Maybe Arizona Senator Mark Kelly should run for President

It is common practice that if a president's vice-president wants their party's nomination in the next presidential election cycle when the president withdraws from running or is term-limited out, then the vice-president wins the party's nomination. Mike Pence was an exception to the common practice this year, but he was running against the president he was vice-president for.

Maybe Mark Kelly has no interest in running for president and is only in this conversation for Kamala Harris' VP because of electoral map considerations(in the U.S. where one votes counts for more than one simply voting, and Arizona is an important state in those considerations). My guess is that Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania will be her VP pick, another state that is important in electoral map considerations, and could be THE state that decides the winner of the Electoral College.

 

VoteMatch Question & Answer
(Click on question for explanation and background) Based on these stances:
(Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale) Against making it harder for women to access health care: Strongly Favors topic 1
Supports every woman's right to choose: Favors topic 1
Supports reproductive rights, health and gender equity: Strongly Favors topic 1
Judicially liberal, according to CC survey: Favors topic 1
Pro-Planned Parenthood, according to CC survey: Strongly Favors topic 1
Anti-parental notification, according to CC survey: Favors topic 1
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale) Demand accountability on deep systemic issues with racism: Strongly Favors topic 2
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale) Wrong that LGBTQ people can be married and get fired for it: Strongly Favors topic 3
Human Rights Campaign: endorsed as voice for equality: Strongly Favors topic 3
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale) Supports a tax credit for family and informal caregivers: Strongly Favors topic 5
Oppose any efforts to turn Medicare into a voucher program: Strongly Favors topic 5
Health care is a right; supports public option: Strongly Favors topic 5
Allow Medicare buy-in; limited public option: Strongly Favors topic 5
Medicare needn't be barred from negotiating drug prices: Strongly Favors topic 5
Employer health insurance should stay; improve care access: Opposes topic 5
Ensure healthcare access, unsure of single-payer care: Opposes topic 5
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale) Oppose cutting or eliminating funding sources: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Social Security & Medicare are promises to seniors: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Don't weaken Social Security; nor gamble retirement funds: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale) Expand access to early education; pay teachers a decent wage: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Support post-secondary training; ease student debt: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fight EPA regulatory over-reach
(+5 points on Social scale) Weakening standards have been unequivocal disaster: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Protect Grand Canyon from uranium mining: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale) Address racial justice issues threatening Black lives: Opposes topic 9
We need to reform policing, not defund police departments: Opposes topic 9
Support law enforcement, according to CC survey: Favors topic 9
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale) The issue of gun violence is personal for Gabby and me: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Endorsed by Everytown for Gun Safety for gun-sense majority: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Owns guns but favors commonsense legislation: Opposes topic 10
Gun rights & safety from gun violence not incompatible: Strongly Opposes topic 10
A gun is designed for one thing--to kill: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Gun control is a political issue and we need to have a vote: Opposes topic 10
Congress has done absolutely nothing to stop gun violence: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Pro-gun rights, according to CC survey: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale) Against Trump tax cuts: need to look out for middle class: Favors topic 11
Undo tax cuts, according to CC survey: Strongly Favors topic 11
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+5 points on Social scale) Better border technology, not wall; citizenship for DREAMers: Favors topic 12
Not for open borders but have to treat people fairly: Favors topic 12
Strong, effective border security; protect DREAMers: Favors topic 12
Senate should pass path to citizenship for DREAMers: Strongly Favors topic 12
Secure the southern border without demonizing migrants: Strongly Favors topic 12
Anti-border security, according to CC survey: Favors topic 12
Support & expand free trade
(0 points on Economic scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Support American Exceptionalism
(-5 points on Economic scale) Committed to rebuilding alliances & restoring US leadership: Strongly Opposes topic



Mark Kelly is a Populist-Leaning Liberal
(Click for details)

 

My score is different than Senator Kelly's.

 

I get that what you just stated squares with you, but how does this square with Kelly? His record speaks for itself & should never be condoned by any church. It sounds to me like they are enamored with having a Catholic in the position more than they are concerned about the actual positions of said Catholic because he presents better than Biden, also Catholic.
Let me just guess that his number one job would be some egregious form of gun control, for his wife who he has admirably supported after her assassination attempt. Count on it. How is that a step forward for the country?

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are asking about as it relates to Senator Kelly and his potentially being picked to be Vice President Harris' VP.

 

Well, I don't consider religion affiliations when voting. I consider voting to be a secular exercise. My religious views don't come into play in deciding the size, reach, and scope of government.

 

Cop out. That ‘size, reach, & scope of government’ can/will go against your Christian values should you disregard their platform. How would someone square that vote of approval with God, plead ignorance? Every day of living under their policy is an affront to me. There is no, zilch, zero, never…….. a reason for a Christian to vote the new progressive left. If they do, they are either stupid, gullible, uninformed or a pathetic combination of the three.

 

God chose His elect before the foundation, before they had "done any good or evil". Christ, as their Surety, met ALL of the conditions for their salvation. God loves His elect, because He chose to love His elect. God judged me in Christ at the cross. Christ is ALL my plea, not anything I have done, said, or thought, or will ever do, say, or think, nor anything I have failed to do, say, or think, or will ever fail to do, say, or think. While on this earth, I am still living in a vile, sin-infested body. My body won't be made new until Christ returns. At this point, it is only my soul that the Holy Spirit has regenerated.

And for the record, I will not be voting for candidates of the Progressive Left nor of the MAGA National Conservative Right.

 

I should further state that regardless of whether I vote or don't vote, regardless of how I vote(and this applies to everybody), the result will be whatever God has ordained for His purposes and glory.

Daniel 2:21 He removeth kings, and setteth up kings.

 

Another response I could make on this issue, if one was to say that one's ultimate destination depends upon not casting a "wrong" vote(which it doesn't and what a "right" or "wrong" vote is, if one wishes to look at it that way, is a subjective opinion, anyway) is that perhaps it is better not to be involved in voting at all so as to avoid voting the "wrong" way.

 

I am not sure votes have put anyone in the White House since Andy Jackson.

 

Votes have never put anyone in the White House, and never will.

Daniel 2:21 He removeth kings, and setteth up kings.

 

I find the following to be well reasoned, even though I have voted.

David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It.

“One of the signs of the great Apostacy, was the union of Church and State. Its chosen symbol was a woman upon the back of a seven headed and ten horned beast. It is almost uniformly admitted, among American Protestants, that this is a well chosen symbol to represent the absurd, and unnatural union of Church and State. It is generally conceded, that the woman represents the Church, and the beast the old Roman civil government. This being true, it would appear far more natural for her to be riding the beast, than for him to have his locomotion promoted by the help of the woman! When the State comes forward and proffers its assistance, and the Church voluntarily accepts of such help, it might be a question, which would be the most to blame; the Church for accepting, or the State for offering such assistance. But when the Church gives, unasked, her power to the beast, no excuse can reasonably be pleaded. If the State supporting the Church, is called an adulterous union, I am unable to see, why the union is not equally intimate, and criminal, when the Church supports the State, by participating in all its responsibilities. When the Church offers her fellowship, and co-operation in framing all the laws of the land, and in choosing its judicial and executive officers - when even her members refuse not to become legislators, and are even forward to fill all the offices of human governments, I cannot see, but the relation between church and State, is as intimate as ever, and just as illegal. Ezekiel chided the ancient Hebrews for seeking such union with the nations; and he compares Israel to a woman of the lowest infamy. It is exceedingly painful to me, to see how aptly these symbols of John and Ezekiel apply to modern professors. But how greatly would I rejoice, if the reformation of the 19th century would arise and put on her beautiful garments, and show herself to be the true spouse of Christ. May the good Lord grant that this noble brotherhood, that I so dearly love, may soon see the whole truth! But here, I am met with the objection, that these institutions are ordained of God. And he who resists them resists an ordinance of God, and shall receive punishment. Let me here pause, and remark, that I would sooner be understood as taking the popular view of this passage, rather than appear to countenance any kind of war. Nothing is further from my intention. But the fact of civil government being ordained of God, is no proof of Divine approbation. So long as it can be clearly shown that he has ordained that one sinner should punish another, so long as we read in Isaiah, that Cyrus was sent against Babylon, although he knew not God, so long as we find it not difficult to admit the application of the above passage, to civil government, whether such be its meaning or not. To make the admission saves much time, and leaves the argument much more compact. Something is gained and nothing lost by granting all we can to our opponents. That God can overrule sin, without being responsible for its commission, and without having any complicity with it, is a thing so plain, that to turn aside to explain it would almost be an insult to those for whom these columns are written. Let a hint suffice. Pharaoh was raised up by God for a certain purpose, although his behavior was far from being approved of God. With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him, who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.”

 

The pick is in, no Kelly, just another groomer, & an attempt to tamp down the Muslim unrest



MAGA War Room
@MAGAIncWarRoom
Tim Walz is a weird radical liberal.

What could be weirder than signing a bill requiring schools to stock tampons in boys' bathrooms?

Or weirder than signing legislation allowing minors to receive sex change operations?