Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

1st rule of essays: Give credit to sources - https://stampaday.wordpress.com/2016/12 ... of-rights/

Arenara:
The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.
Website linked above regarding essays:
The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.
No problem with giving everyone a description of the Bill of Rights, but please give credit to sources cited if that is where you obtained it.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Fiannan wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:11 pm 1st rule of essays: Give credit to sources - https://stampaday.wordpress.com/2016/12 ... of-rights/

Arenara:
The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.
Website linked above regarding essays:
The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.
No problem with giving everyone a description of the Bill of Rights, but please give credit to sources cited if that is where you obtained it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _of_Rights

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

Arenera wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:21 pm
Fiannan wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:11 pm 1st rule of essays: Give credit to sources - https://stampaday.wordpress.com/2016/12 ... of-rights/

Arenara:
The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.
Website linked above regarding essays:
The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.
No problem with giving everyone a description of the Bill of Rights, but please give credit to sources cited if that is where you obtained it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _of_Rights
Now that's better. Always citing a source will save one a lot of hurt if they ever go to university in the future and have to do a term paper.

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

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by lundbaek »

Mitt Romney has never demonstrated in any way awareness or allegiance to the Constitution of the United States in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. He has held no correct principles whatsoever, as it relates to the proper and very limited scope of government. He has shown support of several actions or proposed actions of government that we should recognize as in violation of the US Constitution, in particular of the Constitution as it was intended to be understood by the One who established it "by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto that very purpose". Instead of leading the charge toward restoration of constitutional principles in government, like a pied piper he poses a danger of leading people away from support of a restoration of constitutional principles in government.

He sent messages that he would retain most of Obamacare even if repealed. You should know that any FedGov intrusion into public healthcare is unconstitutional.

He has made clear his support of preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)

He made clear his support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, in violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, which would undermine the US Constitution. (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which are not permitted under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Section 1, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

It should be obvious by now that Mitt Romney doesn't understand the US Constitution, doesn't understand his responsibility to it as a Latter-day Saint, and/or doesn't have the integrity to be guided by it. But that can be said of most LDS voters in the United States.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

lundbaek wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:25 pm Mitt Romney has never demonstrated in any way awareness or allegiance to the Constitution of the United States in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. He has held no correct principles whatsoever, as it relates to the proper and very limited scope of government. He has shown support of several actions or proposed actions of government that we should recognize as in violation of the US Constitution, in particular of the Constitution as it was intended to be understood by the One who established it "by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto that very purpose". Instead of leading the charge toward restoration of constitutional principles in government, like a pied piper he poses a danger of leading people away from support of a restoration of constitutional principles in government.

He sent messages that he would retain most of Obamacare even if repealed. You should know that any FedGov intrusion into public healthcare is unconstitutional.

He has made clear his support of preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)

He made clear his support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, in violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, which would undermine the US Constitution. (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which are not permitted under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Section 1, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

It should be obvious by now that Mitt Romney doesn't understand the US Constitution, doesn't understand his responsibility to it as a Latter-day Saint, and/or doesn't have the integrity to be guided by it. But that can be said of most LDS voters in the United States.
Fiannan mentioned Strict Constitutionalists. Do you consider yourself to be a Strict Constitutionlist?

As I have reviewed a little the votes given to Constitution Party Candidates to be around 1 %, does that mean that there is little support for Strict Constitutionalism?

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by larsenb »

Arenera wrote: January 9th, 2018, 8:04 am Jon Huntsman Sr. backs Mitt Romney for Senate, says he’d represent Utah ‘very, very well’
Washington • Jon Huntsman Sr. has joined a growing chorus of prominent Utahns in encouraging Mitt Romney to run for the Senate in 2018 now that Sen. Orrin Hatch is retiring at the end of his term.

Huntsman, who had backed several of Romney’s previous political campaigns but who funded his son Jon Huntsman Jr.’s 2012 bid for president over Romney, says he believes the former Massachusetts governor and now-Utah resident would be a great fit in the Senate at a critical time.

“I have to say that he would represent Utah very, very well,” Huntsman Sr. told The Salt Lake Tribune. “He’d bring credibility to the United States Senate. I believe Mitt has gone through enough political, business and civic leadership that he would be probably the most articulate and knowledgeable senator that we would have in the U.S. Senate today. I would be a strong and wholehearted supporter of Mitt.”

“He’ll take it issue by issue and if he concurs with the president, he’ll let his feelings be known positively,” Huntsman Sr. said. “I have a good feeling about Mitt right now. He and the president will see eye to eye on many things and there’ll be a number of issues, of course, that they’ll find honest disagreement with. That’s OK. That’s part of the job.”
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/20 ... very-well/


Jon Huntsman's another one. Just ask the Haight family what they think of Jon Huntsman.

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

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by lundbaek »

I am a strict constitutionalist in that I believe the US Constitution was established to protect "the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."

The Constitution does not permit/authorize FedGov involvement in public healthcare, and that includes ObamaCare (See the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution),

I oppose preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.) And I consider the so-called War Powers Act a violation of the Constitution,

I consider the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, a violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution),

I consider the denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused but not found guilty of perceived terrorism, including the National Defense Authorization Act a violations of the US Constitution (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution),

I consider "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money (and any other forms of welfare including foreign aid) a violation of the Constitution (See the US Constitution Articles I & II, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

Article V of the US Constitution provides a formal process by which amendments to the Constitution may be made. However, there has evolved an informal amendment process which has allowed for changes in the Constitution without altering or adding to its written words. The informal amendments have developed "as a result of congressional legislation, presidential actions, Supreme Court decisions, activities of ;political parties, and custom" (Citizenship in the Nation, Pg. 19) Some of these amendments, both formal and informal, infringe on certain of our God-given, inalienable rights. Others violate the original intent of certain provisions of the Constitution..

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Ezra »

Arenera wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:32 pm
lundbaek wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:25 pm Mitt Romney has never demonstrated in any way awareness or allegiance to the Constitution of the United States in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. He has held no correct principles whatsoever, as it relates to the proper and very limited scope of government. He has shown support of several actions or proposed actions of government that we should recognize as in violation of the US Constitution, in particular of the Constitution as it was intended to be understood by the One who established it "by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto that very purpose". Instead of leading the charge toward restoration of constitutional principles in government, like a pied piper he poses a danger of leading people away from support of a restoration of constitutional principles in government.

He sent messages that he would retain most of Obamacare even if repealed. You should know that any FedGov intrusion into public healthcare is unconstitutional.

He has made clear his support of preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)

He made clear his support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, in violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, which would undermine the US Constitution. (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which are not permitted under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Section 1, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

It should be obvious by now that Mitt Romney doesn't understand the US Constitution, doesn't understand his responsibility to it as a Latter-day Saint, and/or doesn't have the integrity to be guided by it. But that can be said of most LDS voters in the United States.
Fiannan mentioned Strict Constitutionalists. Do you consider yourself to be a Strict Constitutionlist?

As I have reviewed a little the votes given to Constitution Party Candidates to be around 1 %, does that mean that there is little support for Strict Constitutionalism?
People who know and understand morality and the commandments of god And who dedicate themselves to following those things are all strict constitutionalists.

The real question that should be asked is why is that?

It doesn’t matter the party they vote for. There are more strict constitutionalists in the Republican Party then constitutional party. There are constitutionalists in the Democratic Party as well but not very many at all.

People who say they are righteous and moral yet vote to control others and or steal others property through government are neither moral or righteous.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Ezra wrote: January 9th, 2018, 6:43 pm
Arenera wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:32 pm
lundbaek wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:25 pm Mitt Romney has never demonstrated in any way awareness or allegiance to the Constitution of the United States in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. He has held no correct principles whatsoever, as it relates to the proper and very limited scope of government. He has shown support of several actions or proposed actions of government that we should recognize as in violation of the US Constitution, in particular of the Constitution as it was intended to be understood by the One who established it "by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto that very purpose". Instead of leading the charge toward restoration of constitutional principles in government, like a pied piper he poses a danger of leading people away from support of a restoration of constitutional principles in government.

He sent messages that he would retain most of Obamacare even if repealed. You should know that any FedGov intrusion into public healthcare is unconstitutional.

He has made clear his support of preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)

He made clear his support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, in violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, which would undermine the US Constitution. (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which are not permitted under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Section 1, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

It should be obvious by now that Mitt Romney doesn't understand the US Constitution, doesn't understand his responsibility to it as a Latter-day Saint, and/or doesn't have the integrity to be guided by it. But that can be said of most LDS voters in the United States.
Fiannan mentioned Strict Constitutionalists. Do you consider yourself to be a Strict Constitutionlist?

As I have reviewed a little the votes given to Constitution Party Candidates to be around 1 %, does that mean that there is little support for Strict Constitutionalism?
People who know and understand morality and the commandments of god And who dedicate themselves to following those things are all strict constitutionalists.

The real question that should be asked is why is that?

It doesn’t matter the party they vote for. There are more strict constitutionalists in the Republican Party then constitutional party. There are constitutionalists in the Democratic Party as well but not very many at all.

People who say they are righteous and moral yet vote to control others and or steal others property through government are neither moral or righteous.
Really?!?

Romney is a Republican, all is good. So say 70% of Utahns.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Ezra »

Arenera wrote: January 9th, 2018, 8:01 pm
Ezra wrote: January 9th, 2018, 6:43 pm
Arenera wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:32 pm
lundbaek wrote: January 9th, 2018, 1:25 pm Mitt Romney has never demonstrated in any way awareness or allegiance to the Constitution of the United States in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. He has held no correct principles whatsoever, as it relates to the proper and very limited scope of government. He has shown support of several actions or proposed actions of government that we should recognize as in violation of the US Constitution, in particular of the Constitution as it was intended to be understood by the One who established it "by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto that very purpose". Instead of leading the charge toward restoration of constitutional principles in government, like a pied piper he poses a danger of leading people away from support of a restoration of constitutional principles in government.

He sent messages that he would retain most of Obamacare even if repealed. You should know that any FedGov intrusion into public healthcare is unconstitutional.

He has made clear his support of preemptive acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. To do so would violate the US Constitution (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.)

He made clear his support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, in violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, which would undermine the US Constitution. (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.)

He made clear his support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which are not permitted under the US Constitution. (See US Constitution Section 1, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

It should be obvious by now that Mitt Romney doesn't understand the US Constitution, doesn't understand his responsibility to it as a Latter-day Saint, and/or doesn't have the integrity to be guided by it. But that can be said of most LDS voters in the United States.
Fiannan mentioned Strict Constitutionalists. Do you consider yourself to be a Strict Constitutionlist?

As I have reviewed a little the votes given to Constitution Party Candidates to be around 1 %, does that mean that there is little support for Strict Constitutionalism?
People who know and understand morality and the commandments of god And who dedicate themselves to following those things are all strict constitutionalists.

The real question that should be asked is why is that?

It doesn’t matter the party they vote for. There are more strict constitutionalists in the Republican Party then constitutional party. There are constitutionalists in the Democratic Party as well but not very many at all.

People who say they are righteous and moral yet vote to control others and or steal others property through government are neither moral or righteous.
Really?!?

Romney is a Republican, all is good. So say 70% of Utahns.

Just because someone is republican doesn’t make them a constitutionalists. So no Romney is not good. Romney is a Rino
Republican in name only

Do you remember how many lds people are called and how many are chosen???

Many are called. Few chosen. Which means you pay attention to what the few are doing right. What the many are doing is not always the best path to follow if you want to make it to the celestial kingdom.

Others on here have already provided proofs of Romney not adhering to constitutional principles in his political ideologys.

You continue to ignore them and justify your position based on what the majority of people do.

I don’t know if anyone has ever explained this to you but the majority of people are sinners. Following the majority is a good way to get you a one way ticket to a lower kingdom.

You don’t vote based on way the majority of sinners vote.

You vote to be on the right side. On Gods side. It’s a very serious thing. We will be judged on that vote. We will be judged on the good or the damage our vote does.



D&C 98:9-10 Admonishes us to seek diligently for honest, wise, good men to uphold in political office, and "whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil."

Hyrum Smith the Patriarch of the Church: "We engage in the election the same as in any other principle, you're to vote for good men and if you do not do this it is a sin. To vote for wicked men, it would be sin! Choose the good and refuse the evil. Men of false principles have preyed upon us like wolves upon helpless lambs. (HC 6:323)

Joseph Smith Jr.: "We shall have the satisfaction of knowing we have acted conscienciously and have used our best judgement, and if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us!" (Comprehensive History of the Church 2:208-209)

I think Joseph Smith would have said it better this way.

That you would be throwing away your vote to vote for people who are unworthy rather then worthy.

Think about it Arenera. Why would lds people have bad things to say about another lds person when in general it’s the nature of people of the same group and culture to support each other?

I know your trying really hard to convince us to follow the crowd. But there are legitimate reasons why we are not. Romney is unfortunately not the best choice. I wish he was. I would love to be on the band wagon.

It would be a throw away vote because his political ideology’s are not the same as what God has defined they should be.

Do you know where God has defined those things??? I would really love it if you would answer this question.

If you don’t know would you be willing to do some reading and pondering if someone pointed the way?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

You don’t vote based on way the majority of sinners vote.
So true. Truth is not measurable in a statistical manner.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Ezra wrote: January 10th, 2018, 12:43 am
I know your trying really hard to convince us to follow the crowd. But there are legitimate reasons why we are not. Romney is unfortunately not the best choice. I wish he was. I would love to be on the band wagon.

It would be a throw away vote because his political ideology’s are not the same as what God has defined they should be.

Do you know where God has defined those things??? I would really love it if you would answer this question.

If you don’t know would you be willing to do some reading and pondering if someone pointed the way?
Mormons, the people on the earth that accept and make covenants with God, and strive to spread the gospel to all the earth. They are spiritual children of Christ. Don't you think God loves them? The rest of the world isn't making such covenants.

I believe people can vote for whoever they want. I don't send people to hell because they don't vote according to my beliefs. Lundbaek said to read President Benson's talk on the constitution. I did. Romney is a great example of that talk.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

Romney is a great example of that talk.
He is? The guy has more contradictory positions than a person suffering from multiple personality disorder.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

By the way Arenera, you appear to want Romney as a senator; would you also be pleased if Evan McMullin were to run and win a seat as a congressman?

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Fiannan wrote: January 10th, 2018, 7:51 am By the way Arenera, you appear to want Romney as a senator; would you also be pleased if Evan McMullin were to run and win a seat as a congressman?
I don't live in Utah, so I don't have a vote for either. While Romney would be a junior senator, he has enough "clout" that he could make a presence. From one republican to another, what difference would McMullin make?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

Arenera wrote: January 10th, 2018, 8:11 am
Fiannan wrote: January 10th, 2018, 7:51 am By the way Arenera, you appear to want Romney as a senator; would you also be pleased if Evan McMullin were to run and win a seat as a congressman?
I don't live in Utah, so I don't have a vote for either. While Romney would be a junior senator, he has enough "clout" that he could make a presence. From one republican to another, what difference would McMullin make?
I asked if you would support McMullin as a congressman in general.

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

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by lundbaek »

Mitt Romney has "clout" with a large element of Mormon voters. But I note that among voters who understand and strive to uphold and abide by the principles of the US Constitution he has none that I can detect.

Mitt Romney has shown support for FedGov involvement in public healthcare, and that included ObamaCare (See the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution).

He has supported acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.) And he considers the so-called War Powers Act as permission for a POTUS to initiate war.

He has voiced support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, which is a violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution),

He has supported the denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused but not found guilty of perceived terrorism, including the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a violation of the US Constitution (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution).

He has expressed support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which is a violation of the Constitution (See the US Constitution Articles I & II, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

I'm confident that most Mormon voters do not realize that these things are egregious violations of the US Constitution. And I'm confident that most Mormon voters have not learned the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, nor, for that matter, have they made much serious effort to become accurately informed about past and current events that reveal not only what the Constitution was intended to mean, but how it has been and is still being ignored and violated. So I fail to see how, if one understands President Bensons' talk "Our Divine Constitution" and the Constitution "in the tradition of the Founding Fathers" he/she could consider Mitt Romney a suitable candidate for POTUS or the US Congress.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Fiannan wrote: January 10th, 2018, 8:51 am
Arenera wrote: January 10th, 2018, 8:11 am
Fiannan wrote: January 10th, 2018, 7:51 am By the way Arenera, you appear to want Romney as a senator; would you also be pleased if Evan McMullin were to run and win a seat as a congressman?
I don't live in Utah, so I don't have a vote for either. While Romney would be a junior senator, he has enough "clout" that he could make a presence. From one republican to another, what difference would McMullin make?
I asked if you would support McMullin as a congressman in general.
I haven't researched him enough to make a decision. He did make the vote interesting in Utah but that was because people don't like Trump's moral / Twitter dynamics.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

lundbaek wrote: January 10th, 2018, 9:31 am Mitt Romney has "clout" with a large element of Mormon voters. But I note that among voters who understand and strive to uphold and abide by the principles of the US Constitution he has none that I can detect.

Mitt Romney has shown support for FedGov involvement in public healthcare, and that included ObamaCare (See the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution).

He has supported acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.) And he considers the so-called War Powers Act as permission for a POTUS to initiate war.

He has voiced support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, which is a violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution),

He has supported the denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused but not found guilty of perceived terrorism, including the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a violation of the US Constitution (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution).

He has expressed support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which is a violation of the Constitution (See the US Constitution Articles I & II, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

I'm confident that most Mormon voters do not realize that these things are egregious violations of the US Constitution. And I'm confident that most Mormon voters have not learned the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, nor, for that matter, have they made much serious effort to become accurately informed about past and current events that reveal not only what the Constitution was intended to mean, but how it has been and is still being ignored and violated. So I fail to see how, if one understands President Bensons' talk "Our Divine Constitution" and the Constitution "in the tradition of the Founding Fathers" he/she could consider Mitt Romney a suitable candidate for POTUS or the US Congress.
Romney hits a home run on Benson's talk.

Is this where you believe he doesn't?: 2. Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Gadianton Robbers change the dynamics, don't you think? Since the terrorists in our day hide amongst people, and we can be attacked through the internet, people want safety fast.

Romney proved he can fix broken things with the success of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Probably the biggest reason Utahn's like him.

Vgbnd
captain of 10
Posts: 11

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Vgbnd »

Romney may not be your perfect "strict interpretation" candidate, but such blind adherence to the text, without any room for additional context, growth or interpretation is not sustainable.

If you apply such a strict interpretation to the Articles of Confederation, the current US Constitution itself, and the Constitutional Convention, were illegal. So although the principles that are the foundation of the US government are divinely inspired, its a bit strange to only your current strict interpretation is correct and righteous when that whole interpretation is based upon illegally breaching the Articles of Confederation.

Tell me where in the AoC, with the same degree of specificity and rigor that you interpret the US Constitution today, States are authorized to leave the Union and create a new one?
lundbaek wrote: January 10th, 2018, 9:31 am Mitt Romney has "clout" with a large element of Mormon voters. But I note that among voters who understand and strive to uphold and abide by the principles of the US Constitution he has none that I can detect.

Mitt Romney has shown support for FedGov involvement in public healthcare, and that included ObamaCare (See the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution).

He has supported acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.) And he considers the so-called War Powers Act as permission for a POTUS to initiate war.

He has voiced support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, which is a violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution),

He has supported the denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused but not found guilty of perceived terrorism, including the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a violation of the US Constitution (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution).

He has expressed support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which is a violation of the Constitution (See the US Constitution Articles I & II, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

I'm confident that most Mormon voters do not realize that these things are egregious violations of the US Constitution. And I'm confident that most Mormon voters have not learned the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, nor, for that matter, have they made much serious effort to become accurately informed about past and current events that reveal not only what the Constitution was intended to mean, but how it has been and is still being ignored and violated. So I fail to see how, if one understands President Bensons' talk "Our Divine Constitution" and the Constitution "in the tradition of the Founding Fathers" he/she could consider Mitt Romney a suitable candidate for POTUS or the US Congress.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

I haven't researched him enough to make a decision. He did make the vote interesting in Utah but that was because people don't like Trump's moral / Twitter dynamics.
That is a good, avoidant, political answer. Of course you missed reading up on McMullin during the election, but have tried to portray yourself an expert on Utah political culture.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Fiannan wrote: January 10th, 2018, 11:31 am
I haven't researched him enough to make a decision. He did make the vote interesting in Utah but that was because people don't like Trump's moral / Twitter dynamics.
That is a good, avoidant, political answer. Of course you missed reading up on McMullin during the election, but have tried to portray yourself an expert on Utah political culture.
Here is some "expert" analysis for you:
Presidential Election, Utah, 2012

Republican - Romney - 72.62%
Democrat - Obama - 24.69%
Libertarian - 1.23%
Justice - .52%
Green - .37%
Constitution - .28%
Socialism & Liberation - .04%
Others - .24%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... Utah,_2012

Now you are an expert too. Romney wins, 70%...

McMullin got 21.54% in 2016. Clinton 27.5%, Trump 45.5%.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

McMullin got 21.54% in 2016. Clinton 27.5%, Trump 45.5%.
Not asking for a breakdown of the 2016 vote in Utah. I am asking you if you think Evan McMullin is a good choice for congress.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Fiannan wrote: January 10th, 2018, 1:03 pm
McMullin got 21.54% in 2016. Clinton 27.5%, Trump 45.5%.
Not asking for a breakdown of the 2016 vote in Utah. I am asking you if you think Evan McMullin is a good choice for congress.
Like I said, that is for Utahns to decide.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Silver »

Vgbnd wrote: January 10th, 2018, 10:50 am Romney may not be your perfect "strict interpretation" candidate, but such blind adherence to the text, without any room for additional context, growth or interpretation is not sustainable.

If you apply such a strict interpretation to the Articles of Confederation, the current US Constitution itself, and the Constitutional Convention, were illegal. So although the principles that are the foundation of the US government are divinely inspired, its a bit strange to only your current strict interpretation is correct and righteous when that whole interpretation is based upon illegally breaching the Articles of Confederation.

Tell me where in the AoC, with the same degree of specificity and rigor that you interpret the US Constitution today, States are authorized to leave the Union and create a new one?
lundbaek wrote: January 10th, 2018, 9:31 am Mitt Romney has "clout" with a large element of Mormon voters. But I note that among voters who understand and strive to uphold and abide by the principles of the US Constitution he has none that I can detect.

Mitt Romney has shown support for FedGov involvement in public healthcare, and that included ObamaCare (See the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution).

He has supported acts of war without a declaration of war by Congress. (See US Constitution Article One, Section Eight.) And he considers the so-called War Powers Act as permission for a POTUS to initiate war.

He has voiced support of the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause, which is a violation of the US Constitution (See the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution),

He has supported the denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused but not found guilty of perceived terrorism, including the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a violation of the US Constitution (See the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution).

He has expressed support of "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, which is a violation of the Constitution (See the US Constitution Articles I & II, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and Ref. "Thou shalt not steal...")

I'm confident that most Mormon voters do not realize that these things are egregious violations of the US Constitution. And I'm confident that most Mormon voters have not learned the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, nor, for that matter, have they made much serious effort to become accurately informed about past and current events that reveal not only what the Constitution was intended to mean, but how it has been and is still being ignored and violated. So I fail to see how, if one understands President Bensons' talk "Our Divine Constitution" and the Constitution "in the tradition of the Founding Fathers" he/she could consider Mitt Romney a suitable candidate for POTUS or the US Congress.
You raise a good point about the almost-forgotten transition from the AoC to the Constitution. Wouldn't it have been remarkable if J. Smith, Jr. had received a revelation that said, "Yea, the Constitution is noble but the AoC was actually better. But now it is better to follow the current law of the land."?

Post Reply