DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2678--------------------------------------------------
Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: Kerry Date: July 26, 2015, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure if this would be better in the religion section or
here; but I'll put it here to avoid injecting politics into the
religious section.
So far, I'm not impressed with many of the candidates. First,
let me say I wouldn't judge any candidate by his religion unless
he or she belonged to a cult that practiced sacrifices, human
or animals. Nor could I vote for someone who belonged to a
religion that taught grossly immoral things. But I don't hold
anyone's religion against him. I do however judge a candidate
by how well he practices his religion. I also judge candidates
by how they treat their spouses. I figure if a candidate is
slipshod about what practicing his religion or about being
faithful to his spouse, why would I think he'd treat me any
better?
So let me start with Hillary Clinton. Nominally she's a
Methodist, but her form of Methodism seems to be a splinter form
outside mainstream Methodism. She attends a very liberal
church, I've read; and it seems that her church is in fact in
line with her very liberal ideas in some areas. I don't judge
her then for being a hypocrite, although her form of Methodism
makes me scratch my head.
However, she made a comment in April that flabbergasted me. I
did vote for her when she was running against President Obama in
the 2008 primaries; but I can't vote for again. Not only has
she said and done things which make her sound as unethical as
her husband, there is this other comment which was so
horrifying, I told myself I could not ever vote for her. From
lifenews.com
HTML http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/27/hillary-clinton-force-christians-to-change-their-religious-views-to-support-abortion/:
In a speech last week, Hillary Clinton lamented that too many
women are supposedly denied abortions. The Democratic
presidential candidate came under fire for that pro-abortion
comment, but she also is drawing widespread condemnation for
another remark in the speech.
The comment has Hillary Clinton essentially saying that
Christians must be forced to change their religious views to
accommodate abortions.
“Far too many women are still denied critical access to
reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve
passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,” Clinton
said, using the euphemism for abortion.
“Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton
argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political
will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and
structural biases have to be changed,:
That is not going over well with pro-life advocates.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League let Hillary have it in his
remarks to LifeNews.
“It was not surprising that Hillary Clinton, who strongly
opposes a ban on partial-birth abortion, would tell her feminist
audience that she supports Planned Parenthood. What was
surprising was her comment on the need to change religious
beliefs on abortion,” he said. “In others words, Hillary has a
problem with the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion—they
must be changed.”
“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold
about directly confronting the Catholic Church’s teachings on
abortion. It’s time for Hillary to take the next step and tell
us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge.
Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would
Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value
life from conception to natural death,” Donohue added.
I can't say I always agree with Donohue since at times he seems
extreme to me; but on this, I agree with him entirely. It
seems to me she isn't a real Christian at all, not if we define
that as someone who obeys the Golden Rule. Who is she to
demand that others change their religious beliefs? Doesn't
her church ever talk about the Golden Rule? Perhaps not.
I see that kind of statement as fascistic because her plan is
to impose her religious beliefs on everyone else. I know the
word "fascistic" is strong, but it fits I think. I thought our
Constitution guaranteed us religious freedom. Is she so devoted
to providing abortions that she's willing to do away with the
First Amendment of the Constitution? I can understand it when
people don't believe fetuses are human and that makes abortion
okay. I get that. I think they're wrong; but I understand it.
If that's their religious views, I suppose they have the
right to have those views and try to pass laws that reflect
them; but she's going a step beyond that. She's saying people
who disagree with her on this must have their minds changed.
#Post#: 2679--------------------------------------------------
Re: Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: bradley Date: July 26, 2015, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
She, like many of His children, have remade God (in their own
mind), in their own image to avoid worshiping Him in truth and
in the spirit. Their faith is on the combination of what their
intellect and the current morality tells them.
#Post#: 2680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: Kerry Date: July 26, 2015, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=306.msg2679#msg2679
date=1437922122]
She, like many of His children, have remade God (in their own
mind), in their own image to avoid worshiping Him in truth and
in the spirit. Their faith is on the combination of what their
intellect and the current morality tells them.
[/quote]She may be really worshiping self. There are some
people who are meant to "rule," but we find that sometimes it
goes to their heads the way it did with Nebuchadnezzar.
There is her membership in that group that called itself "the
Fellowship." That group had both Republican and Democrat
members. Mother Jones, page 2
HTML http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics?page=2,<br
/>hardly a liberal magazine, wrote about it back in 2007:
When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first
steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years,
she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included
Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp,
wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of
Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management
movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a
conservative Florida Democrat.
Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the
Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political,
business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on
behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's
only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside
from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being
invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has
said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the
will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to
help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.
Clinton declined our requests for an interview about her faith,
but in Living History, she describes her first encounter with
Fellowship leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell
at the Cedars, the Fellowship's majestic estate on the Potomac.
Coe, she writes, "is a unique presence in Washington: a
genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone,
regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her
relationship with God."
The Fellowship's ideas are essentially a blend of Calvinism and
Norman Vincent Peale, the 1960s preacher of positive thinking.
It's a cheery faith in the "elect" chosen by a single
voter—God—and a devotion to Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be
subject unto the higher powers....The powers that be are
ordained of God." Or, as Coe has put it, "we work with power
where we can, build new power where we can't."
It's a secretive organization; page 3 says the reporters could
get only one other member to talk to them; and only Grace
Nelson, wife the late Senator from Florida Bill Nelson, would
say anything to them.
We contacted all of Clinton's Fellowship cell mates, but only
one agreed to speak—though she stressed that there's much she's
not "at liberty" to reveal. Grace Nelson used to be the
organizer of the Florida Governor's Prayer Breakfast, which
makes her a piety broker in Florida politics—she would decide
who could share the head table with Jeb Bush. Clinton's prayer
cell was tight-knit, according to Nelson, who recalled that one
of her conservative prayer partners was at first loath to pray
for the first lady, but learned to "love Hillary as much as any
of us love Hillary." Cells like these, Nelson added, exist in
"parliaments all over the world," with all welcome so long as
they submit to "the person of Jesus" as the source of their
power.
"The Fellowship" is the group that hosts the National Prayer
Breakfast; but I wonder how sincere these people's religion
really is. This is from Wikipedia
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)<br
/>about the leader David Coe:
Jeff Sharlet stated in an NBC Nightly News report that when he
was an intern with the Fellowship "we were being taught the
leadership lessons of Hitler, Lenin and Mao" and that Hitler's
genocide "wasn't really an issue for them, it was the strength
that he emulated."[35] In his book The Family, Sharlet said
Fellowship leader Doug Coe preached a leadership model and a
personal commitment to Jesus Christ comparable to the blind
devotion that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol
Pot demanded from their followers. In one videotaped lecture
series in 1989, Coe said,
"Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were three men. Think of the
immense power these three men had.... But they bound themselves
together in an agreement.... Jesus said, 'You have to put me
before other people. And you have to put me before yourself.'
Hitler, that was the demand to be in the Nazi party. You have to
put the Nazi party and its objectives ahead of your own life and
ahead of other people."
In the same series, Coe also compared Jesus's teachings to the
Red Guard during the Chinese Cultural Revolution:
I’ve seen pictures of young men in the Red Guard of China....
They would bring in this young man’s mother and father, lay her
on the table with a basket on the end, he would take an axe and
cut her head off.... They have to put the purposes of the Red
Guard ahead of the mother-father-brother-sister — their own
life! That was a covenant. A pledge. That was what Jesus said.
David Kuo, a former White House aide to George W. Bush, said
that Coe is using Hitler as a metaphor for commitment. The NBC
report said "a close friend of Coe told NBC News that he invokes
Hitler to show the power of small groups—for good and bad. And,
the friend said, most of the time he talks about Jesus."
I wonder if she thinks if you're one of the elite, maybe you
think other people's lives are not worth as much as yours?
Maybe there's too many poor people, so why wouldn't abortion be
seen as a good thing? Perhaps she is like Pharaoh who
advocated infanticide since he saw having too many Israelites
could post a threat to his regime? As long as he had enough
Israelites to make bricks for him, he was happy; but he didn't
want any more than that.
#Post#: 2681--------------------------------------------------
Re: Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: CatholicCrusader Date: July 26, 2015, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am very impressed with Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, John Kasich
and Carely Fiorina. Great people all.
As for their religion, I don't care what it is as long as they
do the right thing. I am not voting for Pope.
#Post#: 2682--------------------------------------------------
Re: Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: Kerry Date: July 26, 2015, 1:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not a matter of what their religion actually is. It's
about whether you can trust their word. Will they do what they
say they will do? Are they people with principles and honor?
When someone says he's this or that, you can't always know for
sure at once if he really is or not.
Suppose someone is sincere in his religious beliefs -- and then
betrays them. If he's not afraid of God (however he may
conceive of Him), why would he be afraid to lie to you and
betray you?
Or suppose he's not sincere and just putting on an act of piety
to get votes. This sort of person can't be trusted at all.
I still can't tell which Governor O'Malley is, but something is
wrong there, very wrong. He says he's a Catholic. Is he? From
PBS
HTML http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/martin-omalley-believe-candidate-stands-11-issues/:<br
/>
Legalize same-sex marriage. Allow access to abortion. Abolish
capital punishment.
While governor, O’Malley sponsored the law legalizing gay
marriage in Maryland. A practicing Catholic, he argues the
stance squares with his faith’s belief in maintaining “human
dignity.”
O’Malley has described his view on abortion as “pro choice”.
Aides have said he supported a 1992 Maryland referendum which
stated that abortions should be legal, without government
restriction, until the time in pregnancy when a fetus can
survive outside the womb.
He also supports the idea of spending federal dollars for
abortions. From ontheissues.org
HTML http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Martin_O%60Malley_Abortion.htm:
$101M for stem cell research over six years
The proposed FY2013 budget protects a record $8 million for the
Biotech Tax Credit to help spur investment in Maryland
biotechnology companies.
The proposed FY2013 budget invests $10.4 million Maryland's Stem
Cell Research Fund--bringing the six-year total to $101.6
million--so that research labs can continue to make progress in
this groundbreaking field.
CyberMaryland is an initiative to establish Maryland as the
national epicenter of cyber security.
Source: 2012 Maryland State of the State Address , Feb 3, 2012
Supports federal abortion funding.
O`Malley supports the CC survey question on funding abortion.
I'd vote against him based on his belief the government should
spend money it doesn't have on abortions; but his being a
Catholic makes it even worse in my book.
It's a mystery to me why Cardinal Wuerl hasn't lowered the boom
on him.
#Post#: 2689--------------------------------------------------
Re: Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: Kerry Date: July 27, 2015, 9:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Sanders describes himself as a secular Jew. That means,
of course, that like so many other Jews, he's not religious.
He's probably an agnostic. At any rate, he isn't putting on an
act of being religious. That may cost him with some votes; but
part of his appeal is his honesty. Even when I disagree with
him, I find his honesty refreshing. I don't get the idea that
he's lying to me to get me to vote for him; but then after the
election, he'll go do the opposite. If I was still registered a
Democrat, I'd vote for him despite his being so far to the left.
Why? Well, who knows how far to the left Clinton and O'Malley
really are? Who knows if they have ideas they aren't telling
anyone about? His being so far to the left also doesn't bother
too much since even if elected, he'd almost certainly have a
Republican Congress. He couldn't implement his more radical
ideas.
At the moment, Clinton still holds a wide lead over him in the
polls; but he's making gains. He's also finding enthusiastic
audiences while Clinton sometimes looks boring and unappealing.
The "conventional wisdom" may be that he can't beat her; but
that could change. Mark Halperin has a fascinating article
about the two at Bloomberg
HTML http://. His second point is:
2. Exposing her biggest weaknesses
Even some of Clinton’s staunchest backers will tell you that she
comes off to many voters as personally inauthentic and
politically calculating, lacking a genuine, heartfelt message.
Even some of Sanders’ biggest detractors will tell you that he
is exactly the opposite. Sanders has become such a prodigious
performer on the stump and in TV interviews in part because he
gives Democrats an unvarnished and passionate view of his ideas,
his soul, and himself. Recently, at a major gathering of Iowa
Democratic activists, almost every Clinton supporter I talked to
expressed admiration for Sanders’ authenticity and policy
agenda, and many said that if they followed their heart, they
would vote for the underdog. If Clinton's main four-point agenda
sounds like it is the product of extensive research by her
polling and focus-group teams, well, that is because it is. A
lot of voters grasp that calculation intuitively, and find it a
turnoff. Clinton’s perceived lack of personal and political
sincerity may not cost her the nomination, but it won’t help her
image with general-election voters already skeptical about her
character and relatability.
Back in 2008, she didn't drop the calculating act until she knew
Obama would win the nomination. After she knew she was going to
lose, she dropped the act and became more authentic. She was
also more warm and likable when she could just tell the truth
instead of putting on an act to try to con people. Now she's
back and in calculating mode again; and Sanders comes across as
far more honest than her. Her unfavorable ratings are high
in the polls. Even more alarming for the Clinton camp was the
latest Quinnipiac poll which shows her losing to Bush, Walker
and Rubio in the swing states of Colorado, Virginia and Iowa.
She was behind all three of those Republicans in all those three
states.
HTML http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/ps07222015_Sg86de.pdf
No doubt Clinton has a huge advantage in campaign fund raising
ability; but that too could become more of a liability than an
asset. There are already allegations flying about of foreign
sources trying to buy influence. Sanders may not have to run
negative ads or say much if Congress keeps the pressure on with
endless hearings. Sanders may not be raising as much money;
but money isn't what it's about in the end. Money helps, but
many rich people have wasted their own money trying to buy
elections. And if the perception is that someone is crooked
and that's why he can run so many ads, what good do they do?
Sanders wants campaign reform as soon as possible; and he's not
taking money from billionaires. Clinton is taking the big
bucks now and saying she wants to get the big money out of
politics after she gets elected. Ha, ha.
So there's the honesty issue where it seems clear Sanders has
the advantage. Moving on to something not related to morality
or religion, Halperin's article also mentions the press:
Clinton faces a daunting expectations game. Even if she heads
into Iowa and New Hampshire with solid polling leads, simply
winning will not be enough. She has to finish far enough ahead
of Sanders to prevent the press from treating a win like a loss.
Between now and early February, polls will rise and fall, and
what will constitute a win for Clinton will change. But rest
assured the media will give her zero benefit of the doubt in
this regard. Even if Clinton wins Iowa, say, 66 percent to 33
percent in an historic landslide, some news organizations would
likely headline their stories “One Third of Iowa Democrats
Reject Clinton.”
The press would love to take her down. Even the most liberal of
reporters love to take someone who's "big" down. The bigger the
person a reporter can take down, the more important the
reporter is seen. The news is largely about being negative.
The New York Times has already run unfriendly articles about
Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. I expect more of the same.
They probably would paint a win in Iowa as a loss if she won by
less than a huge margin.
They have other reasons too. She isn't very accessible for
one. She doesn't seem to like reporters -- thus the "Clinton
Clock" at the Washington Post that tells you how longs it's been
since she answered a question. It's at 56,000 now.
HTML https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-clinton-clock/1691/
Roping them up like a herd of cattle also might not be a good
idea.
HTML http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/306993_5_.jpg
On the other hand, Sanders is still accessible. Sure, in a
way, he has to be since he needs all the free air time and
other media attention he can get; but reporters are going to be
more friendly with people who talk with them. And if you don't
talk to them, they may get their stories from sources who don't
like you. I thought Clinton had learned this lesson, but I
guess maybe she hasn't.
And of course, perhaps Clinton is not liberal enough for some
reporters. They may prefer O'Malley or Sanders anyway. This
is true also of Democrats who will decide the primaries. As
Halperin points out in his first point, Sanders has already
forced Clinton to go more to the left than she may have wanted.
There are dangers both ways. If she goes too far to the left,
she may win the primary and lose the general election; if she
doesn't far enough to the left, the press may launch more
attacks and Democratic voters might perceive her as too
conservative.
Halperin doesn't mention it, just says, "not to mention the
GOP"; but you can see the threat posed by Sanders. Republican
PACs could be set up to attack Clinton. I expect there will be
some. These could help Sanders and prolong the nomination
cycle. This could put Clinton in an awkward position: Does she
respond to the new "vast right wing conspiracy" against her or
does she focus on winning against Sanders? As long as Sanders
is there, she faces that possible dilemma.
Things could get very strange. Vice President Biden has not
hidden his ambitions; but he hasn't announced he's running, and
the White House has already endorsed Clinton. That is strange,
isn't it? Yet it's said that Valerie Jarrett detests Clinton
-- it's alleged she was the person who was behind the leaking of
materials to the press about Clinton. So perhaps the White
House wants to have their cake and eat it too. Maybe Biden is
waiting for Clinton to take a fall before announcing; but then I
can't really see them thinking Biden could win. Something is
going on there, but I can't tell what.
#Post#: 2822--------------------------------------------------
Re: Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: Kerry Date: August 7, 2015, 12:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I missed the debate but I was reading about the debate, I
found one of Rubio's remarks a little strange. From Fox News
HTML http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/06/sparks-fly-at-opening-gop-debate-as-trump-wont-pledge-no-independent-run/:
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio landed laughs when, upon being asked
about his faith in God, he said: “I think God has blessed us,
he’s blessed the Republican Party with some very good
candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”
I'm glad my faith in God doesn't depend on the people running
for President, Republican or Democrat.
I'm not sure if Rubio's faith goes very deep. He started out
as a Catholic; but when he moved to Nevada where there are so
many Mormons, he became a Mormon. When he moved back to
Florida, he switched back to being Catholic again. What's with
that? I don't think his Catholicism is very sincere, not if he
can also attend Christ Fellowship Church, a Southern Baptist
megachurch. Can't he make up his mind, or is he trying to get
as many votes from both Catholics and evangelicals? I think
if he was still in Nevada, he's still be Mormon. That's what I
think. I think he says and does whatever he thinks will make
him popular and get him votes.
#Post#: 2823--------------------------------------------------
Re: Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: CatholicCrusader Date: August 7, 2015, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=306.msg2822#msg2822
date=1438925136]
I missed the debate but I was reading about the debate, I
found one of Rubio's remarks a little strange..........[/quote]
You should have watched it. Rubio is arguably the winner.
Rubio, Carson, Huckabee and Kasich all bumped themselves up with
great answers.
Walker was neutral - no hits or misses.
Trump and Rand Paul screwed themselves.
Bush had a couple of weak moments, although overall okay.
In the earlier debate Fiorina was the big winner. She might move
up to the top tier.
I always knew I liked Rubio, but the noise from others has been
drowning him out of the news lately. Last night he reminded
everyone how great he is: Focused, Sharp, excellent on stage. He
will make minced meat out of that pathological liar Hillary if
he is nominated. Heck, even that idiot Chris Matthews was
singing Rubio's praises, which sort of took me aback.
#Post#: 2825--------------------------------------------------
Re: Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: Kerry Date: August 7, 2015, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CatholicCrusader link=topic=306.msg2823#msg2823
date=1438948161]
You should have watched it. Rubio is arguably the
winner.[/quote]I was asleep. I don't know if I could have
gotten it on C-SPAN or not -- or on Fox online. I don't have
cable.
[quote]Rubio, Carson, Huckabee and Kasich all bumped themselves
up with great answers.
Walker was neutral - no hits or misses.
Trump and Rand Paul screwed themselves.
Bush had a couple of weak moments, although overall
okay.[/quote]
I heard an exchange between Paul and Christie and thought they
were both being silly, overly dramatic -- perhaps trying to get
attention since Trump gets so much that.
There is a poll at Drudge, and the people there thought Trump
did -- but his poll results depend on what type of readers he
has. I'm not a Trump fan myself; but I think he did quite well
in the run-in with Megan Fox. So what if she's good looking?
Does that make her a good reporter? I'm a little tired of good
looking women reporters myself. So she tried to make Trump
look like a sexist. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't; but I'd say
the career of Megan Fox surely hasn't been hurt by sexist
attitudes. Trump made it into being politically correct; and
the audience seemed to love it. I did myself.
[quote]In the earlier debate Fiorina was the big winner. She
might move up to the top tier.[/quote]
I'd give that an icecube's chance of surviving in hell.
[quote]I always knew I liked Rubio, but the noise from others
has been drowning him out of the news lately. Last night he
reminded everyone how great he is: Focused, Sharp, excellent on
stage. He will make minced meat out of that pathological liar
Hillary if he is nominated. Heck, even that idiot Chris Matthews
was singing Rubio's praises, which sort of took me
aback.[/quote]If only he could figure out his position on
immigration. He waffles on that too. Rubio, although he doesn't
have as much baggage as Clinton (who could?), still has his own
baggage that could become a problem if he were the nominee.
A lot of pundits weigh in about things like this; but lots of
them have their favorites or biases. I think maybe Mary
Matalin took the coolest and maybe the most accurate comments in
an article at Politico. She's looking at it the way a campaign
manager does.
Everyone came to play. Everyone did what he or she needed to do.
All messages reinforced and weaknesses addressed. No one lost,
except, as is the hallmark of this cycle, conventional wisdom.
(1) The “JV debate” would not matter. And Carly Fiorina is
running for VP. One word: HA. (2) Trump would thump and everyone
would dump on him. (2.a.) Trump has no depth. One word: HUH? (3)
The debate would winnow the field. One word: WHO? (4) Kasich was
too late. Even without the home court advantage, he was the most
connected to common sense America. (4) Christie was cooked.
Watch the youth vote respond to his right-at-you attitude. (5)
Huckabee is stereotyped. He transcended his “pigeonhole,” looked
very presidential without losing his cleverness. (6) Walker has
no foreign policy chops. One phrase: “push on mush, stop on
steel.” (7) Jeb is expecting coronation and isn’t a
conservative. Got his record out, fighting like he knows how to.
Carson and Cruz should have gotten more time (though it felt
like no one got enough time). Perhaps Hillary and Obama should
have gotten more grief/contrast. Debate forensics highlight:
Christie-Rand tête-à-tête on Obama hug. All round, inspiring.
Great GREAT close.
Read more:
HTML http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/republican-debate-2015-winners-losers-121139.html#ixzz3i9W3yk4l
I agree with her that Fiorina is really running for VP. I
also think she's right about Kasich being "too late" to get
scored too high in that debate; but he can still pull up in the
rankings. He's done wonderfully well in the short time he's been
in. I think some people were amazed he qualified for the
debate by getting in one of the top ten spots.
I don't think he can be counted out. There's lots of time for
him to get things done. When I had TV and he was in the House, I
used to enjoy watching him giving speeches about the budget.
He is a real fiscal conservative -- I'm not too sure about some
of these other people. He knows how to do things inside
government. Business people, when they run for government,
often tout that experience; but the two are different. For one
thing, you can't fire everyone you disagree with.
Kasich also got things done in Ohio without raising a lot of
anger. Walker has a way of making Democrats angry. That can
work if you have enough votes to push things through with the
votes only of your own party; but you'll fall down if you don't,
and they'll constantly biting at your heels the way Democrats
kept going after Walker.
The trick is how to win both the primaries and the general
election. Clinton isn't that well liked even among Democrats;
but they would still vote for her if someone like Trump or
Walker was the nominee. Some Democrats would vote for Kasich .
. . or Christie. I think Kasich stands the best chance with
independents.
Some of the other people aren't really running for President.
I don't think Huckabee really is. Rand Paul isn't -- his
campaign staff had as many problems with him as Newt Gingrich's
had -- he doesn't want to do this or that, wants to check and
approve all these little details -- doesn't want to talk with
the people with big money -- and he has a big problem with his
campaign staff quitting.
I don't think Cruz is. I think Cruz' real game is to increase
the clout of his PAC so he can influence other elections around
the country. He may want to be Majority Leader.
Trump will fall down sooner or later. He's apt to say things
which aren't true. He said one thing in the debate that no one
called him on. He said the Mexican government is smarter than
ours, so they send their criminals here. He doesn't know much
about the Mexican government. They can't stop crime in their
own country, they're not willing to take the steps needed. The
criminals that come here come not because the Mexican government
makes it too hot for them down there -- they can't even keep a
top drug king pin in prison. They come here because our
government does nothing to stop them. They can go where they
want when they want; and there are "financial opportunities" for
Mexican criminals in the US. The Mexican President is about
his own money and power -- he doesn't care about poverty or
crime. I think you can see that in the big flap about the
mansion the President's wife was trying to buy
HTML http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/11239909/Wife-of-Mexican-president-to-sell-controversial-7m-mansion.html.<br
/> Yes, she's good looking -- a soap opera star. So she marri
es
a politician. That situation reminds me of Trump who married
good looking women almost like you might buy clothes or
something.
#Post#: 2829--------------------------------------------------
Re: Religion of Candidates Running for President
By: Kerry Date: August 9, 2015, 12:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A reporter named Rick Newman has an interesting article at Yahoo
Finance about how to get rich by running for President. He
does a before-and-after analysis of Governor Huckabee's finances
and his 2008 run. He discusses other candidates too.
HTML http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-to-get-rich-by-running-for-president-134557955.html
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page