Hardly surprising that Republicans hold less than favourable views of candidates not affiliated with the Republican Party.
Holding 'one-size-fits-all' views about the trustworthiness of Muslims disqualifies any candidate from recognition of being 'President-of-all-Americans.'
Mormons have been treated as badly, if not worse, than nineteenth century Roman Catholic immigrants to the US but have been replaced in the suspicions of many Americans by Muslims, and with as little reason as Mormons were.
Not to put too fine a point on the subject, I suspect that there is 'something rotten' in the States when it comes to choosing politicians, and what is rotten is the plethora of well-oiled and misinformed propaganda machines whose sole function is to dow discord among an electorate that feels more than it thinks.
Alas!
jeffreyJanuary 29, 2016
If Mr.Tump or Ms. Clinton wins the election.
Fasten your seat belts for a wild ride either way.
With Trump we will be holding on to the reins of a race horse, praying that we don't fall off.
With Clinton we will be be holding on to a bucking horse and we will be thrown off many times.
How bad our injuries will be, time will tell.
I think she will win sadly sadly!!!!
All the other alternatives are better, at least they have some religion.
I would say Kasich would be the best bang for the buck.
Sasha Bill KwapinskiJanuary 28, 2016
I would not vote against a candidate just for being non-religious. I would, however, refuse to support a candidate who came across as being openly hostile or antagonistic toward religion.
Comments | Return to Story
Ronnie BrayJanuary 29, 2016
Hardly surprising that Republicans hold less than favourable views of candidates not affiliated with the Republican Party. Holding 'one-size-fits-all' views about the trustworthiness of Muslims disqualifies any candidate from recognition of being 'President-of-all-Americans.' Mormons have been treated as badly, if not worse, than nineteenth century Roman Catholic immigrants to the US but have been replaced in the suspicions of many Americans by Muslims, and with as little reason as Mormons were. Not to put too fine a point on the subject, I suspect that there is 'something rotten' in the States when it comes to choosing politicians, and what is rotten is the plethora of well-oiled and misinformed propaganda machines whose sole function is to dow discord among an electorate that feels more than it thinks. Alas!
jeffreyJanuary 29, 2016
If Mr.Tump or Ms. Clinton wins the election. Fasten your seat belts for a wild ride either way. With Trump we will be holding on to the reins of a race horse, praying that we don't fall off. With Clinton we will be be holding on to a bucking horse and we will be thrown off many times. How bad our injuries will be, time will tell. I think she will win sadly sadly!!!! All the other alternatives are better, at least they have some religion. I would say Kasich would be the best bang for the buck.
Sasha Bill KwapinskiJanuary 28, 2016
I would not vote against a candidate just for being non-religious. I would, however, refuse to support a candidate who came across as being openly hostile or antagonistic toward religion.
ADD A COMMENT