While I have something of a checkered past, there's nothing really secret about it.
There's no hidden sexual encounters because for entirely too long for my liking there were no sexual encounters.
The worst they can say about my teenage sexual misadventures is that I masturbated. A lot.
I am reasonable certain that my "partner" in those encounters isn't going to betray me.
I am totally immune to the media making me feel bad about myself.
To make me feel bad about myself you have to top my wife!
Fair warning, she's declared that job to be hers exclusively and will destroy anyone else trying it.
Plus, gun owning voters, you will finally have a candidate that either already owns more guns than you, or at least WANTS to own more guns than you.
The only possible sticking point about Candidate McThag with conservatives would be abortion. But I think I will plead the 1st on that and maintain that it's not the government's job to get involved with religion. I'm not the one who made it a religious position, but now that it is... it would have to be extracted from religion before government could consider it. I have seen several convincing arguments against abortion that if it weren't for some Christian thuggery (and a couple of murders) could be made that would eventually see the practice greatly diminished.
On the same vein, I would vote to end any government funding of abortions under the same religious prohibition on the government.
Under the 1st Amendment, nobody should be forced by the government to pay for something that violates their faith. Otherwise someone might mount a successful religious objection to paying taxes. Can't have that!
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
Comments
While I would prefer to see abortion gone, for many reasons, I am pragmatic enough to realize that is a step too far in the current political climate - like ending slavery was when the Constitution was written. I'd rather take what I can get than hold out for the impossible.
ReplyDeleteI see two possible paths to go in that regard: The first would be to return the issue to the states and let them decide it individually, which is where it was before Roe vs. Wade, which even liberals will acknowledge is on legally shaky ground. The second is to set a higher bar for it to make it, as Bill Clinton said, "Safe, legal, and rare" - there are a surprisingly high number of women killed and maimed by abortion providers every year, and there are quite a few of those providers who clearly prey on women and don't bother with the most basic of medical standards - Kermit Gosnell is the most recent high profile example, who abortion supporters in the media tried to hide and ignore. I feel abortion should be limited to times when it truly is the best option and not just those times when it is convenient or an easy way out for the father. I think limits on it should be coupled with programs to reduce unwanted pregnancies before they start and to help people make better choices in life overall; in the long run this would reduce spending on government support programs as well.
If you run it long enough, the pro-life side wins because it's out there reproducing.
DeleteI'm also bothered that several providers who get government monies have their roots in what amounts to an attempt at racist genocide.
I am more bothered by the providers getting government monies and then using the government monies to lobby the government for more government monies.
DeleteThe racial genocide thingy, well, since the people being racial genocided have been told over and over since the early 1900's what the game plan of state-funded abortion is and they refuse to believe it, well, I'm over it. You can only tell someone so many times not to put their hands on a hot burner, so to speak.