Presidential Debate

ohmrs2014 · August 2015

julieanne912 said:

ohmrs2014 said:

As a fellow conservative, I think the Republican party needs to stop trying to mix Church and state and leave their religious beliefs out of government.

Isn't that the main reason why we try to interfere in the Middle East, because the regimes over there try to push their religious agendas on everyone else and persecute those who don't believe in what they do?

I'm sorry, but Religion has no place in politics.

ETA: I am fully aware that I might take a hit on saying this.

Unfortunately the whole religion thing is a major portion of the GOPs stance... if they quit bringing religion into everything, they'd lose the majority of their followers.

And that's the problem, it wasn't always like that. It became more mainstream when the Tea Party came out in full force and then this shift happened.

As conservative as I can be on certain issues, when it comes to Religion and using that as a basis for my beliefs, I don't do that. But that's just me as I can't speak for other conservatives. There are certain topics that I am more liberal on, which most of the younger conservatives are liberal on. If the GOP wants to engage in the younger crowd, which will eventually be the majority of the party in another 10-15 years, then their belief's need to shift as well.

I hope that came out the right way LOL.

julieanne912 · August 2015

ohmrs2014 said:

julieanne912 said:

ohmrs2014 said:

As a fellow conservative, I think the Republican party needs to stop trying to mix Church and state and leave their religious beliefs out of government.

Isn't that the main reason why we try to interfere in the Middle East, because the regimes over there try to push their religious agendas on everyone else and persecute those who don't believe in what they do?

I'm sorry, but Religion has no place in politics.

ETA: I am fully aware that I might take a hit on saying this.

Unfortunately the whole religion thing is a major portion of the GOPs stance... if they quit bringing religion into everything, they'd lose the majority of their followers.

And that's the problem, it wasn't always like that. It became more mainstream when the Tea Party came out in full force and then this shift happened.

As conservative as I can be on certain issues, when it comes to Religion and using that as a basis for my beliefs, I don't do that. But that's just me as I can't speak for other conservatives. There are certain topics that I am more liberal on, which most of the younger conservatives are liberal on. If the GOP wants to engage in the younger crowd, which will eventually be the majority of the party in another 10-15 years, then their belief's need to shift as well.

I hope that came out the right way LOL.

Oh I hear ya. I actually was a registered republican when I was first able to vote. But they are so whacked out now I can't even do it, even though I do sometimes agree w/ their fiscal ideas, and disagree w/ some of the democratic ideas.

That's why I was saying they need someone like Rubio to take the reigns. These old uber conservatives are not going to attract most young people, and are turning women away in droves.

ohmrs2014 · August 2015

But Rubio is so against women's rights as well. Its a turn off.

STARMOON44 · August 2015

ohmrs2014 said:
As a fellow conservative, I think the Republican party needs to stop trying to mix Church and state and leave their religious beliefs out of government.

Isn't that the main reason why we try to interfere in the Middle East, because the regimes over there try to push their religious agendas on everyone else and persecute those who don't believe in what they do?

I'm sorry, but Religion has no place in politics.

ETA: I am fully aware that I might take a hit on saying this.

No? The reason why we intervene in the Middle East is oil. The rest is just window dressing.

AprilH81 · August 2015

If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.

STARMOON44 · August 2015

AprilH81 said:
If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.

You can't be anti-gay marriage and not homophobic though. Not possible.

And if by pro-life you mean "I'd never have an abortion but I fully support other women's right to do so" awesome! You don't hate women and you're also pro-choice. If you think you're entitled to control the guest list of my uterus, yup, feeling pretty hated as a woman.

That is an honest discussion.

julieanne912 · August 2015

ohmrs2014 said:

But Rubio is so against women's rights as well. Its a turn off.

Agreed w/ ya there too! Social issues (women's rights, abortion, gay marriage, etc) are the main reason I cannot be a republican. But they aren't going to ever put out a candidate that is pro-choice... just not going to happen, not ever. They would lose SO many voters. A lot of republicans I know are single issue voters, and that's the #1 single issue they choose their candidate on.

They could definitely find someone that seems to push harder for women though. Romney tried to make himself look that way, but that backfired.... with his binders full of women LOL

STARMOON44 · August 2015

Marco Rubio is in favor of forcing women who are raped and get pregnant to carry those babies to term and deliver. Don't want to be called a woman hater? Try not hating women.

ohmrs2014 · August 2015

STARMOON44 said:

As a fellow conservative, I think the Republican party needs to stop trying to mix Church and state and leave their religious beliefs out of government.

Isn't that the main reason why we try to interfere in the Middle East, because the regimes over there try to push their religious agendas on everyone else and persecute those who don't believe in what they do?

I'm sorry, but Religion has no place in politics.

ETA: I am fully aware that I might take a hit on saying this.
No? The reason why we intervene in the Middle East is oil. The rest is just window dressing.

And while oil is one of the many reasons we are over there, there have been countless times that Human Rights organizations have pleaded for our, and other allies help, in terms of the religious injustices that occur over there. We preach over here about how we are tolerant of other Religions, but yet the Republicans use it for the social issues and agendas they want to push.

Social issues are the only thing I don't agree with the GOP on.

KatWAG · August 2015

AprilH81 said:

If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.

Its times like these that I miss MagicInk

kimmiinthemitten · August 2015

STARMOON44 said:

As a fellow conservative, I think the Republican party needs to stop trying to mix Church and state and leave their religious beliefs out of government.

Isn't that the main reason why we try to interfere in the Middle East, because the regimes over there try to push their religious agendas on everyone else and persecute those who don't believe in what they do?

I'm sorry, but Religion has no place in politics.

ETA: I am fully aware that I might take a hit on saying this.
No? The reason why we intervene in the Middle East is oil. The rest is just window dressing.

Money, we intervene over here because of money. The money in oil, the money in government contractors, the money zionists contribute to campaigns. If it wasn't about money The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wouldn't be our friend and the Iraq war wouldn't have happened. But yes to Ohmrs2014's point as well, we as a nation love to criticize other nations. Many of the religious arm of the GOP want God on our money, schools, and pledge of allegiance and then criticize middle eastern nations for having governments based on their religious principles. How is one Sharia Law and the other not just the Christian version?

hellohkb · August 2015

I tend to have one Republican

KatWAG said:

AprilH81 said:

If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.

Its times like these that I miss MagicInk

This thread definitely would have been interesting with "her"(???) still here.

banana468 · August 2015

STARMOON44 said:

If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.
You can't be anti-gay marriage and not homophobic though. Not possible. And if by pro-life you mean "I'd never have an abortion but I fully support other women's right to do so" awesome! You don't hate women and you're also pro-choice. If you think you're entitled to control the guest list of my uterus, yup, feeling pretty hated as a woman. That is an honest discussion.

Pro life people (I include myself in this) believe that there's a person growing in your uterus. That person has as much of a right to be alive once in your uterus as s/he does once outside your uterus.

I don't hate women who disagree with me, but I'm going to disagree that a woman should be able to choose to end a life growing in there.

However, I also understand that Republicans are not going to get elected if they take an extremely hard pro-Life stance. Because you need more than the votes of Pro Life people to get elected.

hellohkb · August 2015

I want the Republican nominees to talk about the environment and climate issues next debate. Not really about the debate but just a thought I've had especially reading your comments about women's health: Even as a liberal I wouldn't mind a center-right president. It's when they're pro-life that makes me lose support for them. I am convinced Romney is secretly prochoice and probably would have my support if he didn't choose Paul Ryan as his running mate. He was prochoice in the 90's and I'm a little suspicious that he felt pressured to run as prolife.

kimmiinthemitten · August 2015

hellohkb said:

I want the Republican nominees to talk about the environment and climate issues next debate. Not really about the debate but just a thought I've had especially reading your comments about women's health: Even as a liberal I wouldn't mind a center-right president. It's when they're pro-life that makes me lose support for them. I am convinced Romney is secretly prochoice and probably would have my support if he didn't choose Paul Ryan as his running mate. He was prochoice in the 90's and I'm a little suspicious that he felt pressured to run as prolife.

Romney was notoriously pro choice. An abortion saved his aunts life. And then he ran for President. I'd like to add to your list income inequality. Environment, climate and income inequality.

emmaaa · August 2015

banana468 said:

STARMOON44 said:

If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.
You can't be anti-gay marriage and not homophobic though. Not possible. And if by pro-life you mean "I'd never have an abortion but I fully support other women's right to do so" awesome! You don't hate women and you're also pro-choice. If you think you're entitled to control the guest list of my uterus, yup, feeling pretty hated as a woman. That is an honest discussion.

Pro life people (I include myself in this) believe that there's a person growing in your uterus. That person has as much of a right to be alive once in your uterus as s/he does once outside your uterus.

I don't hate women who disagree with me, but I'm going to disagree that a woman should be able to choose to end a life growing in there.

However, I also understand that Republicans are not going to get elected if they take an extremely hard pro-Life stance. Because you need more than the votes of Pro Life people to get elected.

I agree. The moment a woman makes the choice to have sex, and then gets pregnant, she then loses the choice to end the life inside of her. It is no longer just her body at that point.

I can disagree with those who are pro-choice and I can be against abortions but still not "hate" someone because of their opinion.

KatWAG · August 2015

emmaaa said:

banana468 said:

STARMOON44 said:

If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.
You can't be anti-gay marriage and not homophobic though. Not possible. And if by pro-life you mean "I'd never have an abortion but I fully support other women's right to do so" awesome! You don't hate women and you're also pro-choice. If you think you're entitled to control the guest list of my uterus, yup, feeling pretty hated as a woman. That is an honest discussion.

Pro life people (I include myself in this) believe that there's a person growing in your uterus. That person has as much of a right to be alive once in your uterus as s/he does once outside your uterus.

I don't hate women who disagree with me, but I'm going to disagree that a woman should be able to choose to end a life growing in there.

However, I also understand that Republicans are not going to get elected if they take an extremely hard pro-Life stance. Because you need more than the votes of Pro Life people to get elected.

I agree. The moment a woman makes the choice to have sex, and then gets pregnant, she then loses the choice to end the life inside of her. It is no longer just her body at that point.

I can disagree with those who are pro-choice and I can be against abortions but still not "hate" someone because of their opinion.

A woman is not making that choice when she is raped.

emmaaa · August 2015

KatWAG said:

emmaaa said:

banana468 said:

STARMOON44 said:

If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.
You can't be anti-gay marriage and not homophobic though. Not possible. And if by pro-life you mean "I'd never have an abortion but I fully support other women's right to do so" awesome! You don't hate women and you're also pro-choice. If you think you're entitled to control the guest list of my uterus, yup, feeling pretty hated as a woman. That is an honest discussion.

Pro life people (I include myself in this) believe that there's a person growing in your uterus. That person has as much of a right to be alive once in your uterus as s/he does once outside your uterus.

I don't hate women who disagree with me, but I'm going to disagree that a woman should be able to choose to end a life growing in there.

However, I also understand that Republicans are not going to get elected if they take an extremely hard pro-Life stance. Because you need more than the votes of Pro Life people to get elected.

I agree. The moment a woman makes the choice to have sex, and then gets pregnant, she then loses the choice to end the life inside of her. It is no longer just her body at that point.

I can disagree with those who are pro-choice and I can be against abortions but still not "hate" someone because of their opinion.

A woman is not making that choice when she is raped.

And that is why I included the choice part of my post.

justsie · August 2015

I am completely pro-choice and I strongly believe in consent. Consent to one thing does not equal consent to another thing, so by having sex I am not consenting to being pregnant as well. That's not how consent works. I can make the choice to do one thing and that does not mean I am automatically making the choice to do this other thing. I will ALWAYS have the right to my body, having sex, getting pregnant, will not change that my body belongs to me.

STARMOON44 · August 2015

emmaaa said:

banana468 said:

STARMOON44 said:

AprilH81 said:
If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.

You can't be anti-gay marriage and not homophobic though. Not possible.

And if by pro-life you mean "I'd never have an abortion but I fully support other women's right to do so" awesome! You don't hate women and you're also pro-choice. If you think you're entitled to control the guest list of my uterus, yup, feeling pretty hated as a woman.

That is an honest discussion.

Pro life people (I include myself in this) believe that there's a person growing in your uterus. That person has as much of a right to be alive once in your uterus as s/he does once outside your uterus.

I don't hate women who disagree with me, but I'm going to disagree that a woman should be able to choose to end a life growing in there.

However, I also understand that Republicans are not going to get elected if they take an extremely hard pro-Life stance. Because you need more than the votes of Pro Life people to get elected.

I agree. The moment a woman makes the choice to have sex, and then gets pregnant, she then loses the choice to end the life inside of her. It is no longer just her body at that point.

I can disagree with those who are pro-choice and I can be against abortions but still not "hate" someone because of their opinion.

</blockquote

I don't think you hate me because of my opinion. I think your opinion that if I get pregnant and don't want to be I should be forced to have a baby is, in itself, hateful of me as a woman. Depriving women of reproductive choice is hateful. Painting babies as a punishment for sex to be endured is hateful. Thinking you get to decide when I take a break from my ability to work and support myself is hateful.

You want to be pro-life in a way that isn't hateful of women? Support free birth control. Fight for education for women. Increase job creation so people can see a future worth planning for. Teach your children your beliefs. Fight the death penalty, life imprisonment, solitary confinement. Take care of the environment. Campaign for subsidized day care. And when all of that fails and someone realizes she just can't be pregnant right now? Pray for her, treat her with compassion, and don't punish her for her sins by sentencing her to a back alley. 100% pro life. 100% not hateful.

banana468 · August 2015

I'm not going to continue to engage here because I think this is far too hot button a topic and neither side will be convinced of the other.

I will say that I do not ever agree with the shaming of a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock and I do think it's important to campaign for a better system of healthcare for women and children. Being pro life means more than just believing that the conceived child has a right to be alive. It means that the conceived child needs a system in which s/he can HAVE a life.

STARMOON44 · August 2015

banana468 said:
I'm not going to continue to engage here because I think this is far too hot button a topic and neither side will be convinced of the other.

I will say that I do not ever agree with the shaming of a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock and I do think it's important to campaign for a better system of healthcare for women and children. Being pro life means more than just believing that the conceived child has a right to be alive. It means that the conceived child needs a system in which s/he can HAVE a life.

You realize lots of women who get abortions are married right? I'm not sure how telling me I can't control my own body because someone else knows better, because being pregnant makes me have less rights than any other person, is ever not shaming.

banana468 · August 2015

STARMOON44 said:

I'm not going to continue to engage here because I think this is far too hot button a topic and neither side will be convinced of the other.

I will say that I do not ever agree with the shaming of a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock and I do think it's important to campaign for a better system of healthcare for women and children. Being pro life means more than just believing that the conceived child has a right to be alive. It means that the conceived child needs a system in which s/he can HAVE a life.
You realize lots of women who get abortions are married right? I'm not sure how telling me I can't control my own body because someone else knows better, because being pregnant makes me have less rights than any other person, is ever not shaming.

You CAN control your body. But too often we think that control body = change what happened after it's done. I don't agree with that.

My point is that we often shame other women who are pregnant and feel that they have no other support system. We have a system that a woman may feel like she has to have the abortion because there isn't a system where having the baby is OK.

And I believe that when you make the choice to have sex, you accept the consequence that sex makes babies. A pregnancy means that there's a life growing in you. Even when not viable, that is a baby - a baby with a heartbeat! And that baby as as much a right to be alive as you do. I am not OK with ending that baby's life.

MegEn1 · August 2015

I'm rather sad that no one enjoyed Christie as much as I did. He had the best presence, and although the answers were short and canned (as they were going to be) I thought he went into as much detail as possible, more than most of the others. I also really did enjoy his Paul jab because Lord I can't stand Paul's stances on foreign policy and terrorism, and he seems like he just waves his hands and sticks his head into good old American soil and assumes it'll all be okay because Constitution.

That said, I was rolling on the floor the entire debate. Chris Wallace kept looking at the camera during Trump's answers. It was like he came into every living room in America multiple times and said "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS GUY?" It made my night, I had to take a melatonin to get to sleep I was so jacked from cracking up.

TrixieJess · August 2015

banana468 said:

STARMOON44 said:

I'm not going to continue to engage here because I think this is far too hot button a topic and neither side will be convinced of the other.

I will say that I do not ever agree with the shaming of a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock and I do think it's important to campaign for a better system of healthcare for women and children. Being pro life means more than just believing that the conceived child has a right to be alive. It means that the conceived child needs a system in which s/he can HAVE a life.
You realize lots of women who get abortions are married right? I'm not sure how telling me I can't control my own body because someone else knows better, because being pregnant makes me have less rights than any other person, is ever not shaming.

You CAN control your body. But too often we think that control body = change what happened after it's done. I don't agree with that.

My point is that we often shame other women who are pregnant and feel that they have no other support system. We have a system that a woman may feel like she has to have the abortion because there isn't a system where having the baby is OK.

And I believe that when you make the choice to have sex, you accept the consequence that sex makes babies. A pregnancy means that there's a life growing in you. Even when not viable, that is a baby - a baby with a heartbeat! And that baby as as much a right to be alive as you do. I am not OK with ending that baby's life.

I'm sorry but there are a multitude of reasons women choose to have abortions. Not all birth control is 100%. Not all families are equipped to take care of children who will have multiple disabilities. No one can tell me what I can do with my body. There is a reason that under 24 weeks, if you deliver they will not administer life-saving procedures to save a fetus.

After having a child I'm more inclined to be pro-choice than I was before and I was pretty adamant about that shit!

hellohkb · August 2015

MegEn1 said:

I'm rather sad that no one enjoyed Christie as much as I did. He had the best presence, and although the answers were short and canned (as they were going to be) I thought he went into as much detail as possible, more than most of the others. I also really did enjoy his Paul jab because Lord I can't stand Paul's stances on foreign policy and terrorism, and he seems like he just waves his hands and sticks his head into good old American soil and assumes it'll all be okay because Constitution.

That said, I was rolling on the floor the entire debate. Chris Wallace kept looking at the camera during Trump's answers. It was like he came into every living room in America multiple times and said "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS GUY?" It made my night, I had to take a melatonin to get to sleep I was so jacked from cracking up.

I actually completely agree with this. Not that I'm a Christie fan myself but I tolerate him more than the other candidates and enjoyed hearing him and well as Marco Rubio speak more than the other candidates. When he snapped back at Paul I lost it. It must be because I'm from NY and my dad and grandfather were in the NYPD- When a politician merely mentions 9/11 we become disenchanted lol.

My dad will always be appreciative of the politicians who came by a supported the emergency service workers during that time. My mom is convinced they do it for the positive press, though. lol!

AprilH81 · August 2015

KatWAG said:

AprilH81 said:

If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.

Its times like these that I miss MagicInk

I was running errands so late to respond to this... I'm ambivalent towards same sex marriage because I believe God defines marriage, not the government and God believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

That being said, two men or two women getting married doesn't affect my relationship with God or affect my belief in marriage so if they want to get married that is between them and God (if they believe).

I don't think that makes me homophobic. I'm not scared of homosexual people, I don't discriminate, I don't judge, I don't treat anyone any different. How would that make me homophobic?

Cookie Pusher · August 2015

AprilH81 said:

KatWAG said:

AprilH81 said:

If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed. This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy. They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."

I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage. These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe". I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.

I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.

Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue. The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border. I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for. They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations. This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes.

Its times like these that I miss MagicInk

I was running errands so late to respond to this... I'm ambivalent towards same sex marriage because I believe God defines marriage, not the government and God believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

That being said, two men or two women getting married doesn't affect my relationship with God or affect my belief in marriage so if they want to get married that is between them and God (if they believe).

I don't think that makes me homophobic. I'm not scared of homosexual people, I don't discriminate, I don't judge, I don't treat anyone any different. How would that make me homophobic?

The minute the government started issuing marriage licenses/certificates and offering rights/benefits to married people was the minute that the government and not churches got to decide who can and cannot get married.

ohmrs2014 · August 2015

MegEn1 said:

I'm rather sad that no one enjoyed Christie as much as I did. He had the best presence, and although the answers were short and canned (as they were going to be) I thought he went into as much detail as possible, more than most of the others. I also really did enjoy his Paul jab because Lord I can't stand Paul's stances on foreign policy and terrorism, and he seems like he just waves his hands and sticks his head into good old American soil and assumes it'll all be okay because Constitution.

That said, I was rolling on the floor the entire debate. Chris Wallace kept looking at the camera during Trump's answers. It was like he came into every living room in America multiple times and said "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS GUY?" It made my night, I had to take a melatonin to get to sleep I was so jacked from cracking up.

My dad is a hardcore Republican and he called before to chat about the debate. His exact words to me "These guys are clowns. None of them are worth my vote." I was so shocked. He then went on to say that he wishes he watched the first debate because he wanted to see Carley take down the men.

As to Christie, coming from NJ, he is just as much of a joke as Trump is.

AprilH81 · August 2015

Cookie Pusher said:

AprilH81 said:

<snip quote tree>

I was running errands so late to respond to this... I'm ambivalent towards same sex marriage because I believe God defines marriage, not the government and God believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

That being said, two men or two women getting married doesn't affect my relationship with God or affect my belief in marriage so if they want to get married that is between them and God (if they believe).

I don't think that makes me homophobic. I'm not scared of homosexual people, I don't discriminate, I don't judge, I don't treat anyone any different. How would that make me homophobic?

The minute the government started issuing marriage licenses/certificates and offering rights/benefits to married people was the minute that the government and not churches got to decide who can and cannot get married.

Not to get too off topic, but that is why I think government shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses and granting "permission" to marry to begin with. Marriage was a religious union before it was a legal union.

As long as the two (or more) people are consenting adults your (general your) relationships are none of the government's business.

Presidential Debate

Re: Presidential Debate

Choose Another Board

Search Boards