Romney should run for Senate.

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Durzan »

lundbaek wrote: December 5th, 2017, 11:44 am I am very much "against the Federal Reserve". It was created to usurp the responsibility of the US Congress mandated by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution to create money and has done so such that inflation has been robbing holders of US currency of the value/purchasing power of their money since its inception.
Umm didn’t congress approve of the establishment of the federal reserve via vote? That means they fulfilled their responsibility at least in the loosest sense.

Irrelevant
captain of 100
Posts: 140

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Irrelevant »

Arenera wrote: December 5th, 2017, 7:49 pm Who is good enough for you? Your choices have no chance. Well, less than 1% chance.

Donald J. Trump Republican 515,231 45.1%
Hillary Clinton Democrat 310,676 27.2 —
Evan McMullin Independent. 243,690 21.3 —
Gary Johnson Libertarian. 39,608 3.5 —
Jill Stein Independent. 9,438 0.8 —
Darrell Castle Constitution. 8,032 0.7 —
Rocky Giordani Independent. 2,752 0.2 —
Rocky De La Fuente Independent 883 0.1 —
Monica Moorehead Independent. 544 0.0 —
Alyson Kennedy Independent. 521 0.0
Do we not believe that we must stand for what is right even if we must stand alone? Cliché, I know, but applicable.

Silver's analogy is spot on.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Silver »

Durzan wrote: December 6th, 2017, 2:23 am
lundbaek wrote: December 5th, 2017, 11:44 am I am very much "against the Federal Reserve". It was created to usurp the responsibility of the US Congress mandated by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution to create money and has done so such that inflation has been robbing holders of US currency of the value/purchasing power of their money since its inception.
Umm didn’t congress approve of the establishment of the federal reserve via vote? That means they fulfilled their responsibility at least in the loosest sense.
Yes, but that bit of history also established the level of corruption that existed then and continues now among the members of Congress. They swear to defend the Constitution as part of their oath of office and then immediately betray their constituents and break that oath by ignoring the Federal Reserve.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Silver »

Irrelevant wrote: December 6th, 2017, 5:05 am
Arenera wrote: December 5th, 2017, 7:49 pm Who is good enough for you? Your choices have no chance. Well, less than 1% chance.

Donald J. Trump Republican 515,231 45.1%
Hillary Clinton Democrat 310,676 27.2 —
Evan McMullin Independent. 243,690 21.3 —
Gary Johnson Libertarian. 39,608 3.5 —
Jill Stein Independent. 9,438 0.8 —
Darrell Castle Constitution. 8,032 0.7 —
Rocky Giordani Independent. 2,752 0.2 —
Rocky De La Fuente Independent 883 0.1 —
Monica Moorehead Independent. 544 0.0 —
Alyson Kennedy Independent. 521 0.0
Do we not believe that we must stand for what is right even if we must stand alone? Cliché, I know, but applicable.

Silver's analogy is spot on.
iWriteStuff started a thread called Ether's Avenue. It provides dozens of quotes by modern prophets directing us to vote for what is right. Latter Day Saints ignore that counsel at their eternal peril.

So to his supporters (not you, Irrelevant), I say, go ahead and vote for Romney if you like him. You shall have your reward. The evidence of why Romney should not be elected is laid at your feet. Are you going to vote for him or support him financially anyway?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Fiannan »

Image

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Arenera »

Romney hasn't spoken publicly about the race, but is said to be readying a campaign. Two of his closest friends in Utah recently told the Deseret News that Romney, 70, was waiting on Hatch, 83, but did not rule out a run even if Hatch seeks an eighth term.

Earlier this year, Hatch suggested he would be ready to end his 42-year Senate career for Romney, the leader of the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City and one of the state's most popular politicians.

Hatch, who had told voters when he last ran in 2012 he would not seek re-election, has gone back and forth about his intentions. Two years ago, he said he was having second thoughts about fulfilling his promise not to run again.

"If we were in the middle of tax reform and I thought I could get it done and people thought I could get it done and people were demanding that I get it done, you'd always have to put the country first. We'll just have to see," Hatch said then.

After Trump won the election, Hatch, the chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee and third in the line of succession as Senate president pro-tempore, said he was getting pressure from colleagues to seek another term.

But in March, Hatch said he'd be willing to retire if he "could get a really outstanding person to run," naming Romney as someone who "would be perfect" for the position. He said if Romney were to run, "it would be a great thing for America."

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Silver »

This thread, so far, is a good example of a unlikely chiasmus. It starts off with a recognition of how bad Hatch is and offering support for Romney. It ends with a sterling endorsement of Romney, by Hatch, a known betrayer of his oath of office. Gee, if a liar and traitor endorses a guy, let's all vote for him.

Such delicious irony on full display. The children of the covenant are so confused.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Arenera »

Silver wrote: December 6th, 2017, 8:00 am This thread, so far, is a good example of a unlikely chiasmus. It starts off with a recognition of how bad Hatch is and offering support for Romney. It ends with a sterling endorsement of Romney, by Hatch, a known betrayer of his oath of office. Gee, if a liar and traitor endorses a guy, let's all vote for him.

Such delicious irony on full display. The children of the covenant are so confused.
As I showed with the data, you have less than 1% support for your position.

Romney: a proven priesthood holder, 1 wife, successful business man, successful politician, doesn't eat the skin on the chicken. Support Romeny!

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

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by lundbaek »

In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Arenera »

lundbaek wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:04 am In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.
So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Lizzy60
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8520

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Lizzy60 »

Arenera wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:21 am
lundbaek wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:04 am In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.
So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?
Wow. You support a woman's RIGHT to MURDER her child.
Do you support a man's right to rape a child?

I see no difference. Except that the raped child is still alive, although extremely damaged.

Crackers
captain of 100
Posts: 584

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Crackers »

Arenera wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:21 am
lundbaek wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:04 am In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.
So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?
You can reduce any act to the idea that someone made a choice to do it. There's no debate there. We have agency to choose any nefarious or sinful act we desire, including murder. That doesn't mean we should make these acts socially acceptable or legal. "It's okay to kill the child because we believe in agency. It's okay to commit adultery because we believe in agency. It's okay to molest children because we believe in agency. As a LDS, it's okay to smoke and drink, because we believe in agency...."

Edit: Kudos to Lizzy for saying it more succinctly.
Last edited by Crackers on December 6th, 2017, 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Arenera »

Lizzy60 wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:26 am
Arenera wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:21 am
lundbaek wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:04 am In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.
So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?
Wow. You support a woman's RIGHT to MURDER her child.
Do you support a man's right to rape a child?

I see no difference. Except that the raped child is still alive, although extremely damaged.
Mormons believe the US Constitution was inspired of God, through the men that wrote it. Since it was written, there have been amendments and other laws written to govern the US society. It seems to me that some "contitutionalists" prefer to only use the original document. Sorry, things have changed over 200 years. Less than 1% of the people consider this.

It is legal to have an abortion in the United States. A woman can make the choice.

I wouldn't make that choice, that is my agency.

If people would live the 10 commandments, things would be great. In Zion, all are equal. Trump wouldn't do well there.

Romney would be a great senator. If he runs, he will win in a landslide.

Crackers
captain of 100
Posts: 584

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Crackers »

The idea that he is able to win won't make him a good senator. It only means he can win a race. Is that all you're looking for in your elected officials? Because you can have "great" officials every time if you just follow the polls and that's all you want.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Arenera »

Crackers wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:48 am The idea that he is able to win won't make him a good senator. It only means he can win a race. Is that all you're looking for in your elected officials? Because you can have "great" officials every time if you just follow the polls and that's all you want.
Romney is a good man. A good Mormon man. A good Mormon, husband and grandfather. A man who saved the corrupt Utah Olympics and made a model of running a winter Olympics. A good man who served as Governor of a democrat state.

Romney is well known. That is why he would win in a landslide in Utah. Maybe he will help save the Constitution when it hangs by a thread. :)

solonan
captain of 100
Posts: 297

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by solonan »

He'd help in continuing the hanging of the constitution. He speaks out of both sides of his month to the point I wonder if he even knows what his stands are.

Lizzy60
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8520

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Lizzy60 »

The fact that abortion is legal in the US only shows how despicable and corrupt this nation has become. The fact that Romney supports abortion shows that he is even more despicable and corrupt, because he should know better. His "priesthood" is a farce.

He is the worst kind of example of a Mormon.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Arenera »

Lizzy60 wrote: December 6th, 2017, 10:16 am The fact that abortion is legal in the US only shows how despicable and corrupt this nation has become. The fact that Romney supports abortion shows that he is even more despicable and corrupt, because he should know better. His "priesthood" is a farce.

He is the worst kind of example of a Mormon.
Not really. He is a good priesthood holder. He is a good example: husband on one wife, father of five sons, grandfather. His example in life shows the right way to happiness. He doesn't agree with the examples of Trump and Moore.

You will be happy to see his priesthood in action...

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Fiannan »

Romney is well known. That is why he would win in a landslide in Utah. Maybe he will help save the Constitution when it hangs by a thread.
Yes, so illuminated that his bearing the light of truth to the masses in these troubled times could inspire the world.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Arenera »

Let's see, some of these inspiring people...
Speaking on the subject of Moore's service in Vietnam as well as “honor and integrity” Bannon accused Romney of hiding “behind” his religion, when the 19-year-old Romney deferred Vietnam service to answer a mission call for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “You went to France to be a missionary while guys were dying in rice paddies in Vietnam.”

Putting aside that Bannon's political idol, Donald Trump, also deferred service during the Vietnam War, the subtle suggestion that one’s service in the military might be a reason to overlook disturbing allegations does a severe disservice to the country's men and women in uniform.

While Bannon is familiar with the accusations against Moore regarding his alleged treatment of teenage girls, if he really cares to learn about "honor and integrity" he would do well to read about Romney's efforts to rescue a teenage girl back in the summer of 1996.

Speaking on the subject of Moore's service in Vietnam as well as “honor and integrity” Bannon accused Romney of hiding “behind” his religion, when the 19-year-old Romney deferred Vietnam service to answer a mission call for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “You went to France to be a missionary while guys were dying in rice paddies in Vietnam.”

According to reports by the Boston Globe, Romney temporarily shut down his firm, Bain Capitol, to devote its sizable resources to search for the teenage daughter of one his colleagues who had gone missing after a night out in New York City.

Romney chartered a flight from Boston to New York, and, according to the Globe, "set up elaborate search parties, mapping out territories of New York City and turning to a public relations firm for help. Within days, they’d been featured on TV news, and the teenager who had taken (the daughter) home to Montauk, N.Y. — where she was shivering through detox after a massive dose of ecstasy — called hoping for a reward."

Meanwhile, that same summer, while Romney was saving a woman in distress, Bannon was facing misdemeanor charges in California for domestic violence and battery. Bannon pled not guilty.

And while the case was dismissed when the “victim/witness” was “unable to be located,” the police reports note that Bannon’s then-wife said she had been forcefully grabbed by her neck and wrist (which were photographed). According to the report, when she attempted to call the police, Bannon smashed the phone.

Bannon, she said, had a history of physical disputes with her.


Honor? Integrity?

User avatar
JK4Woods
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2507

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by JK4Woods »

Hatch needs to be put out to pasture with John McCain...
Romney can be with them mowing for hay.

User avatar
sandman45
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1562

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by sandman45 »

Arenera wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:21 am
lundbaek wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:04 am In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.
So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?
What about that child she is aborting... he or she doesn't get a say in this...so abortion is giving the woman a choice but it also takes away agency or choice of that unborn child.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by brianj »

Arenera wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:21 am So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?
Yes, I prefer to take Lucifer's approach.

If a man chooses to be intimate with a woman and she gets pregnant, HE has no choice. There have been several documented cases of women poking pin holes in condoms and doing more disturbing things to get themselves pregnant, and at that point the philosophy of feminism provides only two responses. The first is: "You want the kid? Too bad, pig. She has the right to choose abortion." The second is: "You made your choice when you were intimate with her. So shut up and pay, pig."

Arenera, I challenge you to accept your hypocrisy on this issue. You probably have no issue with forcing a man to pay a large amount of money over the next 20 years because he made a choice, or making the man suffer the pain of knowing the woman murdered his baby because he made a choice. Yet at the same time you pretend that the woman who willingly chose to participate in sexual relations did not exercise her free agency at that time, so she shouldn't have to suffer through pregnancy and giving away or raising a child because she should have the choice she didn't have of willingly having sex or not.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Arenera »

brianj wrote: December 6th, 2017, 5:45 pm
Arenera wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:21 am So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?
Yes, I prefer to take Lucifer's approach.

If a man chooses to be intimate with a woman and she gets pregnant, HE has no choice. There have been several documented cases of women poking pin holes in condoms and doing more disturbing things to get themselves pregnant, and at that point the philosophy of feminism provides only two responses. The first is: "You want the kid? Too bad, pig. She has the right to choose abortion." The second is: "You made your choice when you were intimate with her. So shut up and pay, pig."

Arenera, I challenge you to accept your hypocrisy on this issue. You probably have no issue with forcing a man to pay a large amount of money over the next 20 years because he made a choice, or making the man suffer the pain of knowing the woman murdered his baby because he made a choice. Yet at the same time you pretend that the woman who willingly chose to participate in sexual relations did not exercise her free agency at that time, so she shouldn't have to suffer through pregnancy and giving away or raising a child because she should have the choice she didn't have of willingly having sex or not.
I recommend people follow the 10 commandments, then they don’t have unwanted pregnancies. I don’t do abortions.

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

Re: Romney should run for Senate.

Post by Ezra »

Arenera wrote: December 6th, 2017, 7:22 pm
brianj wrote: December 6th, 2017, 5:45 pm
Arenera wrote: December 6th, 2017, 9:21 am So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?
Yes, I prefer to take Lucifer's approach.

If a man chooses to be intimate with a woman and she gets pregnant, HE has no choice. There have been several documented cases of women poking pin holes in condoms and doing more disturbing things to get themselves pregnant, and at that point the philosophy of feminism provides only two responses. The first is: "You want the kid? Too bad, pig. She has the right to choose abortion." The second is: "You made your choice when you were intimate with her. So shut up and pay, pig."

Arenera, I challenge you to accept your hypocrisy on this issue. You probably have no issue with forcing a man to pay a large amount of money over the next 20 years because he made a choice, or making the man suffer the pain of knowing the woman murdered his baby because he made a choice. Yet at the same time you pretend that the woman who willingly chose to participate in sexual relations did not exercise her free agency at that time, so she shouldn't have to suffer through pregnancy and giving away or raising a child because she should have the choice she didn't have of willingly having sex or not.
I recommend people follow the 10 commandments, then they don’t have unwanted pregnancies. I don’t do abortions.

Abortion is murder Is my opinion. One god shares I’m completely sure. Except in some very very small instances.

Murder is illegal.

Abortions shouldn’t be legal under current law as it is a contradiction. murder is illegal but murdering a unborn child somehow ok???? Not sure how that works.



If abortion was illegal as it should be women still have the agency to choose to murder their unborn child. But they should be treated equally in my opinion.

So women have a right to choose. But they should have the consequences in this life as well as the next.

Im guessing Brianj agrees.
Last edited by Ezra on December 6th, 2017, 7:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply