If All The Republicans Have Is Rubio And Christie...

[HappyChristian]

There may be a few Mormons moving in that direction, John, but the majority - and the church itself - are not. That is why the ban passed there. I'm not in any way defending Mormonism, but that is one thing they are against.

Gov. Fallin needs to get the state's congressmen involved. It is congress job to monitor and rein in the courts (all but a very few).

There is actually talk of McCain being censured. He tried a few week's back to float the ideafof running for POTUS again, but the reaction was quite negative. If he runs for senate reelection, I will be shocked if he wins. AZ is getting tired of him...finally!

The problem with Ron Paul was that he had some goofy beliefs about things. A number of conservatives I know (us included) would not vote for him on that basis. His son, Rand, is as knowledgeable as Ron about the Constitution without some if the problems. And he has gotten more favorable press. Ted Cruz is a staunch Constitutionalist and isn't afraid to take anyone on. And he does it very nicely. Mike Lee is another one, although I doubt he will run. Then there is Allen West. People are trying to get Dr. Ben Carson interested. At this point, there are several really good men who just may run.

The media has pretty much destroyed Christie's chance with this traffic thing and now the feds looking into the funds from Sandy. I dontwant to see him run, though, even if he had no baggage.

A group is currently following Cruz around now, videotaping him and trying to catch him in something. I highly doubt they will succeed. He is my top choice at this time. He loves God (he is a Christian), America, and the Constitution (not in a weird wa) . And I believe, with all the problems the libs are facing, he could win. He reminds me a lot of Reagan - the good parts.

[John81]

No matter who is elected president, they won't be a true constitutionalist and they won't have a constitutionalist congress and they won't have constitutionalist on the courts.

 

The Republican leadership is already doing all they can to promote the dropping of "social issues" (mostly meaning those dealing with morality) and many Republican politicians are on board with this idea.

 

Did Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush One or Bush Two restore the Constitution? Not only did they not work for such, they grew the government, continued (and in some cases) enhanced liberal programs, agencies, laws and regulations put in place by previous liberal presidents.

 

The only true hope for America is revival and another great awakening.

[HappyChristian]

I agree that America needs revival. I disagree that no one elected will be a constitutionalist. It can happen. There are several in the Senate right now...it is within the realm of the possible.

None of those you listed were what I would call constitutionalists. Reagan came closest, but he had his problems. Conress under Reagan wasn't constitutionalist either. But they feared him because of his popularity. So he got some good things done. I believe Cruz would have the same (and better) effect. There are a number of good people running for seats now...if they win, congress will indeed be more mindful of the Constitution. As for SCOTUS, they aren't supposed to create law. A constitutional POTUS and leaning congress - and We the People can keep them in check (and impeach them if needed).

[ASongOfDegrees]

I agree with John. No constitutionalist will ever be elected. Not to the presidency, anyways. 

[HappyChristian]

Especually nit when so many Christians disdain our libertues and don't bither to vote...

[ThePilgrim]

I get so tired of being thought ill of because I refuse to vote for any of the liars and theives who are put forward by the bi-factional one party system in this country.  Sorry but I really don't see a single person who wishes the highest office in the land who can take the oath to defend the constitution without biting his tongue.  A Pack of liars all. 

 

Have at me! 

 

God bless,

Larry

[The Glory Land]

I get so tired of being thought ill of because I refuse to vote for any of the liars and theives who are put forward by the bi-factional one party system in this country.  Sorry but I really don't see a single person who wishes the highest office in the land who can take the oath to defend the constitution without biting his tongue.  A Pack of liars all. 

 

Have at me! 

 

God bless,

Larry

 

 

 

But there are good liars and bad liars...  

[Arbo]

I get so tired of being thought ill of because I refuse to vote for any of the liars and theives who are put forward by the bi-factional one party system in this country.  Sorry but I really don't see a single person who wishes the highest office in the land who can take the oath to defend the constitution without biting his tongue.  A Pack of liars all. 

 

Have at me! 

 

God bless,

Larry

 

Difficult to argue with this, but I believe that it is appropriate at times to vote for the lesser of two bad options rather than to waste one on a third party that has no chance of winning.

[John81]

We have to face the question of what sins a candidate can engage in and/or support that we will and won't vote for.

 

Most Christians say they won't vote for a candidate who supports homosexual marriage. What about those who claim to be against abortion but their walk doesn't match their talk? What about all those who swear an oath before God to uphold the Constitution knowing full well they have no intention of doing so? On and on we could go with this.

 

It seems for many Christian voters only certain sins are on a special level which precludes one from being worthy of their vote but all other sins don't make a candidate unworthy.

 

If we are voting for who will drive our church van and many want to vote for the man who will drive the church van at 100 MPH towards a cliff but another man steps forward and says he will only drive the van 98 MPH towards that cliff, are we really doing a service to give our vote to the second man?

[HappyChristian]

We look at it this way: often, we vote against the worse one, rather than voting for the lesser of two.  As to which sins are acceptable or not, we have to tread lightly because we are all sinners.

 

Sodomy and abortion are definite deal-breakers. If one knows for sure certain that the candidate will not support the Constitution, then that is also a deal-breaker.   However, when voting against the worse one, we need to realize that the lesser one might not uphold every aspect of the Constitution, but if they at least hold to it enough, the people of the country have the opportunity to push Congress to do what they should.  It has not worked that way for more than one reason. One, the country has done a fast race away from God. Two, Christians have basically opted out of doing anything (but complaining) about it.

 

No president has the authority to deal with sodomy or abortion.  He can be voice in one way or another, but legally he cannot do anything.  Nor, really, can Congress, constitutionally.  Both of those issues are rightly in the jurisdiction of the individual states and the people therein.  The statement has been made in the past that no GOP POTUS has taken care of abortion - they cannot.  States need to stand up to the ridiculous, unlawful legislating that is coming from SCOTUS...and just ignore their unjust  rulings (like Roe v. Wade).

 

All of this, of course, is predicated on the fact that we need revival.  Badly!

 

Reagan is a prime example of a POTUS who did not uphold every aspect of the Constitution.  However, it would be a blessing to have someone like him in the White House right now...

[ASongOfDegrees]

Especually nit when so many Christians disdain our libertues and don't bither to vote...

If you are suggesting I don't vote you are wrong. I've probably voted more to the right than most on this forum have. How many folks in here voted for Pat Buchanan when he ran for President? Or how 'bout Virgil Goode when he ran for President? Goode was the Constitution Party's pick  the last Presidential election and I bet most folks didn't even know it. Very few voted for him.

[HappyChristian]

If you are suggesting I don't vote you are wrong. I've probably voted more to the right than most on this forum have. How many folks in here voted for Pat Buchanan when he ran for President? Or how 'bout Virgil Goode when he ran for President? Goode was the Constitution Party's pick  the last Presidential election and I bet most folks didn't even know it. Very few voted for him.

Don't be so quick to make assumptions, Song. I had no-one in particular in mind when I made that statement.  I voted for Pat Buchanan the first time he ran. I voted for Ron Paul the first time he ran. I did not vote for Virgil Goode because he wasn't on our ballots.  Very few voted for him for a number of reasons, not the least of which he didn't make it to all 50 state ballots (and that would automatically mean he would not get enough electoral votes...).

 

The Constitution party has fielded some candidates for different offices that gives that party a bad name so there are good people who are leery of the party.  Third parties are really not good for this country, because, believe it or not, agree or not, they pull votes so that the worse of the candidate wins.  Voter fraud and fronting a RINO certainly don't help matters, either.

 

If Cruz or Rand Paul run this year, the Constitution party ought to get behind them rather than fronting their own unknown candidate. Either that or get Goode hooked up with one of them. He would be good (no pun on the name) to have in any administration in a number of positions, POTUS included.  

[The Glory Land]

Once any of them say anything negative about the gays, they will not have a chance. Look what the media doing now to Duck Dynasty and now Juan Pablo bachelor show that I don't watch. This same thing will happen to them. They will be marked, as gay haters.

[John81]

This is part of the reason the Republican Party leadership wants to drop all "social issues" in favor of becoming the "fiscal conservative" Party. They want to focus on economics and foreign policy while ignoring the "social issues"; which in effect means going along with whatever way the wind is blowing where "social issues" are concerned.

[The Glory Land]

This is part of the reason the Republican Party leadership wants to drop all "social issues" in favor of becoming the "fiscal conservative" Party. They want to focus on economics and foreign policy while ignoring the "social issues"; which in effect means going along with whatever way the wind is blowing where "social issues" are concerned.

They cannot stay silent when asked these questions.