Register to reply

Rick Santorum's candidacy ...

by ThomasT
Tags: candidacy, rick, santorum
Share this thread:
WhoWee
#307
Feb27-12, 09:41 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Yes, I think you're correct about that. But I do think that the intention was to establish a secular government.

Wrt Santorum, I think he would like to see, and would do whatever he could to establish, a Christian theocracy.
Has he ever suggested anything of this type on the floor of the US Senate or introduced any such effort into a Bill?
ThomasT
#308
Feb27-12, 10:19 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Has he ever suggested anything of this type on the floor of the US Senate or introduced any such effort into a Bill?
I don't know. I'm just assuming that it's a future possibility (probability?) from his current rhetoric, and the apparent fact that he's a fanatical Christian.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong here. I have a couple, very close, fanatical Christian friends who I love and trust. But I wouldn't want them to be the chief executive.
WhoWee
#309
Feb27-12, 10:33 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I don't know. I'm just assuming that it's a future possibility (probability?) from his current rhetoric, and the apparent fact that he's a fanatical Christian.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong here. I have a couple, very close, fanatical Christian friends who I love and trust. But I wouldn't want them to be the chief executive.
I had no idea the President has that type of power? Moving forward, we'd better consider the religious comments made by every candidate as well as members of their Administrations - shouldn't we? Is there anything else we should be concerned about specifically with Santorum - other than his religious beliefs?
ThomasT
#310
Feb27-12, 10:41 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
I had no idea the President has that type of power?
Well, aren't we being sarcastic now. But of course you're correct. The president actually doesn't have that sort of direct power. But he does have a lot of influence. And for that reason I see a Santorum presidency as a negative thing.

Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Moving forward, we'd better consider the religious comments made by every candidate as well as members of their Administrations - shouldn't we? Is there anything else we should be concerned about specifically with Santorum - other than his religious beliefs?
As far as I'm concerned Santorum's extreme religiosity is reason enough not to vote for him.
WhoWee
#311
Feb27-12, 10:53 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Well, aren't we being sarcastic now. But of course you're correct. The president actually doesn't have that sort of direct power. But he does have a lot of influence. And for that reason I see a Santorum presidency as a negative thing.

As far as I'm concerned Santorum's extreme religiosity is reason enough not to vote for him.
Thus far, it sounds as the only reason anyone has to not vote for him are his stated religious beliefs? I think it's best to let him wear those beliefs on his sleeve - if he starts to head down that road - there's a quick pull handle to get him back on track (for opponents) isn't there? IMO - it would be much worse to find that he harbored strong religious/philosophical beliefs that we were unaware of - wouldn't it?
ThomasT
#312
Feb27-12, 11:03 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Thus far, it sounds as the only reason anyone has to not vote for him are his stated religious beliefs?
I don't know about anyone, but that's my main reason to not vote for him.

Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
I think it's best to let him wear those beliefs on his sleeve ...
Do we have a choice? I mean, isn't that part of his campaign strategy?

Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
... - if he starts to head down that road - there's a quick pull handle to get him back on track (for opponents) isn't there?
He's already "down that road" as far as I can tell. And the solution is to not vote for him.

Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
IMO - it would be much worse to find that he harbored strong religious/philosophical beliefs that we were unaware of - wouldn't it?
Like maybe he's in league with Satan? Yeah, that would be worse.
WhoWee
#313
Feb27-12, 11:17 AM
P: 1,123
My point is that vetting is good - would you rather know his beliefs now or later? Rather than your Satan scenario - if Santorum ever tried to promote a religious agenda from the Oval Office - it would be very easy for opponents to counter.
ThomasT
#314
Feb27-12, 11:21 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
My point is that vetting is good - would you rather know his beliefs now or later? Rather than your Satan scenario - if Santorum ever tried to promote a religious agenda from the Oval Office - it would be very easy for opponents to counter.
What's the point? That he's honest about being a fanatical Christian? Ok. That means I don't vote for him. But of course about half the country disagrees with me.
daveb
#315
Feb27-12, 11:51 AM
P: 925
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Again, does anyone have any reason other than religious beliefs not to vote for Santorum?
Most of the economic policies he would promote and/or support.
Most of the social policies he would promote and/or support.
The potential judges for SCOTUS (and other courts) he would appoint (because despite all appearances, all of the judges are influenced by their political philosophies - I happen to prefer progressive policies rather than consevrative ones.)

How's that for reasons not to vote for hi.

One other - I'm registered Green Party, so can't vote in the primary anyway.
WhoWee
#316
Feb27-12, 12:49 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
Most of the economic policies he would promote and/or support.
Most of the social policies he would promote and/or support.
The potential judges for SCOTUS (and other courts) he would appoint (because despite all appearances, all of the judges are influenced by their political philosophies - I happen to prefer progressive policies rather than consevrative ones.)

How's that for reasons not to vote for hi.

One other - I'm registered Green Party, so can't vote in the primary anyway.
Which policies (other than religious speculation)?
Hobin
#317
Feb27-12, 12:49 PM
P: 194
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Such as?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...uclear-plants/

http://grist.org/climate-change/2011...-skeptic-hoax/

You can also check his own site and his 'accomplishments', to get a general idea of the kinds of things he'd like to see.

There's plenty of stuff.
WhoWee
#318
Feb27-12, 12:52 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I don't know. But the point is that he's a religious nutcase. So, there's no telling what he might do. I'm not willing to take the chance. Obama has performed according to the status quo, so at least I know what to expect from him. Santorum is a question mark. We know that he's a Christian zealot. Who knows what strange and damaging directives might emanate from a Santorum administration?
Nutcase and zealot (?) - again - has he ever promoted a religious ideology on the floor of the Senate - wouldn't someone fitting these extreme descriptions have some type of a legislative record?
Pythagorean
#319
Feb27-12, 12:54 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,292
here's one:

Quote Quote by Santorum
One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK, contraception is OK. It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage. They’re supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen.
More:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...rol/?mobile=nc
turbo
#320
Feb27-12, 12:55 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Such as?
The president has a lot of power over the administrative departments. Some of his statements make me fear for the integrity of Education, DHHS, and other favorite whipping-boys of the right. If he can find a way to gut or hobble the Education department, he may well do so. His pronouncements about contraception and abortion make women wary about what might happen to reproductive health issues if he is elected. My sisters and their daughters are not wealthy, and they have tried to limit the sizes of their families. Santorum is not too comforting to them in regard to these issues. My sisters are now past child-bearing age, but their daughters and daughters in-law are not, and when we talk on the phone, the issue of reproductive health under Santorum comes up regularly. IMO, if the GOP nominates Santorum, there will be an impressive flood of women voters to Obama. Quite the gift for a sitting president in a crappy economy with rising energy prices.
WhoWee
#321
Feb27-12, 12:58 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Hobin View Post
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...uclear-plants/

http://grist.org/climate-change/2011...-skeptic-hoax/

You can also check his own site and his 'accomplishments', to get a general idea of the kinds of things he'd like to see.

There's plenty of stuff.
Is grist.org an approved source on PF?

If you want to discuss his political views about Iran - that's a good start - IMO.

Your link specifies:

"Rick Santorum said today that he would be in favor of launching airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

“We will degrade those facilities through airstrikes, and make it very public that we are doing that,” Santorum said on “Meet the Press.”"


He clearly doesn't want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and would be willing to take action if necessary. Do you think he would be wrong to threaten to bomb the Iranian facilities if sanctions don't work - then follow through with the pledge if necessary? I think Iran would take Santorum seriously.
Pythagorean
#322
Feb27-12, 12:59 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,292
and this one is popular:

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

and of course, he's well know for his position against same-sex marriage.

The interesting question to me is: How can you not see Santorum's religious agenda.
WhoWee
#323
Feb27-12, 01:00 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
The president has a lot of power over the administrative departments. Some of his statements make me fear for the integrity of Education, DHHS, and other favorite whipping-boys of the right. If he can find a way to gut or hobble the Education department, he may well do so. His pronouncements about contraception and abortion make women wary about what might happen to reproductive health issues if he is elected. My sisters and their daughters are not wealthy, and they have tried to limit the sizes of their families. Santorum is not too comforting to them in regard to these issues. My sisters are now past child-bearing age, but their daughters and daughters in-law are not, and when we talk on the phone, the issue of reproductive health under Santorum comes up regularly. IMO, if the GOP nominates Santorum, there will be an impressive flood of women voters to Obama. Quite the gift for a sitting president in a crappy economy with rising energy prices.
The Obama comments don't belong in this thread. Aside from a fear that Santorum will make birth control unavailable for your family members - are there any other specific concerns?
WhoWee
#324
Feb27-12, 01:01 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
and this one is popular:

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

and of course, he's well know for his position against same-sex marriage.

The interesting question to me is: How can you not see Santorum's religious agenda.
Again, he wears the religion on his sleeve - is there any other non-religion reason to not vote for him?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Mitt Romney's candidacy Current Events 735
Rick Steves' Europe: Iran Current Events 4
Consider yourself Rick Roll'd General Discussion 20
Vote Rick James! General Discussion 6