2012 Elections

Discuss principles, issues, news and candidates related to upcoming elections and voting.
Post Reply
User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by marc »

For the record, I am not a libertarian and I am not jaded or depressed. I know in whom I trust. I am a registered republican, but I don't care for today's republican party or platform. I'm just a disciple of Jesus Christ who won't compromise his principles according to scriptures and revelations. I try to avoid any shade of gray. It's not easy, but I've always been an all or nothing kind of guy. And I'm a deeply flawed man. :p

User avatar
A Random Phrase
Follower of Christ
Posts: 6468
Location: Staring at my computer, not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by A Random Phrase »

coachmarc wrote:It still boggles my mind how many LDS considered Mitt Romney a political savior.

Waking up!
And they still do. I have seen threads where the op lamented the wickedness of the LDS because Mitt was not voted in (even though the pundits have the final say, not the people). And I have seen threads where it was asked why God let Mitt lose.

Such fanaticism is seriously disturbing.

User avatar
A Random Phrase
Follower of Christ
Posts: 6468
Location: Staring at my computer, not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by A Random Phrase »

coachmarc wrote:
Andrew52 wrote:I considered him the best choice and the only choice. In the end, I don't think this Nation deserved him.
I think this is the biggest hang up we have. I can see both sides. On the one side, he was the best choice--the conservative choice. On the other, he supports the NDAA, preemptive war without congressional approval, Patriot Act, federal reserve, etc, etc, etc. Is it a matter of compromising principles or is it a difference of principles? I wanted to vote for Mitt. I did. But I just couldn't do it. So in the end I will be judged either for choosing the wrong candidate or voting on principle. It's a choice that I can live with. I am at peace.
The best choice, but the choice between an asp and a viper is really no choice at all.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by lundbaek »

Sarah and anyone else, what is so shameful about opposing a candidate, even an LDS candidate for POTUS who approves of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts ? Especially when a Prophet told us to "Let every loyal member of the Church look down with scorn upon any man or woman who would undermine that Constitution." Do you not realize by now that the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts violate and undermine the US Constitution ?

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by freedomforall »

lundbaek wrote:Sarah and anyone else, what is so shameful about opposing a candidate, even an LDS candidate for POTUS who approves of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts ? Especially when a Prophet told us to "Let every loyal member of the Church look down with scorn upon any man or woman who would undermine that Constitution." Do you not realize by now that the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts violate and undermine the US Constitution ?
It depends on whether people try to see eye to eye with man, or eye to eye with God...huge difference. It's easy to ignore the Constitution for the intent to tolerate, advocate, instigate or agree with socialistic programs that tear down our liberty and freedom. And so far it must extremely difficult for Mormons to read, understand, defend and uphold the law of the land provided to us by God, which is akin to scripture. Likewise for other sects in paying attention to Christ's teachings.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by Jason »

freedomfighter wrote:
lundbaek wrote:Sarah and anyone else, what is so shameful about opposing a candidate, even an LDS candidate for POTUS who approves of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts ? Especially when a Prophet told us to "Let every loyal member of the Church look down with scorn upon any man or woman who would undermine that Constitution." Do you not realize by now that the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts violate and undermine the US Constitution ?
It depends on whether people try to see eye to eye with man, or eye to eye with God...huge difference. It's easy to ignore the Constitution for the intent to tolerate, advocate, instigate or agree with socialistic programs that tear down our liberty and freedom. And so far it must extremely difficult for Mormons to read, understand, defend and uphold the law of the land provided to us by God, which is akin to scripture. Likewise for other sects in paying attention to Christ's teachings.
Its a matter of priorities. The Constitution is worthless w/o a moral people. Choose your battles wisely.....

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by freedomforall »

Legion wrote:
freedomfighter wrote:
lundbaek wrote:Sarah and anyone else, what is so shameful about opposing a candidate, even an LDS candidate for POTUS who approves of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts ? Especially when a Prophet told us to "Let every loyal member of the Church look down with scorn upon any man or woman who would undermine that Constitution." Do you not realize by now that the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts violate and undermine the US Constitution ?
It depends on whether people try to see eye to eye with man, or eye to eye with God...huge difference. It's easy to ignore the Constitution for the intent to tolerate, advocate, instigate or agree with socialistic programs that tear down our liberty and freedom. And so far it must extremely difficult for Mormons to read, understand, defend and uphold the law of the land provided to us by God, which is akin to scripture. Likewise for other sects in paying attention to Christ's teachings.
Its a matter of priorities. The Constitution is worthless w/o a moral people. Choose your battles wisely.....
Are you a moral person? If so, the Constitution is for you. It is for anyone who tries to see eye to eye with God. We as individuals have to make a choice as to whose side we're on, not collectively.

We can't throw out scripture just because people don't want to live by them now can we? The Constitution is there for those who want true freedom and liberty. God gave us both scriptures and the Constitution. And just because people may choose evil over good doesn't mean for one moment they won't be judged by their apathy toward both. Our battle is good over evil and has been since the war in heaven.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by Jason »

freedomfighter wrote:
lundbaek wrote:Sarah and anyone else, what is so shameful about opposing a candidate, even an LDS candidate for POTUS who approves of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts ? Especially when a Prophet told us to "Let every loyal member of the Church look down with scorn upon any man or woman who would undermine that Constitution." Do you not realize by now that the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts violate and undermine the US Constitution ?
It depends on whether people try to see eye to eye with man, or eye to eye with God...huge difference. It's easy to ignore the Constitution for the intent to tolerate, advocate, instigate or agree with socialistic programs that tear down our liberty and freedom. And so far it must extremely difficult for Mormons to read, understand, defend and uphold the law of the land provided to us by God, which is akin to scripture. Likewise for other sects in paying attention to Christ's teachings.
freedomfighter wrote:
Legion wrote:Its a matter of priorities. The Constitution is worthless w/o a moral people. Choose your battles wisely.....
Are you a moral person? If so, the Constitution is for you. It is for anyone who tries to see eye to eye with God. We as individuals have to make a choice as to whose side we're on, not collectively.

We can't throw out scripture just because people don't want to live by them now can we? The Constitution is there for those who want true freedom and liberty. God gave us both scriptures and the Constitution. And just because people may choose evil over good doesn't mean for one moment they won't be judged by their apathy toward both. Our battle is good over evil and has been since the war in heaven.
The point is directed at efforts to turn the ship around....which occurs one person at a time. My perspective is that one must first teach and preach morals (as well as being a living example) prior to Constitution. As you mentioned its a war between good and evil. The choice between two masters. The Lord has said that if you aren't with Him then you are against Him.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/11.23?lang=eng#22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/12.30?lang=eng#29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government isn't the problem....the problem is the people. The cure for their ailment is the gospel of Jesus Christ! The Constitution is the cart that follows the horse....

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by freedomforall »

Legion wrote:
lundbaek wrote:Sarah and anyone else, what is so shameful about opposing a candidate, even an LDS candidate for POTUS who approves of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts ? Especially when a Prophet told us to "Let every loyal member of the Church look down with scorn upon any man or woman who would undermine that Constitution." Do you not realize by now that the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, a mandatory health care program, going to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress, FedGov involvement in public education, foreign aid, and welfare bailouts violate and undermine the US Constitution ?
freedomfighter wrote:
Legion wrote:Its a matter of priorities. The Constitution is worthless w/o a moral people. Choose your battles wisely.....
Are you a moral person? If so, the Constitution is for you. It is for anyone who tries to see eye to eye with God. We as individuals have to make a choice as to whose side we're on, not collectively.

We can't throw out scripture just because people don't want to live by them now can we? The Constitution is there for those who want true freedom and liberty. God gave us both scriptures and the Constitution. And just because people may choose evil over good doesn't mean for one moment they won't be judged by their apathy toward both. Our battle is good over evil and has been since the war in heaven.
The point is directed at efforts to turn the ship around....which occurs one person at a time. My perspective is that one must first teach and preach morals (as well as being a living example) prior to Constitution. As you mentioned its a war between good and evil. The choice between two masters. The Lord has said that if you aren't with Him then you are against Him.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/11.23?lang=eng#22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/12.30?lang=eng#29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government isn't the problem....the problem is the people. The cure for their ailment is the gospel of Jesus Christ! The Constitution is the cart that follows the horse....
I agree.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

2012 Elections Fraud

Post by Elizabeth »

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/gop-legally- ... ote-fraud/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Voting machines suspiciously defaulting to Barack Obama? Buses loaded with strangers appearing at polling stations? Even ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports? In short, suspicions of vote fraud?

That’s too bad, because a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean. Impossible? No. Fact. The case is the Democratic National Committee vs. the Republican National Committee, originally from 1982. Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims. The judge, Dickinson Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, later retired but decided he would continue to control the case. The decision requires the RNC – but not the DNC – to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose.” The rest of the agreement essentially requires the RNC to follow applicable state and federal election laws. But the section cited above has been used for decades to warn off Republicans from any challenge to evidence of voter fraud in districts with “racial or ethnic populations.” The law has remained, even though the RNC recently challenged it at the appellate level only to be turned down by Judges Joseph Greenaway Jr., appointed by Bill Clinton; Dolores Sloviter, appointed by Carter; and Walter Stapleton, appointed by Ronald Reagan, in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It now is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. But two election veterans both told WND it still is hurting the fight against voter fraud in the United States.

Attorney James Bopp of the James Madison Center said the threat that the RNC has faced is that someone will allege a violation of the decree, and party officials will be standing in a courtroom on Election Day. Bopp’s organization was founded to protect the First Amendment right of all citizens of free expression and “to support litigation and public education activities in order to defend the rights of political expression and association by citizens and citizen groups as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Bopp himself has taken part in more than 60 election-related cases, including recounts, redistricting and constitutional law challenges to state and federal election laws. He said the agreement even today, amid reports of fraud across the country, prevents the RNC from doing any anti-voter fraud activity on Election Day. It is way too restrictive. It prevents the RNC from working with state parties in conducting voter integrity activities. It has been used by the DNC to harass the leadership of the RNC with false allegations of violations of the consent decree.The reason why the RNC originally agreed to the decree, rather than fight the allegations, was unclear. It was very troubling that the RNC’s effort to ensure the integrity of the vote would be undermined. While there have been periods in U.S. history in which there have been concerns about minority voting, the restrictions today are “completely unjustified.” besides a president who had a black father, and a black attorney general, the GOP also has had a black chairman. Voters would be best served to have both political parties watching for vote fraud. "

Also responding to questions about the issue was Cleta Mitchell of the Washington firm of Foley & Lardner. Mitchell is on the firm’s political law practice team and has 30 years of experience in law, politics and public policy, advising candidates, campaigns and others on state and federal campaign finance law, election law and compliance issues. She practices before the Federal Election Commission. “The RNC has been completely prohibited from doing anything in ballot security since 1982,” she told WND. “The Democrats repeatedly over the years have gotten the RNC officers into court on the weekend before the election. What it means is that for 30 years there has been no way to institutionalize, to help train state parties, to work with candidates [on vote fraud prevention issues]. Problems can be caused by malfunctioning equipment, programming errors, or “sheer incompetence” of local elections officials, she said. And sometimes by vote fraud. The problem is there’s nothing that the RNC can do in that regard because of that consent degree. A lot of things need to be done to improve state laws. … Democrats are able to be involved as they want to be.” Republicans have tried to change the decree since 2009, after Obama took office. But Debevoise has ruled that they failed to show that conditions in the U.S. had changed since 1982. Debevoise said that since most minority voters support Democrats, the RNC still has an incentive to suppress minority votes. He dismissed the idea of voter fraud and extended his own supervision of the case until 2017. In March, the 3rd Circuit issued its affirmation of Debevoise’s decision. At one political blog, called Politijim, the suspicion flowed. Obama only won by 400,000 votes in four states. ALL of which showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election, but losing by a substantial margin. All of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99 percent for Obama and had voter registrations that exceeded their population. ALL of which have public statements of problems with voting machines changing Romney votes to Obama. WND recently has reported on allegations of voter fraud, including a claim by a poll watcher in Pennsylvania who said votes reverted to Obama by default, no matter who the voter selected. The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama received a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio in which Obama got 99 percent of the vote. With evidence mounting that the vote tabulation did not reflect the true choices of voters, talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh declared: “Third-world, tin-horn dictators don’t get [these percentages]. I mean, the last guy that got this percentage of the vote was Saddam Hussein, and the people that didn’t vote for him got shot. This just doesn’t happen. Even Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] doesn’t get 100 percent or 99 percent of the vote.” It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by Elizabeth »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mitt Romney bested the competition in debates, won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency. In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than in recent history, and drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Mitt Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Mitt Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. And it’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

On Nov. 6, Mitt Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters under 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 41 / 2 million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.
The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins.But having been involved in three presidential races, two that we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004. Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the Electoral College in 2012. Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire.In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Mitt Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

2012 Elections

Post by Elizabeth »

http://www.boston.com/politicalintellig ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The White House announced on Wednesday morning that Mitt Romney will have lunch with Obama on Thursday in the private dining room at the White House, a room that is just off the Oval Office. It will be their first extended conversation since the election. Romney is also planning to meet with his former running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, tomorrow morning before his trip to the White House. Obama first raised the prospects of meeting with Romney on election night, saying he wanted to get together with his Republican rival. In a press conference a week later, he said that there are certain aspects of Romney’s record and his ideas that could be “very helpful.”

“To give you one example, I do think he did a terrific job running the Olympics,” Obama said. “And you know, that skill set of trying to figure out how do we make something work better applies to the federal government.Obama said that he wanted to hear some of Romney’s ideas about making the federal government more customer-friendly, and how to eliminate additional waste. He said that he didn’t have “some specific assignment” for Romney but wanted to “see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together. He presented some ideas during the course of the campaign that I actually agree with,” Obama said. “And so it’d be interesting to talk to him about something like that. There may be ideas that he has with respect to jobs and growth that can help middle-class families that I want to hear.”

HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor
Posts: 4229
Location: UT

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by HeirofNumenor »

On Nov. 6, Mitt Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters under 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 41 / 2 million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.
My question is, how many voters make less than $50,000 year?

And then there is the vote fraud....

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by Elizabeth »

If Mitt Romney personally reaches out to unbound electors in blue states, I believe he could get 64 additional Electoral College votes and he would be the president-elect on Dec. 17.

Each elector should seriously consider the outcome of the Benghazi hearings. They must weigh the morale of the men and women in uniform under a commander in chief who may not send additional support when they are under attack or even ask them to stand down when backup support is requested.

The founders of the Constitution gave us the Electoral College because just like this year's election, they "doubted the capacity of the people to evaluate talented and capable leaders beyond the borders of their own states."

We need a grassroots effort to educate each elector on the reasons Mitt Romney should be our next president. They must look beyond political party and vote as Americans.

All concerned citizens can reach out and ask these electors to vote for Mitt Romney on Dec. 17. This is a call to action.
Daniel G. Smith
Tremonton
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7656 ... omney.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by lundbaek »

A lot more would have been accomplished in the long run toward the restoration of constitutional principles to our government if Mitt Romney (and Jon Huntsman as well) had campaigned on a platform of return to those principles. It should be clear at least to regular readers of this forum that Mitt Romney gave no indication that he would try to steer our government back to the principles of the US Constitution. Au contraire.... One big danger that I perceived of a Romney presidency is that he would continue to lead otherwise very righteous people who should know better (a.k.a. Latter-day Saints) still further away from support of a restoration of constitutional principles in government.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by freedomforall »

Obama Meets With Romney Post Election

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-ru ... 1#50025131" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by Elizabeth »

Tennessee Electoral Votes Cast For Mitt Romney
Monday, December 17, 2012
Eleven Electoral College representatives from across Tennessee met in Nashville Monday to cast the state’s presidential votes for Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his vice-presidential running mate, Paul Ryan.

Like most states, Tennessee’s votes in the Electoral College are allocated based on a “winner take all” system – which means the electors pledged to award all 11 of the state’s votes to the candidate who received the highest amount of votes statewide in the Nov. 6 general election.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by Elizabeth »

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — In the last echo of the 2012 presidential election to fade away in Texas, all 38 of the state’s presidential electors cast their ballots for Republican nominee Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan.


The electors cast their ballots Monday as the Texas Electoral College met at the Capitol in Austin. The Romney-Ryan ticket drew all of the state’s electoral votes because it outpolled President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden handily in the Texas popular vote.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: 2012 Elections

Post by Elizabeth »

JACKSON, Mississippi -- Mississippi's six members of the Electoral College met Monday and all voted for Republican Mitt Romney, who carried the state in the presidential race. Electors met around the country in a process that formalizes Democrat Barack Obama's re-election as president.

About two dozen people watched the brief process in a small room at the Mississippi Capitol.The six electors were chosen at the state Republican convention in Jackson. They are all white men who live in the Jackson area, including Austin Barbour, who was deputy chief strategist for the Romney campaign.

Post Reply