The Candidate's Positions

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

The Candidate's Positions

Postby KeithE » Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:50 pm

Who's Running

Click on any picture for a 500 word summary of their known positions.

I’ll spend some more time reviewing. Marianne Williamson is interesting and thoughtful. We do need a spiritual revival. Might be the most Christ-following of the candidates (different than Biblicist or what has become to known as “Christian”). But she is too inexperienced at public service and I disagree with her on Reparations. Still I’m open. Still like Kamala Harris’s demeanor.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9069
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby William Thornton » Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:02 pm

KeithE wrote:Who's Running

Click on any picture for a 500 word summary of their known positions.

I’ll spend some more time reviewing. Marianne Williamson is interesting and thoughtful. We do need a spiritual revival. Might be the most Christ-following of the candidates (different than Biblicist or what has become to known as “Christian”). But she is too inexperienced at public service and I disagree with her on Reparations. Still I’m open. Still like Kamala Harris’s demeanor.


If you don't follow Christ you aren't a Christ-following person. No need to attach Christ to that. Just call her an extreme leftist. Axios labels her a "new age spiritual guru." New age guru, reparations, green new deal, free college...

Looking for a dem who departs even a skoge from any abortion, anytime, any stage, any place.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12290
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Haruo » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:14 pm

William Thornton wrote:New age guru, reparations, green new deal, free college...

Looking for a dem who departs even a skoge from any abortion, anytime, any stage, any place.

I hadn't even heard of Marianne Williamson till I read this thread.

I see the Punjab now offers free education through the PhD, but only to girls. Pretty common to have free college in Europe, and when I was a kid California had free college.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12591
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby KeithE » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:43 pm

William Thornton wrote:
KeithE wrote:Who's Running

Click on any picture for a 500 word summary of their known positions.

I’ll spend some more time reviewing. Marianne Williamson is interesting and thoughtful. We do need a spiritual revival. Might be the most Christ-following of the candidates (different than Biblicist or what has become to known as “Christian”). But she is too inexperienced at public service and I disagree with her on Reparations. Still I’m open. Still like Kamala Harris’s demeanor.


If you don't follow Christ you aren't a Christ-following person. No need to attach Christ to that. Just call her an extreme leftist. Axios labels her a "new age spiritual guru." New age guru, reparations, green new deal, free college...

Looking for a dem who departs even a skoge from any abortion, anytime, any stage, any place.


That is the difference between me and you William. I like those who are attune to the Spirit. That is what Christ asked us to be our guide after He left us. You, OTOH, are irked by people claiming a spiritually-led focus and you call them all kinds of derogatory names (eg. "new age gurus", "extreme leftists”) while upholding the canons of SBC and evangelical religious ethos and GOP/Trump political stances.

Read John 14:15-17, John 14:26-27; John 15: 27-27; John 16: 7-15. Jesus followed the Spirit (Mark 13:11, Matthew 12:22-29, Luke 4: 14-21 vs 18 says “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free”.) And then He tells us to follow him in that Spirit-led way as well.

He did not say wait 30 years for some teachers and prophets to write some instructional letters and then wait hundreds or more years for some church related council to pronounce what was good enough or some thousand years for some protestant reformation doctrine or authoritative pastors telling us the correct Christian lifestyle. Instead, Jesus said the “law” (i.e. the OT) is fulfilled by the Spirit-led teaching of Jesus (read the Sermon of the Mount). Read also Paul in 2 Cor 3:4-6 "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life") and his whole book of Galatians.

I’ll take spiritual-led people any day over biblicists or ecclesiastical creedalists or modern day judgmental Pharisees (many of which I doubt are real followers of Christ - Jesus sure challenged the Scribes and the Pharisees). Sure the bible and creeds can prompt us (it is “inspired” and “profitable” in plenty of places but not all). And it is not the final authority that Jesus told us to listen to - that is the Spirit of Truth (which admittedly can be difficult to discern unanimously but such is life).

Now perhaps Marianne is not perfectly in tune with the Spirit of Christ (I don’t know); but I have read a couple of her books and listened to a couple of interviews and find her very encouraging on living matters, and she thinks deeply on matters of public policy that will help the majority of Americans. But she just might be the most spiritually attuned candidate. Not saying she is my favorite candidate at this time (she is inexperienced in public service, and may not be the best candidate to beat Trump), but I will continue to see what she (and others) propose for our country.

If you have read much of the link above, you will find several candidates that vary a “skoge from any abortion, anytime, any stage, any place”. Read Kamala Harris's proposal for instance - she is open to states having abortion limits. Such ill-informed statements from you as this, are all part of your wish that all “dems” and all religious “mod/libs” are all alike and evil people (deserving of only of sarcasm). Try some reading and understanding.
Last edited by KeithE on Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9069
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:17 pm

Other than as an occasional issue to drag out when the chips are way down and they need something to rile up the evangelical wing, most Republicans are perfectly fine with abortion and could care less whether it ends, is restricted or goes on. Most prefer the latter so they can use it and never have to be accountable to their constituents for lying about their position, which usually involves no more than mere words. And their actions show it a lot more than their flapping lips and shrieking voices.

There is some variety among this democratic field. One of the things which makes Democrats superior to Republicans is that support for candidates allows some disagreement, divergence in perspective and difference of opinion and your vote isn't locked into a candidates specific view on one or two hot button issues. Republicans have never seemed capable of expanding beyond one sided agendas and issue-driven rigidity. I guess that's good if you don't have a lot of support from people who think for themselves and have a measue of intelligence.

What will wind up happening here is that as the primaries pass and the field narrows on the Democratic side, most of the issues will get picked up and included in the campaigns of others. A rich deposit of diverse political thought will become part of the Democratic platform which will benefit a much broader group of Americans than the narrow minded bigotry of the GOP aimed at only prosperous WASPs. There will be some social issues on their platform with which I disagree, support for abortion being one of them, but I'm not a single issue voter. But If you only evaluate a position based on its popularity and potential to get votes, the Republicans lose the abortion debate hands down locked away and headed out of town.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby KeithE » Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:54 pm

OK I’ve read a lot at Who's Running and listened to speeches at The 2020 Presidential Candidates: In Their Own Words
and I currently favor Elizabeth Warren.

She has a more complete set of policy proposals than anyone. I.e. she would come into office with well studied proposals- read them at Warren in 500 words and dive into her links at the above. These proposals will help people!! A lot!! .

And to her credit she discusses how to fund them (wealth taxes, replace Trump tax cut with one aimed at the middle class, 7% tax on profits over $100M, repatriation fines/taxes, financial transaction tax {with Sander’s Medicare-for-All Plan that she cosigned}). And she sees capitalism as the engine but it has to have rules. Correctamundo!.

We would move towards the type of society that the Scandinavian enjoy (and they do enjoy it) with a moderately progressive income tax and a flatter/less loopholed/less special issue subsidied/lower corporate tax rates (seems to be aligned with Stiglitz's proposals in his absolutely great book People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Disconnect). This is yet to be totally enumerated but it appears feasible and she and Sanders are the only candidates that discuss funding their proposals adequately.

If you are so inclined, Stiglitz’s book is excellent.

My previous reluctance about Warren was her temperament (she seemed a little too emotional and not enough explaining her positions analytically/coolly). Harris seems better on that demeanor issue.

But listened to:
Break Up Big Tech
Limit Foreign Interventions

She has been calm, cool, clear since becoming a candidate from what I’vs seen (unlike several previous interviews over the last ten years). She’s learning!

Read her experiences at the border:
Here's What I Saw at the Border
Perceptive but I have not seen her Immigration Reform proposals yet.

The other issue I’m not agreement with, is her abortion opinions.

But overall at this time I’m for Warren (I’m not a single issue person and if I were there would be nobody that agrees with me 100% - thankfully).

What are your thoughts?
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9069
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:46 pm

You don't have to have 100% agreement on everything if you're a Democrat. I disagree with most Democrats on their position on abortion. But I'm not willing to accept the consequences of voting for incompetent, inept, corrupt politicians just because they say they are against abortion. Voting for someone doesn't make you any more responsible for abortion than the politician who votes in favor of a pro-choice position. The decision and the responsibility lie with the individuals who make the choice, the pregnant female and the male who got her that way. Their hearts will not be changed because of the way a particular politician voted. And as we already know, making it illegal won't change their mind and won't stop them.

I like Elizabeth Warren mainly because she is quite practical in terms of addressing issues. She talks in terms that people understand and can explain complicated problems and their potential solutions. As far as her "electability" goes, I think she's already ahead of orange hair in the credible head to head polls. It won't take her long to gather a high level of appeal on the campaign trail and head to head debates with orange hair would seal her victory in a landslide.

The more I see and hear him, the more I like Pete Buttigieg. He'd only add to the strength of a ticket as a running mate with Warren, Biden or Sanders, and he'd win if he were at the top of the ticket as well.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:09 am

Sandy wrote:...I'm not a single issue voter...
KeithE wrote:...I’m not a single issue person...
I don't doubt there are actual "single issue voters," but I suspect many who are accused of such actually are not in the way it is assumed. I am interested in many issues, but a politician's position that actively and aggressively promotes abortion is a deal-breaker for me. I suspect you all have some things for which a politician's position would be a deal-breaker for you, too.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:04 am

Rvaughn wrote:I don't doubt there are actual "single issue voters," but I suspect many who are accused of such actually are not in the way it is assumed. I am interested in many issues, but a politician's position that actively and aggressively promotes abortion is a deal-breaker for me. I suspect you all have some things for which a politician's position would be a deal-breaker for you, too.


There's a subjective part of your statement that leaves open a broad interpretation of the terms "actively and aggressively promotes abortion." How do you apply that? I don't think I could name someone who "aggressively and actively promotes" abortion. There are those who wouldn't encourage a woman to have an abortion or wouldn't have one themselves but who don't believe that decision, a moral, religiously based conviction, should be dictated by or belong to the government. "Aggressively promoting" suggests to me that someone is going beyond the scope of just keeping the government out of the decision making process to the point of using government power to actively encourage the practice as a primary means of birth control and eliminate decisions of conscience. I know of no politician doing that. However, I don't see much difference between "active promotion" of abortion and use of the issue for primarily political purposes. Essentially, that view, which is held almost universally by most Republicans, tends to keep abortion around because it becomes a rally point for the core group when the political chips are down, as they are now. It's the perspective that leads Supreme Court nominees to tell a leading Republican pro-choice senator that they are committed to Roe V. Wade as the "settled law of the land" in public hearings. That's worse than promoting it imho.

The best example I can point to of what potentially can happen if a politician gets elected on single-issue support is Sarah Palin. She was against abortion, at least, gave lip service to the pro-life position. But she was a political disaster waiting to happen. She left the Alaska governorship before completing her term and left the state in a financial and political mess. Within two years, the conservative, right wing element of Alaska voters threw out all of her remaining political allies in the state legislature and she couldn't get elected dogcatcher in Anchorage today. She was a nut job, a loony spiritualist cultist without a working knowledge of American History, the Constitution, world geography and politics or the Bible with a husband who is an advocate for Alaskan independence. What a patriot there. The support she got from Evangelicals is just proof that most church members are just pew sitters and don't know squat about either what they believe or what the Bible teaches. But she was against abortion.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:00 pm

Sandy wrote:There's a subjective part of your statement that leaves open a broad interpretation of the terms "actively and aggressively promotes abortion." How do you apply that?
For instance, perhaps compare the Democratic and Libertarian Party's platforms.
Democrat:
We will appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, and will protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion...
We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion...
We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.
...we support the repeal of harmful restrictions that obstruct women’s access to health care information and services, including the “global gag rule” and the Helms Amendment that bars American assistance to provide safe, legal abortion throughout the developing world.

Libertarian:
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
While I don't completely agree with the wording of the Libertarian platform here, I think we can think some very obvious differences of operation of theirs from the Democrats.

I notice you avoided answering whether any position might be a deal-breaker for you.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:30 pm

Rvaughn wrote:I notice you avoided answering whether any position might be a deal-breaker for you.


I gave a rather lengthy response to your first question. So I gave that question a little thought.

Proposing cuts in social security, medicare or medicaid is a deal breaker for me. Opposition to full health care reform that involves a single-payer "medicare for all" system and any regressive move away from the progress that has been made on health care reform is a deal breaker. Tax cuts for anyone who makes over $120,000 a year is a dealbreaker.

The Democratic Party platform is simply recognition that abortion is "the settled law of the land," a phrase also used by at least seven of the current nine Supreme Court justices and many Republican congressmen and senators. I wouldn't consider that position "actively and aggressively promoting abortion." They are protecting a choice they believe women, not the government, are entitled to make because the determination of when life begins is based solely on personal religious convictions and as long as those are not violated by any legislation or practice, I would not consider it actively aggressive. Women are not forced to choose an abortion against their will. It's no different than the position some right wingers take on gun rights and ownership which I am sure you would resist calling "actively aggressive" even though it violates the right to life of hundreds of Americans every year.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:21 pm

Sandy wrote:Proposing cuts in social security, medicare or medicaid is a deal breaker for me. Opposition to full health care reform that involves a single-payer "medicare for all" system and any regressive move away from the progress that has been made on health care reform is a deal breaker. Tax cuts for anyone who makes over $120,000 a year is a dealbreaker.
Does that make you a single issue voter? I suspect not. There may be people who look at one issue and say they can't vote for someone who holds or doesn't hold that view, but it doesn't make them a single issue voter. I do think there are single issue voters -- that the one issue is the only thing that concerns them -- but I think the term is too frequently used for those who consider many issues but find abortion to be deal-breaker.
Sandy wrote:The Democratic Party platform is simply recognition that abortion is "the settled law of the land," a phrase also used by at least seven of the current nine Supreme Court justices and many Republican congressmen and senators.
There is nothing so settled as change. This issue of abortion will eventually be before the SCOTUS again, and only then will we know for sure.
Sandy wrote:I wouldn't consider that position "actively and aggressively promoting abortion." They are protecting a choice they believe women, not the government, are entitled to make because the determination of when life begins is based solely on personal religious convictions and as long as those are not violated by any legislation or practice, I would not consider it actively aggressive. Women are not forced to choose an abortion against their will. It's no different than the position some right wingers take on gun rights and ownership which I am sure you would resist calling "actively aggressive" even though it violates the right to life of hundreds of Americans every year.
For politicians, what they do actively and aggressively is not forcing women to choose an abortion, but the acts they take, laws they create, vote for, etc. in the legal realm. So, for example, I see a deliberate plan and effort to appoint pro-abortion judges (or pro-life judges, for that matter) as active and aggressive. I have no idea to exactly what you refer re right wing gun owners, but if they are politicians who are promoting and advocating for or against certain legislation I would say they probably are "active and aggressive."
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:56 pm

Rvaughn wrote: Does that make you a single issue voter? I suspect not. There may be people who look at one issue and say they can't vote for someone who holds or doesn't hold that view, but it doesn't make them a single issue voter. I do think there are single issue voters -- that the one issue is the only thing that concerns them -- but I think the term is too frequently used for those who consider many issues but find abortion to be deal-breaker.


Politics being the way it is, most politicians who make abortion the center of their list of issues are likely to appeal to those voters on other issues. Not always, but most of the time and it would be the same with the dealbreakers I mentioned. Let's say there's a Republican running who favors tax cuts for the wealthy and isn't interested in universal health care but his Democratic opponent is a corrupt incompetent, well, I'd vote for the Republican if I thought he or she would be competent and honest and would stick to the constitutional limits and requirements of his or her position. That's rare these days. But I know conservatives who will cast a ballot for anyone who is conservative regardless of how corrupt, dishonest and immoral they are just because they are conservative and they think they might be against abortion. Trump couldn't have been elected unless that happened.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:35 am

Sandy wrote:...if I thought he or she would be competent and honest and would stick to the constitutional limits and requirements of his or her position. That's rare these days.
Perhaps it has always been so more than we think, but it seems to me that most politicians today try to appeal to the individual voter with "what I can do for you (specifically)." Problem is, by the time they appeal to two or three or four different individual voters, they have made liars of themselves! I see merit in them appealing more with "what I can do for the good of the country as a whole" (or state, or city, or whatever applies to what they are running for).
Sandy wrote:But I know conservatives who will cast a ballot for anyone who is conservative regardless of how corrupt, dishonest and immoral they are just because they are conservative and they think they might be against abortion.
Pretty much the same mentality as the "yellow dog" Democrats I know, who will cast a ballot for anyone who is a Democrat (as opposed to voting for anyone who is in another party) regardless of how corrupt, dishonest and immoral they are, just because they are Democrat. Neither are informed ways to vote.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Haruo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:30 am

I think most Democrats have pretty much committed to vote for whoever the nominee is because he isn't Trump. This is a year away from when they will know who they've decided to vote for.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12591
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:12 pm

Haruo wrote:I think most Democrats have pretty much committed to vote for whoever the nominee is because he isn't Trump.
I think there are always some of the "anybody but [fill in the blank]" votes that are more against someone than for someone else. I believe that is a bit different mentality than always voting for a party regardless. For example, even if Moses, Samuel, Peter, Paul, Mother Teresa, and Mahatma Gandhi ran on other party tickets, the yellow dog Democrats would still vote for the yellow dog.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:57 pm

Haruo wrote:I think most Democrats have pretty much committed to vote for whoever the nominee is because he isn't Trump. This is a year away from when they will know who they've decided to vote for.


I saw head to head numbers released by Quinnipiac polling yesterday. There's some variance in the percentages of potential votes Democrats get as you slide up and down the scale but when even the relatively unknown candidates are polling 5 to 8 points ahead at this point, with Harris, Sanders and Biden double digit percentages ahead of orange hair. Uou can conclude there won't be many undecided voters a year from now.
https://www.nbc.com/the-rachel-maddow-s ... 19/3967506

Rvaughn wrote: I think there are always some of the "anybody but [fill in the blank]" votes that are more against someone than for someone else. I believe that is a bit different mentality than always voting for a party regardless. For example, even if Moses, Samuel, Peter, Paul, Mother Teresa, and Mahatma Gandhi ran on other party tickets, the yellow dog Democrats would still vote for the yellow dog.


Sure. But there are also Republicans, mostly Evangelical Christians, who sacrificed their previously stated value of character and integrity to vote for Trump because they think he's against abortion. That's become pretty much synonymous with "yellow dog" on the Republican side.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:02 pm

Sandy wrote:Sure. But there are also Republicans, mostly Evangelical Christians, who sacrificed their previously stated value of character and integrity to vote for Trump because they think he's against abortion. That's become pretty much synonymous with "yellow dog" on the Republican side.
Already stipulated.
Sandy wrote:But I know conservatives who will cast a ballot for anyone who is conservative regardless of how corrupt, dishonest and immoral they are just because they are conservative and they think they might be against abortion.
Rvaughn wrote:Pretty much the same mentality as the "yellow dog" Democrats I know, who will cast a ballot for anyone who is a Democrat (as opposed to voting for anyone who is in another party) regardless of how corrupt, dishonest and immoral they are, just because they are Democrat. Neither are informed ways to vote.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:42 pm

I pretty much don't care who the Democrat is that is chosen. I'm voting fo the Dem named "Not Trump." It isn't that I'm not interested in the policies. But as I've yet to hear one of them say anything about grabbing women's parts, declaring Nazis part of "good people on both sides" or calling 3rd world countries "sh*tholes," they are more deserving of my vote than the current occupant. But then so is my dog and the mailman he barks at everyday.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:31 pm

Rvaughn wrote: Pretty much the same mentality as the "yellow dog" Democrats I know, who will cast a ballot for anyone who is a Democrat (as opposed to voting for anyone who is in another party) regardless of how corrupt, dishonest and immoral they are, just because they are Democrat. Neither are informed ways to vote.


I'm going to highlight what I see as a significant difference here. The blending of right wing Republican politics with Evangelical Christians has produced a political perspective which was, in its initial wave of support, based on both the issue of abortion rights and the personal integrity and faith expression of the candidates. They've used this blending to their advantage and promoted it as a unique characteristic distinctive to themselves. It was a position that developed in opposition to Bill Clinton who infuriated religious conservatives because he was an active member of a conservative Southern Baptist church and because he beat them every time he took them on. Clinton was impeached based on a single charge stemming from his own personal moral failure. The Democrats don't lay claim to being the party of personal religious morality, though there are far fewer of them who have the "yellow dog" mentality than there are Republicans with the "He's against abortion" mentality. The Republican/Religious Right claim to moral and ethical superiority falls apart and dies with Trump, who, if you want to get into a moral spitting contest, is far worse than Bill Clinton. The Democrats, who make no such claim of self-righteousness, have in fact produced a model presidency when it comes to ethics and morals and adherence to the principles claimed by the Republicans.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:55 am

Tim Bonney wrote:...I've yet to hear one of them say anything about grabbing women's parts...
Several women have alleged that in the past now-presidential candidate Joe Biden touched or kissed them inappropriately, or otherwise invaded their personal space. To be fair, Biden he didn't exactly cop to it, and defended his behavior, but then later he joked about the accusations. Now he is the Democratic front runner. But I guess that is alright for him, since the Democrats "make no such claim of self-righteousness."
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby KeithE » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:29 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:...I'm not a single issue voter...
KeithE wrote:...I’m not a single issue person...
I don't doubt there are actual "single issue voters," but I suspect many who are accused of such actually are not in the way it is assumed. I am interested in many issues, but a politician's position that actively and aggressively promotes abortion is a deal-breaker for me. I suspect you all have some things for which a politician's position would be a deal-breaker for you, too.


I know my sister says she is a one issue voter - abortion. That is why she voted for Trump. I also note that she will only watch Fox News - all other TV sources are “propagandists”.

I’m against abortion as much as anyone and wish that Roe vs Wade is overturned (on principle). But I realize that abortions will still continue especially if mothers are put in difficult financial situations (which is the largest reason for abortions). Read the various surveys here about reasons for abortions - page down to see tables. The most prevalent reasons are that they are “unready” (25%), “can’t afford baby” (19%), “have all the children they want or all children are grown” (19%). Source Guttmaker Institute (2004). Other survey as similar. So I believe working on contraceptive education and economic improvement for the poor are at least as important as overthrowing Roe vs. Wade as a means to limit abortions.

BTW, abortions levels are slightly below that they were before Roe vs Wade.

Image

No doubt thanks to the states that have limited allowable conditions for abortions.

But making further strides will require real education/contracpetic availability and economic improvement for the poor (especially of child bearing age).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9069
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby JE Pettibone » Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:25 pm

Haruo wrote:I think most Democrats have pretty much committed to vote for whoever the nominee is because he isn't Trump. This is a year away from when they will know who they've decided to vote for.



Ed: Hauro does this mean you think the Dems have no interest in electing any of the several women presently in the mix?
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:48 am

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:28 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Tim Bonney wrote:...I've yet to hear one of them say anything about grabbing women's parts...
Several women have alleged that in the past now-presidential candidate Joe Biden touched or kissed them inappropriately, or otherwise invaded their personal space. To be fair, Biden he didn't exactly cop to it, and defended his behavior, but then later he joked about the accusations. Now he is the Democratic front runner. But I guess that is alright for him, since the Democrats "make no such claim of self-righteousness."


If the descriptions of Biden's actions by the women who made the accusations are accurate, then the "inappropriate" nature of his behavior is up for debate and depends on perspective. It is not a legitimate comparison to put that in the same sentence with Trump's public admission of his inappropriate grabbing of women's genitals and reveling in their humiliation. Big difference. And he did not "joke" about the accusation.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:32 pm

I think the biggest gift to every Democrat running for President from the orange headed buffoon was his comment that he doesn't see a problem with a foreign government offering to provide "dirt" on a political opponent.

The man hates America and is laughing up his sleeve at the total ignorance his base exhibits. Seems like he gets great pleasure out of doing and saying the stupidest of things and having his twitter feed ooh and ahh at his stupidity.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Next

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron