I’m not sure I’d concur. I actually think she can be worse—maybe even much worse.
Admittedly, I’d never considered this angle, but I think you might be correct.
Yes, and I think Jenner would be my choice before Harris. At least I believe Jenner would be a fiscal conservative and is anti-socialist. All that being said, I still think I’d have to go 3rd party.
Jenner's political appeal to conservatives was that he was vocal in his opposition to men and boys in women's sports and bathrooms and such. He was a guest on conservative talk shows.
There would only be a difference between them in Sodom, where nature and nature's God were rejected and all forms of perversion were glorified.
However…you conveniently left off the remaining part of my quote, which was, “All that being said, I still think I’d have to go 3rd party.”
I'm just commenting on the comparison you made, not your choice.
My response to them is the same: he started this. It's a bit late to complain about men invading women's institutions, with a trophy case full of Stunning and Brave Woman of the Year Awards.
...... but is he serious or is he just trying to keep his name in front of as many news channels as possible?......... it;s doubtful he feels any remorse for the firestorm he started... ...if he did and he expressed that it could help his possibilities of getting elected... .....
wrong.... it would be called serving a greater principle over your pride and misguided policy..... even when it hurts you personally to do it.... .... ... and what good are your "principles" when you vote in a way that would allow millions of children to be indoctrinated into lgbtq ideology?... and thousands of others to be taken without their parents knowledge to butchers - to be sexually mutilated? - just so you can say you didn;t vote for someone who mutilated himself?... (or maybe someone who made some "mean" tweets)... ... but i guess it;s whatever gives you the warm fuzzies and pleasant dreams at night...... right?......
Not even close.
I certainly respect your perspective on staying in the fight for the long haul, but for me, it violates my conscience to think about voting for somebody who would actively endorse the murder of babies. I suppose you could look at it like the fundy doctrine of separation. There are degrees within that framework on what a person can tolerate. For instance, I know and respect many folk that are tee-totalers when it comes to alcohol. Though I abstain from any "strong drink" I don't refuse to patronize establishments/restaurants that sell it, so long as their environment is otherwise family oriented and relatively wholesome. Nor do I think moderate alcohol consumption is necessarily a sin. On the other hand, if somebody invites me to a New Years party, and I know that there will be what I consider to be excessive partying, even if it's on an otherwise socially acceptable level, I won't go. That's partially why I don't attend my own company Christmas party. Some would judge me as a compromiser for even daring to enter such a place that serves alcohol (a restaurant), let alone patronize it, but I'm okay with that since I won't ultimately stand before them in judgment. In regards to my vote and the abortion issue, my pragmatism has similar limits.
i owe my life to the kind of people who stay in the fight.... and who go into places and situations others run away from. .. and for the past 3 decades i have been first raised by them and lived with them... so i guess you could say it;s in my nature to never give up... if not actually in my blood... .. .