U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Illuwin]

As a practical matter, Illuwin, I think your point still stands. I'm sure most politicians, like most people generally, worship money more than they worship their god.

haha!

Mormonism ideals are scary, but so are most religious institutions when looked at in black and white terms (as you've stated in your past posts). I voted for Romney in the last round of primaries in Florida, but Florida carried McCaine. I elected not to vote this round of primaries as I thought the results were a foregone conclusion based on the assumption that everyone (except Romney) was not really electable in the eyes of the public in the Florida political landscape. I don't "get" from him a feel that he is a servant of the Mormon church, but could obviously be proven wrong... if he ends up ruling with an iron first according to Mormon law, well, we at least have ways to deal with it in our government!

I think this election cycle will be interesting, last campaign was an absolute marval by Obama in terms of his market penetration. I literally could not escape ads of him on radio, tv, billboards, magazines... even video games (in game advertising in grand tourismo online i think?). If anything, Romney at least has the resources to compete with the Obama donation machine, but I really need to read more into Romneys political ideals and how they stack up before election time (I'm assuming he carries the primaries)

[Wells]

but he makes a point of appeasing our enemies

Like who?

I can't believe you posted tinfoil conspiracy garbage like this. The "connection" is between some filmmaker named Jamie Kelso and A3P. None of these are connected to the Paul campaign. Kelso and his own supporters happen to support Ron Paul, that's it.

You do know they found out about direct meetings between Paula and these people right?

[Amontoya86]

He obviously thinks his religion is the only one that deserves respect. I also interpret this as his religion is the "right" religion.

[Felya]

Mormonism ideals are scary, but so are most religious institutions when looked at in black and white terms

I think having religion as a factor in your running for office is scarier than any Mormon ideal. No one should care that he is Mormon...

[Catta]

I think having religion as a factor in your running for office is scarier than any Mormon ideal. No one should care that he is Mormon...

why not - should people not care if he was a scientologist?

[Deleted]

You do know they found out about direct meetings between Paula and these people right?

No they didn't. It was about that one film maker who said that he was "going to meet with Ron and Rand" at some convention. Approaching one of the Pauls at some convention, such as CPAC, and shaking hands and exchanging a couple sentances before the next person does the same isn't really the same as "direct meetings".

[Communion]

Choice of religion is a factor. It shapes one's view of the world. It shapes one's choice of actions in response to situations. It informs one's policy decisions. And, in the case of more fundamentalist religions (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Southern Baptists, Scientologists, etc.), it can place restrictions or requirements on a candidate that may not align very well with our ethnically and religiously diverse country.

[Felya]

why not - should people not care if he was a scientologist?

Yes, they should not, even if he is Satanist.

"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic." - JFK

[Felya]

Choice of religion is a factor. It shapes one's view of the world. It shapes one's choice of actions in response to situations. It informs one's policy decisions. And, in the case of more fundamentalist religions (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Southern Baptists, Scientologists, etc.), it can place restrictions or requirements on a candidate that may not align very well with our ethnically and religiously diverse country.

It is, but it shouldn't be. Your ideals are your ideals, if you derived them from religion or thin air should not mater. All bringing up religion does is append stereo types that are not necessarily true and creates a kinship with people who share the religion, even if they don't share ideals derived from it.

---------- Post added 2012-02-02 at 07:20 PM ----------

I personally would prefer a spiritual, agnostic, or atheistic president over a religious one. Someone who bases their decision making not on what they believe, but what they think.

I see both as congruent, with one simply being an excuse for having the thoughts that form their beliefs.

[Illuwin]

Yes, they should not, even if he is Satanist.

"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic." - JFK

People identify with one another based of off, among other things, their personal beliefs. People belonging to certain sects or religions trend (but not absolutely) to follow similar lines of thinking and ideals. It's not very feasible to not consider ones religion as a part of who they are - it's a part of who they are. One shouldn't base the entirety of their decision to vote based off of relgion, or along those lines, similar socioeconomic factors, such as that Romney is incredibly wealthy, but should certainly consider it.

[Height]

[/COLOR]

I see both as congruent, with one simply being an excuse for having the thoughts that form their beliefs.[/QUOTE]

I don't. I see one as getting their "beliefs" from observing and understanding the world around them and I see the other one getting their beliefs from a 2000 year old book, a giant volcano, or a talking snake.

[Dch48]

Personally my order of preference is

1. Santorum
2. Gingrich
3. Romney
4. Paul

I'd take any over Obama except probably Paul. I just don't like him at all. It looks like Romney vs. Obama which probably isn't that much of a choice.

I also much prefer a President who has religious ideals. This country was founded on them.

Yes, we need to support Israel fully and yes the sending of troops to Irag and Afghanistan was necessary. In Iraq, the war was over years ago. The objective was to depose Hussein. When that was accomplished, the war was over and Bush's proclamation of victory on the aircraft carrier was right on the money. What followed was a transition period the same as the occupation of Japan after WWII. We probably pulled our troops out too soon in this case.
I am also still sure that Hussein did have the WMD's. He knew we were coming in and also knew he wouldn't last long if we did, so, to gain some sort of victory by making us look bad, he either destroyed, buried, or shipped them out before we invaded.

[Amontoya86]

I personally would prefer a spiritual, agnostic, or atheistic president over a religious one. Someone who bases their decision making not on what they believe, but what they think.

[Height]

I mean you don't have to "believe" the world is spherical. The idea is to accept what can be found as true, and not to make up stories for things we don't understand yet. Most everything remains a theory so it's open to be destroyed and replaced. Nothing in religion is capable of destroying itself and replacing if it's found out to not be congruent with reality and that winds up hurting people. just my opinion :P

[Felya]

People identify with one another based of off, among other things, their personal beliefs. People belonging to certain sects or religions trend (but not absolutely) to follow similar lines of thinking and ideals. It's not very feasible to not consider ones religion as a part of who they are - it's a part of who they are. One shouldn't base the entirety of their decision to vote based off of relgion, or along those lines, similar socioeconomic factors, such as that Romney is incredibly wealthy, but should certainly consider it.

Exactly why religion should not mater. Just because you claim that you are of a religion, does not mean you share the ideals of said religion. What religion is being used for in politics, is to either create kinship with voters you would otherwise have no connection with or demonize opponents based on stereotypes of a religion's ideals, which are not necessarily shared by the candidate. It allows a person like Newt to claim he is christian, than demonize Romney for the implied ideals of Mormonism. Newt, who is accused of asking for an open marriage, can demonize a man for being Mormon because it implies he beliefs in multiple wife, despite him having 1, thanks to religion being a political topic. Religion only maters if your vote is based on stereotypes and assumptions.

[Illuwin]

It is, but it shouldn't be. Your ideals are your ideals, if you derived them from religion or thin air should not mater. All bringing up religion does is append stereo types that are not necessarily true and creates a kinship with people who share the religion, even if they don't share ideals derived from it.

---------- Post added 2012-02-02 at 07:20 PM ----------



I see both as congruent, with one simply being an excuse for having the thoughts that form their beliefs.

It's politics. We're trained to assume they are all speaking from the pulpit and we try to ascertain the core of the man based off of their life experiences. If one simply listened to speeches and debates they won't come away with a great understanding of the way that candidate would govern (The current president is a good example of this, and part of why a lot of the democratic voter base is disillusioned).

It's perfectly normal to expect people to base a portion of their vote based off of a candidate having similar world views as them, whether based on religion, personal wealth, military experience, etc.

[Height]

Yes, Obama is a good example of a person who is capable of having malleable religious beliefs. I'm fine with anyone who is religious who goes in and proves to be capable of understanding it like he does.

[Height]

So far for me it's (1) Paul/Obama (2) The rest of them ha.

[Very Tired]

Just want to make a quick note here about how smart you should see these guys in Government are compared to what the media may make them seem like.
Mitt Romney -Went to Harvard
Obama - Also went to Harvard
Ron Paul - Duke

[Felya]

I don't. I see one as getting their "beliefs" from observing and understanding the world around them and I see the other one getting their beliefs from a 2000 year old book, a giant volcano, or a talking snake.

That's an assumption based on religion and does not reflect reality. Plenty of people who believe in a religion, are also scientist. Someone being religious, does not mean they listen to talking snakes when it comes to making decisions as president. The father of the big bang theory was not atheist, but Georges Lemaître, who was a Belgian priest and a professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. The fact that you think religious people are automatically talking to snakes, is the exact reason why religion should not be a factor in politics.