What is crucial in a candidate?

Pt314 · Senior Member

What is crucial in a candidate?

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Mormonism.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Promise of a chicken in every stewpot, shorter work week, higher pay, and the right to carry big sticks and use them.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Consistency on the issues I care about, honesty, integrity, and must be hawkish when it comes to Islamofacism.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Strict adherence to the US Constitution and constitutional principles in the tradition of the "Founding Fathers", meaning Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc., and as explained in the Federalist Papers, and moral principles according to LDS standards. The Lord gave Americans their Constitution and commanded them (that includes you and me) to "befriend" it. Beyond that, I've said enough elsewhere on this forum.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

After hearing all the counsel from all the advisors, the President of the United States should retire to quiet location and seek counsel from the Lord. This must be the model for making decisions that impact the lives of millions, such as sending our sons and daughters to fight and die in a foreign land, suspending individual liberties in the name of security, nominating a Justice to the Supreme Court, etc.

In order for the President to receive guidance, he/she must be living the standards of the gospel. Some may think that personal moral worthiness is not important in a world leader (Bill Clinton supporters.) They have it dead wrong. It's absolutely the most important characteristic in a candidate.

Darius to Alexander the Great, "Alexander my boy, do you think you can touch heaven with those hands of yours?"

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well said roper.

I would like to know that there are more than just one of the candidates out there who seriously does utilize prayer. We can assume Romney does (or at least knows how to)... but who knows about the others, in either party?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Anybody would be hard put to convince me that Mitt Romney, while campaigning for the US Senate and serving as Governor of Massachusetts, was guided by the Lord in those decisions which show distain for certain constitutional and moral principles. I do not stand alone in considering him an embarassment to the Church for those decisions, which I documented elsewhere on this forum.

Pt314 · Senior Member

I guess now the question is, If none of the candidates are acceptable to you, if none have the characteristics that have been mentioned as crucial, what do you do? Do you vote for the person who is most likely to beat the person you disagree with most, vote for the person you agree with most, or not vote at all?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

You move to a small island at the bottom of the Florida Keys and form the Conch Republic...

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

There has never since 1960 been a presidential election in which there was not at least one candidate I could not at least vote for without holding my nose. I don't expect perfection. In recent elections the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party have promoted candidates that I could vote for, and I expect the same will be the case in 2008. The Constitution Party is waiting to see how it goes for Ron Paul, who is garnering more support than the mainstream media is telling us. If he drops out, I expect the CP will field a candidate of its own, possibly Chuck Baldwin or Jerome Corsi. Right now the CP and I think the LP are fully benind Ron Paul.

If the only choices were Giuliani and Hillary, which will not be the case, Hillary would be watched and hounded a lot more closely than Giuliani. Most so-called conservatives tend to back to sleep whenever there is a Republican in the White House. President Bush 43 has been a socialist's and globalist's dream, as was Bush 41.

Between Romney and Hillary or Obama I'd vote for Romney. But possible candidates like Baldwin have proven far more steadfast in adhering to moral and constitutional principles than has Romney.

glumirk · Senior Member

I like to think that a candidate is upfront and honest, and down to earth. I understand that there may be some things that we the people do not need to know, or it's better if the general public does not need to know, but I like to think that the candidate lets us know at least where his/her priorities are, and that they can actually relate to real people, not just politicians (and political relations are all fake anyway). I also think it's great when a candidate has a personality and doesn't have every single line absolutely memorized. Take this for example:

Hilary plants questions

If I found out my candidate were doing that, I wouldn't feel as inclined to vote for him/her. I'd rather see a candidate say "I don't know yet, let me get back to you on that" than have every answer completely memorized.

arbilad · Head Chef

lundbaek wrote:

There has never since 1960 been a presidential election in which there was not at least one candidate I could not at least vote for without holding my nose. I don't expect perfection. In recent elections the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party have promoted candidates that I could vote for, and I expect the same will be the case in 2008. The Constitution Party is waiting to see how it goes for Ron Paul, who is garnering more support than the mainstream media is telling us. If he drops out, I expect the CP will field a candidate of its own, possibly Chuck Baldwin or Jerome Corsi. Right now the CP and I think the LP are fully benind Ron Paul.

If the only choices were Giuliani and Hillary, which will not be the case, Hillary would be watched and hounded a lot more closely than Giuliani. Most so-called conservatives tend to back to sleep whenever there is a Republican in the White House. President Bush 43 has been a socialist's and globalist's dream, as was Bush 41.

Between Romney and Hillary or Obama I'd vote for Romney. But possible candidates like Baldwin have proven far more steadfast in adhering to moral and constitutional principles than has Romney.

The Constitution Party actually sent out an email stating, amongst other things, that if they got on the ballot in all 50 states this time they would try to get Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo to run on their ticket. So they're looking to run a big name, if they can.

Note that this does not mean that Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo would necessarily agree to run on the CP ticket. But I think that they can convince one of the two to do so.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

As a nation we may be too far-gone to embrace a candidate like Ron Paul. And it would not surprise me if Paul were taken out even without or before his winning the presidency. His message is so damaging to and exposing of the globalist cause that the Latter Day Gadiantons may decide to eliminate him before many more Americans catch on to the "awful situation" being planned and created for us.

Congressman Paul has stated on at least 2 occasions his awareness of......just read the following quotes, which I had put at http://www.latterdayconservative.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=632&start=0

"UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UNs own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply arent interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

"I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship - and those plans are there ..."

He knows what the score is, but seems to be avoiding mention of it yet. But he may yet "blow the whistle" in some public debate or something. Can you imagine the reaction if he were to make the above statements on public TV? But then President Ezra Taft Benson said about the same in the April 1988 General Conference, and it seems it went right over the heads of most Latter Day Saints.

And if Ron Paul were to win the presidency, he would still have to buck all the globalists and Constitution shredders that would still be in Congress and fighting him every inch of the way. But I still hope for the opportunity to vote for him.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

lundbaek wrote:

As a nation we may be too far-gone to embrace a candidate like Ron Paul.

I'm sorry I have to dissagree here. I actually agree with most of Ron Pauls positions. But he comes off as unstable and a bit of a nut job. I'm not trying to be insulting but I can't get past his demeaner during the debates and interviews I've watched. The ideas are important but the man behind the ideas is just as important. I've talked to other people who also like what he says but feel he comes off very poorly when he speaks and frankly get a similar impression to mine. So I don't think the nation is too far gone to embrace a candidate with ideas similar to what Ron Paul is espousing but I do think the package those ideas come in needs to be different and then more people might embrace that candidate. I know that many of you will probably dissagree with my view of this particular candidate but that doesn't make my feelings about the man any less valid. Frankly there are things about Romney I don't like either. When he speaks it sounds too canned many times which bothers me quite a bit. Guilianni comes off as much more populist and is a much better communicator but I really don't like his historical track record on many issues. Then there's McCain who comes off as a nut job and frankly is bad on the issues too.

I think Americans will embrace someone who has good ideas, is a true conservative, and is a constitutionalist if we can get that in a good package too. To paraphrase a line from a T.V. show, Ron Paul has crazy eyes.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I think this represents the thinking of most active LDS voters:

"I think of all the candidates who have a chance to be president that Mitt Romney is the one most pleasiing to God. Sadly, I do not believe that Ron Paul would be as willing to listen to the spirit and put what God wants first. I do believe that about Mitt Romney and I pray that he will become president."

What I meant by "As a nation we may be too far-gone to embrace a candidate like Ron Paul." is that Americans in general have lost the spirit of freedom and the accompanying responsibilites that the "Founding Fathers", acting under the guidance of the Lord, according to some LDS Church General Authorities, gave us. I am less forgiving of LDS voters who cannot or will not recognize that our FedGov is way off the Constitution track.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I would tend to agree with most of that. I think though that people would vote for someone who was more of a constitutionalist if it came in a different package. Over the last several election cycles we just have not seen it in the crop of candidates we get. Third party candidates often come off as a bit out there plus the $$$ just isn't there. I would love to find a major party candidate with these principles that gives me an impression of stability but who in their right mind would want to be President. For the hours the guy works, the pay he recieves, and the meat grinder he has to go through it just isn't worth it. You have to be part narcicist and part masochist to even try. I would never run for public office because it is such a dirty/nasty road to get into office. It just isn't worth it.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I was pleasantly surprised at most of the Constitution Party candidates in Utah last year. Out of 51 by my count, only a couple of the several I met did I not have the highest respect for. The 4 who ran for Congress seemed to have plenty of $s behind them. As for Ron Paul's "package", one must realize it is the media that presents it, and the media is mostly controlled by those who have the most to lose if he wins of if Americans start accepting and supporting his beliefs. He has been elected 10x now to the House of Representatives on the same stance he takes now. So I'm inclined to think he's OK; it's the rest of the country that's screwed up.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'm a mormon! Yes I am!

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

salesortonscom wrote:
.............. but who in their right mind would want to be President.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

See... this is MY problem... I keep wondering what is WRONG with the MINDS of all these people...??? I mean some of the candidates are obviously NUTS... it's easy to see why THEY want all the "glory" of being president...

But... the ones that "seem" pretty normal, must just be better at hiding their flaws.

...