I'm a conservative Christian Republican....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Liesje

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Mar 13, 2002
Messages
19,535
Location
In the dog house
....please tell me why I should vote for John Kerry (I'm serious here). I haven't decided yet and if nothing strongly pulls me in either direction, I will vote with my party (Bush). I'm 20, female, Christian Reformed (Dutch Protestant), from a middle class family with both parents working, educated at local private schools, working full time supporting myself, attending a private college as a full time student during the school year, and will graduate with a degree in Business Communications and move to southeast USA. Given this basic info about myself, please tell me what John Kerry can do for me. (I'm not too lazy and stupid to figure it out myself, I'd just like to here what others have to say)
 
1. the tax cuts are screwing middle class families. when a poor person gets a couple hundred dollars back, the money will go directly to help pay for rent, food, clothing, etc. when a rich person gets a few hundred thousand dollars back, he/she will invest it and become even richer. when a middle class family gets a few hundred back (i think most middle class families got $400 back originally), they don't need it to make ends meet AND it's not enough to invest. Therefore on the most basic level, the middle class is the one actually paying for the war and other huge Bush expenses...since the tax cuts do not have any major impact on their lives (whereas everyone else is actually gaining something) -- also because the middle class is the largest socio-economic grouping the country (who unfairly does not control the majority of wealth AND is not the beneficiary of most government spending). John Kerry would roll back the tax cuts for those making more than $300,000 a year and spend the money to pay back the huge debt we've amassed in the past 4 years.
2. A person's religios beliefs should have no play in political decision-making. Almost any law that has religious/cultural implications will not pass in the federal government (gay marriage ban/abortion ban). So comparing religious beliefs with a presidential candidate should go along with character analysis, etc ... but should not be one of the "issues" you use to compare different candidates (since it will have to impact on the actual legislation passed). In terms of character, I think it is safe to say that George Bush is a very good politician. He changed the focus of the war on terrorism to a war in Iraq. Maybe John Kerry is not good enough a politcian to do that (which is why the republicans succeeded in labeling him a flip-flopper). However, I think it is also safe to say that Kerry is a more honest politician. Even if it's due to lack of political skill ... he IS right that Bush did "bend" the truth to go to Iraq. If your conservative religious beliefs stress morals/ethics, I think John Kerry would go the moral direction before using politics to complete an agena.
3. Bush has ignored the 18-25 age group more than any other president in recent history. The amount of federal scholarship/financial aid programs to college students has decreased since Clinton. Kerry knows his strength in our age group, and will try to increase the amount of funding going to people our age (I am 22).

This is all I have time for now ... but I am sure there are just as valid arguments against everything I said. And I would like to hear them ... since the truth is more important than opinion!
Peace...
 
This is really interesting, bootleg. You almost described me perfectly when I was 20 years old. In fact, when I was 19 [almost your age] I voted for Dole. Go figure.

So why vote for Kerry.
-- Compassionate does not describe the Republicans anymore. As a Christian, I would rather have my tax break helping out those in need than lining my pocket. I'm not saying give all your money to charity, but Jesus taught us to help the poor and those less fortunate. The Bush admin. just pushes that off on the Christian churches in this country and hopes they take care of it.

-- Speaking of Christianity, I believe the most important thing Jesus taught us was to be loving and respectful toward each other. If you aren't straight, white and Christian, you are second class in Bush's America. Look no further than the Republican convention, where most convention goers were white and the platform outlaws any kind of union that isn't a marriage between a man and woman -- no live-ins that don't want to get married, no same-sex marriages, nothing.

-- Iraq. We shouldn't have gone in, we shouldn't have spent $200 billion, we shouldn't have lost the lives we did and we especially shouldn't have gone to war without first finishing what we started in Afghanistan.

-- 9/11. Like many people in this country, I strongly supported Bush in our time of need after the attacks, but as time went on, I became more and more angry. In the three years since the attacks, we still have not caught bin Laden. Firehouses are closing in this country including mine and five others in NYC. The FDNY and NYPD have not received raises in two years because my city has to decide if we spend money on paying to protect Grand Central or giving firefighters and cops a decent wage. We shouldn't have to make those decisions. Those politicians in DC said they would do anything to help us out and they haven't. Bush said "The people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." Those people are still on the loose. I get on the subway everyday and go under the river to my job in Manhattan and I'm always afraid someone will blow the train up when I'm on it. Make no mistake, we are no safer than we were three years ago.

I remember walking through my neighborhood in Brooklyn in the weeks after 9/11 and seeing all the missing posters attached the front doors of the houses where people never came home. I can't vote for Bush because of those people and because of what happened to me that day. He said he would protect us and take care of us. He said he would find the people that hurt my city. He lied to my city and I will never forgive him for that because I will never forgot what happened to me that day.

If this doesn't convince, simply think about the values you hold as a Christian. Then decide who is more likely to show compassion toward you and others in this country. Who is more likely to show compassion toward other countries and cultures? Is 20,000 dead civilians in Iraq compassionate to you? Over 1000 soldiers have died yet our president has not gone to one funeral for our fallen -- is that compassionate?

It's funny, I've become much more liberal between 9/11 and just living in NY. And I've realized that as a middle class Christian who has only been in the Real World for a few years, my political views have changed dramatically. I was young and didn't always feel that my views were best represented by the Republicans. I'm still young and I've realized that my views are accepted time and time again on many issues by the Democrats.

Good luck with your choice -- this may be the hardest decision you're ever going to make in a voting booth.
 
i think mrs ketchup heinz is a neat christian lady when she calls people "scumbags" and tells them to "shove it".
 
thane said:
i think mrs ketchup heinz is a neat christian lady when she calls people "scumbags" and tells them to "shove it".

tsk tsk Mrs. Heinz, such strong language!
 
I can edit crap posts out of a thread within 2 seconds and don't figure that I won't if you sidetrack this thread
 
sharky said:
This is really interesting, bootleg. You almost described me perfectly when I was 20 years old. In fact, when I was 19 [almost your age] I voted for Dole. Go figure.

So why vote for Kerry.
-- Compassionate does not describe the Republicans anymore. As a Christian, I would rather have my tax break helping out those in need than lining my pocket. I'm not saying give all your money to charity, but Jesus taught us to help the poor and those less fortunate. The Bush admin. just pushes that off on the Christian churches in this country and hopes they take care of it.

-- Speaking of Christianity, I believe the most important thing Jesus taught us was to be loving and respectful toward each other. If you aren't straight, white and Christian, you are second class in Bush's America. Look no further than the Republican convention, where most convention goers were white and the platform outlaws any kind of union that isn't a marriage between a man and woman -- no live-ins that don't want to get married, no same-sex marriages, nothing.

If this doesn't convince, simply think about the values you hold as a Christian. Then decide who is more likely to show compassion toward you and others in this country. Who is more likely to show compassion toward other countries and cultures? Is 20,000 dead civilians in Iraq compassionate to you? Over 1000 soldiers have died yet our president has not gone to one funeral for our fallen -- is that compassionate?


Wow.

You kinda changed dramatically, I agree with that.

Congratulations for your true Christian values. I value the same.

:up:
 
So anyone who supports Bush does not have "TRUE" Christian Values? Or is it wrong to read to much into that?

Oh and FYI Kerry, to my knowledge has not attended any of the Funerals of the Massachusetts' citizens who have died in the war he voted for. That is compassionate?:huh:

Since the Bush tax cuts, charitable donations have increased to my Lions Club from members and non-members. Is that because so -called rich people are lining their pockets? Maybe its because people now have more money to donate to the charity they CHOOSE to rather than have Uncle Sam take and take.

Point in case, my minister at church made note that there has been more money in donations and collections this past year. Where did that come from? All the wealthy people hoarding their wealth.

Clearly if you have money you are lining your pockets.....:mad:
 
Dreadsox said:
So anyone who supports Bush does not have "TRUE" Christian Values? Or is it wrong to read to much into that?



Well, read the bible.

"Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God."

I dont think Bush is a peacemaker.

Anyway, I think that also some Bush supporters might have true Christian values. I am a Christ and I believe in what I call true Christian values, so it is not my.. policy to exclude. We are all one.

On the other hand, I don´t think it is a true Christian value to mix up religious statements with support-for-troops-statements. On my recent trip, I also visited the United States, and it was shocking for my true Christian values that the House of God was full of pictures saying "We pray for OUR troops". In my opinion, a true Christian value would be to pray for EVERYONE who is in the horror of a war. And didn´t Jesus say just that? Didn´t Jesus even say "Love your enemies"?

In my opinion, its just unreasonable to say you believe in The Sermon On The Mount, when at the same time you support war.

In the Bible you can also read:

"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
 
Well, I agree with Sparky and Anirban, and would just like to add my $.02:

Remember that the costs of this war, the historic defecit, and the abuse of government spending will not be paid for by our parents, but by OUR generation (I am in the same demographic as you). That the Bush tax cuts do more to harm us than to hurt us, in the long run. The first tax cut may have stimulated the economy, but continuing such umbrella tax cuts is irresponsible and downright dangerous. Our parents will make the social security and medicare boat, but if things continue the way they have in Washington, I have great doubts that we will. Bush has already talked of privatizing these institutions; apparently he'd rather us pay to balance the budget than restrict spending by Washington itself.

Kerry, an effective diplomat, was able and willing to step across the aisle and work with fellow Sen. John McCain to write a bill calling for fiscal responsibility in Washington, specifically an end to "government welfare" as it's been called, and a new "pay-as-you-go" policy. He will give tax cuts to those who need them most.

Realize that $400 will not even come close to covering the rising costs of medicine and living, especially if we no longer have any significant social security or medicare to speak of.

Kerry is for war when it is necessary to protect our homeland, but will not fabricate evidence in a war where only the oil companies and the government profit. He knew we needed to get rid of Saddam eventually, but wanted to take a more diplomatic approach; he also knew that if war wasn't immediately justifiable, we ought to work first to keep the humanitarian situation stable there. Bush seems to have very little compassion for the citizens of Iraq, and the oil money that was supposed to be used to rebuild the country has for the most part stayed in Halliburton's pocket.

Kerry has a timeline for withdrawal: He knows we need to bring home the vast majority of our troops at some point, but that we need to leave an Iraq who can take care of itself. That means training a police force and making an honest effort at rebuilding the country. Bush has no plan to speak of; Kerry has a timeline, and the international respect and know-how to make it happen. This is the compassionate thing to do, for both the people of Iraq, and our own citizens and soldiers..

The GOP/media has characterized Kerry as a flip-flop, but there is little evidence to support these claims. The main tagline is that he voted for the war and against funding it. This is way too simple, and not true. He voted to authorize the war if proved absolutely necessary in defense of our homeland. This was the right vote. He did vote to fund our troops, just not for the specific Republican bill that happened to pass through a Republican-controlled house. He voted against this bill because it was a bad bill: loads of money set aside for special interests to be spent at Donald Rumsfeld's discretion, partisan excess, and too little money spent actually arming our soldiers. If all the $87 billion was spent honestly on the war effort, why would soldiers families have to save up simply to supply them with body armor? This was the right vote. The Kerry campaign's only fault is that they will not attack this issue, save a weak mumbling of "I voted for it before I voted against it." They have a passive approach, hoping to let all the labelling and slander just blow over, and it may unfortunately cost Kerry the election.

Hope that helps! I applaud you for making an honest effort to consider the "other side." I come from a family who have voted on both sides throughout the years, and I have learned to look at the candidate before the party...Looks like you have the same approach, and it sure is refreshing to see! This time around, I simply feel that Kerry is the better choice by far.

Please let us know if you have any questions about anything, and keep us informed about which way you're leaning!:)
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:

Oh and FYI Kerry, to my knowledge has not attended any of the Funerals of the Massachusetts' citizens who have died in the war he voted for. That is compassionate?:huh:

The bit about Presidents attending funerals has been debated in this forum time and again over the past few years. There is NO historical precident at all for Presidents to attend funerals of fallen soldiers. It is rediculous to say this is something Bush has done wrong, when no other president in our country's history has been held to this standard.

Talkin' outta both sides of yer mouth again, Dread.

One of the reasons I can't stand coming to FYM. :huh:
 
martha said:




Talkin' outta both sides of yer mouth again, Dread.

One of the reasons I can't stand coming to FYM. :huh:

Don't come in then. I have taken a break from here too. I am not changing my posting style, nor am I going to stop making statements when I see something posted that I do not agree with, no matter what side of an issue I am on.

No, not talking out of both sides of my mouth. Making a point. It is a rediculous argument. Hence the reason for my post, to show how equally rediculous it would be to make the statement about Kerry. Before passing judgement on my and my posts, please feel free to ask a question, politely.

If I am not mistaken, you accused me of this in a gay marriage thread, an issue that has tremendously personal implications in my life and in my family.

If you care to make a personal statement about my posting, please feel free to contact me through PM.

Also, feel free to go into your personal preferences and block my posts if I am one of the reasons you do not like coming here.
 
OK, as far as relgion + politics goes, let me just say that I do and will always believe that abortion is wrong and the death penalty is wrong. Those topics you might as well save your time and not discuss. I'm really looking for insight on more internal issues like education, health care, economics, that kinda stuff. There's plenty of threads on the war and various religious debates so I've already made up my mind in those areas.

PS. I guess you can also convince me to vote for Bush if you want.
 
Last edited:
If I were voting on education alone...hands down it is Kerry. I like the idea of No Child Left Behind. I do not like the fact that it has NOT been funded, teachers, and more importantly students are getting screwed because of it.
 
Just to let you know: Abortion is kind of a non-issue anyway. Kerry is pro-choice, and though Bush plays to the conservatives on that one, he did nothing in his 4 years as president to change the abortion laws. If you are against abortion, you are out of luck in that area, but you can at least respect that Kerry hasn't said one thing and done another.

I already addressed economics (not very in-depth, but you get the picture). As far as education, Bush's No Child Left Behind has been totally underfunded and institutes a new level of standardized tests. Basically it attempts to judge a school on standardized test performances, disadvantaging students who don't perform as well as they could on this sort of test, and leading teachers to "teach for the test" as it's called. In other words, they teach multiple-choice, strictly-cirriculum geared lessons and leave little time for teaching more abstract concepts or analysis, resulting in a generation who can recite facts, but cannot think for themselves.
 
VertigoGal said:
If you are against abortion, you are out of luck in that area, but you can at least respect that Kerry hasn't said one thing and done another.

Actually, I distinctly remember reading something, probably here on FYM, that Kerry had said or implied that he was anti-abortion, but voted otherwise (am I not mistaken that he voted against a ban on partial birth abortion?)

Anyway.....
 
No, I don't think Kerry was or ever has been anti-abortion, although I could be wrong. At any rate, it's certainly not his platform this time around. Of course feel free to prove me wrong! Even then, it'd cancel out (both candidates purporting to be anti-abortion but not showing that in their actions).

Again, though, I'd stress trying to put aside your moral beliefs as far as abortion goes. You've just got to realize that no candidate in the forseeable future will do anything drastic on that issue; it's too risky.

Any other questions I could help ya out with?
 
It's kinda hard to just toss all my moral, ethical, and religious beliefs out the window which is why I need some REALLY good reasons to vote one way or the other.
 
I'm voting for Kerry because of health care costs. Health care costs have absolutely gone nuts, and I'm sorry to say that I don't think Bush has a plan to do anything about it. Thus, my vote will go to Kerry.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
It's kinda hard to just toss all my moral, ethical, and religious beliefs out the window

What are your moral, ethical and religious beliefs based on?

Politics?

Or, to pose the question in another way: do your moral, ethical and religious beliefs have all and everything to do with who you vote for? I mean, thats ok,.. it would just make me wonder, because most people base their beliefs on other things.
 
I'm a conservative christian republican too and I'm voting Bush because of (mostly) moral issues. Abortion is a very big one.
 
Personally I find the idea of a pre emptive strike against Iraq and going into a war of choice holds the biggest contradiction to my Christian beliefs.

I am a firm believer of the sparation of church and state. I think there are times you use your moral compass to guide your political stances and there are times when you do what's right for the country.
 
shart1780 said:
I'm a conservative christian republican too and I'm voting Bush because of (mostly) moral issues. Abortion is a very big one.

Because Bush is going to end it?

Do you have the same outrage in his war of choice and his high record of death penalty killings?
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
It's kinda hard to just toss all my moral, ethical, and religious beliefs out the window which is why I need some REALLY good reasons to vote one way or the other.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying neither candidate is going to do what you'd like them to do about abortion, so you should base your decision on other issues first. And of course you'll use your morals and spirituality when deciding who to vote for. If it's morally right to send people our age off to war for oil and power, or to kill 16,000 Iraqis at the very least. If it's morally right to abandon those who cannot work anymore, and leave them without any health care coverage, so they are forced to cut pills in half. If it's morally right to've been the governer of Texas with the highest number of executions in the state's history.

When you say you need some good reasons to vote one way or the other, do you mean that, or do you mean you need some good reasons to vote for Kerry instead of just going along with Bush as planned?;)
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Actually, I distinctly remember reading something, probably here on FYM, that Kerry had said or implied that he was anti-abortion, but voted otherwise (am I not mistaken that he voted against a ban on partial birth abortion?)

Anyway.....

Pro-choice does not neccessarily mean pro-abortion. For example I'm not sure what I would actually do if I had an unplanned pregnancy, but I would never presume to tell anyone else what they must do.

So a person can be personally unwilling to ever have an abortion for any reason whatsoever, yet still be able to allow others to make their own decision. So I do believe that a person can believe abortion is wrong, but allow others the right to come to their own decision on the matter. I actually think many people who consider themselves pro-choice fall into this catagory.


PS I am just giving my opinion. I did not intend to attack anyone else's opinion.
 
I just recieved an e-mail, mostly conservative junk (such as Clinton commiting felonies while in office) but it illustrates a double standards when discussing war and business by many.
I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see; have I got this straight?
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good.... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad....
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad... Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Recession under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - Bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good... Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam in custody - bad..
 
You are correct that people on both sides will always use double-standards; it's inevitable. But, as far as Serbia...there was an IMINENT genocidal situation. There was an international coalition under NATO, and a bombing campaign was able to halt the genocide with relatively few civilian and military deaths. Since when did Clinton bomb the Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim terrorists? Is genocide accpetable as long as so-called Christians are the perpetrators?

No matter what you say about Saddam, and I'll agree he was a harsh dictator who has killed many people over the years, you cannot argue that the situation there was one of the top 5 humanitarian crises at the moment. It's morbid, but the situation WAS relatively stable. We don't give a flying f*** about the people in Congo or Sudan or Burma being massacred, apparently.

I really hope this works out for the sake of the Iraqi people, I just have a bad feeling about where this is headed (bloody sectarian civil war resulting in military coup where Shi'ite or Sunni military group comes into power and oppresses the minority more harshly than Saddam was doing in the past few years; that's what I fear).

Clinton wasn't the best president to exist; he did the same thing by pulling out of Somalia when he realized there was nothing for US to win there. He didn't act soon enough in Rwanda (although, in his defense, that did all happen in less than 60 days), but at least he had the dignity to go there and apologize.

But Clinton is not running for president, Bush and Kerry are. And Kerry is, in my opinion, a far better candidate.
 
But in Iraq you had people dying in the tens of thousands at the hands of the regime annually. The casualites caused by intervention are substantially less than that of leaving Saddam in power. I think the issue of motivation and willingness ties into this, the public were willing to intervene in Iraq whereas intervention in Congo or Sudan would not recieve the political support - the shadows of Mogadishu loom large in US foreign policy, people do not accept casualties in war.

All quite difficult, I am of the opinion that the greatest blow to Islamism can be achieved by laying down a progressive and democratic Arab/Muslim state. This will not happen overnight but if Iraq can take security into its own hands over time it could grow. Only one exit strategy here - Victory.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom