LS1GTO.com Forums banner

6361 - 6380 of 6448 Posts

·
Porch Dick
Joined
·
20,244 Posts
I mean even wearing the methodist hat for a moment - he's pretty OK on that front. Aside from he seeming married wrong, but other than that the rest of his discussion points are decent. I mean he's not really for abortion - he's not against it either but more importantly he's on the "it's not the role of the govenment to legalize morality" bandwagon.
He supports late-term abortions.* That's pretty much as "for" abortion as there is at this point. I can't imagine any evangelical lens viewing him as "OK" in terms of abortion.

*He does seem to dodge putting an explicit statement on this (for obvious reasons), but his response to the question of late-term abortion always circles back to letting the mother draw the line on when an abortion is or isn't acceptable. I can't see an interpretation of that as anything other than "if a mother chooses a late-term abortion, I support her doing so".
 

·
Porch Dick
Joined
·
20,244 Posts
Check again. That post of Napalm's that I quoted is where it was brought up. The point at hand had nothing to do with the arguments for or against abortion. Unless you are providing some context that sheds light on how Pete's stance on abortion might be received by the Methodist community, it's irrelevant if you support it or not.

I'm simply suggesting that Pete's stance on abortion might not be considered "OK" by anyone whose vote is made in accordance with the church. It's just a guess, though - I can't say I'm the church-going type.

Nothing in there is an argument for or against abortion - that's a different debate altogether.
 

·
Porch Dick
Joined
·
20,244 Posts
It really annoys me that it seems the video loops right as he starts saying "up"

There's something that I didn't know bothered me until you said something.
 

·
Jimmy Rustler
Joined
·
9,643 Posts
Check again. That post of Napalm's that I quoted is where it was brought up. The point at hand had nothing to do with the arguments for or against abortion. Unless you are providing some context that sheds light on how Pete's stance on abortion might be received by the Methodist community, it's irrelevant if you support it or not.

I'm simply suggesting that Pete's stance on abortion might not be considered "OK" by anyone whose vote is made in accordance with the church. It's just a guess, though - I can't say I'm the church-going type.

Nothing in there is an argument for or against abortion - that's a different debate altogether.
Fair enough. But I don't think any "Pro Life" voter is voting D anyway. I think that's the fallacy the Dems have been fighting since Reagan.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,009 Posts
My thought was always staggered it such a way that no sitting pres would get to appoint a replacement. IE Pres gets 2 4-year terms for a total of 8. SCJ term would be at least 10 years so they could span a decade of change. Now I heartily agree there is logic to make that 12, 15,16,some other random number short of being 24.

Likewise congress limit would be 4-4 year terms. period. Senate would get 3-6 year terms. period. And no sitting senator or congressperson can run for pres they have to resign first before even announcing a run. And once term of president is over you cannot serve on any part of again. I'd also argue if you did your 4-4year terms or your 3-6 year terms, you're out anyway but that might be a touch too harsh.
My only critique would be that the SCOTUS was supposed to be a body of the steadiest, most knowledgeable people within the Republic (or something to that literary effect). With that in mind, I would allow term-limited Senators and Reps to be eligible for the SCOTUS.

That's all. Everything, I am down with.
 

·
Born in a class 5 hurricane
Joined
·
11,300 Posts
Boomberg made an appearance here in town today. Apparently a grand total of 300 people showed up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,410 Posts
I don’t think term limits are a good idea, I’d rather have the experience. Enacting term limits wouldn’t kill the professional politician, they’d just look more like Mitt Romney and Hillary - the ones who jump states to continue their career.

Now a mandatory retirement age, that I would be on board with. If a 65 year old isn’t good enough to fly our citizens across the country, then a 65 year old isn’t good enough to lead our country.

Also, all new laws require a 2/3 approval in both chambers.
 

·
Omertà
Joined
·
5,291 Posts
Don Jr. > Bush Jr.
 

·
Have Bar, Will Travel
Joined
·
9,664 Posts
He supports late-term abortions.* That's pretty much as "for" abortion as there is at this point. I can't imagine any evangelical lens viewing him as "OK" in terms of abortion.

*He does seem to dodge putting an explicit statement on this (for obvious reasons), but his response to the question of late-term abortion always circles back to letting the mother draw the line on when an abortion is or isn't acceptable. I can't see an interpretation of that as anything other than "if a mother chooses a late-term abortion, I support her doing so".
Well I see his stance more of "I'm not here to legalize morality" so that does open up a number of things. People that really want to can fly themselves to India,singapore,otherplaces to have that done today. I do sort of which he would color it with some states rights but again I see why he doesn't.

And I do see your point there but since we've already legalized a number of things that no evangelical lens should like - if you keep the premise of seperation of church and state in place then that lens shouldn't focus on the laws of the country as much as it should focus on society issues and helping them. Now I will say that to say there is a major lack of responsibility in the nation today and leave it at that.

I'm pretty much in the "if you don't like abortions, don't get one" crowd, but late term abortion? Absent life-threatening consequences for the mother, ought to toss her and the doctor in the blender too.
Not to spin the debate further as yes this is a place for another thread but is there really a life threatening reason for a late term that wouldn't also be solved by an emergency C-section? I only state that to state I see absolutely no reason for a late term other than finding out the child would have some serious debilitation. Which as far as I know could be found out before week 30 as far as I know but I'm not 100% up on it. Wasn't a consideration for us anyway

Fair enough. But I don't think any "Pro Life" voter is voting D anyway. I think that's the fallacy the Dems have been fighting since Reagan.
There are a number of "pro-life" people here that will vote D because it's required of them.

I don’t think term limits are a good idea, I’d rather have the experience. Enacting term limits wouldn’t kill the professional politician, they’d just look more like Mitt Romney and Hillary - the ones who jump states to continue their career.

Now a mandatory retirement age, that I would be on board with. If a 65 year old isn’t good enough to fly our citizens across the country, then a 65 year old isn’t good enough to lead our country.

Also, all new laws require a 2/3 approval in both chambers.
My issue is they should have experience before they take the job in general principle. I sort of agree on the retirement age thing. I'd let the guy finish out his term but he can't run again. SO say - can't run for election past age 62. I see a very large lobbying body having major issues with that
 

·
GR-RRR!
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
I'd see age discrimination getting involved if we tried to limit Congresspersons to an age limit.

I'd like to just take away all their super fantastic health care benefits and let them go on program more like what the average citizen gets with his job with a larger corporation. Or they can get theirs via the ACA. Now THAT would motivate them to improve the ACA I'd think.
 
6361 - 6380 of 6448 Posts
Top