ChristiansUnite Forums

I know that my vote won’t change who the president will be. So I look at voting to be more like voicing one’s opinion. I went to vote-smart.org and looked through the list of presidential candidates (http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All). There are almost 100 of them, ranging from Christian to Pagan and Communist to Libertarian. After clicking on a candidate’s name, there are some basics about him/her. Each candidate has the option of responding to vote-smart.org’s questions on various issues. Answers to those questions are shown if the “Issue Positions (NPAT)” link is clicked.

I decided that I won’t vote for somebody simply because other people are. And I can’t vote for the one that’s pro-life, because many are. There are so many issues, some important and some not important whatsoever (at least in my opinion).

To try and decide who to vote for I made a short list of the most important issues. Then I ruled out everyone who doesn’t have the same position as I on them.

Joseph Charles Schriner, a presidential candidate, wrote: “In Juarvez, Mexico, I found massive areas of stark poverty, then looked at the fence that divided Juarvez & a much more affluent El Paso, Texas. Then I wondered: ‘What Would Jesus Do With The Fence?’ Easy answer.” America is filthy rich compared to the world as a whole. Yet we still hoard our wealth by limiting the number of people we let into America.

I decided that the two most important things to look for in a candidate were that he/she believes in opening our borders, and that he/she is pro-life. After looking through all of the candidates answers regarding the two most important issues, I only found three candidates that meet what I consider requirements. Those candidates are Joseph Charles Schriner, Keith Russell Judd, and Michael Tracy Miller. Michael Tracy Miller supports homosexual couples getting marriage certificates and for his religion he apparently gave “none” as his answer, so I cut him from my list. The other two are Christians, Pro-life, support open borders, and neither believe the government should be giving marriage licenses to homosexual couples. They both seem like the best candidates out of the 90-something running. So in order to decide which of the two I liked more than the other, I looked into some other issues. I found that Keith Russell Judd believes we should eliminate international aid programs, and I disagree. Also, Judd thinks abortion should be legal in the event of incest or rape, and I disagree.

So I will be voting for Joseph Charles Schriner. Also, though I realize it’s not important as far as a presidential issue, I liked the last sentence of his closing statement: “I ask Americans to cut back dramatically on their lifestyles across the board (house sharing, less food, less energy use...), and funnel the savings into the inner cities here and to the Third World.”

Mr. Joseph Charles Schriner
Current Office: Challenger
Office Seeking: President
Party: Independent

Background Information

Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Liz
3 Children: Sarah, Joseph, Jonathan.
Birthdate: 03/03/1955
Birthplace: Cleveland, OH
Home City: Bluffton, OH
Religion: Roman Catholic

Education:
BS, Journalism, Bowling Green State University, 1978
Attended, Bluffton College, 1973.

Professional Experience:
Painter and Handyman, 2001-present
Director, Independent Catholic Ministry, 1998-present
Freelance Journalist, 1990-present
Certified Drugs and Alcohol Couselor, Lorain County Council on Alcoholism, 1983-1990
Reporter, Sandusky Register and The Metropolitian, 1978-1982.

Political Experience:
Candidate, United States President, 2000.

Organizations:
Member, Ohio Counselor and Social Work Board, 1985-present
Member, Friends of the Library, 1998
Member, St. Malachi's Inner City Outreach, Ohio, 1980-1984
Member, YMCA Swim Team, 1982
Coach, Little League Baseball, 1975
Ohio Chemical Dependency Counselor Credentialing Board.

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Mental Health Committee, Brown County, OH.

He would:
Greatly Decrease Funding c) Defense
Greatly Decrease Funding f) Homeland security
Greatly Increase Funding g) International aid
Eliminate Funding m) Space exploration programs
Greatly Increase Funding o) Welfare
Greatly Increase Funding p) Other Inner City Help
Greatly Decrease Funding a) Armed Forces personnel training
Greatly Decrease Funding c) Military hardware
Greatly Decrease Funding d) Modernization of weaponry and equipment
Greatly Increase e) Gasoline taxes
 
 X  b) Eliminate the use of the death penalty for federal crimes.
 X  m) Support affirmative action in public college admissions.
X  c) The federal government should continue affirmative action programs.
X  d) Relax restrictions barring legal immigrants from using social programs (e.g. public housing, food stamps).
 X  g) Other or expanded principles
In Juarvez, Mexico, I found massive areas of stark poverty, then looked at the fence that divided Juarvez & a much more affluent El Paso, Texas. Then I wondered: 'What Would Jesus Do With The Fence?" Easy answer.  
g) Other or expanded principles
America has more than 2,000 nuclear missles aimed all over the world, invoking fear. In Ohmaha, NE, Catholic Social Action Director Fr. Thom McCaslin told me we should take the lead by disarming our nuclear weapons. I agree.

 ::)

"I interviewed a family whose response to 9/11 was to financially adopt an orphan near the Afgan/Pakistan border. If kids grow up hopeless they join gangs, or terrorist cells. Let's fight terrorism at it's roots." - Joseph Charles Schriner

I think when people fight hate with love it is much more effective. The U.S. spends 400 billion dollars a year on killing power. It would only take 5 percent of that to feed every starving child in the world. If it would only take 5 percent, imagine how much more good could be done if all $400,000,000,000 a year was spent loving people instead of on more killing power? What bad that would come out of not having killing power would be FAR, FAR outweighed by the good that would come of it. No more people starving to death, vaccines for everybody, medical attention to anybody who needs it, the list goes on and on. Of course it's not going to happen though. Too many people want to KILL-KILL-KILL.

ROFL!!
I have to laugh at you when you think, Americans are rich. Wrong, I am poor as far as money goes. I am rich however, with the spirit of Christ. ;D
Thats all that matters to me, is God. Money what will it get you,  Nothing but misery. The only thing money does is make your life easier, if you are not a Christian.

Well I didn't mean every American was rich. I meant the vast majority of them are. Even people we in America call poor are rich compared to the many people in this world who are actually poor. The following paragraph explains why I consider the vast majority of Americans to be rich.

One out of five people in the world make less than $7 a week, while most of us Americans make hundreds of dollars a week. Most people in the world cannot afford a car, but most of us own at least one. One out of eight people in the world don’t have enough food to eat, while most of us are overweight. We have VCRs; color TVs, and PCs, while many people around the world don’t even have the most basic vaccines to prevent disease. My point here is it’s undeniable that most Americans are rich.

I used to think it was only one or two small countries that had a lot of people who were dirt poor. But the truth I now realize is the annual income for one out of five people in the world is less than $365 a year. The starving children on television aren't few, like most people think. Thousands and thousands of them die each day from a lack of food. That's not including adults.

I used to try and justify spending money left and right. Every dollar I wasted dining in luxury was at least a couple days worth of food for a starving person. How many people must have died of starvation because I was so wasteful with my money? I still feel guilty when I waste money on even small luxuries. But that guilty feeling is a good thing. It keeps me in check for the most part. I wish I could find some way to get other people to sell what they don't need, and not be so wasteful with their money. But people come up with so many excuses why they should hold on to their wealth, and why they should spend (waste) money on this and that. But, then again I do too once in a while. So I acknowledge that if there's a finger to be pointed, it needs to be point at me too.

(In case anybody is looking to argue with me: no this is not my computer.)

You do have some valid points! A friend and I were discussing this recently. We could all do with less and so be able to do more for others. The added bonus is that we then become more thankful for what we do have and take less for granted. Too often, we trust ourselves to provide when we should be trusting God. The more we have, the more we want. What ungrateful children! We should all learn to be good (or better) stewards with what the Lord has provided for us!

However, if I take food from my children to provide for other children then I haven't solved a problem, I've simply transferred it.
As a country, we can give everything to others and leave nothing for ourselves. That's the problem I see with your candidate. He wants no protection for our country and wants to remove borders and give all away to help others. How long would it be until we were no longer our country but just like the ones that need help? Solving one problem by creating another isn't really a solution.

We could, but that's not what I, nor Schriner are suggesting. We could (and currently do) have much more than others. Or we could have less than others. But what I think would be most fair is if we shared with others. Sharing doesn't mean giving everything. Ideally it would mean we become equal. Instead of the third world remaining dirt poor, and us remaining filthy rich, we could both just be equal. Sure that might mean no big screen TVs or expensive cars, but it would also mean that others wouldn't starve. There is plenty of food available to all, or at least there would be if people didn't waste it. Americans throw hundreds of millions of pounds of food away every day. The government pays farmers not to grow food. Farmers burn crops to make their other crops worth more money. Land is used to grow luxury crops like tobacco instead of food. Ideally the borders could be opened, and nobody would be without food. Of course I'm only speaking about ideals. Such things won't happen since there is such a great love of money.

Such things won't happen since there is such a great love of money.

That's probably one of many reasons.  :)