2008 Presidential Candidates

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

RE: 2008 Presidential Candidates

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Tyro wrote:

Jeffery! How great to see you here!

rayb, you crack me up!

Thank Titus, he told me about this place in an email a day or so ago.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Actually some LDS buy into the same concept of divine will. Bring up the question of omniscience and agency sometime and you will get many many different stances, some of which may indeed include the idea of "divine will". It is amazing how people will dance with the words to make their own outcome seem plausible.

As I have stated, politics is an amoral beast that reflects the desire, both righteous and unrighteous of its people in a democratic society. Unrighteous desires are not "God's will".

Of course all of this leads to an interesting question. Would we vote for a righteous incompetent or an unrighteous competent leader? Which by the way is no reflection on Romney since I see him as competent.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Yeah, I was about to say that we as LDS tend to compartmentalize the difference between religious leadership and secular leadership a little better, but bit my virtual tongue as I realized that isn't and hasn't always been the case.

As to the question, I don't know. I know it sounds cliche, but for major elections, I try to rely on the impression I get from the Spirit as to who the better choice would be. I don't just limit it to what a candidate's platform or party or stance on issues is / has been. Not to bash the Democrats, but from the first time I saw and heard the man, I had the distinct impression to not vote for Clinton because there was just something wrong with his countenance. I'm sure there are those who could say the same thing about the current Pres. Bush. I have to admit, his wasn't the countenance I would have initially chosen from the field of candidates when he was first elected, but it was definitely lighter than more than most of his opponents. Kerry and Gore both had (and continue to have in my mind) relatively dark countenances. Edwards did not. Who was Kerry's running mate? Anyway Hillary Clinton does, McCain's countenance has darkened noticeably to me (as has Buchannen), and I'm not paying much more attention to folks than that. Romney has a fairly clear countenance thus far. Anyway, I know, that all sounds cliche and is very subjective, but if we're living righteously, I do believe we can have some level of spiritual discernment into whether another person is essentially honest and has integrity or not.

I think that a righteous competent or righteous incompetent individual elected to office can grow into the role if they humbly rely on the source of truth for their support.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

One is almost afraid to ask what you think of active LDS Harry Reid's .

Personally I don't like his politics, and I think that politically speaking, he has compartmentalized the political game a bit too much, allowing him to act in a less than honest manner with his fellow man. But that is only this man's opinion.

If he ran for president, or senate in my state, I would not vote for him.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

One is almost afraid to ask what you think of active LDS Harry Reid's .

Why? Not everyone who is LDS has a shining bright countenance, and I've seen lighter and darker countenances than his in LDS folks... I actually view him as most other politicians in Washington. It is his profession and career, and like you, I think he has probably compartmentalized too much his politics from the belief system we think he has simply because of his membership in the church. It wouldn't be the first time a person's status and career have been in conflict with the WWAGLDSPD (What Would A Good LDS Person Do :laugh:) mantra, and it certainly won't be the last.

Maybe that is part of the appeal with Romney for a number of folks. Besides his apparent not saying one thing and doing the opposite and apparent strength of character and integrity, politics has not really been his lifelong career, despite the legacy of his father being a long term politician to some extent.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Romney is definitely a politician and plays politics. I can stomach his politics more than Reids (whose politics I don't agree with). As much as I would like a presidential candidate to be straight and not play political games, I realize no such candidate would probably get elected.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

TitusTodd wrote:

Romney is definitely a politician and plays politics. I can stomach his politics more than Reids (whose politics I don't agree with). As much as I would like a presidential candidate to be straight and not play political games, I realize no such candidate would probably get elected.

No doubt there (you can't not play politics and be successful in the positions and types of work he has had professionally prior to entering political service), but the fact that he doesn't come off as a professional politician who will do or say whatever he needs to just to get elected may give him a leg up on some of the long term professional politicians in a primary runoff.

Of course, I am a subject matter expert in my own opinion.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Politics is a game of compromise. Compromise by its nature means you are willing to give up beliefs that you hold dear. In business its the same way. So you risk a company going backrupt and hurting the owners and stockholders and pension funds? Or do you lay off some workers and have their families go hungry?

Politics by its nature is the choice of a lesser of evils where compromise is the variable that decides the level. The last pure ideologue that chose not to compromise, that rose to power was Hitler. I may hold my nose when I vote, but the alternative can be more sanguine.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Politics is a game of compromise. Compromise by its nature means you are willing to give up beliefs that you hold dear. In business its the same way. So you risk a company going backrupt and hurting the owners and stockholders and pension funds? Or do you lay off some workers and have their families go hungry?

Politics by its nature is the choice of a lesser of evils where compromise is the variable that decides the level. The last pure ideologue that chose not to compromise, that rose to power was Hitler. I may hold my nose when I vote, but the alternative can be more sanguine.

The decision to layoff workers is not about compromise. When I make a decision like that in my business I have to consider not only the long term benefits versus costs. That's not a compromise, it's a business decision.

Hitler didn't come to power because someone failed to compromise. he came to power because he was a popular leader in a very difficult time in Germany. The economy was a wreck, the military machine a shadow of its former self, and poverty was rampant. He gave the people hope, national pride, someone to blame (Jews etc.), a way to revive their economy and get jobs and in turn the people gave him the power he craved. He defied the terms of the surrender and built of the military. He siezed assets of the Jews and others, blamed them for Germany's problems, and railed against the nation's enemies both real and percieved. He appealed to the German sense of nationalism. That wasn't compromise.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

...and we sat around and twiddled our thumbs...

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Politics is a game of compromise. Compromise by its nature means you are willing to give up beliefs that you hold dear. In business its the same way. So you risk a company going backrupt and hurting the owners and stockholders and pension funds? Or do you lay off some workers and have their families go hungry?

Politics by its nature is the choice of a lesser of evils where compromise is the variable that decides the level. The last pure ideologue that chose not to compromise, that rose to power was Hitler. I may hold my nose when I vote, but the alternative can be more sanguine.

The decision to layoff workers is not about compromise. When I make a decision like that in my business I have to consider not only the long term benefits versus costs. That's not a compromise, it's a business decision.

Hitler didn't come to power because someone failed to compromise. he came to power because he was a popular leader in a very difficult time in Germany. The economy was a wreck, the military machine a shadow of its former self, and poverty was rampant. He gave the people hope, national pride, someone to blame (Jews etc.), a way to revive their economy and get jobs and in turn the people gave him the power he craved. He defied the terms of the surrender and built of the military. He siezed assets of the Jews and others, blamed them for Germany's problems, and railed against the nation's enemies both real and percieved. He appealed to the German sense of nationalism. That wasn't compromise.

Hitler came to power because he refused to compromise. Years earlier in his book "Mein Kampf" he stated what his goals were. He never deviated. Sometimes people who don't compromise are not what we want.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Hitler came to power because he refused to compromise. Years earlier in his book "Mein Kampf" he stated what his goals were. He never deviated. Sometimes people who don't compromise are not what we want.

How did refusing to compromise put him into power? He had goals sure but he still had to build a concensus among enough people to get into power. What is your definition of compromise because it must be different than the one I learned in Poly Sci. I don't see it?

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Hitler's refusal to compromise (including an attempted putsch) was seen as a sign of strength. When the nation was stable, this was seen as a wrong, however the world wide depression, the rise of communism in Germany and the general destabilization of the world made Hitler (and his ilk) appealing. He did not compromise, but drove others to compromise. It allowed him to gain power, and finally overcome stronger political parties in Germany.

Hence my feeling that those who never compromise are not always in the best interest of us all.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Hitler's refusal to compromise (including an attempted putsch) was seen as a sign of strength. When the nation was stable, this was seen as a wrong, however the world wide depression, the rise of communism in Germany and the general destabilization of the world made Hitler (and his ilk) appealing. He did not compromise, but drove others to compromise. It allowed him to gain power, and finally overcome stronger political parties in Germany.

Hence my feeling that those who never compromise are not always in the best interest of us all.

So are you saying then that if Hitler had been willing to compromise then he would not have come to power? Come on. Your theory that those who are unwilling to compromise are not always in our best interest by puting up Hitler is nothing more than a seriously flawed comparrison. For every bad leader in history that you could point out as someone who refused to compromise I can show you ten others who also refused to compromise who where good leaders. I can also show you leaders who compromised and who were totally worthless leaders. Chamberlain comes to mind. How about a modern example, John McCain. This guy is a horrible leader who constantly compromises.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Actually, Hitler (and the National Socialist Party) came to power by means of political manuevering. The Weimar Republic (post WWI) tried to be as democratic as possible, and allowed equal voice to all parties in the political process. As a result, the legislative branch of government ended up having to represent the popular % of vote obtained by the various parties, regardless of how insignificant it was (post WWII constitution now requires a party receive 5% of the vote to be eligible for any seats in the Reichstag). The Nazis and Hitler were never voted into power except by this means of the party got a small % of the votes initially. The executive powers of the government had to be selected based of the results of the Reichstage makeup. In other words, essentially a coalition government had to be created in which a majority of the popular vote was represented between the various parties in the coalition.

In order for the large parties to attract the small parties with the swing % to their coalition, they had to promise concessions, like appointments to various government posts. If I remember correctly from my post Germany mission BYU German history class taught by a professor who was native German and had been a teen and was conscripted for military duty by the Wehrmacht during the time Rommel was in Northern Africa, the Nazi party was not considered very popular at first. Hitler and the Nazis gained political power by being included in a coalition against the communist party. Eventually the German President, Paul von Hindenburg who had been advised by the previous chancellor, Franz von Papen, fired Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor and installed Hitler as the new Chancellor in January 1933. Within 18 months, Schleicher had been assasinated (and it was his influence on Hindenburg that had actually made it legal for the Chancellor to declare a state of emergency and dissolve the Reichstag). The rest is a history of political intrigue and treasonous conspiracy to wrest control of the government and destroy the republic. Even at the height of the pre-war WWII popularity of the Nazis and Hitler when he was Chancellor in 1933 prior to declaration of martial law and the state of emergency that removed the last vestiges of the Weimar Republic for establishment of The Third Reich, the Nazis and Hitler never received a majority of the popular vote.

These are all pretty good articles that help describe what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Schleicher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

That is how he came to power. How the methods used are defined is up to personal interpretation, but it wasn't by himself, and it wasn't just by sheer will power. It was opportunistic and calculated by a number of individuals with less than moral motives.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Ok I can buy the pragmatic concessions on the floor of parliament.

But Hitler was still unyeilding in his goals and did not compromise them for political purposes. He was willing to be as treasonous or underhanded as needed because the moral value of the west were subordinate to the goals he held.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Ok I can buy the pragmatic concessions on the floor of parliament.

But Hitler was still unyeilding in his goals and did not compromise them for political purposes. He was willing to be as treasonous or underhanded as needed because the moral value of the west were subordinate to the goals he held.

Ah ha! So the fact that he was evil had nothing to do with him not wanting to compromise nor does it mean that a person who does not compromise must by default be evil. So is there a causal relationship between not compromising and becoming a murderous dictator?

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

I never said there was a causal relationship. I simply stated that simply being uncompromising is not necessarily a good thing to be admired.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

I never said there was a causal relationship. I simply stated that simply being uncompromising is not necessarily a good thing to be admired.

Jeffery, are you compromising your original hardline position on this?

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Like Hitler, I don't compromise.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Like Hitler, I don't compromise.

Hey if you want to compare yourself to Hitler, you'll get no argument from me!

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Go Mitt Romney!!!

--Ray