GOP Presidential Nomination

[Sirk]

Yeah the two top stops for someone seeking the Presidency are Great Britain and Israel. I am not surprised that Huckabee is going for Israel first given the fact he has an instinctual need to pander to the Wal-Mart shopping, Mega-Church attending, Duck Dynasty watching, crawdad eating base.

That's another thing- it will be interesting to see which Presidential candidate seeks to court the Religious Right without making a caricature themselves and the Religious Right in the process.

The evolution thing was a cheap shot. It's like asking a plumber about why your house's architect put load-bearing walls in a certain location.


Nothing like a little hate speech to kick-start the day huh?

A plumber will just drill giant holes thru a load bearing wall.

 

[Desdichado]

Nothing like a little hate speech to kick-start the day huh?

I am a conservative. Everything that comes out of my mouth is hate speech.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

... but the people who have been chosen and picked by both sides republicans and democrats can easily be bashed on for the bone head decisions done by both sides.

Then when are we going to see you give equal time to the liberals and Democrats, by name, as you do the GOP?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

A plumber will just drill giant holes thru a load bearing wall.

Amen to that! What part of "less than 40% of stud depth" and "at least 5/8th from the stud edge" do they not understand??

 

[Desdichado]

Then when are we going to see you give equal time to the liberals and Democrats, by name, as you do the GOP?

Because there are more Republicans on here. It's more fun to rattle that cage if you don't like either side.

 

[Desdichado]

I have a friend in the church who struggles with homosexuality. Ultimately, he agrees more with the conservative side of the spectrum, but he does love to dig his heels into what he reads as political "church hypocrisy" more often than not.

He brings up a lot of valid points, mind you. But the constant beat of that drum gives me a very similar headache.

People have opinions. C'est la vie.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Then when are we going to see you give equal time to the liberals and Democrats, by name, as you do the GOP?

I always do as I have always said I don't agree or support what Obama has done, and Clinton made some stupid mistakes in office to. The issue that you are referring to is how I keep coming in and shutting people down who want to do nothing but bash on the Liberals and Democrats, and defend their GOP candidates or presidents that by their responses shows they don't really know them that well. They are just going by a few things they have heard about them.
Just like I have seen many on here bashing Obama and then in the same breath commending or almost praising the Bushes. They all three have played an equal role in leading our country down the tubes, and the Bushes have been tied to a lot of controversial things so the list goes on with them. The list for Obama is still ongoing, and Clinton well even though the scandal he was in he still got the economy back in a better situation then it was when Bush sr. left.

 

[Billyd]

I recommend one thing. Throw out all the public comments and one liners, then do some serious research into every candidate before they pick one to vote for.

 

[p_rehbein]

I have a friend in the church who struggles with homosexuality. Ultimately, he agrees more with the conservative side of the spectrum, but he does love to dig his heels into what he reads as political "church hypocrisy" more often than not.

He brings up a lot of valid points, mind you. But the constant beat of that drum gives me a very similar headache.

People have opinions. C'est la vie.

.............???.................

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I always do as I have always said I don't agree or support what Obama has done, and Clinton made some stupid mistakes in office to.

With apologies to anyone offended.

 

[Desdichado]

.............???.................

There are hypocrites and crazies within the Church that he likes to hyper-focus on and claim that they are somehow representative of the entire Body of Christ. Particularly the more rural sort of Christian conservative.

He claims he is performing a necessary service with his politically and culturally focused criticism. He wants to serve as a bridge. Open up doors of understanding between members of Leftist coalitions that have somehow been injured by the Christians in service of their political goals or someone else's political goals.

Indeed, his goals are noble. In principle he is right in that the Church has erred in both word and deed. When this happens, prophetic voices ought to call Christians out. There is a fine line between self-criticism and self-hatred though.

Criticize too vehemently or too often, and you run the risk of serving Satan rather than Christ. Criticize from the same direction or in the same spirit as the enemies of Christ and you will, again be of more service to them.

What people like my friend fail to grasp (and I have told him this openly) is that there is no perfection this side of eternity. Being aligned with the righteous does not, in and of itself, require or guarantee perfection.

Ugggghh, I've drifted far from the original topic here. No, I am not saying that criticizing a political party or candidate is the same as criticizing fellow Christians. Suffice to say, some Christians are contrarian by nature and will go after what the majority of other Christians in their locality believe (usually in a cultural and political sense). There isn't anything mean-spirited about it and sometimes they are right.

That there are some on this site who claim to dislike the conservative and liberal political ideology, but focus most of their fire on conservative ideology or parties does not surprise me. On a site like this, we Christian conservatives are the majority. As such there is a larger target on our backs.

 

[p_rehbein]

There are hypocrites and crazies within the Church that he likes to hyper-focus on and claim that they are somehow representative of the entire Body of Christ. Particularly the more rural sort of Christian conservative.


Can you expand on this statement? What exactly is it that bothers him? You mentioned (I believe) that he had homosexual desires..........is that the issue with him vs. the Church?

 

[Desdichado]

There are hypocrites and crazies within the Church that he likes to hyper-focus on and claim that they are somehow representative of the entire Body of Christ. Particularly the more rural sort of Christian conservative.


Can you expand on this statement? What exactly is it that bothers him? You mentioned (I believe) that he had homosexual desires..........is that the issue with him vs. the Church?

It's without a doubt the root of his disenfranchisement, but his criticisms have taken on a broader and more intellectual character than the typical "woe is me" rants.

There isn't very much to expand on. Forces on the Left and Right have contrived to create a political caricature of evangelical churches that Christians sometimes accept. It seems to me like he has accepted this caricature as reality and members of his own family and local community regrettably did and said things to reinforce that caricature.

Out of respect for my friend, I am not going to expand beyond that. I feel as though I've already shared too much.

My main point is that his situation, if you will, is not unusual. The common denominator in this case is an acceptance of what the peddlers of identity politics shove in one's direction and combating what one perceives as the most common flaws of contemporary Christians. Not homosexuality. People can arrive at a similar point of view from different directions.

 

[kennethcadwell]

View attachment 97783

With apologies to anyone offended.

They all are guilty of the same issues, problems, and economic disasters we are facing.
The thing that always gets to me though like I said before, is those who try to claim one side is better then the other. Or like I have heard in the past, that one is more Christian then the other. Both of those debates are fruitless debates and completely full of falsehoods. As both sides have joined, got financial support, and backed by questionable groups such as skull and bones, kkk, bohemian club, bilderberg, and so on....
Candidates from both sides do what they must and do, and abandoned their beliefs, morals, and what they stood for to get support and votes.

 

[AngelFrog]

I sincerely don't know what makes Doctor Ben Carson seem a viable GOP candidate.

Carly Fiorina, interviewed by the Christian Post, seems worthy of consideration I think.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I sincerely don't know what makes Doctor Ben Carson seem a viable GOP candidate.

Carly Fiorina, interviewed by the Christian Post, seems worthy of consideration I think.

I have heard Fiorina's name drop a few times. However, she like Carson has no political background besides running and losing to Barbara Boxer. If the GOP wants a valid woman candidate for the primaries I would think Condoleeza Rice would easily be the best they got. Even for that matter, much better than a good share of their field of potentials all around.

 

[Desdichado]

I have heard Fiorina's name drop a few times. However, she like Carson has no political background besides running and losing to Barbara Boxer. If the GOP wants a valid woman candidate for the primaries I would think Condoleeza Rice would easily be the best they got. Even for that matter, much better than a good share of their field of potentials all around.

Fiorina and Rice would be equal in terms of electability. Rice comes from the establishment end of the GOP. Sure, Rice has superior governing experience, but donors and staff that are ordinarily loyal to her would probably go to other candidates percieved to be more viable. Bush or Christie would be at the top of the list. Hers is the same predicament faced by Romney.

Fiorina incidentally has the makings for what Rice would need.

It's a wide and deep enough field that anything could really happen this year. I would welcome Rice's entry in this race to add another layer to this interesting match-up.

 

[Desdichado]

Bizarrely enough, the only member of the Bush Administration who has even expressed intentions to run was U.N. Ambassador John Bolton in 2012. He flirted with running but correctly concluded that he didn't have the chops. Dr. Rice would, no doubt, be more formidable than him for purposes of name recognition and superficial qualities that voters would like (first female president! yay!).

These facts aside, I don't think their political calculations would be very different.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Fiorina and Rice would be equal in terms of electability. Rice comes from the establishment end of the GOP. Sure, Rice has superior governing experience, but donors and staff that are ordinarily loyal to her would probably go to other candidates percieved to be more viable. Bush or Christie would be at the top of the list. Hers is the same predicament faced by Romney.

Fiorina incidentally has the makings for what Rice would need.

It's a wide and deep enough field that anything could really happen this year. I would welcome Rice's entry in this race to add another layer to this interesting match-up.

I think Condi is leaps and bounds more electable than Fiorina. Firstly, the general population actually knows who Condi is lol. Secondly, despite being part of Bush's administration, lots of people I know have a generally fair opinion of Condi even if they don't like Bush. Plus again ,the whole experience thing. Condi could say whether or not she agreed with Bush that she was Secretary of State at a pivotal time and did indeed a fair job for her term. Fiorina by contrast can only say she ran against Barbara Boxer and lost.

You are correct on the donor dillema, but alas, that is not as important these days for two factors. For one the rise of the Super PACs which enables such donors greater ability to essentially donate to multiple campaigns, plus allows lesser individuals and blocs to pool together. For two, note Obama's run and how he had record breaking campaign funding, not from traditional donors, but rather through a grassroots campaign of small donations from common people. Though indeed I do not think Condi would generate the hype Obama did in 2008.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Bizarrely enough, the only member of the Bush Administration who has even expressed intentions to run was U.N. Ambassador John Bolton in 2012. He flirted with running but correctly concluded that he didn't have the chops. Dr. Rice would, no doubt, be more formidable than him for purposes of name recognition and superficial qualities that voters would like (first female president! yay!).

These facts aside, I don't think their political calculations would be very different.

Condi be good for the nomination, but I still do think Hillary would prevail over her. It would be somewhat closer though than some of the other match ups me thinks. Be a good general debate for sure at the least.