How many of you voted for him regardless?

[Mindflayer]

Kreutz:

Incorrect. Western Christianity is not the ONLY Christianity. Eastern/Gnostic Christians will argue theirs is the true faith, since it was not altered by political decisions made In Nicea and other "gatherings".

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Kreutz:

Incorrect. Western Christianity is not the ONLY Christianity. Eastern/Gnostic Christians will argue theirs is the true faith, since it was not altered by political decisions made In Nicea and other "gatherings".

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Orthodox ("Eastern") Christianity is distinct from Gnosticism.

Also Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity are "sister churches". Again; same overall religion with minor doctrinal and dogmatic differences,

Neither recognizes Mormon baptism as legitimate btw...because LDS is a separate religion. They recognize most Protestant denominations though.

[SHMIV]

I voted McCain in '08. Not my favorite by a long shot, but more qualified for the office of President than Barry Soetoro. I'm not suggesting that he would be better, just better qualified. McCain has, at least, done something productive in his lifetime. I'll be making no apologies for that vote.

I voted Romney last year. Also, not my favorite. I was quite comfortable with his Mormon faith, as I was not casting a vote for a pastor or spiritual guide. And, as with McCain, I believed him to be better qualified than Soetoro. Still do. No apologies there, either.

As for Ron Paul, I just can't take him seriously.

All that said, though, I am glad that the D's get to own this whole mess. I just hope that enough folks are paying attention, otherwise it won't matter.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[j1mmyd]

I'm 100% with SHMIV on the votes.

I'm not a Mormon and I didn't care a bit that Romney was. In fact, I found it kind of reassuring. I worked with a lot of Mormons in the Army (lot of them in become CI Agents and Interrogators) and I always knew the Mormon soldiers were where they were supposed to be, doing what they were supposed to be doing. Never met a more patriotic groups of people, either.

My money is still on Rand Paul.

[gunderwood]

I voted McCain in '08. Not my favorite by a long shot, but more qualified for the office of President than Barry Soetoro. I'm not suggesting that he would be better, just better qualified. McCain has, at least, done something productive in his lifetime. I'll be making no apologies for that vote.

I voted Romney last year. Also, not my favorite. I was quite comfortable with his Mormon faith, as I was not casting a vote for a pastor or spiritual guide. And, as with McCain, I believed him to be better qualified than Soetoro. Still do. No apologies there, either.

As for Ron Paul, I just can't take him seriously.

All that said, though, I am glad that the D's get to own this whole mess. I just hope that enough folks are paying attention, otherwise it won't matter.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Rand != Ron; Kentucky Senator vs. Texas Congressman. Yes, Ron is Rands father, but they do differ.

Are you saying you'll vote for 'R' regardless of who they run in 2016? Also, better qualified sure, but better qualified to execute 90+% of the same policies...why bother?

If the economy is important to you, what would have McCain or Romney done differently? The Fed would be doing exactly what it did under Obama. No one except the fringes of the Republican party proposed any budget deficit and national debt solution which cut anything. All they did is cut the proposed increase and even then it wasn't much. The budget was to be balanced in a decade on the assumption that eventually taxes would rise and that Congress would not further increase spending...both bad assumptions.

Firearms are a difference, but much less than many assume. McCain and Romney are both supporters of "common sense" gun restrictions. Being familiar with the existing laws and "common sense" proposals we all know that means primarily mandatory registration through whatever mechanism (e.g. Universal Background Checks), bans on evil looking firearms (aka anything not already an old design when your father/grandfather were kids), and limitations on magazine capacity which inhibit SD/etc. Sure, neither would likely be out stumping for it like Obama, but both would have signed it had it gotten past Congress.

Obama's merely continued and expanded Bush's national security programs. In some ways he's done exactly what any other president would have (e.g. drones). We're still in Afghanistan. I'll give you that McCain/Romney probably would have done better with Benghazi, but that's a guess. All of them would have continued to sell weapons to all sides in the Middle East (e.g. Egypt's jets, Syrian Rebel weapons, etc.). That's nothing new or surprising; both parties do it extensively. While it's fun to blame Obama for the world being a mess, the reality is it wouldn't be much different under McCain or Romney. The US foreign policies have been around for a long time and really don't change much between administrations. Same score, different game.

Really nothing would have changed with jobs either. Yes, the rhetoric is vastly different, but the reality is government doesn't create jobs. Lowering taxes (which is dubious if the R's would actually lower taxes rather than just talk about it) doesn't really create jobs either, but it often creates a short term demand spike. I'm not saying lower taxes wouldn't improve the general situation but they don't directly create jobs...the net impact of the producers having more money depends on a lot of other factors. Generally, the R's are not in favor of fixing the other factors (based on their actual actions). Undue regulation is a serious problem. R's really only talk about removing regulation that will make them and their cronies money. The real story is that government doesn't create jobs, but it can destroy them through inefficiencies, undue restrictions and regulations. In general, the R's propose as many undue restrictions as the D's, just different. While it's popular to claim the R's are the big business party, the reality is both parties are for big business...it's just what kind of business and the details. Just look at the donations.


I could go on, I could also serious expand on any of the above topics. However, chose one and ask yourself what really would have changed if McCain or Romney had won? 90% the same in almost every case when you compare actual actions rather than rhetoric.

[SHMIV]

@Gunderwood: I don't disagree. You're probably right on all accounts. However, given the options in '08, and again in '12, the options were crap. As I said, I can't take Ron Paul seriously. I just cannot picture him as Commander in Chief of the United States Military.

I have no clue how I will vote, come 2016. Somehow, I greatly doubt that I will see fit to cast a vote for the running Democrat. Maybe the Republicans will actually see the wisdom in offering us an actual conservative for a change. (Not fixxin to hold my breath...)

If Rand Paul runs independently, I may just cast a vote for him. But, between now and then, he may go over to the dark side. Who knows?

Or, someone new and exciting may appear. We'll just have to see.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

If Rand Paul won the GOP nomination, I would probably be buried before I could vote...because it means the GOP finally followed Reagan's view of taking back the GOP to "Conservative" as it was MEANT!

[HotD]

Sorry all, but apparently this has become post your LDS conspiracy theory or anti-Christian rant due to the trolls.

Yeah, well, the thread did take a turn after my first one about the the hardline 'Christians' refusing to vote for Romney, based upon their skewed and anal perceptions.

While I don't think you a troll, per se; I do think you as those aforementioned individuals, who throw accusations and call people names without fully understanding their understanding, motivations, or postions.

Perhaps, you would otherwise qualify to be knighted with the title "Progressive". You're seem to be certainly qualified.

[Palladin]

HotD's going for the T-shirt!

[gunderwood]

@Gunderwood: I don't disagree. You're probably right on all accounts. However, given the options in '08, and again in '12, the options were crap.

My point is that you will continue to get crap options every election cycle until the party realizes they can't count on you to pull the lever for the R regardless. Only then will the party let better, non-statist candidates through the primary system. The party is in the business of staying in power, until it's clear to them that you won't vote for their crap anymore, they'll keep feeding it to you.

[gunderwood]

Sorry all, but apparently this has become post your LDS conspiracy theory or anti-Christian rant due to the trolls.

Yeah, well, the thread did take a turn after my first one about the the hardline 'Christians' refusing to vote for Romney, based upon their skewed and anal perceptions.

While I don't think you a troll, per se; I do think you as those aforementioned individuals, who throw accusations and call people names without fully understanding their understanding, motivations, or postions.

Perhaps, you would otherwise qualify to be knighted with the title "Progressive". You're seem to be certainly qualified.

I direct you sir to the forum search function...it will prove you to be both ignorant and wrong.

[HotD]

I direct you sir to the forum search function...it will prove you to be both ignorant and wrong.

Based upon the evidence that is clearly present upon this thread, it may just be that it is a new development....or even perhaps a latent tendency.