Discussion on:

Should Barack Obama be reelected?

Yes or no, and why?

For the same reason Romney shouldn't be elected. Any two political parties with the power to lock out a viable third party candidate need their power strangled. Gary Johnson, Libertarian, is currently on the ballot in 47 states, and in litigation against the DNC/RNC power mongers to make the remaining three. Go Gary.

Screw the Dems and Reps. This is a mess both parties made, and I'm sick to death of both of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
That's the only way to have a viable third, let alone fourth, fifth etc. party.
And that, in turn, is the only way to keep wingnuts on both sides from getting more influence than they're supposed to have.

The good news is, it's super effective: You have First-past-the-post representation as an inheritance from British rule, New Zealand used to have it too, for the same reason. In 1994, NZ passed a new law to go to mixed-member proportional representation instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation
And already from the next election, in 1996, the two-party system was bust - no party has been able to rule without a coalition since.

Some states have popular demand referendums as an option, right? You could get the ball rolling today, if'n you really want it.

as in this wiki article

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

We have it in Australia and currently have a minority government where the independents have the sway of power in the federal government. The downside is the minority government has to cater to all sorts of minor rubbish issues to keep the independents on side.

if a vote for a candidate can lessen their chances at winning, that's messed up.

First Past the Post is worse though, since it in theory allows 51% of cast votes to get 100% of representation. Good for getting things done, but so is dictatorship... and arguably, I think a good many Americans would like their government to get *less* done, not more.

I don't think he's been particularly effective. On the other hand, Mitt Romney hasn't given me any reason to think he'd be an improvement, so I may stick with the devil I know. Barry SHOULDN'T win, but he WILL.

I wish presidential candidates would stop promising what they will do if elected. They never acknowledge that the president doesn't work in a vacuum, and none of his (her?) promises or proposals are going anywhere without Congressional cooperation. That's where the 'business experience' advantage falls down; business leaders don't have to negotiate their decisions. Carter and Bush Jr. were both businessmen and history isn't regarding either as a shining light. Maybe the head of a non-profit would be better, with more consensus building skills. Reagan, one of the most highly regarded presidents of my lifetime, started his elected career as a union leader.

I look at the list and decide who I think is the worst possible candidate and vote for them last. Then review the list and repeat the previous steps until I got none left.

The sad thing about the US electoral system is if people do NOT want Obama, they HAVE to get out and vote for someone else or the small minority that do want Obama will win through lack of opposition.

Remember, for evil to win, all it takes is for good people to do nothing.

if we don't put a stop to some things pretty soon, we're hosed. 'Our' government is increasingly bought and paid for by corporate and banking interests. Any day now I expect national debt to reach the point we can't even cover the interest on it. Obama spits out Executive Orders like he's wielding a royal sceptre, and I expect the same from the glaringly ambitious and probably sociopathic Romney. Google hallmarks of facism and 12 of 14 on a list are in progress. Never mind, here's the link: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Oh, and let's not leave out war. Iran is next. How many of our youth are we going to waste on oil?

And let's not leave out our growing hypocrisy on human rights. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=0

Police state, anyone? http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-signs-that-america-is-being-systematically-transformed-into-a-giant-surveillance-grid

I'm sick, just sick over what this nation is becoming.

1. His whole upbringing and life has stressed good fiscal management and care of finances; thus I don't see him being a big spender on airy-fairy projects. If anything, he may be a bit too tight on the spending, but he has plenty of experience in senior management from his own businesses.

2. He's not a sociopath and is very down to earth, again, most of that is from the upbringing and life he's lived. I expect he's going to be very careful in studying things before pushing them out. However, I do expect there's a few things he's been studying for many months that he'll probably push out as soon as he deems it practicable to do so.

As to the bit about fascism, you do realise that 13 of those 14 items also apply to socialist dictatorships too.

I'm glad I don't have to vote in this election, but faced with a choice of Romney or Obama, I see Mitt as the lesser of two evils by a huge margin. The most evil thing about Romney is the part and party leaders he has to work with, while Obama has all that in spades and is also a proven liar who does NOT have the best interests of the USA or its citizens in mind in any decision he makes.

Despite Dem/Rep efforts to silence it. I don't have to choose between Obama and Romney.

anyone but those put up by the two major parties to have a real chance of being voted in? I don't think so, what it may do is to water down the votes for one candidate.

On whether or not the Electoral College follows the will of the people as it should, or is as corrupt as the rest of the system.

nt

With no rapid mass communication, there was no way for potential presidents to reach all the people. Electors were chosen based on their ability to represent the basic desires of those who sent them to the capitol, but those senders were usually state legislatures, not the mass electorate. Because of the inability to communicate from the capitol to those legislature, they were expected to exercise their best judgement.

One day maybe we'll get around to a direct popular vote for president, but we've got bigger problems in the process than that one.

Different things. It was also assumed that electors would 'exercise independent judgment' when voting. And that Prez and Veep would be running independently of one another.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Only one candidate wins any given state primary election, and as representatives of each state, they are beholden to their respective State Constitutions. Whatever latitude they may or may not have is spelled out in their State Constitutions. As far as I know, only two states, Maine and Nebraska, allow for casting split votes.

And quite frankly, it's not up to you to tell people of other states how they manage their own elections, just like its not the place of others to tell you and your state how to cast your vote(s). We have 50 separate state elections, not a national election.

By the way, the will of the people seldom speaks with one monolithic voice. This "people", for example, would be opposed to ending or changing the Electoral College system. It would be the final nail in the coffin to individual state's rights. I'd also support repealing the 17th Amendment for the same reason.

"This 'people', for example, would be opposed to ending or changing the Electoral College system."

I see the Electoral College as the exercise of states' right at the expense of individual rights; just this "people's" opinion.

I don't see the coffin nailed shut while the 10th is still on the books.

I don't have feelings about the 17th either way.

I'd love to see the 22nd either repealed or applied equally to all federal elected offices.

I notice you haven't weighed in yet on your original topic.

We can certainly agree to disagree (as I don't think I've ever swayed anyone at TR to actually to consider another point of view), but if you go back to the founders' intent, the House of Representatives was intended to represent the people of each state, while the Senate was intended to represent the state itself. It was an brilliant concept, if you ask me (which you didn't), but it was circumvented with the passage of the 17th amendment.

Personally speaking, I don't think the people of Colorado (for example) should be able to tell the people of South Carolina (for example) how to conduct their own state's business. The 17th Amendment actually made that possible; and if the Electoral College were to be eliminated, then it would become common practice.

It forces one to consider one's underlying principle: do you believe in a stronger federal government or stronger state governments? Considering the reality that most issues concerning New Jersey (for example), have entirely different considerations than similar issues in Utah (for example), I'm inclined to favor more local control.

Stronger Federal Government, or a stronger State Governments? I choose the latter, because I see their respective roles as quite different. Which do you choose?

(Not to mention the introduction of the progressive movement in America at the time of the passage of both the 16th and 17th Amendments.)

P.S.

Re: You said, "I see the Electoral College as the exercise of states' right at the expense of individual rights; just this "people's" opinion."

I'm curious. When did the electors of South Carolina fail to cast their votes as dictated by the individuals of South Carolina?

Re: I notice you haven't weighed in yet on your original topic.

Do you really have to ask? (insert smiley face here)

P.S. For those who don't know, I don't do "emoticons". I leave that to my Australian friend! (Insert raving laughter here!)

that was just pulling your chain.

Last week was the 30th birthday of the emoticon.

I don't see the question of federal vs. state government as an 'either / or' one. It depends on the individual issue in question. I think states would better manage those issues that fall entirely within their borders, but those are becoming fewer. Should Missouri be allowed to dump raw sewage in the Mississippi River just upstream from their border with Arkansas? if not, do you expect the states would work that out for themselves without federal intervention?

States aren't choosing each others' representatives, or telling them how to run their elections below the federal level. 3/4 of state legislatures agreed to change the method of selecting senators; they willing ceded that power to the electorate. The Senate is still made up of two people from each state, preserving the balance of equal representation. Does being chosen directly by the people make senators less responsive to their states' needs than being chosen by the home legislatures?

You asked if a federal government should be stronger than state governments. Should state government be stronger than its citizens?

Come on, Palmetto. You know good and well what I'm talking about. And quite frankly, I really don't want to get into discussions in which you're probably just playing devil's advocate.

Fair enough?

I freely confess to playing Devil's advocate, and I understand if that's not what you're interested in. Fair enough.

However, I don't 'know good and well' what you're talking about. If my example doesn't demonstrate there are cases when the federal government should be stronger than the state, then I'm completely misunderstanding the basis for the entire question. I don't mind that, but I dislike it when others assume what I 'know good and well'. Fair enough?

..... over the course of many years and hundreds of discussions in which you and I both participated, that you might have at least gotten a sense of how I view the respective roles of state and federal government. I suppose I was mistaken.

Not having the time or desire to explain fully, suffice it to say that I lean more towards the Federalist system as originally designed by Madison, Jefferson, et al, rather than the command and control system we have today.

One short example: Let the states handle their own public education systems, and get the federal government pretty much out of it. I don't think it a coincidence that education costs have increased, while student performance has decreased, since the creation of the Department of Education. One of many reasons, to be sure, but one of the biggest.

If the 26 states that sued to block Obamacare were serious, they'd appoint their presidential electors to Romney.

my mangling of my thoughts.

It's all good.

Viable, in this context, implies there's a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gary Johnson is not a viable candidate. In fact, it's a 100 percent certainty that he will lose. There's a 100 percent certainty that he will not win a single state, not even his home state of New Mexico. It's a 100 percent certainty that he will not receive a single electoral vote.

Viable? I don't think so.

There IS a 100 percent certainty, however, that a vote for Gary Johnson will help Barack Obama get reelected.

I love sticking to one's principle, something I try to do in all my arguments. But mixed with healthy dose of reality is the only way to ultimately advance such underlying principle - AND fend off an opposing principle from being advanced further.

..... AND fend off an opposing principle from being advanced further.

..... AND fend off an opposing principle from being advanced further.

Not only do libertarian-thinking people want to maintain a good offense, but if we don't even field a defensive team, we're doomed. And this is the time to put our best defensive team on the field.

Otherwise, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face comes to mind.

It's time to play defense, boxy, even if for just the one second it will take to cast a vote for the ONLY viable candidate against Barack Hussein Obama, and that's Mitt Romney. ONE SECOND, that's all. And then put your offense back on the field!

Any candidate on enough state ballots to potentially earn enough electoral votes to take the Presidency should be considered viable.

The objective, Max, is to shake the complacency of the major parties enough that they stop listening so much to the money and start listening more to the people. If enough Americans disillusioned with the defective and deficient options being presented to them by the two major parties know there's an alternative, it's entirely possible that enough will not consider the top two lines, vote responsibly, and make that alternative viable.

It always benefits one of the two mainstream parties, in this case probably Obama.

I know its a protest vote, but in the end it has unintended consequences. The only candidate that will pay attention to the huge national debt is Romney. Obama doesn't seem to think it is a problem and he will keep on spending. A vote for Gary Johnson takes away a vote for Romney that has a real chance to win this election. Gary Johnson can't win. At most he can get a couple of percentage points, but that will take away votes from Romney and guarantee an Obama victory.

Obama has had his chance and produced dismal results. Romney could be better. He has some real world experience, where Obama is just an academic lecturer. I think Romney is worth a shot. We already know what we have with Obama and thats pretty much nothing, why not?

Gary Johnson isn't going to do anything for this country. He'll never be elected, but Mitt Romney can and he really has a good background for turning around failing companies. His experience translates to this country in a way and I'd like to see him have the chance to do it.

I've never been a fan of his, but I'm pretty concerned about the debt. Of the two candidates, Romney has more of a focus on it. I just see Obama spending more money that we don't have.

The problem is not that Obama is spending, but what he is spending on. For the last 30 years we've been spending too much on the wrong things and haven't been spending enough on the right things.

Our national infrastructure is falling apart. Every day I work, I drive across bridges that are 40, 50, or 60 years old (or older!) and look it. I've voluntarily changed the routes I use between some of my stores because of the poor quality of the roads in the original routes. I've had to change the route I take between two of my stores because one of the bridges on the old route is in such bad shape, its load rating was reduced from 20 tons to 3 tons (2 tons/axle), which is less than the 8050 pound max gross of my 1/2-ton van! There are no plans to replace that bridge because there are no transportation funds. Where are those funds?

I'd like to see Obama start spending on infrastructure! He actually tried once, but the Republicans shot it down because the bill he pushed would have increased taxes. What hypocrisy! I'd like to see the legislators who say they are patriotic Americans (when their actions put the lie to that claim) show less concern for their re-election and more concern for the country itself.

Romney's campaign has even said they were going to lie and didn't care if others knew: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

And given Romney's attitude toward the little people (the 47% who are moochers and takers), I can't see where he has the best interests of the American people in mind either.

The problem, Ernest, is that it's impossible for a politician to tell the truth and get elected;it's been proven again and again. This is particularly true in America, where the people would rather swallow a lie than face the truth.

and only the truth. However, track records to date do support Romney to be more truthful than Obama. The real worry for some will be knowing if he gets up this time but can't get another term afterwards, what's going to stop Obama from going hog-wild?

that's kept him from getting much more done this term than the Affordable Care Act: Republicans in Congress.

As of right now, I don't see control of the House changing to the Democrats. As long as the Republicans control either the House or the Senate and Obama is President, there will be nothing significant passed that Obama might favor, regardless of the cost to the country. The Repubs have shown their willingness to do that over the past two years and if Obama is re-elected, the rhetoric has them more than doubling down on that over the next four

ending this 'Executive Order' crap, and getting rid of NDAA and Patriot Act.

in the number of executive orders issued.

On the others, as I said, no matter his position on the issues, the Republicans are in opposition, regardless of the cost to the country. Hmmm. Maybe he should come out in favor of those two...

Far as I know, Obama has told less outright pants-on-fire lies, but has an incredibly sinister track record on a select number of policies.
Romney on the other hand, is incompetent, a mormon, incapable of empathy, a known China-lover and Netanyahu's pawn.

No offense to Mormons, but I've read those scriptures...

they have a strong work ethic and are much closer to what the average working man does and wants than a lawyer like Obama. Romney has built his own business from scratch over many years, so he can't be that incompetent. And he has empathy for those who are prepared to work and better themselves, but none for those who want a totally free ride and hand out, which is what Obama wants to offer everyone. Sadly, the Obama bread and circuses route has a major issue when the bill gets presented for payment and no one has the cash to pay out.

Obama claims to love the USA but does NOT show respect for the flag or the national anthem, and he has stopped US businesses to give business to other countries.

Now back to the original question - in many elections I've seen or studied, I've seen candidate after candidate get chewed up at the polls and elsewhere because they dared tell the truths, especially the hard truths. The voters don't like it when someone says, well, I ain't gunna give you any new big handouts cause we ain't go the money in the treasury, but will re-elect someone who offered them handouts and didn't deliver them by later saying they didn't have enough bucks.

Romney?
Wow.

Romney has worked with his hands and with his mind to make his living.

What's your sample?
All anyone has to know about Mormonism is that it's a special kind of crazy. Sure, it's not Westboro style, but it's not far from some of the only slightly less crazy Baptist movements (yes, I know it's not a Baptist movement).
Say no to cultists.

apply to the Mormons, then the Salvation Army, Amish, Puritans, and all Protestant groups are cults. I suggest you take time to read the history of all the religious groups and their teachings before you write them off as cults. Or do you see All religions as cults, in which case Islam is a cult too. Come to think of it, both the Mormon Church and the Moslem Church started out the same way - with a person saying they had a vision from God and gathering a few followers.

Bill Gates, the Two Steves (Jobs and Wozniak), Sergey Brin, and even Barack Obama all started from scratch.

But Mitt Romney had to (**GASP** ) sell stock for living expenses while in college. I can't think of anybody who wouldn't want to start with that kind of scratch.

Founded by an obvious charlatan, it is so full of absurdity, it's actually worse than Scientology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith

Nick, dig deeper as Mitt was working after school and during summer while in school. I know quite a few people in the USA who did that and then invested the money so they could use it to pay for the college education.

Ansu, over the years I've looked heavily into all the religions and I know a lot more about the Mormons than you realise. If you claim Joseph Smith is a charlatan, then you have to apply the same to William Booth, the founder of every Protestant Church, St Linus and every Pope since, Muhammad, Buddha, and the founder of every other church, and some would also include Jesus known as the Christ. In each case they claim a vision or enlightenment from God and then gathered a group of like minded people around them.

I disagree with your analysis of Romney, but even if I did, I'd rather have someone like that in charge of the US than a liar who's a pawn of Moslem extremists and set on destroying the USA.

But I wasn't lucky enough to have AM stock given to me by my father.

www.samefacts.com/2012/01/income-distribution/mitt-romney-and-ann-the-students-struggling-so-much-that-they-had-to-sell-stock/

Not from the horse's mouth, but from the mare...

quote

The stock came from Mitts father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitts birthday money year to year it wasnt much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.

end quote

In short, Mitt's father took Mitt's money and invested it - not the same as a gift of money from dad, is it? Income derived from the investment of Mitt's money. And also:

quote

Remember, wed been paying $62 a month rent, but here, rents were $400, and for a dump. This is when we took the now-famous loan that Mitt talks about from his father and bought a $42,000 home in Belmont, and you know? The mortgage payment was less than rent. Mitt saw that the Boston market was behind Chicago, LA and New York. We stayed there seven years and sold it for $90,000, so we not only stayed for free, we made money. As I said, Mitts very bright.

end quote

Took a loan and then earned the money to pay it back.

First of all, what?!? What news do you follow, man?

And Romney can't call anybody a liar anymore; he's lied even more often than Obama, which is saying a lot... and even Fox called Ryan's acceptance speech out for being a load of bull.

So, if we must go to the kind of hyperbole you're spouting, Romney is a liar who's a pawn of China and set on selling out the USA, for personal profit.

The sentence before your selection reads: "Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time." That single sentence blows any claims of working after school out of the water.

At that time, not many Americans had a father who could buy them stock; heck, it's still that way. NONE of my classmates when I was in college had money of their own; we were all there on scholarships, loans, help from Mom & Dad, or our own sweat. None of us were able to sell stocks to make living expenses. I know any birthday money I got while growing up never exceeded five dollars. I suspect Mitt's "birthday money" greatly exceeded that amount.

I grew up with nothing but family. What I've had since I was about 15, I have worked for and earned. No financial help from Mom, Dad, or anybody. If Mitt had done that, I might believe he understands what it's like to start from nothing. I'm sure he thinks he does. But the record speaks for itself: any claim that Mitt Romney is a self-made man who started from nothing falls flat in the face of the facts.

I said after school, not after college, meaning his time while in high school and before that - you guys use different names for them to us, so I'm not sure which.

However, even you own reference makes it clear he had money generated by his own money obtained early that his father invested for him. Which means his old man did not pay for his college for him.

First, they're all liars.

Second, if you're referring to Obama, I'd like evidence of his pawnship.

Third, both candidates have 5 bullet points in their standard campaign speeches. Four of the five are the same for each candidate. Where they differ on those problems are their proposed solutions. Neither is set on destroying this country, and the inaction of Congress will result in more damage than either candidate can inflict as head of the executive branch.

Where did that "birthday money" come from? His parents? And how much was it? I'm pretty sure it was more than the three or four dollars I got on my birthday every year. It was probably more than the $100 a year I was able to earn from my paper route.

How many of us had fathers that could purchase American Motors stock for us? Or, for that matter, any kind of stock?

"After school" in the US is usually interpreted to include all schooling, including college.

parents, grandparents, and older siblings if they have any. However, we also know he did work after school while in high school and he would have had some income from that and also added that to the mix. As to how many parents can buy shares? Well, here in Australia it could be done through any solicitor or investment service during the period we're talking about. My dad was a truck driver, but mom had some money they saved invested in shares bought through a local solicitor, and that was in western Sydney, Australia in the 1950s.

edit to fix typo

At least not where I was. You had to buy shares through a registered brokerage and you had to do it in blocks, not in single or fractional shares. Most brokers wouldn't talk to you unless you were what is today referred to as an accredited investor. I tried to buy Microsoft and IBM in 1985 with a large chunk of a re-enlistment bonus; the very few brokers who would talk to me told me my $3000 wasn't enough money for me to be an investor.

And I just noticed this line from the middle of your quoted text: "But he invested Mitts birthday money year to year it wasnt much, a few thousand..." A "few thousand" year to year in birthday money? That's definitely NOT starting from nothing.

and it indicates his total initial investment was a few thousand; I saw that as money saved in the bank for many years while growing up, plus any other savings he would have added to it over the years. Regardless of arguing about how much he had been given at any one time, and how much he had earned and added to it before it was invested, it shows he had been saving his money while younger, and taken advice and help on investing it. In short, he started showing sound fiscal management at a young age - something the Mormons teach their children, and that puts him miles ahead of Obama in money management.

But what about other people's money?

- He bailed his company out using federal funds, screwing the FDIC and Americans for $10 million. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829
- His time at Bain Capital was marked by off-shoring, bankruptices, and job losses. Profitable businesses (e.g. Ampad, Dade Behring) were driven into bankruptcy by the debt loaded onto them by Bain Capital. Factories were closed and jobs were moved overseas. Workers and management took it in the shorts as severance and retirement promises were broken.
http://www.enewspf.com/opinion/36131-fact-check-romneys-tenure-at-bain-was-defined-by-layoffs-bankruptcies-outsourcing.html
- Even while running numerous previously successful companies into the ground, Bain Capital and its investors cleaned up.

If this is how he plans to run the U.S. government, I don't want him within 100 miles of D.C.

Is Mormonism any less legitimate a religion than one based on a self-contradictory monotheism with a three-part god? Can an organization not overcome its origins (assuming they're in question)? Was Smith any more of a charlatan than Jesus claiming people can rise from the dead?

To this atheist, they all look equally unjustifiable. Only your history keeps me from flagging your post.

Is that no atheist could ever get elected President of the USA (any more).
That makes the (de facto requirement) that presidents claim to found their lives on irrational and outmoded belief systems very interesting.

The roots of the US constitution and bill of rights are as atheist as that time period could support. Had Darwin lived in the US a few hundred years earlier, the picture would have been entirely different.
Even Newton was fooled by the clockmaker fallacy - finding the principle for the taking of shape of plants and animals changed all that.

Not everybody has heard that the aptly named "Jefferson Lies" by David Barton was pulled by its publisher, on account of the overwhelming evidence against his uneducated claims.
Turned out the "Jefferson Lies" was just David Barton telling lies about Jefferson.

The Book of Mormon does not tell the whole story of Mormons. I lived in a small town in Colorado where 20% of the people were Mormons. They believed in community, family, cooperation, hard work, saving, and restraint. If you take delight in human complications, they are nearly the most boring people on earth, because they work so hard (and pretty successfully) to make themselves and their environment uncomplicated. They almost eternally find the bright side of any problem, and sit their with an infuriating smile on their faces, happier and more content than anyone around them. They struck me as decent to a fault.

The selling point of their religion (which they are honor-bound to proselytize) is the brilliant support their community gives to families and individuals, and not any revelations contained in their weird book.

You could say the same nice things of Moonies or Scientologists... Cultists work hard for the common good, that's part of the package. Their idea of the common good is, however very different from normal peoples ideas. You cannot deny that belonging to a cult, or indeed to any institutional religion is a sign of impaired judgment and should be counted against a candidate, not for them. Unless you're shopping for drones to keep the media busy while the shadow government does its thing. If that's what you want, then a religious man is your guy.

cultists too - after all, they have the same basic set of values as the Mormons. Also, the Salvation Army is younger and started life as a very militant anti-alcohol group.

Also, the Muslims are much the same as they're based on much the same texts, just with a few twists added around 600AD.

If you follow a book, you're a religion. But if you follow a culture, you're a cult. The difference is, a person can follow a book, even if they're not accepted by the people in the culture.
A person can not be a Mormon when the Mormons have cast them out and shun them.
So mormons are a cult. Westboro baptists are a cult too.

That's how the "cult" got put into "culture".

didn't like. But for most of the last few hundred years they just excommunicated the, ie, they cast them out. If you define following the teachings of their scriptures as a key component, then the Catholics and most of the protestant churches are cults as many of their doctrinal rules violate the teachings of the Bible.

I guess you also call the Salvation Army a cult too, for the way they behave.

So I will refrain from judgment.
But the thing is, it's not necessary that the whole of the belief be encapsulated in the book. However, if it's not possible to be a part of the belief system without being a part of the belief community, then it's a cult. Jews are Jews whether they practice or not, so that's not a cult. Most protestants are protestants because they were baptized, but don't have to do any particular things to remain protestant. Catholicism has definite Cult-like features, but again, there are non-practicing catholics, too.
Non-practicing Mormons are ex-Mormons, although the community stigma is so great that many ex-Mormons keep up appearances and stay part of the cult activities, even though they don't believe in it any more.

you're very wrong. There are many ex-Mormons, that is people who have left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for many reasons, and they're on good relations with the current members. The only time they run into difficulty is if they've done something to be ex-communicated, and it's just as bad as being ex-communicated by the Roman Catholic Church or any church. To be ex-communicated you have to do things like publicly trash basic doctrine type stuff.

By Protestant, I was meaning al the Protestant churches like the Baptists, Anglicans, Wesleyan, Methodists, Uniting Church, etc - in short all the spin offs from the Roman Catholics.

There have also been spin offs from the Mormons where small groups went their own ways because they disagreed with the Mormon church leaders of the day.

They are probably the most Christian organization out there, as they stay very close to the teachings of Christ in their activities. This includes most churches and all the major Christian sects.

you see some of their members?

I ask as they were not much into being tolerant or turning the other cheek in the beginning, and their doctrine is till very intolerant of some things not in the Bible, as are many of their members, but not all.

They started as a violent temperance organisation against all forms of alcohol, despite Jesus drinking wine at every meal.

I know every church has a lot of very good people in it, and some not so good, and I'm not really going on against any that much. However, if Ansu sees the Mormons as a cult, then the SA that's 60 years younger and has a violent start would be a cult as well.

"I view the years I spent as a Mormon as a kind of mindrape. Mormonism gave me a terrible self-image (I could not live up to the impossible, "perfect" expectations) that I am only recently recovering from. The farther I get away from that church, the better".

-The fact is, Mormons don't socialize with known ex-mormons except as trying to recapture them. That's no basis for belonging to a culture.

are also 'shunned'. So, really, we want this guy for Prez? Gods. WTF has this nation become?

the years. I've never seen the sort of shunning you're talking of. I did recently see a US show on Mormons, supposedly a balanced news report, but it was all about a very small off-shoot sect that refuses to have anything to do with mainline LDS Mormons that Romney belongs to.

I also know a lot of ex-Catholics, and if you want to see shunning at its most hideous, see what the members of a heavy Roman Catholic area do when shunning an ex-Catholic - if they stay in the area they can't get service or business from any Catholic in the area.

Neither you nor I were very well educated when we were born,nor were we capable of being educated. Did that not change?

I refer to their actions and policies of the several decades through today, not the policies of a century ago. I disagree with some of their policies, but overall, they do more with less for those in need than most other charitable organizations of their type.

In relation to:

"Obama spits out Executive Orders like he's wielding a royal sceptre"

I suspect you have been caught by one of many false emails going around. As per the records at the Federal Register, Barack Obama has signed 148 executive orders. This puts things pretty much in line with the approximately 300 each for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Chas

Greetings from the Rocky Mountain region! Good to see you.

You are spot on about people getting caught up on false emails and such. But I have to also throw in false claims by politicians, false or misleading news reports, etc.

It is so challenging to separate what's true from what's false; what's being spun, and which way; what's being stretched, and how far.

People have to actually try to become (and stay) informed. It takes real time and real effort. Most people don't want to spend either, being content to be spoon-fed the lies, half-truths, and such.

My advice to anyone who wants to be truly informed (politically speaking)? With the exception of watching a speech, a debate, or something like that, but in its entirety, and without the usual pundit chit-chat that precedes and follows, turn off the damn TV

that for decades Presidents have been wielding EO's like a royal sceptre. I think the practice needs to be stopped. There just haven't been THAT many 'special circumstances' in the last few decades.

what congress or the senate wants to do.

when you say, 'I could be wrong..."

.... when he says he could be wrong.

Overused, and perhaps abused - and more so as time goes by.

Based on the comments I've see so far, it's obvious that people either overlook, do not understand, or have not learned that we have three separate, but equal, branches of government: Executive (the White House); Legislative (Congress: i.e. The House of Representatives and the Senate - which were also intended to have different functions); and the Judicial (the courts). None is beholden to the other; none is accountable to the other. (But ALL are both beholden and accountable to our Constitution.)

The Presidential Executive Order might be considered the Trump Card to be played in the case of a governmental stale-mate - as long as the order doesn't violate the provisions as allowed by the US Constitution.

It's understandable that you, Ernest, as an Australian, might be uninformed as to the particulars regarding our government, but to witness the pure ignorance of American citizens is most troubling to me.

Nonetheless, as I suggested, the Presidential Executive Order is a necessary evil, because - BY DESIGN - Congress cannot usually "shoot from the hip", so to speak (a little western USA lingo, there); while the President is sometimes forced to do so.

Examples: Harry Truman (my favorite Democrat of days gone by), putting the nation's railroads in the control of the US Army because of a crippling strike. Ronald Reagan, firing ALL the air traffic controllers for the same reason. (Gee, BOTH leftist, union-generated problems.)

But yes, I agree. It's been both overused and abused - by presidents of both parties.

to give the president capability to act and have things done in an emergency when there wasn't time to study and debate things, that it wasn't meant to be used for any of the day to day activities or running of the country.

If you think you got it bad, the person who makes the big decisions in out federal government sits in a position that doesn't even exist in the constitution - the Prime Minister, or as I often says - the Prime Sinister.

I really like the way you think.

And the legislature being out of session for a scheduled absence shouldn't be an acceptable interpretation of 'emergency'. That excuse gets used by chief executives a lot, especially when Congress hasn't passed what presidents want.

the system, regardless of who does it.

Bingo! Those pooheads have way too many vacation days.

(I prefer a term besides poohead but the filters won't let me use it. Grrr....)

The first criterion for good governance is that government do nothing against its own purpose. So, first, what is the purpose of government? All U.S. high-schoolers are told an answer which will probably do for a first pass, although most of them forget it quite promptly.
Second, what are the governments with which I am concerned (starting with the UN and working down) doing contrary to that purpose? The question here is not how they are failing in that purpose, nor with which of their policies I disagree, nor yet which of their current or imminent actions are bound to have bad results.
That will be enough to decide between the presidential candidates this time around, and probably among many other candidate sets too. The rest of the algorithm, which I will not here give, concerns candidates who come out equally good or bad under the steps so far.

Its time to try someone new. Here is a list of why I will vote for Mitt Romney. Third party can't win and most certainly, it is a vote for Obama, who is out of ideas on how to bring this country back.

1. Mitt Romney is a successful businessman. He built Bain Capital from the ground up and he is a rich man today because of it. If he can use his business accumen to stimulate the business sector in this country, the country will be just as successful.

2. Mitt Romney is a man of faith. He served as a Missionary for several years with the Church of LDS. Maybe some would dismiss that as not being a real Christian, but I can't question his committment and service to helping humanity.

3. Mitt Romney is a family man. He has raised his family and understands what that entails. Yes, he is a man of means, but it takes more than money to raise a family and go through all the trials and tribulations of that.

4. Mitt Romney understands the dire consequences of carrying so much debt for this country. He wants to make sure that we don't end up like Greece where we can't fufill our promises with entitlements and he will offer alternatives to future retirees that will enable them to have solid retirement options.

5. Mitt Romney understands our relationship with Israel. They are our only true ally in the region. He will treat them like that.

6. Mitt Romney will keep this country strong by not cutting our military strength. He will expect countries that we send billions of dollars to to earn that money with results that benefit this country.

7. Mitt Romney will stand strong and prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

8. Mitt Romney will regenerate our committment to NASA, but do it in a way where he utilizes private enterprise to replace government spending. I think its horrible that we now have to "hitch a ride" from the Russians if we need to go into space. We lost the space program under President Obama.

9. Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate and it shows his committment to conservatism. Paul Ryan is such a courageous man to have put his ideas forth in a budget that everyone rejected initially, but he was honest about the depths of our problems. Together, they can get us back on track.

10. I think Mitt Romney is a fine man and just to stand up to the process of running for president says a lot about him. I don't know anyone who could do that. When I compare him to Barack Obama, I find Obama to be extremely lacking. He is more content to go on the talk shows and and he avoids talking about the real issues. If we have a President Romney, we're going to get down to the business of the country. He can solve our problems and he has a proven track record. He will be able to work with Congress on both sides of the aisle because he has such a record of success.

Those are my reasons after looking at all of the media coverage of both candidates and looking at their backgrounds.

AV

1. Businessman - as I noted earlier, people who build their own businesses don't have to build consensus. The skills to build a profitable business don't necessarily apply to running a government.

2, 3 - Religion and family man. So's Obama; no difference. Neither are proof of the ability to effectively govern.

4 Debt - How exactly is he going to reduce the debt? Does he really think it can be done without raising taxes?

5. Israel - This is a non-issue for me. I confess I don't understand the importance of this country to our foreign policy. I understand the importance to politicians seeking the Jewish vote, just as I understand how the Cuban expatriate vote drives our policy toward that country; it's all about the campaign donations. Sorry, but I can't get past the notion that modern Israel was carved out so the WW2 allies could ease their guilt over the Holocaust at the expense of those already on the land. I'm open to enlightenment.

6 - Military - Romney wouldn't be sworn in before the sequestration cuts take effect, so I don't know what he can do about that. Both parties are equally guilty of wasting defense dollars by buying unneeded big ticket weapons systems in order to keep manufacturing plants running back home; see Congress's current demand to buy several hundred more M1 tanks the Army says it doesn't need or want. We could do to cut our military strength, especially those troops and dollars we waste deploying them to permanent bases in Europe and the Pacific.

7 - Iraq as a nuclear power. It hasn't become one in the last four years, so I'd say Obama was pretty successful on that count. How EXACTLY is Romney going to prevent it.

8, NASA - as big a fan as I am of the space program, this is a non-issue for me. We lost the space program long before Obama. It takes years to develop a manned launch system. Replacements for the shuttle should have been under development starting in the last Clinton or first Bush Jr. administrations. It's coincidence that the shuttle program ended while Obama is in office; it would have ended during this admin regardless of who was elected in 2008.

9 Paul Ryan - the vice presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Veep candidates are chosen strictly to attract those voters who are lukewarm about the head of the ticket. "It's not a great entree, but look at that side dish!" Ryan lost me when he criticized Obama for not taking action on something he wasn't authorized to take action on, a budget recommendation that Ryan himself voted against sending to Congress, the body that could act on it.

10. The rigors of campainging - plenty of people have stood up to the process of running; Obama did, and is doing so again. At least two people make it through the entire campaign season every four years. I stood up to the rigors of the Army's Officer Candidate School, but that doesn't automatically mean I made a good officer. (And I didn't.) I think part of the problem is the many indignities candidates have to put up with as part of that process. Fund raising, baby kissing, and other forms of pandering probably discourage many better qualified people from tossing their hats in the ring.

Regading Iraq and Israel, I see Romney as more likely than Obama to have energy policies that will continue our dependence on oil; all oil, not just foreign. if we ever wean off oil, we won't have to care about having an ally in the region or if Iraq can nuke its neighbors.

But it doesn't matter; Mitt Romney has already written me off, along with those servicemen who get paid so little they're eligible for food stamps and don't make enough to pay taxes.

Mitt Romney understands government as well as business. He was governor of MA. If you look at his resume and what he brings to the table and compare it to Obama's, it will leave you shaking your head and wondering how Obama ever got elected to begin with. Clearly, he did it with his eloquent speeches.

Our economy has not recovered from the recession. The jobs picture is still dismal and the country is now $16 trillion in debt. Obama's policies have not worked. Why vote for the status quo? Who wants four more years of excuses? We need a new approach.

With the debt, Romney won't raise taxes to increase revenue, but he will reform the tax code to make us more competitive in the global economy. Our corporate tax rate of 35% is one of the highest in the world. By lowering that, companies will start investing again in the US. That will create more jobs and that will mean more taxpayers and more revenue. To me, its a better plan that what Obama has for lowering the debt. His "tax the rich" mantra might sound good in a campaign speech, but in reality that will not be enough to even put a dent in the huge amount of debt that we owe.

Israel is our only true ally in the region and its important for us to defend them to keep some kind of stability and maybe one day broker a Palestinian/Israeli peace agreement. The UN created Israel in 1948 and the US had a large role in its creation. We can't just walk away. We have an obligation to work with the Arab nations to help Israel gain the acceptance of its neighbors.

Theres no doubt that we waste lots of money on military spending, but I see a President Romney being more careful at how the money is spent. I would expect him to scrutinize the budget and find ways to reduce spending and increase efficiency. Thats something that Obama doesn't seem willing to do.

I'm thinking you mean Iran instead of Iraq. Obama has implemented sanctions, but they are not tough enough to be effective. Releasing viruses like Stuxnet to target their nuclear program was a good idea, but allowing people in his administration to leak what should be classified information about it to the press is just not acceptable. In the game of cat and mouse, Romney will threaten them with military action and could even support surgical strikes on suspected nuclear sites. I think he would draw a very clear line in the sand.

Even though the shuttle program would have ended, there is never any talk from Obama about space. I guess his plan is to give up.

The reason I like Paul Ryan is because he has the willingness to tackle the tough problems that Obama doesn't seem to want to look at. Obama never did anything with the Simpson-Bowles commission's recommendations. Ryan introduced a budget, maybe not a perfect one, but a starting point. I think he adds a lot to the ticket.

One main difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama is a media darling. Its a good thing, because he would never be able to defend his record. Romney isn't a good politician and he isn't as glib as Obama, but his successes in life speak volumes to me about what he could do for this country. Yes, I totally agree that our political process is awful. All the negative ads and personal attacks take the place of a real discussion about the real issues.

If something isn't working, it makes more sense to me to try something different.

AV

Nixon, Carter, and Bush the First were governors too; they didn't work out too well. Reagan and Clinton did well, so it looks like the gubernatorial experience is only two for five in the last 50 years.

Why do we give a hoot about the region, other than oil? What about obligations to those displaced by our actions? Perhaps we should concentrate more on making allies other allies in the region, ones that are more representative of the local population as a whole.

You're right, I meant Iran. As to military action, I haven't decided if that's advisable; there's the question of what do you do after that? I think Obama demonstrated his willingness to authorize surgical strikes with the bin Laden attack, emphasizing our security over our relationship with Pakistan (an even more questionable ally).

If you like Romney because he will privatize space exploration, how can you say Obama is giving up by not increasing the federal involvement? Manned space exploration is a minor issue for me; I see unmanned exploration as cheaper and yielding more results.

If Ryan is willing to tackle tough problems, why didn't he run for the head of the ticket? Obama didn't do anything with S-B because the entire commission was set up BY Congress to make recommendations TO Congress, not to the executive branch. Recommendations Ryan voted AGAINST; how can Ryan criticize Obama for not taking action on what the Ryan didn't want in the first place? I'd call him a hypocrite, but a Veep candidate's only job is to toss chum to the faithful sharks. Name a vice since WW2 that's accomplished one thing besides attending funerals.

I agree with those who say we are not better off than four years ago. But the economy is better off than it was 3.5 years ago. While the collapse was rapid, it took time to set it up. it's going to take time to bring it back. I don't think it will be affected by the occupant of the White House as much as the (in)actions of Congress. With the current view party faithful have of compromise as surrender, I don't see either candidate as being able to build a consensus for his plans in either chamber. At least we live in a country where we're free to have this discussion.

Well, maybe Romney would turn out to be one of the better ones. He still is better than Obama. Geez, we need some fiscal discipline in this country or we will go the way of Greece.

The only reason we give a hoot about the region is because of oil and the fact that they hate us. We buy their allegiance and even after doing that, they still hate us. We need to have some kind of presence over there because of Al-Qaida and other factions like them. As we know now, plots developed over there can directly affect our safety here.

You know at some point Israel is going to do something about Iran's nuclear program. I don't think they'll check with us first either. We would be drawn into it, but I don't know what will happen after that.

Obama should have been pushing on Congress to work on adopting some of the recommendations in SB, but he can't work with Congress. Thats his excuse for everything that doesn't get done and to me thats unacceptable. Mitt Romney was able to do it in MA, Chris Christie does it in NJ. It can be done, but he has to get his hands dirty and he doesn't want to do that. Ryan voted against SB in its first incarnation because it raised taxes but did nothing to address healthcare spending, one of the biggest causes of our deficits. So SB wasn't perfect, but it was the job of Congress and the President to find a way to fix it so it could be implemented.

To me, it looks like the recession never ended and that there is no end in sight. The President could have a direct affect on how Congress operates if he would just lead. He won't. Instead he has given up trying and continues to spend money that we don't have. If Romney was able to work across the aisle in MA to get things done, maybe he can do the same in the White House. Its worth a shot, to me.

If you ever get a chance you should read The Amateur by Edward Klein. He conducted 200 interviews with friends, colleagues and others that know or have deaIt with Obama in the past. It really offers a lot of insight into the Obama White House.

AV

that Obama has rarely had as President: a cooperative legislature.

Romney supported essentially the same social policies in Massachusetts as Obama has as President. And given the behavior and attitudes of the tea party-supported legislators in the House, I don't think Romney would have had any better luck getting more moderate policies through Congress than Obama has.

The entire Republican campaign this year is based on the concept that giving money to people makes them dependent on government, but giving money to businesses doesn't make them dependent on government. What mental midget came up with that?

US Congress and the Senate for the last decade. But, from what I have seen, Obama's party has had the majority control of them both for the last six years or more, according to many of the media reports I've seen. So Bush didn't have the support of the Congress and Senate for his full term, while Obama has.

has been by the slimmest majority, which enables Republicans to effectively filibuster to death whatever Obama tries to accomplish. 'Control', in this nations politics, requires larger numbers than Obama has had.

Senate rules boil down to requiring a 60% majority to pass anything.

Control is overrated. Here in South Carolina we've had Republicans in the governor's mansion for the last three terms. None of them have been able to get along with the Republicans in control of both houses of our legislature. The current gov came OUT of the legislature and promptly proceeded to piss off her former colleagues.

Part of the problem is our post-Reconstruction constitution heavily favors the legislature. That body is reluctant to allow any governor (or county, or school district, or any other agency) the authority necessary to do their jobs responsibly. By 'responsibly', I mean be held accountable for the job they do without the hindrance of "The legislature won't let me do that."

filibuster regardless of the size of the majority

So the distribution of votes does matter. Especially if one bloc is voting on the person behind the bill, rather than on whether the legislation is acceptable and needed.
And I think it's very very strange that the Republicans have blocked job creation bills during a recession.
Just to get rid of a president.

since the mid-term elections in 2010.