Why does it make any difference whether a candidate is Democrat or Republican?

[A2SG]

That chart makes me think of something. Didn't you say this, earlier:

The Bible says that those in the faith agree. This will match up with the words of God's Word.

If "those in the faith agree" about god's word...why are there so many different sects of christianity, who all believe different things? Maybe the differences are slight compared to the main stuff they agree on, but those differences are still significant enough to start a whole different sect over, so they must be considered important for some reason.

Or, to quote Emo Phillips:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

-- A2SG, gotta love Emo.....

 

[Murby]

A2SG

Ah.. I got it.. The bank pin numbers threw me.. Missed your "Reading our minds" comment above.

 

[Murby]

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Dude.. you have to just stop or I'm going to wake up my wife from all the laughing.

 

[A2SG]

Dude.. you have to just stop or I'm going to wake up my wife from all the laughing.

"Honey, why are you laughing?"

"Just overcome with joy at how lucky I am to be married to you, sweetie."

-- A2SG, works every time....

 

[loveofourlord]

well a few things while there is alot the democrats and republicans agree with due to superpacs, economicly the last 4 years probably wouldn't have been alot different if romney won, just Obama went 60% rather then 100% romney would have.

The big difference is moral issues and SCOTUS. You have Scalia and some time soonish *though it's been said this for 8 years now* that the next president will likly be determing who replaces the two progressive judges that are likly to retire, plus alot of the things that progressives agree with will be over turned or broken by a republican president.

So while Clinton yes will be beholden almost as much as republicans when it comes to economic and such things, she's still better choice on all the other things that matter as much.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Beyond the fact that most Republicans are religious zealots, Democrats and Republicans have significantly different views on how society should operate.
No, they are not obligated to obey any campaign supporters.

I think you mean faux religious zealots, because their policies reflect little of the biblical worldview, and more on the american cultural interpretation of it. Which conveniently cherry picks thousand year old traditions and teachings for selfish ambition and profit. Its easy to overlook the sins of greed, for example, when it fuels our entire way of life and "successes" as a nation.

Yeah yeah no true scotsman fallacy.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Don't get me wrong, the Republican Party is not good either, it's just less bad. They don't support outright wicked behaviors.

Neither party repealed abortion or tried to, not sure what the difference is.

But a (neo) Republican GWB started wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan deserved it because some terrorists were trained there at camps set up by the CIA. Iraq had less connection with 911 than anywhere.

Abortion existed in Biblical times but is not mentioned in the Bible, maybe it didn't exist among the Jews, but mass killing did and although the O.T. recommended it for non believers, Jesus didn't. Not sure exactly where the Biblical high ground is but I don't think blowing up a complete city in Iraq with artillery is it. Not sure letting children starve because their parents worked in a car factory that was closed and their house lost 92% of it's value is moral either.

 

[thebackyardpreacher]

I personally do not like the labels that are placed on people. Democrats or Republicans, I think if you vote based on a party you may not be thinking through your decision.

 

[Albion]

No idea. Are you saying a sinner can't positively affect public policy in any way?

I'm saying something I thought would be fairly obvious. A person who is immoral in his private life is likely to have low moral standards when it comes to his professional life, too; and if that is as an elected official, we get bad public policy.

 

[DLR]

They don't think it is all that important, more urgent to start a new war against someone who hasn't harmed us and basically make a lot of distractions. They are just pretending and getting religious people to vote Republican. It works.

It seems clear that the FED deficit is no longer a priority for most politicians. When it hit $4T the sky was falling and it was a huge campaign issue. Their has to be a debt limit that causes catastrophic problems for our economy, but it seems clear that all is well as long as we can pay the interest to the note holders. At least for now.

 

[aieyiamfu]

I could be mistaken but I believe it is illegal for them to coordinate with the PACs. PACs don't finance their campaigns. They just do favors for them (run political ads etc), and expevct nothing in return later.

That seems a rather naive view.

 

[DLR]

That seems a rather naive view.

It does indeed. Perhaps you missed the smiley at the end of the post?

 

[A2SG]

I'm saying something I thought would be fairly obvious. A person who is immoral in his private life is likely to have low moral standards when it comes to his professional life, too; and if that is as an elected official, we get bad public policy.

What if that person doesn't believe his actions are immoral? Just because you think something is immoral, that doesn't mean everyone agrees.

And further, what's the difference between being a sinner (as we all are, right?) and being immoral? Aren't they the same thing? If not, what's the difference...apart from your own personal judgment on that person's actions?

But, more to the point, why do you expect elected officials to be moral watchdogs? Their job is to legislate and govern, not to guide morality. Isn't that the job religious leaders are supposed to do?

Do you expect this from everyone? Do you ask you accountant if he's having an affair, or your butcher if he honors his parents, or your mailman if he covets his neighbor's....wife.

How far does this moral judgment go?

-- A2SG, genuinely curious, because for me, personally, I don't care one tiny little bit about what other people do in their private lives if it doesn't involve me, personally....

 

[Albion]

What if that person doesn't believe his actions are immoral?

That wasn't the question.

Very few people, including the patently immoral ones, think that they actually are behaving immorally.

genuinely curious, because for me, personally, I don't care one tiny little bit about what other people do in their private lives if it doesn't involve me, personally....

Well, that's the point of this thread. Those who are very much immoral in their private lives are likely to be immoral in their public lives and so are not good candidates for being trusted with political leadership.

 

[A2SG]

That wasn't the question.

It might not have been yours, but it is mine. So how about trying to answer it?

Very few people, including the patently immoral ones, think that they actually are behaving immorally.

Then why do you think they are? Maybe you just don't agree with their version of morality.

Look at it this way: if you don't bow and pray in the direction of Mecca several times a day, are you acting immorally?

Why should anyone be beholden to some other person's version of morality?

Well, that's the point of this thread. Those who are very much immoral in their private lives are likely to be immoral in their public lives and so are not good candidates for being trusted with political leadership.

Then I go back to the question you didn't answer: aren't we all sinners?

Doesn't the bible say not to judge, or you'll be judged?

-- A2SG, pretty sure it does.....

 

[Albion]

It might not have been yours, but it is mine.

The more important point is that it isn't the question of THIS THREAD.

It looks like you want to discuss theology rather than politics, and there are other forums for that.

 

[A2SG]

The more important point is that it isn't the question of THIS THREAD.

Right, yeah. SuperPACs, and whether or not candidates are obligated to them.

What were you saying about SuperPACs again?

It looks like you want to discuss theology rather than politics, and there are other forums for that.

You joined in a tangent in this thread about immorality in politics, I was just asking questions about the point you raised about wicked behavior affecting public policy.

But, y'know, if you'd rather go back to the OP subject of SuperPACs and their influence on candidates, we can do that. How does your comment about wicked behavior affecting public policy relate to that, exactly?

-- A2SG, and if doing that helps you avoid answering uncomfortable questions, so much the better, right?

 

[MorkandMindy]

I personally do not like the labels that are placed on people. Democrats or Republicans, I think if you vote based on a party you may not be thinking through your decision.

That is the crazy thing.

If the party was what mattered then the actual person who became President, and equally importantly the backers, would not matter.

From 1900 to 1973 the US was brought into significant wars by Democrat Presidents: WW1 by Wilson, WW2 by FDR, Vietnam by JFK and prolonged by Johnson. Around 1973 the oil companies changed to backing the Republican Party and transformed it from the long established party of small government, low intervention, conservative and financially responsible party into the exact opposite.

But that's the party.

The President is who he is and who his backers have their interests,

But well before running for President the candidate must decide which primary he can win and which backers generally support candidates of that Party.

 

[MorkandMindy]

And then, heck, there have been plenty of people from both parties who have done wrong,

and there are plenty of liberals in both parties.

Most of the time the big corporatists are running both camps