Romney officially endorseing McCain?

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

Romney officially endorseing McCain?

arbilad · Head Chef

It's not that huge a deal for me, since I never liked Romney anyway. But I can see the horror it holds for Romney supporters. And it effectively guarantees McCain the nomination; don't Romney's delegates now vote for McCain after he officially endorses him?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Oh. My. *BEEP*

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yea I thought that might be your reactions.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Romney either...

A. Is going for a VP position.

or...

B. Needs to read some more Benson and Skousen.

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

I read on fox news that Romney's delegates have the choice to either now vote for McCain or not to. So his decision isn't binding but I cannot see many defecting over to Huckaloogie.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cocobeem wrote:

Romney either...

A. Is going for a VP position.

or...

B. Needs to read some more Benson and Skousen.

Couldn't both be true?

Smaug · Senior Member

Perhaps Romney means what he says when he says that the greatest evil is Islamic terror, and that we must elect a man who will not roll over for said terrorists.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

But he's already rolled over on the borders. Don't you think terrorists know that?

Smaug · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:

But he's already rolled over on the borders. Don't you think terrorists know that?

He hasn't rolled over any more than all the rest of Congress that hasn't done anything about the borders. At least McCain has said that he finally gets it and will protect our borders. He can change his mind, can't he? At least if we can allow Mitt to have changed his mind on abortion, then we should allow McCain to change his on protecting the border. Meanwhile, we probably already have terrorists in here because Congress refuses to act.

arbilad · Head Chef

Or we could enforce the current laws. That would go a long way towards closing the borders.
It is possible for McCain to change his mind. But I'd like to see a reason other than political expedience. One of the greatest enemies of a closed border has now become a strong advocate of a closed border? It's possible, but extremely unlikely. Add to that that he has a habit of stabbing allies (such as his own party) in the back, and it becomes harder to believe.
I don't think it is so unreasonable to be skeptical of what a politician says. Especially when that politician has a history of backstabbing and changing his position for political expedience.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Smaug wrote:

Meanwhile, we probably already have terrorists in here because Congress refuses to act.

Boy, you can bet the farm on that one.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yup.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm betting this was a move to deny Huckabutt any power come convention time. By "giving" his delegates to McCain, Huckabee is cut off at the knees (which is basically what Huckabee did to him, so I figure all's fair in war and politics).

It doesn't matter what the republicans do. Obama is going to win the presidency. Then after four or eight years of disaster, the pendulum will swing back to the Republican side. Maybe then people will listen to Romney's ideas.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

What bothers me greatly about McCain is that he has no problem abrogating Constitutional rights, free speech. McCain-Feingold smells worse than a porta-potty at a Scout Camp that has not emptied all summer. Furthermore, he has made it clear that he has no problem with strict gun control.

When you are willing to hinder speech, want gun control, refuse to secure borders and protect the country, that is not the makings of a good president. McCain is a social liberal, he is a RINO, trusting him I think is no better than trusting Hillary or Obama.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

Romney gets what you guys don't. Unless McCain has a strong following, the nefarious and evil Obam-inton will be the next president.

Yes, McCain he'll hand over the US to Mexico, but Obhillary will do it faster.

Yes, he'll try to screw up the taxes and the economy, but Hillbama will do it quicker and better.

Yes, we're rewarding him for his lousy finance reform. What, you wanna reward BarInton for his inexperience or her zero track record?

Come on folks - we gotta spend some time demanding McCain do some changing and extract some promises to staff positions with people we want. But then, we gotta rally behind him and not let Hillama take over for 8 years.

Again, there are seven good reasons to vote McCain:
1. The War
2-7. Six Supreme Court Justices, each 62 years or older.

LM

Pt314 · Senior Member

John McCain is effectively the Republican nominee, and I can't see Romney supporting Huckabee.

Liking McCain's positions doesn't have much to do with it.

-- Edited by Pt314 at 08:28, 2008-02-15

arbilad · Head Chef

Again, there are seven good reasons to vote McCain:
1. The War
2-7. Six Supreme Court Justices, each 62 years or older.

Why do you assume that McCain would appoint conservative judges? To get an example of his tastes, he said that Alito was too conservative. And while he may have voted for Bork, he also voted for Ginsburg. I think it is a false hope to assume that he would appoint conservative judges.
Also, I admit that McCain would destroy the country more slowly than either Hillary or Obama. But I would rather that the country not get destroyed at all. When you vote for the lesser of two evils you still end up with, unsurprisingly, evil. I would rather choose good. We are told to vote for good honest people for political office. This time around that means voting third party.

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, Democrats claim that at one time McCain held talks with them about the possibility of his switching parties.

arbilad · Head Chef

Not all Senate Republicans support John McCain, especially those put off by his volcanic temper.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

There are others who have decided to support him now, even though they have fought in the past.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

A big fat "meh" to them both.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I agree with Romney's endorsement mostly because the alternatives are just not acceptable. Romney is a great man.

--Ray

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

I must say that a McCain/Romney ticket is much more attractive and less alarming than a McCain/Huckabee ticket.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

The only way I will vote for McCain is if he is smart enough to ask Romney to be his VP. I'd still have to walk into the voting booth, pinching my nose and holding my breath.

I seriously doubt that would ever happen. IF it did happen, I could always hope they'd get elected and that the McCainiac would go to his reward early.

I'm still voting for the Constitution Party nominee.

-- Edited by Mahonri at 12:21, 2008-02-15

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

Why do you assume that McCain would appoint conservative judges?If nothing else, he'd do it in order to get reelected. Remember how unpopular Bush got with Harriet Meyers? You can bet McCain will remember it.

When you vote for the lesser of two evils you still end up with, unsurprisingly, evil.And extending your analgoy, when you vote for a third party good, you end up with worse evil.

It's your own analgogy - please take a good hard look at it.

I would rather choose good. We are told to vote for good honest people for political office.I actually don't consider McCain, Hillary, or Obama "evil". Using the term is all fine and well for easily-understood analogies, but it's real impact is to set the user of the term apart from all the relevant folk. Remember "without charity I'm nothing"?

Every single presidential nominee is a child of their Heavenly Father, inheritor of a divine birthright, in possession of the Light of Christ. Do you disagree with any of that?

If you really want to stick to the 'evil' label - I'd love to have you start a thread on how to righteously judge someone as "evil".

LM

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 12:25, 2008-02-15

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 12:26, 2008-02-15

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Is this "lesser evil" thing something that Paul campaigners specifically spoke out against? Arbi isn't the only one I've heard it from.

arbilad · Head Chef

When you vote for the lesser of two evils you still end up with, unsurprisingly, evil.And extending your analgoy, when you vote for a third party good, you end up with worse evil.
It's your own analgogy - please take a good hard look at it.
That's a total non sequitur - either I'm not understanding you, or you're not understanding me. How is your assertion that voting for a third party brings about greater evil part of my statement? In your statement you equate voting for a third party as being an evil act, so it contradicts my statement not at all, in that choosing evil will bring you evil. However, in my mind, seeking a candidate of good character who supports the constitution is a good act.
If you choose evil, then you will end up with evil. You have no chance of ending up with good if you choose evil. If you choose good, evil may still triumph for a while, but choosing good is the only possibility for ending up with good.
The scriptures even teach us that. They tell us that evil begets evil, and good begets good. Or are you saying that, by choosing a lesser evil, we can bring about good? That's totally illogical to say that evil can bring about good.
Remember "without charity I'm nothing"?
Charity is great. Charity is wonderful. We should always have charity. But having charity doesn't mean that we should give up discernment. We are told by the church
The election of a president is an event in which Latter-day Saints in America take great interest. They believe that theirs is a land choice above all other lands, that its Constitution is divinely inspired, and that the American nation has a special destiny. They are particularly concerned, therefore, that the electoral process bring to the highest office in the land wise men who support the principles of the Constitution, who are capable administrators, and who are known for their integrity and exemplary conduct.
We have to use discernment to determine which candidates meet those qualifications.
Every single presidential nominee is a child of their Heavenly Father, inheritor of a divine birthright, in possession of the Light of Christ. Do you disagree with any of that?
And what bearing does that have on the current discussion? Yes, we all have divine potential. We all start off with the ability to return to our Heavenly Father. But there is no guarantee that they will use that birthright correctly. This is another non sequitur (meaning, it doesn't follow)
If you really want to stick to the 'evil' label - I'd love to have you start a thread on how to righteously judge someone as "evil".

I've made a stab at it in several threads. We'll probably have to agree to disagree. McCain has repeatedly tried to steal the liberties of his fellow americans, with a high degree of success, I might add.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I guess Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.... aren't evil, either. We're all children of God after all. Since we're all children of God, we must all be good. Hitler had the light of Christ after all and inheritor of a divine birthright. I mean, come on. We MUST judge good from evil or we will be overtaken by Satan faster than you can say, "Hell!"

There's lots and lots of scriptures that try to teach us how to judge good and evil...

2 Nephi 15:20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Mosiah 16:3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.

Alma 5:40 For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil.

Alma 40:13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evilfor behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their houseand these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

Moroni 7:14-15 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil. For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

D&C 98:10-11 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, I wanted to make clear that I have no problem with anyone voting for who they think is best, or voting for a person for whatever reasons seem to them to be correct. I may disagree with you. I may wish you made a better choice. But I am not trying to insinuate that everyone is required to vote exactly how I do. I've certainly made wrong choices in the past, and I can't guarantee that I'm absolutely correct this time.
But I am passionate about politics, so I won't be quiet about my opinions.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Lucifer and one third of the hosts of heaven are children of god too.

Smaug · Senior Member

mirkwood wrote:

Lucifer and one third of the hosts of heaven are children of god too.

And no one got to vote for them.

Smaug · Senior Member

Valhalla wrote:

Furthermore, he has made it clear that he has no problem with strict gun control.

And more recently (April '07) he made the opposite clear. Check this link: http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-mccain-second-amendment-absolutist.html

Smaug · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

Why do you assume that McCain would appoint conservative judges? To get an example of his tastes, he said that Alito was too conservative. And while he may have voted for Bork, he also voted for Ginsburg. I think it is a false hope to assume that he would appoint conservative judges.

He may have said that about Alito, but he voted for him. Even if he appointed moderate judges along the lines of Judges Kennedy and O'Connor (nominated by Reagan, BTW), we can be sure that they wouldn't be a far to the left as those Obama or Clinton would choose.

Smaug · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:

I guess Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.... aren't evil, either.

Neither were they elected.

Smaug · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

But I am passionate about politics, so I won't be quiet about my opinions.

As long as you allow everyone else the same privilege, I've got no problem with that.

arbilad · Head Chef

Smaug wrote:

Cocobeem wrote:

I guess Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.... aren't evil, either.

Neither were they elected.

The fact that we hold elections doesn't automatically mean that all the candidates are good, not evil. Whether we get a good or an evil leader depends on whether the people vote for good or evil.

BTW, Mussolini was elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1921, and Hitler would never have been appointed Chancellor if his Nazi party hadn't grown so large that they were necessary to form a ruling coalition. So, even though Hitler himself wasn't elected, he never would have been appointed if people hadn't voted for his Nazi party.

arbilad · Head Chef

Smaug wrote:

Valhalla wrote:

Furthermore, he has made it clear that he has no problem with strict gun control.
And more recently (April '07) he made the opposite clear. Check this link: http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-mccain-second-amendment-absolutist.html

I don't trust what politicians say, I trust what they do. And McCain's record is against him. The best rating he's ever earned from Gun Owners of America has been a C-, but more recently it's been an F. Here's a link that explains that, plus his voting record.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Smaug wrote:

mirkwood wrote:

Lucifer and one third of the hosts of heaven are children of god too.

And no one got to vote for them.

It has been taught to me that there was a vote in Heaven, though I currently have the veil in place and can't remember it.

Smaug · Senior Member

Yeah, I guess technically it was a vote---but perhaps a sustaining is more correct.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Sustaining doesn't apply to temporal elections.

Smaug · Senior Member

Too bad it doesn't.

Smaug · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

Smaug wrote:

I don't trust what politicians say, I trust what they do.

That's a good way to look at it. Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes. But you brought up McCain's words on Alito, and not his action of voting for Alito.

-- Edited by Smaug at 10:37, 2008-02-16

arbilad · Head Chef

Smaug wrote:

arbilad wrote:

Smaug wrote:

I don't trust what politicians say, I trust what they do.

That's a good way to look at it. Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes. But you brought up McCain's words on Alito, and not his action of voting for Alito.

-- Edited by Smaug at 10:37, 2008-02-16

Fair enough, you have a good point there. But the problem with looking at McCain's voting record on supreme court justices is that it is also inconclusive. He voted for Ginsburg as well. You can't really tell just from his voting record what sort of judges he would appoint as president. So I used his words seeking further clarification.

If you want to look at actions, he was complicit in the Democrats continuing to be able to block whatever judges they wanted to. The Republicans may not have succeeded in trying the "nuclear option", but at least it would have brought the Democrats obstructionism further into the public eye, and eventually they would have had to stop. Because of McCain, they can continue to choose which candidates get an up or down vote.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

arbilad wrote:
How is your assertion that voting for a third party brings about greater evil part of my statement?

Here's my line of thinking - I've posted it before:

Current political reality in America:
1. We have a 2 party system.
2. Liberals vote overwhelmingly for one party, conservatives vote overwhelmingly for the other party, both parties fight over the center..
3. Most votes for president are quite close 50/50 type of races, give or take 10%

Consequense: When a conservative 3rd party candidate runs, they take their votes mainly from the conservatives. When a liberal 3rd party candidate runs, they take their votes mainly from the liberals.

So, here's the logic:
A. Assume McCain is bad, and Obillary is worse, and a third party is better.
B. The third party candidates you're thinking about will rob votes from McCain.
C. The third party candidates you're thinking about will not win.
D. The third party candidates may be the deciding factor in McCain losing.
Therefore, by voting for a 3rd party candidate, you have, in effect, ensured the victory of the worst possible candidate. By your terms, an evil act.

You wanna 3rd party to win? You need to do something more than talk about why the only real choices are not acceptible. You need to have a clear, articulated, realistic, persuasive plan on how you will overcome the political realities. Appeals to scripture ain't gonna win elections.

Now, recent memory tells us Lieberman made it work in the last election. The democrats bumped him and ran some nosepicker who nobody liked. Lieberman ran as an independant, and most of the republicans and half the democrats voted for him. Question - can anoyone you're thinking of voting for do the same?

LM

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 22:11, 2008-02-16

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Standing ovation for that post, LM. That's the nuts and bolts of it, for better or for worse. I bet Ross Perot would even graph it for you.

(Is there a rule on this forum detailing how many pages a thread needs to make before Hitler comes up?)

Smaug · Senior Member

Or are you saying that, by choosing a lesser evil, we can bring about good? That's totally illogical to say that evil can bring about good.

It's illogical only from the standpoint of perfection. All governments of men are flawed. All contain a certain amount of "evil" (which I'd prefer to call "sin" or "wickedness") in them. Even the Constitution Party candidate is not sinless. Choosing the "lesser of two evils" is really a poor choice of words IMHO. Because each candidate has different motives for what they do, I think trying to find out whether or not their motives are good or evil is a better use of the term "evil". I'm sure Hitler, (Is there a rule on this forum detailing how many pages a thread needs to make before Hitler comes up?) for example, thought he was doing good. Of course, we know he wasn't and that he used evil means to bring about his utopian view of the world. So, looking at today's candidates, in particular McCain, is he motivated by good or evil? The way I see it, he thinks he's doing what's right. The question is, is he using evil means to accomplish those plans? Is he deliberately trying to thwart the Constitution of the United States, or is he just trying to do what he thinks is best for the nation? Tough questions, since we can't get inside his head.
We do know, however, that he has been firmly against abortion. So, let's take a look at that for a moment. Abortion, including late-term abortion, is a woman's right, according to both of the Dems. Both of them would for sure pick very liberal Supreme Court justices who would support abortion rights. Of course, you'd have to be blind not to see that this would cause a lot of evil--evil that would last for at minimum, a generation or two. Millions of babies would die. On the other hand, John McCain is much more likely to at least nominate moderate if not completely conservative judges, a group that would be much more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade and prevent millions of baby deaths. That's preventing evil.
Abortion is just one of many evils that will be increased under a Democratic administration.
The bottom line is, if we get a Democratic president, along with a Democratic Congress, we're in for a heckuva lot of evil coming down the pike. So to vote for a flawed but better candidate that can actually win is not only practical, it's preventing even more evil from happening. In my book, preventing evil is good.

-- Edited by Smaug at 07:37, 2008-02-17

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

"The American people will never knowlingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing it happened." -Norman M. Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party leader, campaign speech-1948

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

"The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention." -Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. 1, chap. 10 -- 1925

Smaug · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:

"The American people will never knowlingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing it happened." -Norman M. Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party leader, campaign speech-1948

Norman Thomas is wrong. A large share of us know what is happening and find ourselves powerless to stop it against the ever present tide of a media with a leftist agenda, and a political machine that seems unbreakably entrenched.

arbilad · Head Chef

Therefore, by voting for a 3rd party candidate, you have, in effect, ensured the victory of the worst possible candidate. By your terms, an evil act.
No, by your terms. I wish you'd stop ascribing your logic to me. I have already demonstrated why I think McCain is not a good man. You will not bring about good by voting for a dishonest, dishonorable man. You can only do that by voting for a good man. If things worked as you said, then yes, voting for a third party would be evil. But they don't. Everone I know that is planning to vote third party would otherwise not vote, so that is not lost votes for McCain.
We've gotten to where we are in this country by only voting for evil, sometimes for the lesser, sometimes for the greater, and things haven't changed.
And yes, third parties can win - they have been locally. And the numbers of the Constitution party are constantly growing. That will translate into more victories in the future. We're making headway towards good on the local level, and soon will be on the national level (greater numbers = greater votes). So, this thing that you claim will lead to greater evil is actually leading towards greater good.
But it all comes down to the advice I posted earlier from the church - vote for someone honest, someone who will maintain constitutional principles (not attack it like McCain). Nowhere have they said "Vote for the electable candidate" or "Hold your nose on election day and vote for the least objectionable to you candidate".
We're told to find good candidates. And that's why I can't vote for McCain - he fits none of the criteria that the church give us.
I'm tired of the false dilemna of having to choose between democrat and republican - that's why things never change. Do you really want to see abortions go down, or is that just rhetoric? Because we've had the opportunity in the past with a republican president, a republican congress, and a court with mostly Republican appointees. It beggars belief to think that the opportunity will ever get better than the one we squandered.
All of what you say sounds good in theory, but it's demonstratably untrue in practice.