BTW, shorter response: Do you think a person would vote for a candidate after the candidate called them stupid for their religious beliefs, or said they were cult members?
The question isn’t about whether a candidate SHOULD say those things; it’s about whether you actually disagreed with my statement, which was that a candidate can’t expect to get the vote of a person if the candidate attacks that person’s religion.
My point is this: A candidate needs 50%+1 to win an election. A candidate has things they will do in office, and those things should be what is right for the country, and if they can be trusted, they should be able to sell those ideas and get 50%+1. It appears counter-productive to me to ask a candidate to take stands on matters of religion for which there is no government involvement, which therefore will not matter for the office they are seeking, when taking those stands will turn off voters who would otherwise be inclined to vote for them.
The “muslim” issue I think is unique, because it is clear that a good number of muslim leaders do seek to use the political world to impose their religious beliefs, and it is reasonable therefore to make sure a candidate will stand for freedom of religion, and against the imposition of religious restrictions that favor muslims.
Post 570 described the situation perfectly, nothing will deter you from your mission as you see it.
My point is this: A candidate needs 50%+1 to win an election.
_____________________________________________
Bill Clinton didnt
Perot was in the mix...