Pretty amazing that just 13 years later, we now struggle with electing a Candidate with Character when a man of low character nearly destroyed us.
Now if he were a Muslim then....no way.
The real question is, “Can I vote for a Liberal?”
The answer is not just no but HELL NO! Mitt Romney and everyone supporting him can go fornicate themselves with a cactus!
Candidates with character do not favor murdering babies.
Jefferson and Lincoln at least had the brains to not join some wierd magic underwear cult.
If Romney’s the nominee, you can believe the pre-1978 doctorine of his church will be a campaign issue.
I’m pretty sure you can vote for anyone you want to vote for.
Mormonism is a faith of works, not grace, meaning Romney is compelled to “do things” to become a god (like Romneycare). You can’t separate faith from politics. Won’t be voting for Romney.
And no I don’t want to validate wacky Mormon religious beliefs either, any more than I’d vote for a Muslim, a satanist, a Rastafaran, a scientologist, etc. for president.
Can I? Yes, but not without violating my conscience.
Will I? NEVER.
I know way too much about them to ever trust one in office. I used to be one.
I'm not sure how this got started, in Jefferson's own day this was an accusation that made during an election cycle that has never gone away. Jefferson was a member of a Presbyterian church near Monticello. He supported that church with substantial yearly donations. In his own words he was a follower of Jesus Christ. His personal views of who Jesus Christ differed from the theologies of the day but he never wavered from believing Christ was the greatest being to ever live on this earth.
In this day when our presidents have moral failings they reach out and do the best they can to find faults in our heroes, especially our founding fathers, they shouldn't. These were great men and Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest.
Martin Luther is supposed to have said that he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian. The word ‘Turk’ would better be described as ‘Muslim’ in our time as that is what he is referring to.
Given that an incompetent ‘Turk’ may well be what we have in the White House right now, although I expect that instead of genuine Islam, Obama’s religious persuasion is something more on the order of “all religions are ok except for white American Christianity. Regardless, incompetence is the word that best characterizes Obama.
So would I vote for Romney against the incompetent currently occupying the job? Youbetcha! Wouldn’t be happy about it, but given that to do otherwise would be essentially the same as casting a vote for Obama, I’ll take a wishy-washy Mormon over him any day.
The ONLY good thing I can see about Mittens “winning” the GOP(RINO) “nomination” is that the LDS “Church” will get the ANAL Exam that it so RICHLY DESERVES!
Like I tell everybody, “I’m going to vote for somebody other than Mitt Romney because he’s a moron...Not Because he’s a Mormon.”
the left WANTS romney to be the nominee. why? they know for a FACT the far right won’t come out to vote. why won’t they? strictly because he’s a mormon. don’t believe me? wonder on over to the religious forums and take a gander at the daily bigot posts bashing mormons right here on FR
if he gets the nod, the media will go into overdrive to ‘investigate’ mormonism, the history, impacts, personal behaviors, etc
in presidential politics, the game requires you to pull your WHOLE base... and a greater percentage of the independents then the other guy.
romney can’t get his whole base out... so he loses
the left knows this... which is the reason he’s the one they’re pushing (with ron paul being a close second to split the vote as insurance)
Many of the criticisms of the Romney are fair. But all I can say is that if you crazies here, should it come down to Obama v Romney, vote for Obama, or 3rd party, or don’t vote—THEN YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS INSTALLATION OF THE NEXT 2 OR 3 WILDLY LEFT SC JUSTICES. Sorry for shouting, but not as sorry as you will have to be if you do something so foolish.
I would vote for a Mormon but I absolutely will not vote for Romney.
I dunno can you? How should I know?
The Mormon thing is running pretty thin. A lib who went to BYU for his Masters 40 years ago [in library science but never got a job in that field]made that comment to me--I said but you love Harry Reid--as usual he stops and "a pull back blank look into his brain" appears, with no come back. I add Kennedy as a Catholic for good measure. Oh I threw in the 5 year "predominant"[Obama's words Snopes] Muslim schooling some Catholic, when living with his stepfather .....with of course no media collected schoolboy photos with classmates perhaps because they were all in Jakata? I said that never bothered you...........still no answer.[Then we move on..]
Chris Christie is giving Romney quite a media profile boost; and then the Mormon comments turn to Fat Guy comments and I picture Sr Winston Churchill rolling his eyes-- "been there done that" with Chamberlain..and we could turn to Obama's closeted "smoking"..so just have to laugh at desperation tactics from both parties.
We know who will get the nomination. Just ask Ann Coulter. ;)
Can I Vote for aThe answer is: yes, you can. But please don't. We've got enough of 'em in DC already.MormonMoron?
Sure i can vote for a Mormon. But Romney is another question entirely.
BTW, his article was pure tripe. Same recycled talking points that Rove and Coulter have been using.
Well, put 2 & 2 together (the headline with the above graph by the writer)
What a crock!
Who is calling for a "religious test" that makes you eligible to get on the POTUS ballot? Who? Is that some frothy issue under debate somewhere that we just have missed somehow?
I'm not exactly sure why I even need to repeat the following...but for those isolationists like Ken Starr who somehow thinks this is some hotly contested issue...I can at least repeat it for the brainless who somehow think he's wading in on some key point:
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is NOT aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (at least based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: Too many, including Mr. Starr, confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
And, unlike Mitt Romney, I hardly doubt that either Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln thought of themselves as "gods-in-embryo" on their way to being grown-up gods.
Ken Starr isn't going to start chastising people for a refusal to vote for somebody who thinks he's divine now, is he? These writers need to stop falsely presenting what the Constitution says!