If you're leaning toward voting for Governor Romney...

[VanillaGorilla]

I'd encourage you to just start following a few popular but not terribly radical columnists. You might enjoy David Brooks (a very insightful moderate Republican who can be pretty funny), Paul Krugman (a pretty liberal economist who writes in a very approachable style), and maybe Fareed Zakaria (a really good moderate writer who focuses on foreign issues). Maybe add on George Will if you want a conservative who uses lots of big words but is very, very funny with those words if you can make your way through it.

I'm sure there are lots of sites you can find that break down the issues. But the truth is that if you are just learning about the candidates and their parties, you probably want to get a better understanding of not just what the parties think, but why they think the way they do. Writers like these can give you more context.

Thanks, I just set up my Google Reader and am following all of them.

My dad is a Libertarian, so that's my core knowledge, but I've never been interested in any of it before.

 

[maxiep]

I’ll likely vote for Gov. Romney, so I’ll try to explain why:

--He’s shown an ability to reach across the aisle. The Massachusetts legislature was 85% Democrat, yet he managed to get plenty of legislation passed.

--At his heart, he’s a turnaround artist. His job has been to invest in a company, get rid of the parts that weren’t profitable or weren’t working, find more efficient solutions, instill better management, create a clear strategy and control costs. That kind of work is well-compensated, but it’s drudgery. It takes an incredible attention to detail and tremendous discipline. It’s green-eyeshade kind of work. I think we need a green-eyeshade President.

--He believes in American exceptionalism. Inherent in that belief is that we have something specific in our character, a focus on the individual and our ability to innovate.

--He believes in exploiting our domestic sources of energy, most of which are fossil fuel based. Cheaper energy ripples through the economy, helping almost everyone.

--He doesn’t believe in crony capitalism. A venture capitalist can’t afford to do so. They invest in the best mousetrap or the best management team. In government, he’ll meddle less in the private sector and reduce regulation.

--He emphasizes states rights over Federal ones.

--His foreign policy is much less idealistic and much more skeptical. He sides with Israel and will take a stronger stance against Iran, Russia and China.

--He’s more likely to reduce the influence of government in our day-to-day lives. He shows more faith in the American people and our ability to make decisions that maximize our own utility, not what maximizes the utility of people who think they know what’s best for you.

--It’s time to acknowledge that no matter how good the intentions, these policies haven’t worked. We’re worse off in almost every category. There’s a blueprint, albeit a painful one, of how to pull out of this tailspin and that’s the policy prescription of 1981-82.

--His focus would be on competency, not history. He’s results-oriented, not a navel gazer. It would be a welcome change.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, of course, every unsavory situation or statistic America finds itself in can be attributed to the last three and a half years of the current President's tenure. This exact same statement sounds equally dumb for any president of any party of all time. And you know that. I get that message boards are meant for disputing here and there and quite frankly this would be a boring place without the constant head butting. But at some point, for fuck sakes, can we all just take a god damn step back and at least attempt to see the other person's POV? Fueling the fire of divisiveness isn't helping a fucking thing.

No, I don't get any of what you are saying. Electing a black man is a huge step for progress for black people, yet it's not showing up for the positions of black people in general. It should. I wish it would.

He's had the power to appoint people to vast numbers of govt. jobs. These appointments not only can open peoples' eyes that black people are just as capable as anyone else to do anything in life. The people appointed have extraordinary regulatory and other powers to address issues particular to the community's situation.

He's had the power to spend $800B in stimulus money and $trillions in deficit spending.

Maybe you think it's symbolic, but the images of the president are lavish vacations and personal enrichment (his net worth increased ten fold).

I grew up and saw the civil rights marches in the 1960s and great progress (not enough) made for and by black people in the decades since. To the point we did elect a black man. That election shouldn't have halted that progress in its tracks and set it back.

I saw Harold Washington get elected mayor in Chicago against a massive white voter turnout against him. I saw him give out contracts for roads and other infrastructure to black owned and run firms for the first time. There simply are really good things that could be done and haven't been done.

Black unemployment being near 2x what it is for everyone else is absurd, shameful, and more than just some unsavory statistic.

 

[mook]

Maybe you think it's symbolic, but the images of the president are lavish vacations and personal enrichment (his net worth increased ten fold).

Those images haven't really been my impression.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincar...y-6-million-see-why-hes-down-since-last-year/

Based on our research, the Obamas are actually worth less than they were last May, when Barack Obamapreviously filed.
s to be expected for the nation’s top politico and his wife, the vast majority of the Obamas’ fortune these days is held in plain vanilla U.S. treasurys, worth about $3.4 million. We figure he has $2.4 million in notes and $1 million in T-bills, lower than the $5.2 million in treasurys estimated off the May 16, 2011 disclosures, due to a drop in the value of their T-bills (T-bills were previously estimated in higher range on the disclosure form and have dropped). The Obamas also have nearly three quarters of a million in cash (this position moved up a bracket), $625,000 in mutual funds and ETFs, including about $300,000 in college funds for their girls, as well as a $90,000 in a State of Illinois pension fund. The President’s hefty book royalties from “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams From My Father,” a big source of his wealth, are decreasing at a faster rate than we had estimated. In 2009, Obama’s book sales peaked and he grossed nearly $5.7 million, according to his income tax statement; by 2010, gross book revenues had dropped to $1.6 million. This year the amount he’s taking home in book sales is even lower: between $150,000 and $1.1 million, according to Tuesday’s disclosure report. This figure is lower in part because Obama is giving away much of his new book money (after taxes), including a $133,000 advance and earnings of between $100,000 and $1 million (just disclosed on his latest financial form) for his third book, “Of Thee I Sing: A Letter To My Daughters,” published November 2010. Proceeds from that project are going to the Fisher House Foundation for scholarships for children of fallen and disabled soldiers.
One of the couple’s most valuable assets is their 6,200-square-foot, 6-bathroom, 3-fireplace home in Hyde Park, on the South Side of Chicago. The property was recently listed in public documents with a value at $1.65 million, same as what the Obamas paid for it back in 2005. The financial disclosure released Tuesday reveals a mortgage against the house of between $500,000 and $1,000,000.
All in all, that brings the Obamas up to nearly $6 million, not too bad for a pair of Harvard Law School grads who skipped the corporate track to become a community activist and a hospital communications director.
Here’s an approximated summary of where the Obamas hold their wealth:
Cash: $660,000
Mutual funds/ETFs: $625,000
Pension: $90,000
Treasuries: $3.4 million
Real estate: $900,000
TOTAL: $5.7 million

Not really a shocking amount of profiteering, from what I can see.
As far as vacations, from last summer: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20093801.html

So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.
Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off -- 28 days.

 

[Denny Crane]

mook to the rescue!

You are using forbes' guesstimations vs. the actual filings the Obamas make.

You are comparing Bush and Reagan going to their homes (some number of times) where they worked (at least some of the time) with Obama's glitzy vacations.

 

[mook]

Is it "glitzy" to take your kids to the state you grew up in? If you want to accuse him of wasting far too much time on the beach, shouldn't you find a pic where he doesn't have a dorky farmer's tan?

Anyway, this is waaaay off track. It'd be nice to keep this thread in line with the OP's wishes and not a whine fest about the opponent.

 

[mook]

Gallup poll

As you can see, atheists are still the least desirable candidates out of blacks, women, Catholics, Hispanics, Jews, Mormons, gays and Muslims.

Well, I'll be damned. (But apparently not by the majority of Americans.)

 

[Denny Crane]

Is it "glitzy" to take your kids to the state you grew up in? If you want to accuse him of wasting far too much time on the beach, shouldn't you find a pic where he doesn't have a dorky farmer's tan?

Anyway, this is waaaay off track. It'd be nice to keep this thread in line with the OP's wishes and not a whine fest about the opponent.

He has a $1M+ home in chicago. Going there to spend time wouldn't be a glitzy vacation.

I don't see the point in being his sycophant. He's done what he's done, and there are plenty of photos of him in Hawaii, in NYC painting the town red, and so on.

 

[maxiep]

Does anyone else have a positive case to make for Gov. Romney in this thread? It's pretty sad that this appears to be an election where each side will vote against a candidate than for one.

 

[Denny Crane]

He's not Obama.

He may be able to reach across the aisle to get some things done easier than Obama. Democrats aren't a unified party when it comes to voting on most things (ObamaCare being an exception).

He should be good for business, in theory. What's good for business should be good for everyone, in theory.

The people he appoints won't likely be as awful as Obama's appointments (that's up/down throughout govt.).

 

[chris_in_pdx]

Does anyone else have a positive case to make for Gov. Romney in this thread? It's pretty sad that this appears to be an election where each side will vote against a candidate than for one.

Welcome to the last 40 years.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

He should be good for business, in theory. What's good for business should be good for everyone, in theory.

It's that attitude that's gotten us in the mess we are in now.

 

[Ed O]

I'd encourage you to just start following a few popular but not terribly radical columnists. You might enjoy David Brooks (a very insightful moderate Republican who can be pretty funny), Paul Krugman (a pretty liberal economist who writes in a very approachable style), and maybe Fareed Zakaria (a really good moderate writer who focuses on foreign issues). Maybe add on George Will if you want a conservative who uses lots of big words but is very, very funny with those words if you can make your way through it.

Those are good names. A couple of more are Thomas Friedman (a moderate liberal who tends to focus on international economic stuff) and Thomas Sowell (a libertarian/conservative economist/writer who happens to be black).

One piece of advice, VG: don't take any one column or columnist as perfect. Krugman and Sowell can write things that seem, internally, perfectly clear and reasonable and if you read them in succession they're on the exact opposite side of an issue.

Ed O.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

 

[NOVoodoo]

Fair enough. I thought it was an anti-Mormon rant rather than an anti-religious one.

As did I, and I was going to reply with heavy approval.

Condemning organized religion as a whole is just as inane as the foundation of the Mormon relgion.

No, I will not vote for someone who is a Mormon, because like The Professional Fan was saying, until he backed down, it shows a lack of judgement. I've been saying that for a while.

I don't want to turn this into a theological arguement that will only result in bitter feelings and a disagreement, but to compare most Christian religions to Mormonism is ludicrous. I know I'm posting this in a northwestern team's forum, so I'll probably catch a lot of shit, but the Mormon religion is two shades away from Scientology.

If your choice of religion, the most important decision in your life, is Mormonism, I question your judgement.

 

[maxiep]

I appreciate those who openly admit their thoughts about Mormons and Mormonism. I prefer people to speak plainly, even if I disagree with their positions.

I don't have in-depth knowledge of the specific beliefs of the LDS that seem to rankle so many. However, I have known many, many Mormons. I dated one for a few years, went to school and was friends with a ton of them in LO and had one as one my groomsmen. I can say without a shred of doubt they are some of the most decent, upstanding, values-oriented people I have ever known. I am proud to know them, and proud to call them friends.

Another way to put it is, dislike the religion if you wish, but love the practitioner. I find it interesting, however, that 52 years after this country wrestled with the idea of a Catholic as President, we're once again confronting religious bias. It seems then-Senator Obama's hurdle as the first half-black nominee in 2008 was lower.

 

[donkiez]

I find the Mormon religion odd also, but if you take away your preconceived prejudices then it’s no more odd than the Christian, Muslim, and pretty much every other religion. The fact is that most Mormons I know are some of the nicest, most family orientated, and accepting people in our country... sometimes to almost sickening level. This is all a moot point however as religion and state are suppose to be separated and no matter how much the Christian fundamentalist zealots scream, we are not a Christian state.

 

[Denny Crane]

I echo what maxiep and donkiez wrote about mormons. I've known quite a few, and they're all awesome people.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I don't want to turn this into a theological arguement that will only result in bitter feelings and a disagreement, but to compare most Christian religions to Mormonism is ludicrous. I know I'm posting this in a northwestern team's forum, so I'll probably catch a lot of shit, but the Mormon religion is two shades away from Scientology.

Anyone who believes in ancient mythical fairy tales is suspect in my book.

 

[maxiep]

Anyone who believes in ancient mythical fairy tales is suspect in my book.

Just to be clear, you're not voting for President Obama, right? He has declared himself a Christian and has attended a church that largely followed Black Liberation theology. Therefore, his belief system is equivalent to Gov. Romney's by your definition.

 

[D-Rock]

As did I, and I was going to reply with heavy approval.

Condemning organized religion as a whole is just as inane as the foundation of the Mormon relgion.

No, I will not vote for someone who is a Mormon, because like The Professional Fan was saying, until he backed down, it shows a lack of judgement. I've been saying that for a while.

I don't want to turn this into a theological arguement that will only result in bitter feelings and a disagreement, but to compare most Christian religions to Mormonism is ludicrous. I know I'm posting this in a northwestern team's forum, so I'll probably catch a lot of shit, but the Mormon religion is two shades away from Scientology.

If your choice of religion, the most important decision in your life, is Mormonism, I question your judgement.

Yet somehow those who are active in the LDS faith generally seem to do pretty well in life despite their impaired judgment. They also serve in local, state, and federal government, join the armed forces, volunteer huge amounts of time, resources, and money to the community and other countries, run 3 universities at ridiculously subsidized costs (BYU non member undergraduate tuition is $2280 a semester, law school for non-members is only $5300 a semester - beats the $15,000+ I paid at Gonzaga), teach self-reliance and staying out of and getting out of debt as soon as possible (the general standard is try not to get into debt for anything but a house, education and maybe a car, and even in those things, you're told to live within your means and be economical), they work in tandem with the Boy Scouts of America in developing positive traits and skills in young boys, etc.

Disagree with the theology all you want, but don't pretend making Mormonism a part of your (the universal you) decision for choosing a political candidate is anything but religious bigotry unless you're saying that Mormonism has helped Mitt be charitable, frugal, responsible, and many other positive characteristics. The real life principles endorsed and taught in the Mormon church, if lived and applied, would make any person a good candidate for political office.

On a religious note, what makes the founding of the Mormon church any more insane than the stories in the Bible? An ark with 2 of every animal, a talking burning bush, water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead, people turning to pillars of salt, washing in a river to cure leprosy, river turning to blood, raining frogs? Is someone having a vision (much like Paul, or more accurately, Saul) really that much less believable? Or is it just that it happened more recently than 2000 years ago that makes it less plausible?

Politically speaking, I don't care for the healthcare reform. I like some aspects of it, but this is not a great plan for reforming healthcare. I approve of Mitt's statement that he would repeal it. I'd like to see Congress go back to the drawing board on it. I too think that Mitt has credentials as a business person to help improve the economy and balance the budget (his job was to keep businesses afloat for goodness sakes!). Whether either of things would actually happen if Mitt were elected, obviously remains to be seen. I thought the stimulus was a huge waste of money. It could have been a positive thing if it had been used differently, but whatever. Those are two big issues that I think Mitt would improve over what's been done under Obama.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I find the Mormon religion odd also, but if you take away your preconceived prejudices then it’s no more odd than the Christian, Muslim, and pretty much every other religion

this is pretty much it

if we werent all raised christian/catholic for the most part, mormanism would seem exactly as ridiculous as catholocism would to an non indoctrinated mind

that said, mormans had/have some strange views on women and dark skinned people until very recently, semi red flags imo

 

[D-Rock]

this is pretty much it

if we werent all raised christian/catholic for the most part, mormanism would seem exactly as ridiculous as catholocism would to an non indoctrinated mind

that said, mormans had/have some strange views on women and dark skinned people until very recently, semi red flags imo

I'm curious what strange views Mormons have had on women? I know what people say about our views on dark skinned people and why they say them, but I'm confused what people think we believe in regards to women. I hear all the time that we're sexist/misogynistic/abusive, but I've never heard anyone articulate how we've come by that label. I know the Proclamation on the Family can ruffle some feathers, but I wouldn't think that would be enough to cause widespread name calling. Is it male only priesthood holders? That's not any different than the Bible. I really am curious. I'm open to people sharing what they think. I'm also curious to get the opinion of those that have associated with Mormons (like Denny, maxiep) on whether they think these observations/accusations are legitimate.

Sorry to derail the thread. I tried bringing it back on track at the end of my first post...

 

[maxiep]

I'm curious what strange views Mormons have had on women? I know what people say about our views on dark skinned people and why they say them, but I'm confused what people think we believe in regards to women. I hear all the time that we're sexist/misogynistic/abusive, but I've never heard anyone articulate how we've come by that label. I know the Proclamation on the Family can ruffle some feathers, but I wouldn't think that would be enough to cause widespread name calling. Is it male only priesthood holders? That's not any different than the Bible. I really am curious. I'm open to people sharing what they think. I'm also curious to get the opinion of those that have associated with Mormons (like Denny, maxiep) on whether they think these observations/accusations are legitimate.

Sorry to derail the thread. I tried bringing it back on track at the end of my first post...

To answer your question directly, D-Rock, if I've ever noticed LDS members behaving "oddly", it would be on the side of being a bit "square". In my opinion, the focus on family, charity, thrift and self-reliance are all qualities to admire, not fear. I'm sure there are low character members of the LDS church out there, but I haven't had any interaction with people that would fit that description. In fact, it's amazing to me how uniformally moral the Mormons with whom I've interacted are. I would be proud to call a Mormon my President.

By the way, has anyone on this board ever spoken out about Harry Reid and his lack of ability to function as Senate Majority Leader because of his "weird" beliefs?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

That's not any different than the Bible. I really am curious.

not saying the bible is right either, in fact there is some REALLY weird stuff in the bible

 

[3RA1N1AC]

agree with maxie, mormons are particularly moral and just in mixed company, almost annoyingly so

nothing wrong with not being a shitbag though, good for them

 

[D-Rock]

not saying the bible is right either, in fact there is some REALLY weird stuff in the bible

I realize you're not saying that, but what are they things you've heard that prompted the comment about women? I assume you've heard or observed something or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

 

[barfo]

I don't find mormonism any odder than any of the other religions/cults. I'd prefer to have a candidate that doesn't profess to believe in invisible beings and absurd folk tales, but no such candidates are available, since professing such belief is an absolute requirement for so many americans.

barfo

 

[D-Rock]

To answer your question directly, D-Rock, if I've ever noticed LDS members behaving "oddly", it would be on the side of being a bit "square". In my opinion, the focus on family, charity, thrift and self-reliance are all qualities to admire, not fear. I'm sure there are low character members of the LDS church out there, but I haven't had any interaction with people that would fit that description. In fact, it's amazing to me how uniformally moral the Mormons with whom I've interacted are. I would be proud to call a Mormon my President.

By the way, has anyone on this board ever spoken out about Harry Reid and his lack of ability to function as Senate Majority Leader because of his "weird" beliefs?

I agree with your statement about being "square." No drinking (which pretty much means no clubs or bars although there's no rule specifically against going to either of those places), no smoking, no recreational drugs, no premarital sex, no swearing (mostly anyway ), modest attire, etc. No, no, no, no, can lead someone to be a little uptight. On the other side of the coin, we're taught that we should do what Joseph did when Potiphar's wife propositioned him and run when temptation is near instead of sticking around and trying to tough it out. So, I completely understand when people say Mormon's are cliqueish and avoid socializing with non-members. It's especially a problem in places like Idaho and Utah or other places with high concentrations of Mormons. That being said, I consider my day to day life to be similar to everyone else's, except I choose to spend more time on church things than the average person probably does and choose not to do some activities than a lot of people do.

 

[D-Rock]

I don't find mormonism any odder than any of the other religions/cults. I'd prefer to have a candidate that doesn't profess to believe in invisible beings and absurd folk tales, but no such candidates are available, since professing such belief is an absolute requirement for so many americans.

barfo

You're certainly entitled to your preferences, but I doubt there would be much difference (positive or negative) in the performance of the President if he or she was an atheist or agnostic. Sure, religion impacts the way people lien on certain policies, but there are still plenty of religious people that are pro-choice and support gay rights (as a couple examples) and the opposite is true as well.