Pence says he is open to running against Trump

Post Reply New Topic

I do not wonder. He would be described as a neoliberal which would make him despised by both sides.

I’m Jewish (though an atheist).

It wouldn’t be in my best interest to live in an “officially” Christian nation, or have leaders who believe strongly in only those who are Christian.

To put it mildly.

All the fundamentalist Christian “love” for Jews and Israel is a matter of perceived necessity for the rapture to happen. What happens to the Jews during the rapture is what many really think of Jews.

Some Jews and Israel have made a similar calculation. The thinking goes like this, “We will take the powerful political and financial support, after all we are not worried because we think the rapture thing is Meshugenah”. So far it has worked but we are playing with fire and will eventually get burnt.

I really do want Kermit the Frog to be president. I’m ready. I think the world is ready.

I know this is going to be off topic, but this phrasing infuriates me because it reminds me of Christians using this phrase as an answer to why I am single.

I mean come on. The reason Pence wants to oppose Trump is because of "hang Mike Pence" chants, and NOT because of any calling. Didn't Jesus say "turn the other cheek"? So why would it be "in God's will" that Mike Pence distances himself from the guy that mistreats him?

I am not saying he should tolerate this. I am just saying he should be citing secular reasons rather than spiritual ones.

The reason I do this hair splitting is that, like I said, I was really frustrated when people were using nearly the same phrasing as a reason why I am single. And here is a logical parallel:

1) Jesus said turn the other cheek yet Mike Pence sites Jesus as to why he doesn't

2) Jesus uplifted the outcasts yet people cite Jesus as a reason why I am single

So my real problem is 2. But 1 reminds me of 2 too much. I don't like this kind of mindset.

I am a Chritsian by the way. I just don't like when Christianity is cited to back up secular motives. Maybe thats what God meant by "don't use God's name in vain".

Dude...calm down. Its not Pence's fault that you dont have a date this Saturday night. Lol!

Just about every sentence in this post is a logical fallacy.

Everyone in the nation (except you apparently) assumed from the moment that Trump took office in 17 that Pence would someday run for POTUS as Trump's successor because Pense is an ambitious politician, and thats what Veeps do. Reagen's Veep, HW Bush, ran when Reagen's second term was over. Bill Clinton's veep, Al Gore ran against W. Bush. And Obama's veep Biden is now Potus. Pense isnt necessarily running out of "revenge". His statement about waiting to be "called" is a predictably deft statement precisely because several kinds of vague. He could mean "called by God", but he could mean "called by the people", or he could mean "called by both". He was vague about being defferential to his former boss Trump. Trump might not run again. Or he might. And either way Pense left it vague as to whether or not he would also run. He didnt flat out say "i woudl run against Trump if Trump ran".

Is the only reason some Americans do not like Pence is the Christianity, and that's all?

It's not unlikely that a few people would think like that, but I expect most would dislike him for a number of reasons.

To my mind it's not Christianity itself that's the problem, it's what the Christian does with it. If it induces them to be kind to humanity then that's a plus. Though I suspect the political system doesn't allow kind people to become presidents.

Pence looks better in a leather "bomber" jacket.

He looks rather "Pensive" "Pencive" on that youtube clip.

What happened to desatan?

"Anyone but Trump", right?

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/08 ... bout-vice/

Its not "being Christian".

One sect in America- Protestant Evangelicals, have appropriated the word "Christian" just for themselves, and have duped everyone else into doing the same. So "Christian" gets used to mean "not Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox, and even "not mainline Protestant".

So he is "Christian" in that sense. Being a member of that one sect.

And like most members of that sect he is a member of the "religious Right" which seeks to breach the divide between church and state.

Yes, Christianity is a mixed bag of sects with sometimes very different ideas about right and wrong. And I suspect many people from the "religious right" would impose their beliefs on everybody via the law, if they got the chance. They probably don't take this parable very seriously:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NKJV

Thats not true. I for one don't want church and state to be combined because that is precisely what antichrist would use. After all, he would be a religious leader, and likely a Christian, just a wrong type of Christian. So he would impose his "Christian" ideals on others, but they would get them to hell rather than heaven. So church and state should be separated in order to prevent this type of thing from happening.

Now, if by separation of church and state you mean allowing abortion and gay marriage, then I disagree with you. Imposing moral values is not the same thing as imposing religion. As a liberal, you are in favor of imposing moral values too, just different kind. For example, if you really believe that any consenting adults are allowed to do any sexual activity they want, and they also have a right to legalize it in a marriage, why don't you support polygamous marriage? Or if you believe that it is okay to kill an empbryo, why don't you think its okay to kill a baby immediately after it is born? So you see, you have some moral standards too, just different kind from Christians.

Also, if you put side by side liberals wanting to make people pay more taxes and conservatives wanting people to obey Christian values, you will see that neither side is more imposing than the other. Thats why the political spectrum is a plane rather than a line. More imposing vs less imposing is up (statist) versus down (libertarian). So either one of those can be either left or right, which means that one can not objectively say that left is for more freedom or right is for more freedom. People that do so, have a political agenda as they keep arguing that their own side is for more freedom, whichever side they happen to take.

Objectively speaking, the idea of conservatism is basically "do what used to work in the past", hence the word "conserve". Thus, they don't want to get rid of the old laws (such as the ones that enforce Christian morals) and they don't want to impose new laws either (such as the ones that force people to get rid of the guns or pay more taxes). Whether or not they are for more freedom or less freedom depends on whether you think old laws are more restrictive than new ones or the other way around, and that is a matter of opinion.

Since historically there was a separation of church and state, then "conservative" opinion would be to "conserve" this, and keep church and state separated. But since historically gay marriage wasn't allowed, then again the conservative would want to "conserve" this too, and not allow it.

As far as more freedom vs less freedom that would be libertarian vs statist, and this is a whole other topic, as neither true liberal nor true conservative is fully either one of those.