Kerry In Vietnam

[mrba]

It is hard for me to believe that there are so many people who think that it's a really good idea for us to be dismissive of the opinions of the rest of humanity. Yeah, that's the way to improve the planet

And who to invite to this elitest table? Represenatives of the 6 billion?

I for one sleep better not considering the opinions of the rest of humanity.

[shanbaum]

And who to invite to this elitest table? Represenatives of the 6 billion?

I for one sleep better not considering the opinions of the rest of humanity.

On second thought, you're right; there are opinions that deserve to be disregarded.

[rinselberg]

If you want to believe that W doesn't mean what he says, well, I suppose that's understandable, since so much of what he says is gibberish. Given that he has repeated this "vision" so many times, I choose to believe he really means it - and I haven't seen so much as a single rational explanation of why we shouldn't believe that he really means it - your personal vision notwithstanding. Yours is a nice enough vision, but why should I think that that's what W really thinks (as opposed to what he acutally says, over, and over, and over again)?

I'm not sure it is all that important whether W is a "true believer" or is just "talking fancy". I think it is only actions and outcomes that we need to look at.

I see - so, our objectives (say, removing Saddam Hussein) can't possibly coincide with their objectives (for instance, getting the U.S. to invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, confirming a significant component of their message, and consequently, enhancing their appeal to their targeted audience).

Oh, they can coincide. But the U.S. still has its objectives in Iraq. Osama has many ways to win. He can succeed in attacking us. He can occupy so much of our attention that we lose sight of other major threats. He can even coincide with our objectives: Do we automatically stop pursuing our objectives just because he seems to be "preempting" us? I also think that you may be assuming too much about what does and does not translate into more recruitment for AlQaeda. As Secretary Rumsfeld admitted just a few months ago, reliable data on AlQaeda recruitment is hard to come by. And if Rummy does have any reliable numbers, he sure aint gonna publish it unless it's going to help the President get reelected.

Really - why? What, exactly, was the rush? What was so pressing in early 2003, that it couldn't have waited long enough to continue to try to convince the recalcitrants at the U.N. to participate? That clearly could have made a difference in the war's aftermath - even W is now saying that the internationalization of the effort is important. There is a fundamental difference between the U.S., and the U.N., invading and occupying this or any other country: the perception of legitimacy.

To start with, LOGISTICS. Once we put our large Army and Marine forces into Kuwait, that in itself creates a lot of pressure to get on with it. It costs money big time to keep waiting. The soldiers did not have the benefit of hindsight: For the most part, they probably wanted to get on with it instead of waiting it out in Kuwait. Waiting generates serious morale problems. The soldiers and the overall force can lose their "edge" (sharpness). Was there anything to suggest that we were going to pick up any of the "recalcitrants", regardless of what we tried or how long we worked at it? There is also UNCERTAINTY. What's Saddam up to while we are waiting? I just heard on MSNBC (I think it was from Tommy Franks) that just before Zero Hour, both Mubarak of Egypt and Abdullah of Jordan were telling us that they were sure that Saddam had chemical WMD and that he was going to use it. There was also the concern about fighting in the full heat of summer: Although we seem to have ended up that way in the end.

Or, for that matter, what was so important that we had to leave off finishing the job we started in Afghanistan, which by all accounts has been reduced to anarchy outside of Greater Kabul?

Not sure that job can be finished by U.S. troops, if we cannot push our troops in large numbers over into Pakistan. Not sure there's anybody still worth chasing that hard on the Afghan-Pak border. Osama may not be a high priority target anymore, if he is no longer using his cell phones or satellite phones. Where's NATO? If I've been getting the right news, NATO still has not met its original pledges to Afghan, and the French just blocked deployment of the new NATO strike force, despite Karzai's recent request. Just caught a little of General Barry McCaffre on MSNBC. He did not seem all that concerned about the immediate situation in Afghan -- sounded rather upbeat about it. The next big problem there in his view is to suppress the opium crop industry. Your position, although widely shared, may be just a little too "doctrinaire".

Fact is, I always thought that leaving Saddam in power after the Gulf War was a mistake, although the catastrophe that the occupation has been has certainly made me wonder if George I wasn't more clever than he sounded (actually, I always believed that). Richard Clarke had the best analysis I've seen - the mistake in the earlier war was leaving the Republican Guard intact. Without it, Saddam would have been toasted by his own (he asserts). Of course, the outcome might have been every bit as chaotic as what we see now, but it would have been their chaos.

Some of us probably thought that it was the Republican Guard that was going to take care of Saddam, after we beat some sense into them.

And, while you're explaining why we had to invade Iraq - what was so unique about Iraq? We defeated the Soviet Union, no? With hardly a shot fired? Granted, it took a while. Granted, liberation (as opposed to containment) would have been unimaginably costly by any measures. Is that the difference? We were right to use our heads to defeat the Soviets, but should invade Iraq, because we can?

Different kind of threat. Saddam's regime disintegrates, with the WMD that everybody was so certain was there up for grabs. (I posited that one before.) We cannot keep large forces on standby in Kuwait year after year waiting to rush in if something suddenly needs to be sorted out in a hurry.

Of course it's not; given the singular status of the U.S. here on Earth, if there's anything that is particularly called for in the exercise of power, it's prudence, judgment, and forbearance. Whatever we do is likely to be perceived as arrogant, belligerent, and unjust, simply because the rest of the world can't do some of the things we can do. For that matter, I think that recent events should give everyone pause as to exactly what our capabilities are. We clearly don't know beans about occupation, not to mention (dare I use the term?) nation-building; and while Don Rumsfeld is calling the shots, there's always the danger that we'll under-resource any military effort to the point that we'll lose.

Unless how we are perceived translates directly into more AlQaeda recruitment, it's somewhat academic. And Rummy aint talking (not to me, anyway). As to the under-resourced military: That is the weakness of the "Powell doctrine" of "overwhelming force". The admin (happens to be the Bush admin, this time) finds that the mission is critical to national security. But there is not time enough to get the country sold on the kind of resources that are required to do it the "Powell" way.

It is hard for me to believe that there are so many people who think that it's a really good idea for us to be dismissive of the opinions of the rest of humanity. Yeah, that's the way to improve the planet.

Don't worry. It's probably just a few loose nuts like me.
:)

[shanbaum]

And if Rummy does have any reliable numbers, he sure aint gonna publish it unless it's going to help the President get reelected.

Well, not intentionally, anyway: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090250/

To start with, LOGISTICS. Once we put our large Army and Marine forces into Kuwait, that in itself creates a lot of pressure to get on with it. It costs money big time to keep waiting.

That's the best answer anyone's given me so far - but, consider, this really says, "we need to invade because our troops are staged for it," which strikes me as a profoundly inadequate reason. They didn't have to be there, and shouldn't have been, until the decision was made. Ooh - unless, maybe, the decision was already made!

Some of us probably thought that it was the Republican Guard that was going to take care of Saddam, after we beat some sense into them.

Nobody thought that. Well, no one who knows anything about it. Certainly, no one in Bush I.

Different kind of threat. Saddam's regime disintegrates, with the WMD that everybody was so certain was there up for grabs.

See above. No one asserted that Saddam's regime was on the verge of disintegration. On the other hand, the Soviet Union did disintegrate, and the existence of its WMD were, ah, better documented.

And we still haven't responded adequately to that threat.

[fvc2020]

Since I am not really sure how to use quotes I will do my best to answers steve's "questions"

As for Kerry's record in Vietnam. Here's a strong answer. I have listened to the reports about his purple hearts. The swift boat men who served with Kerry have not been approached by the Republicans nor they being paid to say what they are saying. They feel that he is not qualified to Commander in Chief with the lies he told about his purple hearts. Kerry was in Vietnam for four months. He got out with a very unknown law stating that a receiptent of three or more purple hearts can request to leave the service. Most swiftboatment served a mininum of 1 year, purple hearts or not. He was able to get people other that the doctors who took care of him to give him the purple hearts. The reason I bring this up is that fact that, if the roles were reversed I don't think Republicans would be going on about the President disgraceful service record. JK still does because of people like you who won't listen to both sides.

Unitl these allegation came out the one thing I could say about Jk is that he did do his duty. But now I question that duty and so should everyone else. How can you trust someone who takes that time to plan his time to make himself look sooooo good?

The swiftboat men are embarassed By JK. He's not a real miltary man and should not be playing on the hand. I come from a family of men who fought Korea and in Vietnam. I believe my husband would have been the war we are fighting right now if he wasn't retired. None of them support JK.

I will address the comment that none of the Republicans of the board would come and play. I'm not about the rest of you, but my busy season decided to started two and half week ago. I have been doing my duty for the country by making money. I have worked two weeks staight and when I get home at night I'm just tooooo tired to chat.:angry:

Christina

[Steve Machol]

The swift boat men who served with Kerry have not been approached by the Republicans nor they being paid to say what they are saying. They feel that he is not qualified to Commander in Chief with the lies he told about his purple hearts.

If you are referring the the men in the latest attack ad against Kerry, NONE of these men served with Kerry. The ones that did server with him stood with him on the podium during his nomination acceptance speech.

In fact one of these men was quoted as praising Kerry in 1996 I believe. Another one claims to have been Kerry's doctor after one of the injuries, but Kerry's medical records do not confirm his claim. I'll try to find the references.

The bottom line is that these men did not serve with Kerry and are reacting to Kerry's anti-war stands after he left the service.

From:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rry_vietnam_dc

Veteran Backs Off Attack on Kerry's War Record

BOSTON (Reuters) - John Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam has backed away from attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate, saying he made a mistake in accusing the U.S. senator of having lied about his wartime record.

George Elliott, who was one of Kerry's superiors in Vietnam when he was awarded medals for heroic actions, had signed an affidavit suggesting Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.

In the document, Elliott said, "I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

But in Friday's Boston Globe, Elliott said: "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott told the newspaper he thinks Kerry did deserve the medal.
.
.
The new attacks on Kerry sparked an angry response from Republican Sen. John McCain,also a Vietnam veteran, who called the attack dishonorable and dishonest and urged the Bush administration to also denounce the ad.

The administration distanced itself from the advertisement on Thursday but did not condemn it.

[Steve Machol]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ans/index.html

Excerpt:

Larry Thurlow, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who appears in the ad, told CNN that Kerry's boat fled from a mine blast that damaged another vessel in a March 1969 incident for which Kerry won the Bronze Star.

"Our boats immediately put automatic weapons fire onto the left bank in case there was an ambush in conjunction with the mine," said Thurlow, a Navy officer in a nearby boat at the time. "It soon became apparent there was no ambush."

But Jim Rassman, the man whose rescue from the water in that incident resulted in Kerry being decorated, said Thurlow "has a very unusual recollection of events."

"I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air," said Rassman, who has campaigned for Kerry since January.

The Navy's own letter awarding Kerry the Bronze Star also appears to be at odds with what the anti-Kerry group asserts.

The letter states Kerry exhibited "great personal courage under fire" in rescuing Rassman, an Army Green Beret officer who recommended Kerry for the decoration.

[Jana Lewis]

One of the swiftboat men retracts statements.

(snip)

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

(snip)

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

more…
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/v...

[mrba]

What if the allegations are only 30% true? What if he didn't do everything claimed, but only 1/2?


Is that any better?

[Steve Machol]

Grasping at straws again, eh? What if the allegations against Bush are only 30% true (drunk-driving arrest, cocaine use, hiding from true military service by using his father's influence to get into the National Guard.)

As much as you want to ignore it, the fact is that Kerry served his country by volunteering for the service and to go to Vietnam, while Bush avoided this service to his country. Kerry put his life on the line. Bush didn't.

[Jana Lewis]

Sour grapes..... again. C'mon! You really are bothered by the fact that Kerry SERVED his country with VALOR and Bushie ran away aren't you?

[mrba]

Grasping at straws again, eh? What if the allegations against Bush are only 30% true (drunk-driving arrest, cocaine use, hiding from true military service by using his father's influence to get into the National Guard.)

I'm not grasping at straws. Given your examle it would be better to vote for W given that we know his record and past. I really don't think we know enouph about Kerry in Vietnam to make any judgement...

As much as you want to ignore it, the fact is that Kerry served his country by volunteering for the service and to go to Vietnam, while Bush avoided this service to his country. Kerry put his life on the line. Bush didn't.

I'm not convinced that he volunteered with the same risks like so many others did. You have to admit that making home movies for posterity and for his campaign is a bit suspicious. If other vets had replied to my previous thread of whether or not that was normal differently I would be of a different opinion.

I think Kerry was and is so well connected that it is just too hard to tell about his medals and conquests. It does occur to me that someone with so many awards should be way above reproach. If he is so decorated, how could there even be a question of his honor? Only if he wasn't so honorable....

Scott

[mrba]

Sour grapes..... again. C'mon! You really are bothered by the fact that Kerry SERVED his country with VALOR and Bushie ran away aren't you?

Actually this may offend just about everyone, but I could care less about military service. It is a resume point. I think the illuminati (sp) have used usually poor men for years to fight their battles, and it makes me sick. I hold Kerry as well connected to the "real powers that be"...

[Steve Machol]

I'm not grasping at straws. Given your examle it would be better to vote for W given that we know his record and past. I really don't think we know enouph about Kerry in Vietnam to make any judgement...

You mean the military record in which George W cannot account for several months of duty while he was supposed to be hiding from the Viet Cong while in the National Guard?

Kerry's record is well-documented - much more so than Bush's.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/upda...02/02_400.html

I'm not convinced that he volunteered with the same risks like so many others did.

Really? What do you mean by 'same risks'? Are you denying the fact that he purposely put his life on the line and was subjected to enemy fire while Bush was - well, doing whatever it was that he can't now account for.

You have to admit that making home movies for posterity and for his campaign is a bit suspicious.

I answered this before. Clearly you missed this. Are you going to accuse him of the same devious scheme by carefully orchestrating those home videos with his mother while he was still a child? If so, then this man is a lot brighter and more forward thinking than even I would have imagined. ;)

Frankly there is absolutely no proof of your claim - only supposition.

If he is so decorated, how could there even be a question of his honor? Only if he wasn't so honorable....

This is another one that makes me wonder if you are pulling my leg or not. What happened to the concept of someone is innocent until proven guilty? What is to stop anyone from making any claims they want? Are you seriously saying that the fact that he is accused of something is enough to indicate guilt?

Are you aware of the smear campaigns organized against Senator McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries? By your standards the fact that he was accused of something is enough to find him guilty. That may be your standard, but I hold a much higher standard of proof than this.

I also noticed you conveniently decided to ignore this question:

What if the allegations against Bush are only 30% true (drunk-driving arrest, cocaine use, hiding from true military service by using his father's influence to get into the National Guard.)

This is based on your 30% quote here:

What if the allegations are only 30% true? What if he didn't do everything claimed, but only 1/2?

And this:

Actually this may offend just about everyone, but I could care less about military service.

Yet for some reason you cared enough to start this thread questioning Kerry's service and continue to post in it. Go figure!

[fvc2020]

to all of the wonderful liberals on our board:)


I am amazed that each one of you want to look over anything that might make your candidate less then worthy of your praise. Sour grapes is it about George W? I have nothing to be sour about. I hope the election is a good one. I hope its fair. I think the debates will be great. I did research each candidate before I made my decision to back my president. I made an informed to decision. I decide also to go with the candidate that follows my moral and religious views as well. I have said before if there was really something unethical about our president I would have a problem. His service record does look like a "normal"rich kid of the 60's. Who are we kiddling. His records are open(unlike Kerry's)and if it were really rotten information the liberal press would have found it by now.

Kerry's problem isn't just his purple hearts. He is now also being investigated for the rescue story he tells as well. He has given this story on the Senate floor multiple times and it appears they don't match each time. Also(I might add a pure real mistake)he states in those statements in the Senate that Nixon was president at the time of his actions.

Yes there are people supporting him. Two people in the book did work directly with Kerry. The doctor who treated him twice also stands behind the fact Kerry did not earn his medals.

My question to you guys and girls is this. What do you know of your candidate? Exactly what is his stand on anything? Do you feel he stands on his morals and his religion? What is his platform? Also I'm interested in knowing how he is going to "fix"your life. Another way of putting this is this. Teach me without hate toward George W to love John Kerry. See if you can be specific.

I guess we all feel very strong about this subject. Our passions show each other how important this election is to all. Even if we can't share nicely I ask that you share your information that I ask for with others. May this election be great


Christina

[Steve Machol]

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record

Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But one accuser quickly recants, and other witnesses disagree.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=231


McCain Criticizes Ad Attacking Kerry on Vietnam War Record

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...42740_2004aug5

[fvc2020]

Steve

I think we are going in circles. This afternoon the gentleman listed as taking back his statement stated that the Boston Globe only used parts of his interview to make Kerry look bad. By the way these stories have been here longer then just the DNC.

The point of all of this is to look closer a Kerry. You didn't answer my questions.

I want to also to add why is it okay to bash George W and not your Kerry? His he that much better than George W? The tables are slightly turned in the other direction now.

Isn't there a way we can debate the real issues and skip all the bs. It really would be more fun


Christina :cheers:

[rep]

Hi everyone, I'm back from another road trip. I really don't care what Bush or Kerry did during their youth. When your young you do and say stupid things. If there's anyone on this board that disagrees you just aren't old enough to realize how dumb and stupid the things you are doing and saying are. Both candidates are guilty of improper conduct and language during their youth

What I do care about is their record as mature adults. One candidate stands out far above the other and yes I am voting for that candidate.

You heard it here first, he will win in November by a large margin. The public has already voted with their channel changers at the democratic national convention. It will be a big enough margin that there will be no doubt this time who won and yes there will be great bitterness again. Instead of blaming the liberal agenda, the party will blame the candidate, again.

I also noticed while I was away that O'Riley was talking about those red T-Shirts shortly after we were. In addition the Republicans are now talking about major tax reform and gutting the IRS for a consumption tax or national sales tax, after we just had that discussion. Can it be we are being monitored?

Rep

[Steve Machol]

My question to you guys and girls is this. What do you know of your candidate? Exactly what is his stand on anything? Do you feel he stands on his morals and his religion? What is his platform? Also I'm interested in knowing how he is going to "fix"your life. Another way of putting this is this. Teach me without hate toward George W to love John Kerry. See if you can be specific.

That's a fair question for all of us. I freely admit that my passion is more anti-Bush than it is pro-Kerry. Simply put, I do not trust George Bush to defend the Constitution and our freedoms. Nothing in the man inspires confidence that he truly believes in the freedoms and ideals that our Constitution is supposed to represent. And as far as I'm concerned his record indicates a lack of understanding and respect for personal freedom. I am also very uncormfortable with his blatant use of his 'faith' (which I has reason to believe is not genuine and is politically motivated.)

As for Kerry, I believe that he will respect our freedoms and that he is truly commited to protecting them and the Constitution. No matter what the Bush camp conjures up, he risked his life and fought for our country while Bush hid. And rather than admit that his National Guard service was done to avoid serving in Vietnam, Bush instead tries to defuse the issue by attacking Kerry's record (albeit through his surrogates and not directly. Karl Rove would not let him make that blunder.) To me this says a lot about the characters of the two men.

I also believe Kerry is a religious man, but is not the kind to use it cynically for political gain. I distust people who use religion for political gain. I'm not interested in living in a Theocracy. I believe a President Kerry would do his best to represent all Americans, while I don't believe Bush really cares about anyone who disagrees with him.

In short, I'm not looking for someone to 'fix' my life. I'm looking for someone to lead this country and respect and protect the freedoms of all Americans. I have more faith that Kerry will do a much better job of this than Bush has.

[Steve Machol]

I want to also to add why is it okay to bash George W and not your Kerry? His he that much better than George W? The tables are slightly turned in the other direction now.

Sorry I was responding while you were writing this. I don't understand what you mean. Where did I ever say it was 'okay to bash George W and not Kerry'? If you will note, this thread was started by someone who's purpose was to attack Kerry. This person has started a number of threads doing the exact same thing.. My responses were in defense of Kerry since I feel these attacks are unfair and unwarranted. Are you saying that we should not do this?

Note: I even defended Bush when I felt it was warranted:

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...4&postcount=38


You'll also note that I have never started a single thread 'attacking' Bush. However I will defend Kerry if I feel the need. That is my right (at least for now.) And I will use the counterarguments about Bush to highlight the hypocrisy I see when some people apply one standard to Kerry and yet another one to Bush. Again how does this fit into your 'okay to bash George W and not your Kerry' theme?

Isn't there a way we can debate the real issues and skip all the bs. It really would be more fun.

I agree. However I think these attacks on Kerry are the real bs and not my questioning of these attacks. It's certainly not fun to see all the negativity and lies that are being spread.

[rinselberg]

"W" wasn't hiding from the VC or anybody else. He just wanted to be in the right place in the event that the USSR sent a squadron of "Bear" or 'Bison" long-range bombers at us right over the North Pole.

Actually, there was some Air Force National Guard service in Vietnam. I remember General Barry McCaffre talking about it on MSNBC. So when "W" signed up for the National Guard, his probability of being sent to Southeast Asia was actually (if you view it retroactively -- with hindsight) mathematically greater than Zero. And he didn't ever get court-martialed. Deserves a medal, I say!

[Steve Machol]

So when "W" signed up for the National Guard, his probability of being sent to Southeast Asia was actually (if you view it retroactively -- with hindsight) mathematically greater than Zero.

Actually (and only since you brought it up) Bush specifically requested not to be sent overseas in his National Guard application.

And if I was much better at trying to 'attack' Bush at every available opportunity I would have kept the link to the page that showed the PDF of this application and his signature. ;)

[rinselberg]

Bush specifically requested not to be sent overseas in his National Guard application ...

Oh really? I just happen to have the President's original National Guard application in front of me right now. All I see in the space for "specific requests" is kind of a blotch ...

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Hi All:

This has been one of those conversations that I was going to read and not comment on. To me, John Kerry’s actions during his four months in Vietnam have little or nothing to do with whether or not he is qualified to be President. My problem has to do with his actions after those four months. In 1971, Kerry told Congress that U. S. Troops (that includes me), “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tapes wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war…”

I flew as a Scout Pilot for the 7/1 Air Cavalry in Vietnam. A mission that did not involve a real shooting fight was considered a waste of time and boring as hell. With that said, I cannot recall finishing off a wounded bad guy and then being awarded a medal for the action. In fact, I cannot recall anyone ever being recognized for killing just one combatant. As for the rest of his testimony, we were too busy trying to stay alive to indulge in the amusements he described.

Roy R. Ferguson

[Spexvet]

to all of the wonderful liberals on our board:)


I am amazed that each one of you want to look over anything that might make your candidate less then worthy of your praise.

And ywet you overlook W's drunk driving, draft dodging and cocaine use.

[QUOTE=fvc2020] I did research each candidate before I made my decision to back my president. I made an informed to decision. I decide also to go with the candidate that follows my moral and religious views as well.

Do you feel he stands on his morals and his religion?

Christina

Since we live in a republic, and he REPRESENTS his constituency, I want him to stand on MY morals and MY religion, not HIS.