and then declared themselves independents after being sworn in. Third parties just don't fly in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 America had never had a black president either. Until we did. So... what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 Are you a cheerleader for Trump?He will keep the world free I like Carson more than any of them, then Bush, and Rubio. Bush did a great job in FL as gov... but I haven't been following the debates and looking at headlines, he really messed up somehow. I don't trust Trump... I'll vote for whoever wins the primary. Why does everyone think we should only vote for either democrats or republicans? Why don't we try someone else for a change? Because the national democrat party platform is anti-Catholic. The 45 communist goals of 1958 are the democrats platform... http://disruptthenarrative.com/2013/01/08/45-communist-goals-by-dr-cleon-skousen-1958/ Our order of voting priority based on Catholic teaching (from the USCCB) 1) Life 2) Family 3) Social Justice (teach a person to fish) 4) Global Solidarity The foundation being Life, everything following builds upon the previous. God Bless & Pax Christi!ironmonk Vote for Credo. http://www.cafepress.com/catholicswag.37054975 No third-party candidate has ever won the US presidency (unless you count Lincoln the first Republican president - to have been a member of a third party. There have been a few third-party senators and representatives, but they usually ran as members of the Democrats or Republicans and then declared themselves independents after being sworn in. Third parties just don't fly in the US. Third party candidates split the vote of one party or another. I believe Perot ran to allow the plot that Kennedy spoke of to get it's foothold. If Perot didn't run, we would not have had Clinton. Satan is working through the Democrat party and the liberal judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Thought experiment: what if a really pro-gay politician was also staunchly anti-abortion wit a voting record to prove it? Would you vote or him/her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NadaTeTurbe Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Being pro-life doesn't mean only being anti-abortion, no ? I mean, I would never vote for a politician for is anti-abortion and want to re-introduce death penalty in my country, for exemple. And for me, being pro-gay is not really being pro-life. "The minimum" to be pro-life (for me, at least) is : anti-abortion, pro-natural family, against transgender ideology (i.e "man are woman and woman are man"), anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty (it unconstitutionnal here, so not really a debate), pro-security, and a minimum of ecology (not destroying the health of others to make monney). . To be pro "gay marriage" is not compatible with being "pro-life". I'm happy if gay people join the fight against abortion, but we will have a fundamental difference (the natural law). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Thought experiment: what if a really pro-gay politician was also staunchly anti-abortion wit a voting record to prove it? Would you vote or him/her? At that point it becomes a counting of which candidate supports the most non-negotiables, and we must take into account when one "supports" a non-negotiable and when one is just honest about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 No third-party candidate has ever won the US presidency (unless you count Lincoln the first Republican president - to have been a member of a third party. There have been a few third-party senators and representatives, but they usually ran as members of the Democrats or Republicans and then declared themselves independents after being sworn in. Third parties just don't fly in the US. Plus there's the fact we actively discriminate against them and made rules up which make it way harder to be elected as a third party than a Republican or Democrat. Additional fees to appear on the ballot sometimes, requiring additional signatures to appear on the ballot (in PA for example, Democrats and Republicans need 2,000 signatures. A third party candidate could require, under a 1971 law, anywhere between 20,000 to 70,000) , and they're not even allowed at the Presidential Debates...the Green Party candidate last cycle was arrested for trying to enter one. Of course there's always the chance the state will just say that your signatures have been authenticated as valid and then still not put you on the ballot, like Oregon did to Nader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Who signed the first Patriot Act into law? The Democrat George Bush? You're in OJ land, fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I saw this and wanted to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now