| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/05/2008 6:10:46 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Thread II: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965578/posts |
Posted on 02/05/2008 6:10:39 AM PST by SE Mom
Here we go...
The Democrat nominee needs 2,025 to win.
The Republican nominee needs 1,191 to win.
No problem, pollywog. You’re a good CA freeper.
I believe values are a matter of personal choice, not of governance. Having said that, I do prefer a clean, decent candidate, particularly after the Clinton years. In my view, Romney is as squeaky clean as they come and as an added bonus he is brilliant. He has addressed all the issues of concern to this Nation with strength and a thorough plan, especially tough re the WOT and our border security. I like that. He also knows far better than any candidate how to grow our economy and keep it thriving. As free Americans, we also have our choice of volunteer activities, church or otherwise, to strengthen the spiritual values and moral fiber of the nation. God bless America.
what makes you think Freepers will stay home?
What if Romney was a fundamentalist Muslim? Or a Scientologist? Or a Branch Davidian? You judge people by the crazy things they believe to be true all the time, and for good reason.
California is not only the Golden State, but today is the Golden Prize.
10 million votes expected to be cast today. I'm going out shortly with my daughter to vote, will report what's happening at our polling place.
Listen, most of them, either directly, or by second or third generation, had come from Europe where...
(a) ...there existed a bottleneck as to authority--namely royalty...the party system was a "one-party" system--the royal family!
(b) ...some of them had been persecuted or oppressed religiously.
So, in framing the Constitution...
(a)...the framers wanted to do cartwheels to make sure that their choices for public office was not determined by anything resembling a monarchy solo ticket;
(b)...Whereas new expressions of the Christian faith in Europe made some folks targets of persecution and oppression by governments, they wanted to ensure that the same disqualification system wasn't transported across the seas. They were taking direct aim at governmental usurpation of a citizen's right to run for public office. (They were NOT aiming at voter determination!)
To somehow conclude that they were taking only direct aim at every voter to send them a message that they MUST vote (every time) for every religious minority under the sun sets liberty on its ear!
The Founders came to these shores to escape a religous test in their government; would you seek to have it reimposed?
OK, you & Hugh Hewitt & the absurd makers of that Constitution/Article VI documentary just don't "get it." You & these others believe that Article VI halts the crux of objections to Romney's other-worldly commitments.
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: [Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
Miss, K...grab your purse and get out there and vote for Mitt. Then come back and tell us about it. ;)
See post 475. My point wasn’t to suggest that all or even most Catholics don’t trust Romney. My point was that Romney’s speech on his religion was designed to allay the misgivings a lot of church-going Americans might have about his religion, not to promote the idea that his faith made him somehow uniquely qualified to be President.
Agreed. Our founding fathers never intended for everyone to vote. It is a privilege - not a right.
ONE vote in upstate NY for Mitt. Our polling site was busy with people rushing in and out continuously mid-afternoon. BIG turnout.
I agree with you completely on that point.
18 year old daughter just got home and we are going together for her to vote for the first time. She is voting for Obama to get rid of Clinton, can’t vote for Romney because he is too wishy washy and he could change his mind when in office. Her words.
And it was a great speech, too.
—it’s a shame that a politician has to endure the election process, and indeed stoop so low to get to be President. Somewhere we got way off course. It’s still important to be a part of this process. Hold your nose and pull the lever, or let everyone else decide for you.
We're all getting "polled" no matter who wins this year, amigo. It's down to "degrees of polled"...
I’m hearing about big turnout in a lot of places. Unfortunately, I think that’s better news for McCain than it is for Romney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.