Would you vote for him? #2

[Que]

How many of you would consider voting for this candidate?

Name: Jared Thompson
Age: 42
Married Yes, 22 years
Children: Two, ages 6 and 12 (attend public school)
Occupation: Truck Driver
Religion: Christian
Education: Associate Degree, Ivy Tech
Party Affiliation: Republican
Community Activities: Member of school board (voted to cut school budget by 10% and cease the payment of salaries to board members in order to meet the Governor's standard for fiscal responsibility)
What he does for fun: "I like to ride motorcycles, shoot steel, and skydive."

Where Thompson stands on some issues:

Gun Rights: “I support the repeal of LTCH requirements in Indiana and I believe the right to own and carry a gun is everyone’s right. I will not vote in favor of any legislation that hinders the rights of gun owners.”

Health Care: "I believe the law should be repealed and health care should be left to the industry to regulate."

Abortion: “I don't personally believe in abortion and believe it should be against the law. I teach my children and those around me to abstain from sex until married. However, if pregnancy does occur, it is their responsibility to accept the results of their actions, and not use abortion as a ticket to a solution.”

Taxes: “I believe in a sales tax and the government should be able to operate off of that.”

Other: “I support term limits and the abolishment of retirement benefits for political servants. If I am allowed to serve two terms, I will not run for a third.”

"Can I have your support, whether you are a Republican or not? If not, I can say that I'm not willing to alter my beliefs for your vote, but for what reason(s) could you not support me?"

 

[dukeboy_318]

I am more likely to vote for him, but like the other thread, I would have to do my research before hand. Ill list the things I like.

His views on gun control and being pro gun, the fact that he is not some rich arrogant lawyer and a common joe speaks well to me. His anti-obama care and term limits are a huge plus as well. I'm not only angry with healthcare bill but the fact that we have some senators and reps in office for over 30 yrs. Why should governors and presidents be restricted to 2 terms and congress is not. The things that worry me about him is somewhat being vague on the tax issue. I believe the government needs to cuts its spending and get rid of the income tax or at least reduce it. To me, we are paying the government to be allowed to earn a living. I would not be opposed to a federal sales tax as long as it is under 10 percent and does away with the income and other redicilous taxes such as the death tax and many others. That combined with the states sales tax of 7 percent means instead of paying 26 percent in taxes out of each pay check, I would only be paying taxes on the money I spend and that would be roughly 17 percent combined. Yes it sounds like more but its really not.

 

[Joe Williams]

There's my candidate!

 

[sj kahr k40]

I could consider voting for him because, I believe we need regular Americans in office, I would have to do more research before I would vote for him

 

[88GT]

In the absence of more information, I could vote for him. Whether or not I would vote for him requires more information.

 

[lashicoN]

I'd vote for him.

I'd proudly vote for him if he dropped the abortion issue.

 

[Viper393]

I could vote for him. Could it get any worse than what we have now? Personally I'm sick and tired of Ivy League lawyers who make politics a way of life without any idea of what it's like in the real world. I know some of them run for office with the best of intentions but they soon get tainted by the power and corruption so I'm all for term limits.

 

[right winger]

He sounds like someone I could support

 

[beararms1776]

Sounds like someone I could vote for. Being he is a truck driver by trade makes his views more believable.

 

[SavageEagle]

Nope. Can't vote for him. He flip flops on the issues.

No, seriously though, it sounds good but I'd rather have some answers to a LOT of questions before I committed.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Sounds like a guy that has the right principles.

 

[Woodsman]

Apologize for the momentary thread jack, but I've followed these two threads started by Que with interest. These two threads help to illustrate the basic problem it seems most citizens are having with determining who to vote for this time around.

The two choices so far have been either a highly educated individual or an educated blue-collar worker both with varying degrees of reasonable positions.

For some the mantra may be to vote all incumbents out and go for new blood. For others, in-depth research of the candidates past history and comments are undertaken. And for some, they may simply vote by straight party ticket to make it easier on themselves or to say they voted their convictions.

All of this appears to lead to a possible situation where many candidates could dilute the total vote count to the extent that no one actually wins, except the person on the other side who has been deemed unacceptable.

With only a few weeks to go I believe we need to narrow the search down to a candidate who fits most of the basic requirements all of us could agree upon. There will always be some facet of the candidates platform someone may not care for, however we should be mindful that under a big-tent atmosphere the tent should be formed of core constitutional values which will not be comprised.

Of course, this doesn't prevent the true politician from saying what some want to hear and then doing the complete opposite either. Or blaming his 2A vote on a staffers advice too.

No doubt some compromises will have to be made, since we are highly unlikely to get a perfect candidate all of us would completely agree on. The real solution to this dilemma as I see it is to pick a candidate who holds the largest majority of values we all have and then go all in. Likewise, we should be mindful of the persons sincerity, character, and moral integrity to vote with their constituents best interests in mind.

Good attempt by Que to highlight some of the issues and dilemmas we are facing I think. +1!

 

[Vasili]

I probably could not vote for the man. i'd like to be able to. but i can't vote for anyone who doesn't see the hypocrisy in wanting to make abortion illegal. someone who does not feel that the state's right to uphold law ends at a woman's body, that's not someone i want in charge. and let me be clear. i hate abortion. i personally think firmly that Lord God has forbid abortion to mankind and that His judgement will be swift and visited upon everyone who takes the life of their child. But it is HIS will, HIS judgement, not the laws of man that take priority. And in denying God His judgement we are clearly in violation as well. besides, personal liberty means hands off. no matter how much i feel that anyone who has an abortion WILL face the wrath of our Almighty Creator.

 

[rmabrey]

I would consider it because hes an average joe

 

[ATOMonkey]

If you believe that no one can deprive another person of life, the debate is "where does LIFE begin," not whether a woman has the choice to end that life.

I argue that life begins at conception. The DNA of the zygote, fetus, etc is unique, and all stages of development are for a person, not some unknown being. Therefore, abortion should be illegal to preserve the life of the developing person. I just don't think it's a Federal issue and should be left to the states along with all other crimes against life, liberty, or property.

I'm also in before this thing gets locked, because no abortion thread can be debated in a civil manner.

 

[Bendrx]

At this point, unfortunately, running for office makes me not trust a canidate. As for the person described, aside from outlawing abortion, I like the sounds of him. I'm against abortion, but feel that it is arguably a grey area, and one that the government should have no say in.

 

[dhdoug]

more than likely he would get my vote. the term limit thing is a head scratcher for me. is our right/duty to vote and it seems that voting was supposed to handle the #of terms. but then there is jerrymandering etc.... i realize all the sickening multi decade careers some have been ALLOWED to make of public office. IF the money and benefits are not cut back to reality, the desire to stay in those positions will remain. i dunno the perfect answer to all that, just wanted to throw that in there.

 

[ATOMonkey]

We need to either pay our representatives vastly larger sums of money, to attract the best and brightest, or we need to pay them zero to attract only the most alltruistic.

This middle of the road stuff is only attracting the weasels.

 

[jbombelli]

I can't give someone my vote based solely on what they say and promise. I have to know what their history is like. They'll promise you everything under the Sun and then do what they want later.

I need to know his past... How he's voted and what he's said when he WASN'T campaigning.

Having a (D) after your name is an automatic 3 strikes. Having an (R) is only 2.5 strikes, but that's exceedingly hard to get past.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Sure I could vote for him. I don't like his stance on abortion but his stance on other issues is great!