Posted on 05/27/2015 8:29:13 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, will announce today that he will seek the GOP nomination for president in 2016, ABC News has learned. ABC News' Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos will sit down for an exclusive interview with Santorum this afternoon.
Santorum, 57, is set to reveal his presidential intentions at an event today in Cabot, Pa., near his childhood home. It will be his second run for the White House, almost four years after he won primaries and caucuses in 11 states and finished second to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
They chose not to be aware.
With this glut of candidates, the evangelical/social conservative vote will be split between Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, and Carson. The fiscal conservative vote will be split between Cruz, Paul, Walker, and Fiorina. All of this splinters the anti-establishment vote and helps Jeb.
The wild cards are what role Rubio and Perry (if he runs) will play. Will they siphon off Tea Party votes away from Cruz, etc, or will they take more votes from Jeb? Hopefully the latter, since it doesn't look like Christie will run and Lindsey Graham doesn't have the traction to split the RINO vote for us.
The tea party is made up mostly of social conservatives.
Ted Cruz will do best with social conservatives, remember that people will be dropping out as things go along, it isn’t like all these bit players will be there for long, their support will be shifting to the big boys as the primary goes along.
I have nothing against Santorum. Nothing he says offends me. However, he just doesn’t have the ‘zing’ needed to get anyone’s attention. Sorry, but for all his pluses, that one minus right there is a BIG drawback.
I understand that he doesn’t offend you like he does me and some other conservatives, but we know him better.
You don’t support him anyway so this is moot to you, but for his supporters, if they knew his true history, they would be pretty shocked.
Look at post 79 for instance.
Leave it to publicity hound and nowhere candidate Sanotrum to throw George Stephanopoulos a political, journalist life line.
ABC NEWS thanks Santorum!
Would you support a "Christian" candidate to outlaw those things?
Leftists are calling for laws OUTLAWING free people -- the baker, the landlord -- to peacefully, civilly tell open admitted homosexuals or "shacked-up" guys and gals to go somewhere else.
I despise the gay lifestyle, but I despise nanny-state moralists such as yourself who presume to use government FORCE to punish sins as crimes, every bit as much.
Gossiping is a sin. Should it also be a crime?
Stupid comment. You are too blind to realize that EVERY law makes moral judgments. Until you come to that realization, there is no use in continuing a fruitless conversation.
If you have any honor or if you know your mind, ANSWER THIS, dude: Should all sins be crimes? How do you differentiate between criminalizing worshiping graven images and coveting the belongs of others -- both clearly sins -- and criminalizing two men voluntarily pretending to have sex together? Criminalizing murder and thievery make sense because those are CRIMES against others. You want to criminalize crimes against God.
You are absolutely blind as to the proper, moral role of government, versus the proper, moral roles of churches and parents.
So, you don’t think that the anti-sodomy laws were necessary or appropriate?
Your answer will tell all.
Other sins include murder, thievery, battery, rape, and bearing false witness; those sins are not only crimes against God, they are crimes of harm and force against innocent people, and laws against them are NECESSARY and APPROPRIATE to make sure there are earthly, immediate negative consequences for crimes against PEOPLE. I know you will say "But any sin is a crime against people," and I would say tend to the beam in your own eye before you presume to take on the role of judgment dispenser for the private, personal sins of your brothers and sisters.
I answered your question. Now answer mine, please. Why not criminalize sins such as gossip, lust, or gluttony? They are sins exactly the same way that homosexuality is a sin.
Again, I answered your question because I KNOW my mind on this. Do you know your mind well enough on this issue to answer my question to you? Why not make a crime of other sins, like gossip, sloth, gluttony, or having sex outside of marriage?
Can you picture a Presidential candidate campaigning on a platform of criminalizing adultery or fornication? Probably not, even though these are arguably a greater social threat to marriage and family than homosexuality.
What truly threatens society are laws that criminalize the actions of peacefully, civilly TELLING THEM TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Personally, I think a presidential candidate who campaigned on a platform of de-criminalizing bakeries, landlords, employers, adoption agencies, military agencies, schools, etc. who choose to peacefully, civilly tell open homosexuals to take it somewhere else, would WIN.
Again, the problem isn't lack of laws criminalizing private/personal sins and weaknesses (as opposed to public sins such as murder, thievery, rape, assault, etc.). The problem is the existence of laws, pushed by the left, that criminalize moral people who peacefully, civilly tell homosexuals to go somewhere else.
And your failure to respond in kind, tells all as well.
See #95. Still waiting.
I think we're in agreement. Adultery and homosexuality are obviously undesirable socially, I just don't think that having laws (especially federal laws) against private vice is the right way to deal with them.
That being said, I often wonder why the "family values" crowd obsesses so much over homosexuality as the biggest threat to families, as opposed to divorce or adultery. Most families aren't being broken up because mom or dad decide to go gay (and in fact, there would be no such cases if there weren't a social pressure for homos to be closet cases). They break up because of no-fault divorce laws and a society that finds adultery acceptable (much more so than homosexuality)
I have long thought that no-fault divorce laws combined with "family law" (a cruel oxymoron) courts where a woman can leave her husband for any or no reason at all, get the kids and the house plus a large child support income tax free, and "uncle dad" gets to see the kids two weekends a month and one night a week at best. Authority to discipline goes to the mom, and if dad does something she doesn't like, Child Services is right there to track dad down and remedy it -- mom doesn't have to hire a lawyer.
On the other hand, if mom lets the kids flake out on visitation ("Johnny had other plans this weekend so he's not going to be spending it with you, sorry, I can't do anything about it") or if mom spends the child support money on stuff for herself, dad has to HIRE A LAWYER to fight it, and he's so broke from the child support payments he can't afford it.
How do I know this? I have lived it first hand and seen it in literally dozens and dozens of friends and relatives.
In my opinion, easy no-fault woman-favored divorce in the U.S. has contributed hugely to the rise in homosexuality in our culture.
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.