Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I miss the Blue Dogs.
Should Democrats Rethink Their Approach to Religious Voters
- Thread starter BedellBrave
- Start date
I miss the Blue Dogs.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
IMO Tim Kaine couldn't even convince the NARAL folks to be pro-choice.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
you're a ****ing moron if you think the move is that it's too far left
but i'm not surprised by your reply
Watch video from dems 10/15/20 years ago. Do the same with rupublicans and then tell me who radicalized.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
You won't do it because you know the answer. The left has moved so drastically sway from where they were 10+ years ago that's it's disenfranchised a lot of idenpendents and conservatives who would sometimes vote d.
But the left has accounted for that by having the 60s hippys push their radical agenda to the youth of america.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Oh? It's really weird that I was calling up family and advocating for Heath Shuler back when he ran for and won the district I grew up in, even though I was living in Atlanta at the time.
I have a lot of disgust for the way congressional Republicans have behaved lately. Get a pro 2nd Amendment, pro life Democrat to run in my district and I'll post a video on here of me voting for them. 20 or 30 years ago those candidates were competitive all across the South. But the modern Democrat agenda could never stomach such stances.
Runnin
Well-known member
Democrats Should Follow the Doug Jones Playbook on Abortion Rights
...data from pre- and post-election polls support at least one rock-solid conclusion Democrats should heed in the build-up to next year’s midterms: Red-state abortion politics are not the intractable obstacle center-left partisans believe them to be....
Kayla, Moore’s wife, told followers at a rally that Jones supports the imaginary procedure “full-term abortion,” in which doctors “suck a child’s brains out at the moment before birth.” In Trump’s Twitter endorsement of Moore, “pro-abortion” was first on the list of Jones’ disqualifying positions. Moore himself coined the hashtag #AbortionJones—a kickass name for a feminist superhero, if anyone’s looking for one—to smear his opponent.
But Jones stayed firm, and polling data indicates that his resolve paid off. A Clarity Campaign Labs poll conducted before the allegations against Moore came out split intended Moore voters into two groups: those who said they’d never vote for a Democrat, and those who said they’d considered Jones before landing on Moore. Among voters who considered Jones, just 8 percent—1 percent of the total Alabama electorate—said the candidates’ stances on abortion determined their final vote. More than four times as many people said their “general dislike” of Jones swung them toward Moore.
Those ad producers probably didn’t know that a majority of black Protestants, who make up about 16 percent of the Alabama electorate, support abortion rights.
“The lesson that we should all take from Alabama is that … you can be an unapologetic champion for reproductive health rights and win—even in deep red states like Alabama,” Erica Sackin, spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, told me in an email. “The majority of people in this country, 7 out of 10, support access to safe, legal abortion. That means more people in America support Roe v. Wade than support either the Democratic or Republican party.”
...data from pre- and post-election polls support at least one rock-solid conclusion Democrats should heed in the build-up to next year’s midterms: Red-state abortion politics are not the intractable obstacle center-left partisans believe them to be....
Kayla, Moore’s wife, told followers at a rally that Jones supports the imaginary procedure “full-term abortion,” in which doctors “suck a child’s brains out at the moment before birth.” In Trump’s Twitter endorsement of Moore, “pro-abortion” was first on the list of Jones’ disqualifying positions. Moore himself coined the hashtag #AbortionJones—a kickass name for a feminist superhero, if anyone’s looking for one—to smear his opponent.
But Jones stayed firm, and polling data indicates that his resolve paid off. A Clarity Campaign Labs poll conducted before the allegations against Moore came out split intended Moore voters into two groups: those who said they’d never vote for a Democrat, and those who said they’d considered Jones before landing on Moore. Among voters who considered Jones, just 8 percent—1 percent of the total Alabama electorate—said the candidates’ stances on abortion determined their final vote. More than four times as many people said their “general dislike” of Jones swung them toward Moore.
Those ad producers probably didn’t know that a majority of black Protestants, who make up about 16 percent of the Alabama electorate, support abortion rights.
“The lesson that we should all take from Alabama is that … you can be an unapologetic champion for reproductive health rights and win—even in deep red states like Alabama,” Erica Sackin, spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, told me in an email. “The majority of people in this country, 7 out of 10, support access to safe, legal abortion. That means more people in America support Roe v. Wade than support either the Democratic or Republican party.”
57Brave
Well-known member
" Get a pro 2nd Amendment, pro life Democrat to run in my district "
such a cliche
how about you find and support policies that straddle both camps? As in support a long term policy that educates around the issue of abortion. A quick tip? Everyone is Pro Life. But not everyone has the choices white men have --
Planned Parenthood is that, . What is at issue is most people that use PP are registered (D) and are a voting bloc.
Off of the top of your head, what does PP do ? and at some point can you see the good they do far out weighs that which you find offensive
I have seen nothing but simple proposals from (D) on 2nd amendment.
Background checks and waiting periods are to "far left" ?
Puh leeze
such a cliche
how about you find and support policies that straddle both camps? As in support a long term policy that educates around the issue of abortion. A quick tip? Everyone is Pro Life. But not everyone has the choices white men have --
Planned Parenthood is that, . What is at issue is most people that use PP are registered (D) and are a voting bloc.
Off of the top of your head, what does PP do ? and at some point can you see the good they do far out weighs that which you find offensive
I have seen nothing but simple proposals from (D) on 2nd amendment.
Background checks and waiting periods are to "far left" ?
Puh leeze
57Brave
Well-known member
southpaw @nycsouthpaw
22h22 hours ago
Elected Democrats are continually misunderstanding the conflict they’re in. The modern Republican party will never cooperate w you. They are plotting to destroy you and hurt the people who elected you. Focus on protecting people, not trying to earn bipartisanship merit badges.
57Brave
Well-known member
It is funny (not ha-ha funny ) to hear red voters bemoan the fact that (D) supports choice.
What is funny is that "that" choice is not on the tip of everyones tongue.
College debt ?
Red voters have been bamboozled into voting for the gimmicky abstraction of "ProLife" over the fact many of their kids spend the first half of their adult life paying the jacked up interest on college loans.
2nd amendment? Instead of enforcing background checks they stand on the rock that "Democrats want to take your guns away"
Which has never been even a remote legislative possibility
...............................
In effect, religious votes are anti abortion (who isn't ) and pro gun.
The 2nd amendment is a game breaking religious voter issue?
What is funny is that "that" choice is not on the tip of everyones tongue.
College debt ?
Red voters have been bamboozled into voting for the gimmicky abstraction of "ProLife" over the fact many of their kids spend the first half of their adult life paying the jacked up interest on college loans.
2nd amendment? Instead of enforcing background checks they stand on the rock that "Democrats want to take your guns away"
Which has never been even a remote legislative possibility
...............................
In effect, religious votes are anti abortion (who isn't ) and pro gun.
The 2nd amendment is a game breaking religious voter issue?
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Straddle both camps? No sir, not on this one. I'll have a lot of things to answer for when my time on this rock is over. Supporting the slaughter of innocent children won't be one of them.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Call that a gimmicky abstraction if you want. I don't dare.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Call that a gimmicky abstraction if you want. I don't dare.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Sadly, NARAL and folk like you. Abortion is sacrosanct. You've proven that through the years. Remember you've even approved infanticide.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Wait, why do religious people need guns? If they are true to their God he will protect them? They keep saying "put yourself in God's hands". Pretty sure "thou shall not kill" didn't come with a lot of fine print exceptions somehwere. Jesus seems like the most anti gun figure you could think of. Maybe if someone kills you and your family it was God's will. If we were meant to have guns because some bull**** about is being God's creation inventing guns then that should apply to everything we create. Like crack.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh, mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo, apokteino) for “murder” and “killing.” One means “to put to death,” and the other means “to murder.” The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former. In fact, ratsakh has a broader definition than the English word “murder.” Ratsakh also covers deaths due to carelessness or neglect but is never used when describing killing during wartime. That is why most modern translations render the sixth commandment “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.” However, a very large issue can arise depending on which translation one studies. The ever-popular King James Version renders the verse as “Thou shalt not kill,” therefore opening the door to misinterpreting the verse altogether. If the intended meaning of “Thou shalt not kill” was just that—no killing—it would render all of the God-endorsed bloodletting done by the nation of Israel a violation of God’s own commandment (Deuteronomy 20). But God does not break His own commandments, so, clearly, the verse does not call for a complete moratorium on the taking of another human life.
57Brave
Well-known member
In effect if it isn't 100% your political/religious stance it is a no go.
This is a diverse society of over 300M
Why would Democrats want such an inflexible constituancy ?
My answer to the question is no. Unless said " religious voters" accept they and their religion does not dictate what is and isn't--- religion. And that religion does not dictate policy
.Appear what you seek is a Theocracy.
This is a diverse society of over 300M
Why would Democrats want such an inflexible constituancy ?
My answer to the question is no. Unless said " religious voters" accept they and their religion does not dictate what is and isn't--- religion. And that religion does not dictate policy
.Appear what you seek is a Theocracy.
57Brave
Well-known member
As a registered Democrat I vote no, they shouldn't court the " religious voter"
Or at least that brand of " religious voter"
The recent Senate election in Alabama Doug Jones received over 90% of the AA vote.
Are you telling me there wasn't a large swath of religious voters included in that 90%.
Seems like you (royal) are looking out for "religious voters" you are looking for you brand of "religious voter"
I find that delusional bordering on ... that so few get to brand what is and isn't religion. Morality
Right and wrong
Or at least that brand of " religious voter"
The recent Senate election in Alabama Doug Jones received over 90% of the AA vote.
Are you telling me there wasn't a large swath of religious voters included in that 90%.
Seems like you (royal) are looking out for "religious voters" you are looking for you brand of "religious voter"
I find that delusional bordering on ... that so few get to brand what is and isn't religion. Morality
Right and wrong
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
There is a story told far and wide about a religious man and a flood. The flood waters were nearing his house so he prayed for God to keep him safe. Around that time, a neighbor in a 4x4 pulled up and offered him a ride. The religious man declined, saying that God would deliver him to safety. The flood waters continued to rise, becoming several feet high. The man moved to the second story of his house and continued to pray. A deputy came by in a boat and told the man to jump in, but the man declined, saying that God would deliver him to safety. Hours later the man was perched on top of his roof, clinging to his chimney, and continuing to pray. A National Guard helicopter hovered overhead and dropped a rope for him, but he pushed it away, saying that God would deliver him to safety. There were no more rescue attempts and the man drowned. When he arrived in Heaven, he asked God why his prayers had been ignored and he had been allowed to drown. God responded, "Ignored? I sent a truck, a boat, and a helicopter to rescue you. What more did you want?"
(These aren't my words)
The Bible was written long before the invention of any type of gun, so the phrase “gun control” will not be found in Scripture. However, the Bible records many accounts of wars, battles, and the use of weapons. Warfare is presented as an inevitable part of living in a fallen world (Mark 13:7; James 4:1), and weaponry is a necessary part of warfare. Weapons in the Bible were also used for personal protection. In some parts of Israel, robbers were common (see Luke 10:30), and many people carried weapons when they traveled. Carrying a weapon for self-defense is never condemned in the Bible. In fact, it was mentioned in a positive light by Jesus Himself on one occasion (Luke 22:35-38).
Another biblical principle to consider is that “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Jesus said this to Peter when Peter tried to mount an imprudent “defense” of Jesus against the mob that had come to arrest Him. Peter’s actions were not only futile against such a “large crowd armed with swords and clubs” (verse 47), but his rash behavior also belied Jesus’ submissive attitude (verse 50) and worked against the fulfillment of Scripture (verse 54). There is “a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8), and Peter confused the two.
Christianity supports personal freedom. Romans 14:1-4 indicates that, when Scripture does not clearly address a particular issue, there is freedom for individual choice. America has historically embraced the concept of personal freedom that resonates with this principle, and the founding documents guarantee wide freedoms regarding firearms. Some point to Matthew 5:9, in which Jesus pronounces a blessing on the peacemakers, and apply it to the issue of gun control. The idea is that guns are antithetical to peace. This may be more of a philosophical or political idea than a theological one, however. There is nothing theologically, or even logically, that links guns to a lack of peace; sometimes, guns help maintain civil peace.
Debates over whether to control guns or how much to control them depend largely on political and philosophical arguments, not moral ones. This is not to say that there is no moral component to the issue. Obviously, the gun itself is amoral, an object that can be used for good or for evil. More important is the morality of the person wielding the gun, and that is too often the missing consideration in the gun control argument. The fact that some sinners use guns to commit sin does not mean guns are the problem. Sin is the problem, and that’s a moral and spiritual issue. Since the very beginning of humanity, people have been killing other people, with and without weapons (see Genesis 4). Taking a certain weapon out of circulation might make murder more difficult but by no means impossible.
There is nothing unspiritual about owning a gun or knowing how to use one. There is nothing wrong with protecting oneself or loved ones, even if it involves the use of weapons. We need not pretend there is never a need for guns, but pointing a gun at a person should always be a last resort. We should seek to neutralize threats without violence whenever possible. Ultimately, guns are not the problem. Sinful people are the problem.