from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt. [Archive]

BigJulie

11-06-2011, 10:09 PM

I dont have any issues with a Christian voting for a Mormon for president.

While I dont know about the way Mitt tends to flip-flop on some important issues....I would not bring up his personal religion in the election.

While I believe the religion of Mitt to be in error, I would not allow him to teach at my church , not even to 3nd graders.
Im not the type of Christian that would vote against a guy just over his personal faith.

Thanks for starting this thread Alan. It has been interesting for me to watch the reaction of the media, the evangelical "movement" as well as just the news in general regarding this election (when they discuss the campaign and leave religion out of it.)

I was kind of joking with my husband over the fact that last time we had McCain and this time we have Cain---maybe next time we can have Van Cain or something :).

That said, this seems like such a tenuious time for our country with so many people out of work, but what concerns me more is almost a cl***-warfare that I see going on. Kids are losing their hope in being able to work hard and get ahead. The other worry I have is there also seems to be this at***ude that government needs to solve everyone's ills or woes. I don't know if you ever read a guy named Charles Hughes Smith. I have never been able to tell if he is Democrat or Republican and some of his at***udes seem a little depressed, but I like his candor regarding to the state of morality (I am not just talking about chas***y) of the American people. It appears that we are moving further and further from God as our Savior and more and more to the government to save us.

This is his link:

http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html
(I am pretty sure he is not Mormon, but I am unaware of his religion or even if he has one at all)

alanmolstad

11-07-2011, 05:20 AM

In this election, people who are Mormons and Christians and all the other faiths we can list, all have to decide what things they will take into account as "Important" when they cast their votes.

It is my hope, that they all do so free of turning this into their own personal religious war.
I dont think it is at all healthy for people to use the religion of others as a guide in knowing if they will vote for them of not?

I dont think this is healthy for our country at a national level.
Nor do i think it is health to use religion as a voting guide at even a very private and personal level. (even just in your own heart)

alanmolstad

11-07-2011, 06:22 AM

now I have seen the fact that Mitt is a Mormon being used as a way for both Mormons and nonMormons to introduce the topic of religion into the conversation.

I just think this is a disservice to Mitt personally.

I think we should allow the man some privacy when it comes to matters of faith, and not try to use his reported faith as a means to push our own agenda concerning the Mormon faith.

BigJulie

11-07-2011, 07:15 AM

I also think that the "Mormon" issue is a diversion. I haven't had a lot of economics cl***es, but I have had some. I can tell you, that even though Cain's 9-9-9 plan sounds enticing, it would be a way to drop us into a further recession because it would restructure the current taxes to put more of the burden on the middle cl***.

Let me explain: let's compare two families--one makes $50,000 and one makes $500,000. Under the current plan, the one make $50,000 would pay less of a percentage of their taxes than the one making $500,000. With Cain's plan, the one making $50,000 would pay $4500 income tax and the one making $500,000 would pay $45,000 income tax (sounds far right?) Now, let's add something like groceries (as people can only eat so much). Let's say the one making $50,000 spends $600 a month on groceries and the one making $500,000 spends $800 on groceries. The $50,000 would now spend $54/month or $648/yr on taxes and the other $72 a month on taxes or $864/yr. The one making $50,000 now pays 1.3% tax while the one making $500,000 pays .17% taxes on food (as a percentage of their income).

Now, you may argue that the rich will buy other things that the poorer one won't and therefore pay more taxes. So, the best result would be to look at their savings rate---any amount they save will not be taxed. How much can the family that makes $50,000 afford to put into savings compared to the wealthy? In short, unless they both spend all of their money (which is very unlikely for the wealthy family--as wealth usually is made by investment rather than spending), the poorer family will pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. That is why this is a regressive tax and will hurt our economy.

The poorest will be paying the most to support the government---it will not be a "fair" tax as it sounds, but puts most of the burden on the middle cl*** and poorest.

For this reason, I think Cain will not stand a chance in the 2012 elections as more and more people begin to understand this. I think Romney has the best chance of beating Obama and for this reason, all this talk about religion just makes me a little ill---it takes us away from the real discussion (just as Cain's sexual harr***ment stuff does) that needs to be had.

alanmolstad

11-07-2011, 05:32 PM

I think Romney has the best chance of beating Obama ....

well........I think Mitt has the best chance of leading the ticket.
Mitt has a ton of money saved, has a built-in staff where he needs it, and so he can likely just out spend the rest of the field at this point.

But unless he learns how to attract a strong christian vote, I dont give him much more that a 20% chance of beating Obama.

Mitt flips.

Obama does not really flip.

This means that Mitt undercuts his supporters.
Obama has disappointed his supporters, but not really flipped a position and undercut his supporters.

This means that while Obama polls now at a lower number than a Republican, this will change once we know who the Republican is.

At that point I expect the liberals to gather around Obama.

So are the Republicans going to gather around Mitt?....I sorta doubt it.

alanmolstad

11-07-2011, 06:31 PM

so Mitt is and has been in 2nd for most of this election .

Mitt seems like everyone's 2nd choice.

We shall have to see how it goes, but right now if Mitt does not do that well in Iowa but still wins the ticket, he may need to pick a guy in the race now for his VP.

I would have to say that Iowa will tell us if Mitt has any chance of beating Obama or not?

BigJulie

11-07-2011, 07:45 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;101612]Mitt flips.

Obama does not really flip.

[QUOTE]

Obama flips quite a bit. The difference is the "Mitt flips" has become a talking point for the compe***ion. That is they only reason you say Mitt flips and Obama doesn't. In fact, I haven't seen any politician--with enough time in politics who doesn't flip on some position.

The latest flip for Obama was when he wasn't the president, he voted against a debt ceiling limit, changed his mind as president because he stated he know understands more.

If being Mormon would keep "evangelicals" from voting for Mitt, I don't think he is going to give up his faith to win office. In fact, that is what he said the last go around.

So, if "evangelicals" are not going to vote for someone based on their religion---the just as with McCain, the "christian right" can come up with their next best candidate and see if they can beat Obama. But who is that going to be? Cain, who is unravelling as we speak? Gingrich who is a career politician but has done some good things, Perry who looks like a deer in head-lights when he is debating? Santorum (who I really like, but think he needs more experience)? Michelle Bachman who the media has crucified (no pun intended)? You pick. But when I see Jill pulling stunts like putting her dad's old, bigoted stuff up for "christians' to get to know Romney---well, there you have it. If we get Obama another 4 years, we will know that the "christian right' cares more about crucifying mormons then anything else.

alanmolstad

11-07-2011, 09:33 PM

I cant predict the future, but what i think is likely in the cards is that Mitt has to do very, very well, in the first 2 weeks of this real election,,,starting with Iowa or the slide will be unstoppable for him.

So while i dont know the future, I can see the path up hill for Mitt, or the path down hill for him.

let me tell you how i think each path goes...

January 3, 2012 Iowa (caucus)
January 10, 2012 New Hampshire (primary)
January 21, 2012 South Carolina (primary)
January 31, 2012 Florida (primary)

The race to lead the ticket will be over by jan 31.

Lets see how it goes for Mitt in my view:

January 3, 2012 Iowa (caucus)....
Mitt can come in 2nd and there is no damage to him .

January 10, 2012 New Hampshire (primary)
Mitt has to win this , and if would be real good for him if he wins big in New Hampshire.
If he shows a very good turn out on the 10th I would expect all the lesser people in the race to drop out at that point.

So we will know by the 10th of Jan if Mitt has the general republican/Christian support he needs to later win the real general election.

NEXT> January 21, 2012 South Carolina (primary)
Mitt can come in 2nd here, IF and only if he won big in
New Hampshire already.

January 31, 2012 Florida (primary)
This is the end of the road one way or another.
If Mitt wins in Florida then it's all over for everyone else in the race.

So, that is the "best case" trip to the head of the ticket for Mitt.

Whats the worst case?
January 3, 2012 Iowa (caucus) Cain wins, Mitt comes in 2nd, or even 3rd

Actually, if Mitt comes in 3rd in Iowa the whole game board is flipped over and everyone in the race gets a new start....it would make the rest of the race a knife fight in the dark.

January 10, 2012 New Hampshire (primary), Mitt comes in 2nd
At that point the whole rest of the republican party will look at Mitt as a loser that needs to move out of the way for someone else.

January 21, 2012 South Carolina (primary) Cain wins
what this would mean is that Mitt is never going to get the Christian far Right, and Tea party voter support he would need in a general election against Obama.

At this point, the rats would start swimming away from Mitt, who will only last in this race a few more days...

January 31, 2012 Florida (primary) This is the GAME OVER state for the race to lead the republican ticket...
if mitt has not wrapped it up by Jan 31 its going to be the sign that he is finished and the best he can hope for is a position in a future Cain administration.

knowing this, Mitt would have to start to decide when he would swing his support to the clear leader at that point, in exchange for a seat at the table later. (Hillery Clinton did this same thing and got to be Sec of State remember)

As I write this its still very early in November, and yet the way i see this election pan out, in just around 2 months the race for the top spot on the ticket will be all over but the crying.

alanmolstad

11-07-2011, 09:47 PM

So Julie, I know you and i cant see into the future.
But when I look at the numbers, and what history has shown us is the normal way these things work out....Im guessing that by the end on the night on January 31 we will know one way or the other if Mitt not only has the Republican nomination, but also if the rank and file Christian/Tea Party voters are going to be supporting him strong enough to beat Obama.

Jan 31 and on that night I will have to pay attention to the TV evening news, and see how my guess pans out.

But by then we may have the answer already.
If Mitt does poorly in Iowa, and in New Hampshire if he comes in 2nd,it puts a ton of importance on Mitt getting a win in the one state i would guess he has the biggest challenge..."South Carolina!"

If Mitt has not won yet by South Carolina, and if he gets clobbered there too, then Florida is where we wave good by.

alanmolstad

11-07-2011, 09:54 PM

Julie, but again let me say that on the lighter side, if Mitt wins big in New Hampshire....If he just clobbered the others....then he can more or less write off coming in 2nd or even 3rd in South Carolina and still be sitting good for a big win in Florida.

and if you are watching Tv on the night they have their primary in Florida, and you see Mitt kicking ****?.....then that is the best news you could hope for.

As it would mean that everything is in place, that the whole Republican rank and file membership has gathered around Mitt....

BigJulie

11-07-2011, 11:10 PM

alanmolstad

11-08-2011, 05:49 AM

I guess what is my strongest feeling when i hear that some Christians would never vote for a Mormon is that it goes against the idea of fair play.

I wish more Christians would pay closer attention to the Golden Rule when they use Mitt's name to attack Mormonism.

alanmolstad

11-08-2011, 06:11 AM

I dont know the future...all i know is what i see in the remarks of people I know, or overhear on the street.

What I think about the different people running for the White House right now is that while Mitt has a lot of support, it's really just paper thin.

I dont see anyone jumping up and down over the chance to get to vote for him.

Even the supporters of Mitt around here talk about a future President Mitt Romney with a real lack of any enthusiasm for the idea itself.

So, we dont see people fired up to vote for Mitt, the way we have seen for other guys in the race.
In poll after poll Mitt always seems to come in 2nd.

We shall see how things stand after the first two primary , but if Mitt's 2nd place standing on the current polls also carries over into the first few primary???,

Well, that is just not going to cut it.

The problem is that the way the dates fall in this election, if Mitt is in trouble by Florida there is this weird gap of time where he could **** all his money in a last ditch effort, and gain squat for it...

consider what happens after the Florida primary >
February 4, 2012 Nevada (caucus)
February 4–11, 2012 Maine (caucus)
February 7, 2012 Colorado (caucus)
Minnesota (caucus)

there you see a whole string of things where Mitt could **** all his cash and get nothing for it.
The use of the "caucus" in these states means that you need a ground swell of support to overcome the ability of the State Republican party leadership to get out their own supporters for the guy they have already picked.

the caucus system is a rigged system that supports the Party guy....
So if at this point in the election Mitt has been only making it to 2nd place?, he would need to toss in his whole pile of money just to be still in the race by mid-February.

then there is this huge Super Tuesday to consider.

If Mitt is still in the race on Super Tuesday he would likely be alone by then.....or he would have to get off the stage.

By Super Tuesday i think that Mitt has to have it wrapped up, or he would be finding the Republican party leadership holding his hat and coat and pointing him to the exit door.....

alanmolstad

11-09-2011, 06:04 AM

In the minds of many Christians , the rise of Mitt in this election has given them a chance to bait Mormons .

I have noticed topics on different internet forums that attack the faith of Mitt. and seem to single out him and his faith as the targets of their attacks.

I just shake my head at the Christians that do this.

I believe that if we use the faith of the people running for office against them, that sooner or later we will notice that in elections we no longer see men of faith enter the race.

We already see this now with parents of children.

In generations past we would always consider the children of a man in the White House off-limits.
But that has changed over the last few years, and now many guys thinking about getting into a race admit that their family kept them from getting into the race.

The person knows that his children will be attacked, both in person, and in the media.
Anything the children do would be held up, and made sport of.

any errors that normal children do, would suddenly become the subject of talk shows and conversations.

This same thing is going to start to prove true if we do not stand up against the use of a person's faith against them when they run for political office.

We will end up with no men of faith willing to enter a race out of the fear that theyr own private worship of their Lord would become the leading topic in the election.

I think we need men of faith in leadership positions.

I dont think that just being in politics and going to a church should mean your private prayers are fair game to be questioned and debated.

The Golden Rule demands us to treat others as we would want them to treat ourselves.

I would never want my religion used against me in an election.

I would never want to be guilty of questioning the religion of a person who is just seeking a ***.

alanmolstad

11-09-2011, 07:16 PM

alanmolstad

11-10-2011, 05:33 AM

There is no doubt in my mind that Cain is under attack in the hope of getting him from being picked as the VP for Mitt.

It has been interesting watching the story go and go, with so little effect on the supporters of Cain, nor on the election at all.

They say that it was Perry that started this story, and that might be true, But what sure seems to have happened is that "AFTER CLINTON", we don't really put much value to sex stories like we used to.

alanmolstad

11-10-2011, 05:53 AM

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 11:23 AM

however the Cain story does point out something I have talked about from the start of his run....That being; that it would have been better for Cain to run for Mayor or for Congress so that we had a chance to have a look at him over the span of a few years.

Jumping to the front of the line as he has done means that we dont really know if he is any good at politics, nor has the ability to handle himself in the "bright lights' of the national stage?

Alan---just curious what you make of the sexual harr***ment information being brought forward. As a woman, I must admit it is somewhat disturbing. I think I could believe that if there was one sexual harr***ement case filed, I would have an easier time believing that it was just a fluke. With four women coming forward and two cases---even if one of them is out for their fifteen minutes of fame---I just can't swallow that even 3 is not a pattern of behavior. I don't want another Monica Lewinsky scandal type thing for our president.

Just curious your views though.

alanmolstad

11-11-2011, 05:57 PM

its complicated.

as of right now, I dont actually see anything the guy did that was wrong.

if this should change, then that would be a big issue....
but as it is right now, from just the comments made by the lady with the blond Stripper hair?.....

I listen to her whole statement, and kept thinking to myself..."So what Toots?"

I dont see anything that Cain is said to have done that was anything close to crossing the line.

But.....the whole situation reminds me of what i have said from the beginning, in that Cain should have run for mayor of Congress before jumping in to the race to the White House.

I dont know if he has served in politics at all in his whole life...and im not sure he is any good at it.. or will he melt in the bright lights?

So thats what i feel about Cain.

I would vote for Cain in a heartbeat over Mitt or Perry

i still would vote for anyone over Obama however.

But Cain has a personality, and that's so lacking in all the rest of them....

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 07:33 PM

alanmolstad

11-11-2011, 11:42 PM

So, take it from a woman's standpoint that the term "Toots" can be degrading. .

dont care..

what Im saying is that i have seen nothing that Cain has done that is against the law.....

I have not seen anyone even suggest that Cain broke any laws..

Thus this is just a lot of hype by people that want a different VP for the final ticket.

I cant predict the future, I dont know what may happen, but so far I see cain being the best challenge to Mitt out there.

Time will tell, and there are always a lot of unknowns.
But I would not be surprised to see Cain being in a very strong position as the real prim aryes get going.

as for Perry?...Im not sure.
He clearly is the worst debater in American history.
Im not sure that counts for anything, but he sure does have a lot to learn about speaking

BigJulie

11-12-2011, 09:16 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;102201]dont care.. And this type of at***ude is precisely why you don't see the problems Cain has coming for him. The Wall Street Journal said that 4 out of 10 women would change their vote for Cain because of this issue.

what Im saying is that i have seen nothing that Cain has done that is against the law..... And it is not the law most of us are worried about, but character. I don't want a president that represents only the men in this country who see women as less then. Cain's Princess Nancy statement is another view of how he views women. He could have made his views clear on Nancy Pelosi without using a sexist term (such as your "Toots.") I can see now why the red flag is not going up for you. :)

I cant predict the future, I dont know what may happen, but so far I see cain being the best challenge to Mitt out there. I watched the debate tonight. Perry made a good come back. Newt looks good. I still and always have liked Rick Santorum. I don't know why Michelle Bachman is not doing better and Mitt Romney still gives me the best hope for having some ideas for how to get this economy up and running. Cain's 9-9-9 plan is a new tax for the federal government and a higher tax rate for the poor---that is all.

Time will tell, and there are always a lot of unknowns.
But I would not be surprised to see Cain being in a very strong position as the real prim aryes get going. If he makes it past the primaries, he will lose to Obama. Once people get a better understanding of his plan, he is going down. The question is will this be against another Republican or against Obama. You can clamour all you want that Cain didn't break the law, but there are too many women out there who this bothers such as myself.

alanmolstad

11-13-2011, 07:46 AM

[QUOTE] And this type of at***ude is precisely why you don't see the problems Cain has coming for him. The Wall Street Journal said that 4 out of 10 women would change their vote for Cain because of this issue.

Do you remember the name "Juanita Broaddrick"?

Thus that wraps up the whole, "Women wont vote for him" argument.

Women will vote on serious issues with Cain, and all this other stuff is just a joke.

The people pushing the issue with Cain are the staff of the other people in the race.
They all know that Mitt has it won, but the battle now is for the VP position.
Traditionally the VP is picked from the guy who came in 2nd or more likely 3rd in the primary.
Thus the staff for a guy like Perry or Paul know that they dont have to beat anyone from now on in this election, they just have to help the other guys lose.

BigJulie

11-13-2011, 08:05 AM

[QUOTE=BigJulie;102298]

Do you remember the name "Juanita Broaddrick"?

Thus that wraps up the whole, "Women wont vote for him" argument.

Women will vote on serious issues with Cain, and all this other stuff is just a joke.

The people pushing the issue with Cain are the staff of the other people in the race.
They all know that Mitt has it won, but the battle now is for the VP position.
Traditionally the VP is picked from the guy who came in 2nd or more likely 3rd in the primary.
Thus the staff for a guy like Perry or Paul know that they dont have to beat anyone from now on in this election, they just have to help the other guys lose.

What? You think Mitt has it wrapped up? I am not convinced. I still think there is a major base out there that wants "anything but Mormon." We shall see.

P.S. And yes, I remember Juanita Broderick. And the lesson learned is look at the scandal our country entered into. The are historians who believe that Clinton did no effectively deal with Osama Bin Laden after the U.S.S. Cole incident precisely because of this scandal and women voting now are not of the "Jackie O" brand much anymore.

alanmolstad

11-13-2011, 08:12 AM

[QUOTE] - Cain's Princess Nancy statement ...Was refreshing in this age of PC.

BigJulie -"Cain's Princess Nancy statement is another view of how he views women. He could have made his views clear on Nancy Pelosi without using a sexist term"

Alan -"Why, that's a terrible thing. I don't know how many times I've warned my buddies , "Never call chicks "Princess".

alanmolstad

11-13-2011, 08:24 AM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;102333]

What? You think Mitt has it wrapped up? .

Ok,,,here is a little lesson I learned years ago that always proves to be true.

Republicans love to pick the guy who was in the lead at the start of the race.

Democrats love to support the come-from-behind Underdog.

So Mitt had this wrapped up (as long as he does not screw up) before he announced he was running.
His victory is because of the groundwork he did when he was in the last race against Mccain and got his **** kicked.

By being in that race he was in the correct position to be considered in the 'lead' for this election.

And that is how Republicans pick their guy to lead the ticket....
Thats how McCain got to lead the ticket,
thats how Ronald Reagan got to lead the ticket,
thats how Nixon...etc.

Republicans love to support the guy they see as the winner at the start, Republicans like to have jumped on the band wagon at the very start.

So because Mitt was seen as the early leader in this election after a loss in the last one he will get the lead spot on the ticket guaranteed
.

This is just how Republicans act.
Has nothing to do with his faith, or even his political views, or anything about how he thinks about stuff.

It only has to do with "position" at the start.

BigJulie

11-13-2011, 07:37 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;102335]Was refreshing in this age of PC.
Refreshing to those who don't see a problem with it. Yes, I get that.

BigJulie

11-13-2011, 07:38 PM

[QUOTE=BigJulie;102334]

Ok,,,here is a little lesson I learned years ago that always proves to be true.

Republicans love to pick the guy who was in the lead at the start of the race.

Democrats love to support the come-from-behind Underdog.

So Mitt had this wrapped up (as long as he does not screw up) before he announced he was running.
His victory is because of the groundwork he did when he was in the last race against Mccain and got his **** kicked.

By being in that race he was in the correct position to be considered in the 'lead' for this election.

And that is how Republicans pick their guy to lead the ticket....
Thats how McCain got to lead the ticket,
thats how Ronald Reagan got to lead the ticket,
thats how Nixon...etc.

Republicans love to support the guy they see as the winner at the start, Republicans like to have jumped on the band wagon at the very start.

So because Mitt was seen as the early leader in this election after a loss in the last one he will get the lead spot on the ticket guaranteed
.

This is just how Republicans act.
Has nothing to do with his faith, or even his political views, or anything about how he thinks about stuff.

It only has to do with "position" at the start.

This will be interesting to see if you are right. I thought he was considered "in the lead" at the beginning of the primaries in 2008.

alanmolstad

11-13-2011, 09:17 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;102336]

This will be interesting to see if you are right. I thought he was considered "in the lead" at the beginning of the primaries in 2008.
Nope....McCain had it from day one....

BigJulie

11-13-2011, 09:36 PM

Nope....McCain had it from day one....

As I watched the news, they made it sound like McCain was the one who "came from behind" and took the primaries in the eleventh hour. It will be interesting to watch and see if you are right. I have no problem with Romney because I am more moderate myself and not so far-right leaning--but that said, I do really like Santorum (who is more conservative) and think if he matures, he may make a great candidate someday. For getting his feet wet in this one, I think he is doing great.

alanmolstad

11-14-2011, 05:07 AM

I believe Mitt has the primary wrapped up and will lead the ticket.
But because he is not in any way shape or form a conservative, I dont expect Mitt to be able to bring the Republican base to himself when it's time to vote for president.

He just lacks any track record of being a true life-long conservative.....and that's going to take all the wind out of the sail for the Republican Party voter.

Obama on the other hand has the ability to rally his supporters to his side.
Right now his poll numbers are bad, but thats only because of all the Republican activity going on that really has no one voice.

Once the Republicans have their man to lead the ticket, then the Liberals will have the 'face' of the team to beat...and they will come on strong to beat Mitt.

I cant predict the future,
I don't know who will actually win the election between Mitt and Obama....
but...
But from what i have seen so far, Obama still has hi liberal strong core voter support,,,,,
and that type of core supportis something Mitt will never have.

So while i would love to believe that Mitt will win.....I actually dont give him more than a 50/50 chance at this stage..

I would have to see who he picks as the VP?

I will give some thought to the national election night and think about what are the first signs of a Mitt victory to look for, or the first sign the Obama will get another 4 years?

BigJulie

11-14-2011, 01:19 PM

I thought you might be interested in a bit of news:

Washington (CNN) – A new national survey of Republicans indicates that it's basically all tied up between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Gingrich on the rise and businessman Herman Cain falling due to the sexual har***ment allegations he's been facing the past two weeks...

"Not surprisingly, there is a big gender gap on this matter - women say this is a serious matter and believe the women, but men say the story has been over****n and are split on which side they believe," Holland added.

Who knows, maybe someday Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannidy might get a small understanding of the mind of a woman before they spot off about the "toots" ;) out there being unbelievable.

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;102515]I believe Mitt has the primary wrapped up and will lead the ticket.
But because he is not in any way shape or form a conservative, I dont expect Mitt to be able to bring the Republican base to himself when it's time to vote for president.

He just lacks any track record of being a true life-long conservative.....and that's going to take all the wind out of the sail for the Republican Party voter. If the economy is doing fine--yes, you may be right. If the economy is still doing as is--there may be more support for someone who understands economics and how to get a ship sailing again then just "moderates" out there. I know if a strong right won the primaries, I would vote for them as Obama is a mess.

Once the Republicans have their man to lead the ticket, then the Liberals will have the 'face' of the team to beat...and they will come on strong to beat Mitt. They will, but he is a strong contender where Obama is weak--on the economy.

I cant predict the future,
I don't know who will actually win the election between Mitt and Obama....
but...
But from what i have seen so far, Obama still has hi liberal strong core voter support,,,,,
and that type of core supportis something Mitt will never have. I agree, but I wonder if it has more to do with his religion than his views on abortion. Which, btw, I thought I was in agreement with my born-again friend until she told me if the life of the mother is at stake--tough, still no abortion. I am not that far right. Nor do I not believe in helping the mentally ill which are usually our indigent population.

Newt is surging right now, btw.

alanmolstad

11-14-2011, 05:58 PM

Newt is a loose cannon, so while he keeps his mouth shut he might do well for a while in the polls, the truth is that he is always just one comment away from being out of politics entirely.

alanmolstad

11-14-2011, 06:09 PM

Im so happy not to have to deal with all tha Mormon-ism junk on this topic.

I come to this website everyday with the hope that someone started a new topic.

Now it is true that this topic started up there in the Mormon forums...but Jill in her "wisdom" bounced it right down to family values land....

and to tell the truth.....that is for the best.

I have no desire to join in the constant bickering between the saved Christians,and the totally Lost Mormons....I mean lets face it...the same people are saying the same things over and over (it matters not what the topic is)until someone says something so nasty that the topic gets taken down.

I prefer to talk about things that have an ending to them....
The election of the next president actually has a date to it....

BigJulie

11-14-2011, 08:34 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;102645]Im so happy not to have to deal with all tha Mormon-ism junk on this topic. Same here. Refreshing and I really like politics and keeping up on what is going on---so this is somewhat relaxing.

I come to this website everyday with the hope that someone started a new topic.

Now it is true that this topic started up there in the Mormon forums...but Jill in her "wisdom" bounced it right down to family values land....

and to tell the truth.....that is for the best. I agree or we might have NE or others ranting on here that I am going to go to hell any minute if I don't finally realize the TRUTH!!! :D

I have no desire to join in the constant bickering between the saved Christians,and the totally Lost Mormons....I mean lets face it...the same people are saying the same things over and over (it matters not what the topic is)until someone says something so nasty that the topic gets taken down. I agree---I wonder if in 10 years the same people will still be arguing about whether or not we need to be baptized. Sometimes I get frustrated when I can clearly see the accusations are false and jump in---I am trying to resist--really hard!!!

I prefer to talk about things that have an ending to them....
The election of the next president actually has a date to it.... And in the end, we can see if you are prophetic or not! :eek:

BigJulie

11-14-2011, 08:37 PM

Newt is a loose cannon, so while he keeps his mouth shut he might do well for a while in the polls, the truth is that he is always just one comment away from being out of politics entirely.

So, what is your take on people not liking Michelle Buchanan? She seems intelligent and knows her tax stuff well and I think she has some good ideas. Why did she go down in the polls?

And I like some things about Newt---the fact that he is on wife number 3 is not one of them (and they accuse Mormons of being polygamists--sheesh!)

alanmolstad

11-15-2011, 06:07 AM

So, what is your take on people not liking Michelle Buchanan? ..... Why did she go down in the polls?

The truth is....she was only seen by Republicans as someone worth a look when Sarah Palin was still being talked about.

The moment it became clear to the Republican leadership and base that Sarah was not going to get in, Michelle hit the skids.

Michelle was always....the "alternative".

both Michelle and Sarah have what the other lacks to be taken seriously....

Michelle has no "star quality" about her....she is just a person from a small town who people overlook easy.

Sarah just cant speak with wisdom on any issue.

Michelle works hard on a speech, practices it over and over...does all her home work....and then goes to an event in a large city , where she has allearted the media in advance for the most coverage....

and as she steps out of the buss is greeted by 25 people, and the story in the local news is buried underneath the story of a lost cat..

Sarah on the other hand?
simply canceled a bus stop in the same city and it was the top story for days, and leads to many letters to the editor.

alanmolstad

11-15-2011, 06:09 AM

And I like some things about Newt---the fact that he is on wife number 3

if he were running for husband of the year?...he would not get my vote.

But he is not....

BigJulie

11-15-2011, 07:20 AM

if he were running for husband of the year?...he would not get my vote.

But he is not....

I agree---for me it is a character issue once again. The number one question--is Newt an honest man? The wives one and two may say yes--but maybe not.

I did like what he said about criminal law versus war criminal law. I don't want our men in uniform reading Miranda Rights to those trying to kill them. :)

BigJulie

11-15-2011, 07:22 AM

The truth is....she was only seen by Republicans as someone worth a look when Sarah Palin was still being talked about.

The moment it became clear to the Republican leadership and base that Sarah was not going to get in, Michelle hit the skids.

Michelle was always....the "alternative".

both Michelle and Sarah have what the other lacks to be taken seriously....

Michelle has no "star quality" about her....she is just a person from a small town who people overlook easy.

Sarah just cant speak with wisdom on any issue.

Michelle works hard on a speech, practices it over and over...does all her home work....and then goes to an event in a large city , where she has allearted the media in advance for the most coverage....

and as she steps out of the buss is greeted by 25 people, and the story in the local news is buried underneath the story of a lost cat..

Sarah on the other hand?
simply canceled a bus stop in the same city and it was the top story for days, and leads to many letters to the editor.

I guess Michelle is more steady and the news doesn't like that---nothing to sensationalize.

alanmolstad

11-15-2011, 05:22 PM

BigJulie

11-15-2011, 08:31 PM

it was odd the way Sarah was never actually promoting Michelle at all.

I mean think about it....the Republicans have two gals that are in the hunt, and they dont try to use the "sisterhood" approach?

I guess it comes down to if their values match. I am surprised at the diversity listening to the debates---everything to very hawkish, differences in how to handle the budget problems, foreign affairs. You believe that Romney will get the go-ahead. I am not so sure. I was looking at a poll and the number one word Republicans ***ociate with Romney is "Mormon"---they said not "flip-flopper" and not --oh, I can't even think of the other word that they have used repeatedly to slam him. So, as I said, we shall see.

alanmolstad

11-15-2011, 09:14 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/rush-limbaugh-mitt-romney_n_1010133.html

as you can see.....it seems very clear that the conservative republican base does not consider Mitt one of their number.

This means that the idea that just because Mitt goes against Obama it would cause the Conservatives to gather around Mitt is not really based on the facts, rather it is based on the "hope" that the conservatives with act like that.

I just have my doubts.

I doubt that a liberal Mitt will be seen as really all that much better to vote for than Obama...and the moment the Christians and the conservatives start to to look at both Obama and Mitt as being both liberal?....forget it

..that Conservative voter will stay home on election day.

They simply will decide that "it does not matter"...

But that's not going to be the mindset for the liberal voter!
thrust me, the liberal press will paint Mitt into looking like the antichrist, and that will drive the liberal base of the democratic party to the voting booth.

alanmolstad

11-15-2011, 09:34 PM

Romney supported abortion

Romney supported civil unions,

Romney supported his ObamaCare-like health plan in M***achusetts, which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortions...

So whole a lot of Mormons might be bitter that many Christians have said they would not vote for a Mormon, there is also the cold , hard, fact that Mitt has a lot of liberal ideas that run counter to the ideas of Conservative Christians that have nothing to do with him being a Mormon.

So the fact also is, that Im not sure we will be able to blame his being a Mormon on his loss to Obama.
he just seems to have a lot of ideas that Obama also supports that most Bible-believeing people would find troublesome.

BigJulie

11-15-2011, 11:25 PM

alanmolstad

11-16-2011, 05:32 AM

Yes, he was the front runner at the only moment it counts for Republicans...at the start.

It was at the start where Mitt picked up the needed cash and supporters in the Republican leadership that will take him all the way to win the primary.

For Republicans, you only have to be in front at the start of the race to win it....

Now Mitt can still lose the race to lead the ticket....He can still screw this thing up.

But the fact that every-other week we see a new name rise up to challenge him, only to fall just as fast?...it means that underneath it all Mitt has it wrapped up already.

alanmolstad

11-16-2011, 06:15 AM

Now my own views on said issues are these:

Abortion:
While I understand the natural resentment of females to have the government tell them that they cant do something to their own body, I have to yet come down on the issue of abortion on the side of 'life"

This means that I don't really give a rip if the child is the result of rape or incest ....such things are not the fault of the unborn baby,. and so we should not kill a baby for things not the child's fault.

This puts me at the far-right Conservative end on this issue.

Civil unions:
I fully support "civil Unions" of the Gays.
I would call such a binding legal union a "Civil Union" or a "Civil partnership".
These terms would be used to always describe the lawful union of members of the same sex, regardless of gender.

The term "marriage" would always be used to describe a similar lawful union between members of the opposite sex.

Health care:
I would never in a million years require people to carry health care insurance.
However I would work with insurance providers to make whatever changes are needed to lower the price of insurance so that anyone who is smart enough to get it, will be able to.

I would also allow for parents to have the right to sign up their children for a type of insurance (free at first as an important incentive)that would always take a fee from the paycheck of that child until the child is over 18 and cancels it on their own if they want.

This means that for most kids, they would grow up understanding the need for insurance from the start, and would also grow up seeing a little of each paycheck going to pay for their health care insurance....and if they don't cancel it (and most would not because it's too much trouble to go though to cancel it) then they would enter into adulthood used to the idea of always being fully covered under their insurance.

I think in one generation we would see nearly universal insurance coverage of everyone, having been signed up and raised to understand the importance of always haveing good insurance...

BigJulie

11-16-2011, 08:28 AM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;102912]Now my own views on said issues are these:

Abortion:
While I understand the natural resentment of females to have the government tell them that they cant do something to their own body, I have to yet come down on the issue of abortion on the side of 'life"

This means that I don't really give a rip if the child is the result of rape or incest ....such things are not the fault of the unborn baby,. and so we should not kill a baby for things not the child's fault.

This puts me at the far-right Conservative end on this issue.

Interesting. Where I stand puts me somewhere in the middle. While I see and abortion as killing a baby--in our society, we do kill people for certain reasons--self defense being one of them. So, life of the mother is at stake, to me, it is self defense to kill the child. Now, what about rape or incest? For me, the act of rape or incest is an illegal act not only against a person, but also against pro-creation, therefore, I would allow the mother to choose and I would ALWAYS charge the rapest or the person who committed incest with not only those crimes but with murder as well as they committed a crime against life as well. That would take rape and incest to a whole new criminal level which I whole heartedly agree with. Having had children---having a baby is a whole lot more complicated then just holding a baby and popping a baby out--major changes occur to the body that are never overcome. I also look at the mental health of the mother as well as the health of the baby. For standard problems such as Down Syndrome, I would not support abortion, but there are some problems that are so severe that that child is sure not to survive. I know a woman who did not have one of these babies, but two. The first birth was so traumatic and horrible for her that when she found out the second had the same condition, she aborted. Can I sit on my soapbox and tell her it was wrong to abort the baby? No.

So, for me, I come down somewhere in the middle on this issue. I believe murder is wrong---but in some cases, God will ultimately have to decide.

Civil unions:
I fully support "civil Unions" of the Gays.
I would call such a binding legal union a "Civil Union" or a "Civil partnership".
These terms would be used to always describe the lawful union of members of the same sex, regardless of gender.

The term "marriage" would always be used to describe a similar lawful union between members of the opposite sex. I agree on this. It may sound weird after what I said above, but I believe that "marriage" should always be a safe haven for children as it is the only way God deemed it right to bring a child into the world. I believe that most of our problems in our society center around infidelity both before and after marriage. I believe a child has the best shot of a happy life if they are raised in a happy, loving home with both their mother and their father joined by parents who reverence God who ins***uted marriage. So, on this, I agree.

Health care:
I would never in a million years require people to carry health care insurance.
However I would work with insurance providers to make whatever changes are needed to lower the price of insurance so that anyone who is smart enough to get it, will be able to.

I would also allow for parents to have the right to sign up their children for a type of insurance (free at first as an important incentive)that would always take a fee from the paycheck of that child until the child is over 18 and cancels it on their own if they want.

This means that for most kids, they would grow up understanding the need for insurance from the start, and would also grow up seeing a little of each paycheck going to pay for their health care insurance....and if they don't cancel it (and most would not because it's too much trouble to go though to cancel it) then they would enter into adulthood used to the idea of always being fully covered under their insurance.

I think in one generation we would see nearly universal insurance coverage of everyone, having been signed up and raised to understand the importance of always haveing good insurance... I like the Swiss system which does require insurance---but everyone only has major medical plus prevention care. You buy it yourself, not your company, and most doctor visits and meds are paid for out of pocket. They do require insurance. I would also require insurance, but allow people to opt out either because they don't want it for religious reasons or they are independently weathly and don't need it.

Here is the problem I see with someone not having insurance. Let's say your child is 30 and iis in a terrible car accident. He is sent to the emergency room for live-saving procedures. Let's say he has no insurance. Right now, the emergency room has to fix him and all the tax payers or other insurers get to foot the bill. This is not right. The option would be to let the hospitals turn down those who do not have insurance and let the person die. Are we okay with this as a society? What if the man is a father? Does society pick up the tag to help his children? So, the only insurance I would require is major medical---with a big deductible like $5,000 or $10,000. Just about anyone can come up with this money even if they have to beg relatives for it. Now, the fact that people can only carry major medical would drive down the costs of both insurance and health care. (If you want to know why, I will explain.)

So here again, I am more moderate.

alanmolstad

11-16-2011, 04:14 PM

BigJulie

11-17-2011, 05:15 PM

you just garnish the wadges of people who owe money...case close.
It teaches them an important lesson...People see that happen to the guy down the street and they learn to get good insurance....problem ended.

But this is why I have a bot of trouble supporting Mitt...its the mandate issue...its totally unAmerican.

and to push the required mandate it as Mitt did means that at a very real level, the America Mitt seeks to bring is not the same America I seek to bring to the future.

If during the election i learn that Mitt has made statements that I believe are in support of this type of mandate idea...even on a state level, I will never vote for him...and I would hope he will lose ...

I also can see the problem with the mandate. The other option is to let people opt out of insurance (sign with understanding) and then allow hospitals and doctors to refuse them services, even in life threatening situations. Here lies the problem though--some life threatening illnesses, if not treated, can do a lot of harm to society--such as with the flu. This was the problem with "typhoid Mary"---Mary didn't get medical care and thereby a lot of people were hurt by it. (TB is another one of those dangerous ones as well as AIDS.)

This is why I give an "opt out" clause for religious reasons or for those who can prove they have enough means to take care of themselves. I am not sure what to do for those who just opt out because they don't want to cover the risk which is often the young as they are too immature to know better.

alanmolstad

11-17-2011, 06:16 PM

Its called "freedom"

Back in the day, it used to be worth fighting for...

Now we seem to criticize people who want to be left alone...

BigJulie

11-17-2011, 06:48 PM

Its called "freedom"

Back in the day, it used to be worth fighting for...

Now we seem to criticize people who want to be left alone...

Yes, but are you willing to let hospitals turn away those who show no ability to pay? If you say yes--then that is total freedom.

alanmolstad

11-17-2011, 08:07 PM

as Ron Paul pointed out (And he is the only real doctor in the race so he alone would know about this first-hand)...a hospital will not turn away people that are in trouble..like a accident or something like that.

But this is a free country, and we cant force people to take care of themselves to our standard.

It's up to people to earn money to get stuff they want.

When a person without any money shows up at McDonald's and asks for 3 Big macs a large coke and some fries,,,,does the restaurant have the right to kick them out?

I think so.

When a guy goes into a bar with no money and asks for a beer , does the bar have the right to ask them to go?....

I think so.

This country was not founded on the idea that government knows best, and that everyone must conform to the official "ideal" and they who do not get arrested.

Here's the deal with the Mitt/Obama healthcare mandate....
They will enforce it with the sword of the law.

That means that if you can't prove you have what some bureaucrat thinks is the "correct" type of insurance, they will sic the IRS on your behind....

Soon you will have people put in jail for refusing to get Mitt/Obama healthcare insurance....

Julie , you said that you would want there to always be an allowance for religion so that some may be excused from getting Government approved insurance.

But who says that is a justified reason?

In the end...that's just a decision someone pulled out of thin air.

What if i decide I just don't want to get insurance for my own reasons that i don't feel in the mood to share?
The answer to that is that some bureaucrat will have to decide my fate.

They may decide that I don't have to get insurance,
Or they may turn my name over to the IRS and try to get my money ,
Take my money right from where I work,
or out of my bank account...
They may even show up at my door with their hand out.

and if I still refuse to play along?
If Im not even interested it telling anyone why i dont want to get insurance?
If Im not even interested in addressing the question?

its to jail I go...

I will be booked, photographed...my name might be splashed in the newspaper...My reputation will be harmed.
The more I say "No, I don't want to" the more the government will try to make an example of me.

If I simply refuse to ever get insurance what is the greatest punishment the government has in their bag of tricks?

Long-term jail.

all this could happen in a future with the Mitt/Obama mandate.
and all this could happen and I was never sick a day in my whole life?

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 12:01 AM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;103304]as Ron Paul pointed out (And he is the only real doctor in the race so he alone would know about this first-hand)...a hospital will not turn away people that are in trouble..like a accident or something like that. The question I asked is would we be okay as a society to turn people away if they don't have some type of coverage? I think if people are free to refuse insurance, that hospitals should be free or doctors should be free to say no to those who show no way of being able to pay.

But this is a free country, and we cant force people to take care of themselves to our standard.

It's up to people to earn money to get stuff they want.

When a person without any money shows up at McDonald's and asks for 3 Big macs a large coke and some fries,,,,does the restaurant have the right to kick them out?

I think so.

When a guy goes into a bar with no money and asks for a beer , does the bar have the right to ask them to go?....

I think so.

This country was not founded on the idea that government knows best, and that everyone must conform to the official "ideal" and they who do not get arrested.

Here's the deal with the Mitt/Obama healthcare mandate....
They will enforce it with the sword of the law.

That means that if you can't prove you have what some bureaucrat thinks is the "correct" type of insurance, they will sic the IRS on your behind....

Soon you will have people put in jail for refusing to get Mitt/Obama healthcare insurance....

Julie , you said that you would want there to always be an allowance for religion so that some may be excused from getting Government approved insurance.

But who says that is a justified reason?

In the end...that's just a decision someone pulled out of thin air.

What if i decide I just don't want to get insurance for my own reasons that i don't feel in the mood to share?
The answer to that is that some bureaucrat will have to decide my fate.

They may decide that I don't have to get insurance,
Or they may turn my name over to the IRS and try to get my money ,
Take my money right from where I work,
or out of my bank account...
They may even show up at my door with their hand out.

and if I still refuse to play along?
If Im not even interested it telling anyone why i dont want to get insurance?
If Im not even interested in addressing the question?

its to jail I go...

I will be booked, photographed...my name might be splashed in the newspaper...My reputation will be harmed.
The more I say "No, I don't want to" the more the government will try to make an example of me.

If I simply refuse to ever get insurance what is the greatest punishment the government has in their bag of tricks?

Long-term jail.

all this could happen in a future with the Mitt/Obama mandate.
and all this could happen and I was never sick a day in my whole life? Yes, I see the problem with throwing someone in jail for not having insurance. My question then still is--what do we do with those who are irresponsible and need medical care? Do we just continue to foot the bill? This is the problem we are having right now. How do you pose solving that problem? Are you okay letting doctors or hospitals turn away others even for emergency care? (And one thing I hate about Obamacare is he gives a free p*** to non-citizens while making citizens criminals.)

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 05:28 AM

[QUOTE] Are you okay letting doctors or hospitals turn away others even for emergency care?

As I said, Ron Paul has pointed out that no hospital will turn away any person who is in trouble.
So any person that has been in an accident will receive care no matter they can pay or not.

But we are not people's mother.

Its not our decision if people want to live healthy or not.

its not our decision if a person wants a nice car, or wants to walk to work.

That decision is up to each one of us, alone.

If I decide that I don't want health insurance, then that is my decision, not yours!

Its none of anyone's business what I spend my money on , or not on.
Its called living in a free country....

Do we really want to start to put people in jail for doing nothing other than refusing to get insurance?..because that is the meaning behind the term "MANDATE"

the idea behind the term "mandate" is that you have to do this...or else.

"Mandate" means enforcement
It means the IRS goes after you..

and if that don't work?
It means the cops are called.

And when the cops knock at your door and you don't get up to answer that knock?
They break it down...

Do we really want the IRS to become seen like the German SS troops, who move in and simply take over a situation where people are guilty of only being different?

A man just wants to be left alone, who has done nothing wrong, will one day hear his front door getting kicked in?
That's Mitt's and Obama's America, not mine!

What government can do is provide for a means for people who wish to get insurance to get the cheapest insurance .

That means that Mitt should have worked hard to lower insurance price, not try to set up some type of Communistic system that robs people of their freedoms.
This is where Mitt went wrong, and this also is the reason Mitt will never be able to count on the Conservative voter.

Obama has his liberal base supporters always ready to go to the polls to vote for him, but Mitt will never have his conservative base supporters ready to vote for him in the same manner.

That is the problem here.

Mitt will always have this problem with his record and conservatives.

Next-
Mitt will never have the Christian base support, not only because he is not Christian (and yes that is a area i struggle to bring to an end), but also because he has a very disturbingly poor record of the core issues close to the hearts of all Christians.

Once again, Obama has a very good record on the same issues with the non-Christian/liberal voter. So once again Obama enjoys a built-in advantage over Mitt that mitt can NEVER equal in depth.

So where does this leave mitt's chances?
Only with the mood of the country against Obama due to the economy.
Thus Mitt has only that one issue to use to gain the support of the middle-of-the-road voter.

The problem with that is that there is a very good chance that a full year from now the economy might have picked up a bit.
Even a slight lowering of unemployment will be held up by the media as proof that Obama's recovery plans are working fine.

So I expect the economy to sorta pick up a bit , at least in the minds of the average voter, and that will take that issue more or less off the table.

This is why i give Mitt about a 50/50 chance if winning the election next year.
Mitt just is not anywhere close to being the best person to go up against Obama from the Republicans side.

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 05:53 AM

How do you pose solving that problem?
cheap insurance.
and get people signed up for insurance from birth, by making parents able to sign up theis new baby to be part of their own insurance plan from day one.

that means the the child grows up from the start understanding that a bit from every check they earn as a minor goes to their insurance.

Right now a minor grows up and is covered under their parents plan, so its dad's paycheck that gets the hit....and so the child never has a history of seeing that hit in their own paycheck, and thats the reason when the child goes off on their own that the very idea of allowing an insurance company to start taking money out of their paycheck is hard to swallow.

the kid at 19 thinks they are going to live forever and never get sick...so why lower their amount of cash with worthless insurance meant for old sick people?

that's why you have to get kids, even little kids used to the idea that insurance is a normal part of being safe , being covered.

A "mandate" is not needed.

but a bit of leadership and guidance is....

make the parents get a great deal of nearly free insurance for their child, and they will sign that child up for life-long insurance.

sign a child up when they are young, and most will never drop that coverage when later they grow up and become adults.
make insurance for their own children even cheaper if they stick with the same insurance their parents signed them up for?...and you have set up a situation where generation after generation will have an un-broken record of great insurance coverage for that whole family!!!!!....

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 06:13 AM

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 07:28 AM

In the natural world we find that there are two basic things that drive the actions of all animals.

"Fight" or "Flight"

Its the way this world is designed, either something is attempting to eat something, or something is attempting to not get eaten.

Strange as it may seem to some people, this very same principle works in the human world as well.
We find it running under the terms "Fear " and "Greed"

Its this 'fear and greed" that runs Wall Street.
It forms the basic foundation to all human actions.

Fear, and greed...

The Mitt/Obama plan appeals to the "fear" part.
"You do this, or else!"

I suggest that a better plan would appeal to our greed.
I suggest that a far better way to reach the goal of universal insurance coverage, is to appeal to the greed of each person.
make it in their own self-interest that they sign up for insurance.

appeal to people's greed!

Make it so worth their while that everyone will see the point in signing up and getting coverage.

heck, make it like AmWay is run, where when you sign up, and get your kids and grand kids to also0 sign up that there is a little kick-back to you...
The more people you get to sign up for insurance in your family, the more you save on your own insurance!.

Have a grandparent be the one to put the pressure on their adult children to get the same good insurance for that new baby.

that's the *** of the grandparent...not the government!

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 09:15 AM

As I said, Ron Paul has pointed out that no hospital will turn away any person who is in trouble.
So any person that has been in an accident will receive care no matter they can pay or not. And here lies the problem. When a person enters the emergency room, the emergency room cannot tell if the illness is life-threatening until they at least do a basic exam. Here lies the other problem---if people do not have insurance, and they know the hospital cannot turn them away without at least a basic exam----that is what the problem is today. We have people turning up to the emergency room all of the time and this is one of the reason hospital bills are so high---the hospital is covering the uninsured that go to the emergency room through the insured that show up at the hospital. In turn, insurance goes up. So, as long a hospitals CANNOT turn away those with no insurance, the problem continues.

But we are not people's mother. Yes, but then your whole ideas for solutions comes down to telling people how to be parents. I don't see this working either.

Its not our decision if people want to live healthy or not.

its not our decision if a person wants a nice car, or wants to walk to work.

That decision is up to each one of us, alone.

If I decide that I don't want health insurance, then that is my decision, not yours! I wish it was that easy. If a hospital or doctor could turn away those without insurance or proof of how they are going to pay--yes, I would agree with you on this. The minute you tell a hospital they HAVE to care for the "emergencies" is the minute you make others foot the bill and you tell me I HAVE to pay for someone else. That isn't freedom either.

Its none of anyone's business what I spend my money on , or not on.
Its called living in a free country.... See above.

Do we really want to start to put people in jail for doing nothing other than refusing to get insurance?..because that is the meaning behind the term "MANDATE"
No, I see a problem with this as well. For me, it would be better to allow someone to opt out or if they have an "emergency", then the society gets to garnish their wages to pay for their bill. For example, I think the person without insurance who shows up to the emergency room for care---society could say, okay, now the courts gets to figure out what part of your paycheck it is going to take to pay for this. I think that is the system I have heard about---where once you show up for care without insurance, than you get to pay for insurance PLUS a fine garnished from your paycheck. But I don't know Mitt's system that well, I do not livein M***.

Do we really want the IRS to become seen like the German SS troops, who move in and simply take over a situation where people are guilty of only being different? No, which is why I would opt for allowing hospitals to turn down those without insurance. That is total freedom for both the tax payer and the insurance payers. It is also total freedom for the person who chooses to be irresponsible to pay the consequences for their irresponsibility.

That means that Mitt should have worked hard to lower insurance price, not try to set up some type of Communistic system that robs people of their freedoms. I can see where you are coming from on this. I just don't kow Mitt's system that well. He said he used the free-market system. That does mean it should have helped lower costs. But I also heard that he sees health insurance like car insurance which we have mandates for and which you can go to jail for if you drive and hurt someone without it.

Next-
Mitt will never have the Christian base support, not only because he is not Christian (and yes that is a area i struggle to bring to an end), but also because he has a very disturbingly poor record of the core issues close to the hearts of all Christians. I can see that. But it is amazing to me that Christians would get behind "christians" who don't live christian values and go against someone who lives christian values but is more open minded to the real problems that we are facing--as noted above regarding what is currently happening in regards to our emergency room care and the cost to society.

This is why i give Mitt about a 50/50 chance if winning the election next year.
Mitt just is not anywhere close to being the best person to go up against Obama from the Republicans side.[/QUOTE] Newt is rising in Iowa---I am not sure you are right about Mitt making it through the primaries.

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 09:22 AM

so I believe it should go like this..

You sign up your new baby with your insurance at birth.
you get cheaper insurance for your child for about the first 5 years, and after that its back to the normal changes.

But as the child grows and gets their first *** at age 15, or 16 or so, they would see that their insurance company takes a bit from each of their checks.

no untill the child reaches age 21 - 30 (or whatever age you signed the child up to be under the plan for) would that have the chance to drop that insurance, but we could make this hard to do, like point out that they may face a hard time getting other insurance that will cover their own children as cheaply.

then at the age when they are even first thinking about dropping their insurance, their parents would pull them aside and tell them that the whole family would get a slightly lower rate if they stick with the same plan, and if they sign their own future children up too!!!!!.

so we dont need a mandate to have everyone in a family covered for their whole lives....we just need the correct motivation!

true persuasion is like this,.,,,,it's more quiet.

You dont try to change people's actions, you try to provide a path that allows people to change it for themselves.

I do think that having companies pay for insurance is not a good idea, but that we should have individuals pay and allow people to see the actual costs. This is what the Swiss do and it does lower costs because if someone could choose a $30,000 total coverage plan or a $5,000 major medical only--most people pay the cheaper and then pay for most things out of pocket. This does lower the costs dramatically. But M***. is a liberal state and so Mitt would have to work within that liberal parameters of what the M***. society wanted and if they want a more communist approach to health care, that is their choice--that is also freedom.

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 09:24 AM

But I also heard that he sees health insurance like car insurance which we have mandates for and which you can go to jail for if you drive and hurt someone without it.

There is NO LAW that says you have to drive a car....so that means that you can require all sorts of things to cover the people who do decide to get a car and drive.

You can require insurance, you can require they are old enough
You can require they p*** a test
You can require they are tall enough...there are all sorts of things you have the power to do, because driving is totally and completely Voluntary!

But mandated insurance had a hold over you for just being alive...

You have no choice....

If you are breathing, you are forced to get insurance.

This is why Mitt's plan is nothing like car insurance.

car insurance is based on "FREEDOM"
Mitt's plan is based on "FORCE"

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 09:24 AM

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 09:26 AM

There is NO LAW that says you have to drive a car....so that means that you can require all sorts of things to cover the people who do decide to get a car and drive.

You can require insurance, you can require they are old enough
You can require they p*** a test
You can require they are tall enough...there are all sorts of things you have the power to do, because driving is totally and completely Voluntary!

But mandated insurance had a hold over you for just being alive...

You have no choice....

If you are breathing, you are forced to get insurance.

This is why Mitt's plan is nothing like car insurance.

car insurance is based on "FREEDOM"
Mitt's plan is based on "FORCE"

I agree we are not forced to have a car, but we are not forced to go to the hospital either. I think the "mandate" should only come into effect when you "enter your car" so to speak by entering the hospital.

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 09:28 AM

But M***. is a liberal state and so Mitt would have to work within that liberal parameters of what the M***. society wanted and if they want a more communist approach to health care, that is their choice--that is also freedom.

That right there is why so many Christian Conservatives will never vote for Mitt.

It has nothing to do with him being Mormon, (But that doesn't help)
It's the fact that Mitt has such a poor track record in being sucked into accepting ideas based on Liberal thinking.

The true "Leader" is able to stand up to liberal pressure .

a Flip-Flopper bends in the political wind.....

So what do I think Mitt actually does 'respect?"
Not much,

I dont think for a moment he respects either the pro-Life of the pro-Choice side.
Rather I believe he manipulates both sides for his own political advantage.

What I see in Mitt is a guy who licks his finger and tests the political winds, and thats the direction he goes in.
Once Mitt sees the direction people are going in, he runs to the front of the line and leads the charge....

This means that Mitt actually has no core to his own views...
Mitt has nothing he 'stands" for.

When he sees the pro-Choice people are the growing in political power as a movement, he becomes pro-Choice and leads the pro-Choice ticket.

if he sees that the pro-Life people now are the growing movement, guess who is suddenly pro-Life?

In conversations he is now saying, "Oh I have always felt a great respect for the lives of the unborn"

and in a few years Im sure he will be quoted as saying > "Oh I have always respected the right of women to decide such matters in private"

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 09:35 AM

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 09:42 AM

That right there is why so many Christian Conservatives will never vote for Mitt.

It has nothing to do with him being Mormon, (But that doesn't help)
It's the fact that Mitt has such a poor track record in being sucked into accepting ideas based on Liberal thinking.

The true "Leader" is able to stand up to liberal pressure .

a Flip-Flopper bends in the political wind.....

What I see in Mitt is a guy who licks his finger and tests the political winds, and thats the direction he goes in.
Once Mitt sees the direction people are going in, he runs to the front of the line and leads the charge....

This means that Mitt actually has no core to his own views...
Mitt has nothing he 'stands" for.

When he sees the pro-Choice people are the growing in political power as a movement, he becomes pro-Choice and leads the pro-Choice ticket.

if he sees that the pro-Life people now are the growing movement, guess who is suddenly pro-Life?

In conversations he is now saying, "Oh I have always felt a great respect for the lives of the unborn"

and in a few years Im sure he will be quoted as saying > "Oh I have always respected the right of women to decide such matters in private"

Well, if you think this election should be decided on abortion issues---then, by all means ****yze everything Mitt did said or voted on regarding abortion (although, I think his abortion votes have been pretty much pro-life.) I also don't see Mitt as bending to political pressure, but deciding for himself what he thinks is best and I see him as more moderate as myself. I am not like most "christians" who don't consider the life of the mother at all or see rape or incest as just tough luck.

I personally do not think that Roe vs. Wade is going to be undone in the next four years and I don't think we could get a much further leaning left president when it comes to abortion.

That said, I see the problems of this country centered more on the economy and if we don't get that figured out--maybe someday we will be owned by China and can adopt their one-child, abortion for all the rest, policies.

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 09:44 AM

.... I think the "mandate" should only come into effect when you "enter your car" so to speak by entering the hospital.
Thats not the plan that Mitt turned into law....

If you are breathing , you face a mandate to get insurance...
The current Obama law as planned has the IRS doing the dirty work of being the muscle to enforce the mandate.

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 09:46 AM

Thats not the plan that Mitt turned into law....

If you are breathing , you face a mandate to get insurance...
The current Obama law as planned has the IRS doing the dirty work of being the muscle to enforce the mandate.

Are you sure? When do they discover the person does not have insurance? When do they "go after" them so to speak? I don't know the M***. law that well and I suspect, you haven't read it personally yourself either.

That said, if that were the case, the law could easily be tweaked to be that way. So, would you support a mandate the minute a person walked into the hospital for care? Would it then be okay to go after them for covering themselves?

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 09:46 AM

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 09:49 AM

try to understand...the Mitt/Obama health care plan is totally based on the idea of the "mandate"

take away the mandate and the whole system they dreamed up falls to dust.

I say let it fall to dust.

Come up with a system that leads...that appeals to people.
Get universal coverage not by force of law, but by leadership and motivation...

thats the American way.!

You didn't answer my question. If a person has no insurance and walks into a hospital and is ready to let the community pay for them (which is what we have going on right now)---would you be okay to then insist, as a community, that that person pay a fine for not having insurance and mandating that they have insurance for the future as they have "gotten into the car" so to speak---they have used their freedom to use a service they did not have money to pay for??

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 09:49 AM

So, would you support a mandate ....
Why do you have this fixation with the "mandate"?

why do you only see the answer in the use of a mandate?

why do you read my words and think for one moment I suggest a mandate when i have over and over told you clearly that the mandate is unAmerican, and will never work, and will lead to putting people in jail that were never sick a day in their life?

why always the "mandate" with you?

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 09:54 AM

one of the problems I have with the Liberals is that on the question of health care, they only see the "mandate" as the answer....

They dont step back and look at the problem as a whole, and set down a clear understanding of the type of future America they want to live in.

All they see is that if you want poor people to have insurance, all you need to do is p*** a law and force them to....

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 09:56 AM

I suggest, that the liberals put down the "stick"...and pick up the carrot....

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 09:56 AM

let me tell you about the type of future I seek on this issue:

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 09:58 AM

a baby is born...

and goes home with it's mother who is single and dirt poor.

the mom is already on all kinds of State aid, and so it looks like this child also has a lot of State aid in the future as well..

and this pattern goes on and on for generations...

how to break it?....i will tell you how

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 10:07 AM

The mom signs up for some insurance that will cover the child for it's life.

to sweeten the deal, lets make the first 5 years (or whatever) of the child's life to be nearly totally free!

What mom would not jump at the chance to have their child receive free insurance for the most dangerous years the child will face?
It's a no-brainier.

So the mom signs for the child that this child will be covered by insurance for it's life...
That means as the child gets older every paycheck it earns will have a little taken out...even from the very first paychecks from McDonalds when they are under age.

So the child grows up covered, and becomes an adult with an insurance plan already set up from the get-go.

well....now lets say the child reaches age 30 (or whatever age it is) and decided to drop paying for insurance?
well....they still owe for them first 5 years, and thats likely about $20,000 bucks, and so the Insurance company has a right to ask for that money if the child wants to drop their coverage.

So the child will never drop coverage.....
I mean who would dare drop their coverage?...no one!

Its in the child's best interest to keep the coverage every day of their life...for as long as they keep the coverage they never have to pay back the company for the free insurance they already received!
Now sweeten the deal again, and if the child signs up it's own futuer children under the same plan, this lowers the fees for the whole family!

Suddenly its grandpa and grandma that are putting the pressure on the new parents to make sure the baby is covering under their same insurance!

The government gets to stay out of that conversation...as it should be.

everybody wins!

The hospital will always get paid.

The child receives very good health care coverage,(freaking free)

and part of the ding each paycheck the child earns will be for a life-insurance plan that will pay the $20,000 back...so the insurance company is happy knowing that they will always get their money back for covering the baby

It's so simple...

No government mandate needed,

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 10:48 AM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;103350]The mom signs up for some insurance that will cover the child for it's life.

to sweeten the deal, lets make the first 5 years (or whatever) of the child's life to be nearly totally free!

What mom would not jump at the chance to have their child receive free insurance for the most dangerous years the child will face?
It's a no-brainier. So, what do you do for the moms who don't do this? And is the dad in the picture here?

So the mom signs for the child that this child will be covered by insurance for it's life... IF the mom signs up. What do you do if she doesn't do this? Every idea past this is a moot point IF the mom opts out.

That means as the child gets older every paycheck it earns will have a little taken out...even from the very first paychecks from McDonalds when they are under age. What if the kid doensn't want to pay for this--what if they kid, as a teenager, thinks he is indestructable (imagine that), do you force him to pay for this insurance?

So the child grows up covered, and becomes an adult with an insurance plan already set up from the get-go.

well....now lets say the child reaches age 30 (or whatever age it is) and decided to drop paying for insurance?
well....they still owe for them first 5 years, and thats likely about $20,000 bucks, and so the Insurance company has a right to ask for that money if the child wants to drop their coverage. How did you get the kid to "opt in" in the first place? Was it by force? What if both the mom refuse to pay or the kid refuses to allow the money to be taken out of his paycheck?

So the child will never drop coverage.....
I mean who would dare drop their coverage?...no one! You are ***uming they bought in in the first place.

The government gets to stay out of that conversation...as it should be. How is your idea brought about? What happens for those who say no?

Actually, the problem with having insurance taken out before getting the paycheck is the same problem with having taxes taken out before hand---it allows for abuses.

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 11:17 AM

[QUOTE] And is the dad in the picture here?

I was just giving an example that would be of a child with only one parent, and comparing that situation as it ends now, (State AID forever)
with the way i would have it end. (no need for State aid)

Right now a mom in that situation where she would actually lose some healthcare if she got a better *** ....

Infact, the more money a mom would make by getting a better paying ***, the more the State would back-away from picking up her and the child's health care bills .

This means that the mom actually is under a lot of pressure to NOT get a ***.
Or to get a *** that does not pay very good....and to stay in a *** that has no future.

I suggest that this whole system of the state picking up the bills for the poor is wrong
.
It will only force more and more people to stay poor, or risk losing the aid they are getting now.

A better way to go is to have the mom sign up the baby for life-time health care insurance....with the first 4, 5 or 6 years for free!

At that point the mom will see the advantage in signing up for 5 years of free healthcare that will not be effected if she gets a better paying ***.

So the mom can feel free to search for a way more better paying *** and not worry that she will have to give up anything!

5 years later the child is in school now, the mom's life is more stable and she has a better *** , and that that point the normal insurance fees go into effect...

the first 5 years of free insurance are the reason the mom will stick with the plan.

Stay in the plan = never have to pay that money back.

They also are the same reason the child will always also stick with the plan.

Suddenly you have in place a health insurance plan that is a normal part of every person's life, and the government is not in the story at all!!!!

Now thats just my example of a child with only one parent...and I hope you can see that I was not saying that the "dad" cant be part of this idea....

I hope the dad is very much in the story of each child.....

it will not change the insurance of the child, and it would make the life of the child better...

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 11:26 AM

[QUOTE]
What if the kid doensn't want to pay for this--

if your mom signed you up for this type of legacy life-long insurance, and under the rules at a certian age (like age 21 or 31 for example) you decide that you no longer wish to be covered under your old insurance?

Fine....

Good for you!

There is no law that says you have to have insurance.

being an American means you have the freedom to decide this for yourself!
Enjoy your freedom my friend.

But oh by the way, remember that first 5 years of free insurance you have already received when you were a baby?....You still owe that.
and..the insurance company now wants you to pay that bill off today!......

LOL...

It's about $20,000 bucks...and they want it in cash.LOL

so you now face a choice>

Either you drop your insurance and take out a loan to pay off the $20,000.00 insurance bill you owe for the 5 years?

Or...

You keep your current insurance going and never have to pay off that 5 year bill?

you tell me what you think most people will do?_________

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 11:40 AM

How is your idea brought about? .

there actually would need to be only one real change to our current broken system.

its the same change that insurance companies have been telling us they would like to use to save the system for years.

its about the ability of a parent to sign for a child , and have it binding on the child even into the age when the child is an adult.

that's why this is called "legacy" insurance.
You get it from your parents, they sign you up and commit you to a life-long relationship with their insurance.

So the insurance is "p***ed down" to you

But it works the other way too.

legacy means that some of the money paid in to the insurance by the grand kids, goes back to old Grandma!

"legacy" insurance, is all about a family ....it works to bind the family closer.
when your children sign up their own children, it lowers the fees for everyone else that you signed for ...The more members of the family under you that get signed up, the better it is for everyone!

Do you see how this plan has totally replaced the 'stick' of the State turning lose the IRS on you to force you to get insurance, with the "carrot" of lower rates, cash to grandma, and free insurance for baby Joey!

Everyone wins....

even the insurance company wins as they get everyone in the family all signed up for life-long insurance before they can even speak!

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 12:07 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;103352]

Infact, the more money a mom would make by getting a better paying ***, the more the State would back-away from picking up her and the child's health care bills .

This means that the mom actually is under a lot of pressure to NOT get a ***.
Or to get a *** that does not pay very good....and to stay in a *** that has no future.

I suggest that this whole system of the state picking up the bills for the poor is wrong
.
It will only force more and more people to stay poor, or risk losing the aid they are getting now. I am a stay at home mom---sometimes money is not the issue for choosing to stay home or stay poor. I think there is a benefit (a large one) to society when mothers take care of their own kids.

A better way to go is to have the mom sign up the baby for life-time health care insurance....with the first 4, 5 or 6 years for free! Nothing is ever free. Who is going to pick up the tab on this?

At that point the mom will see the advantage in signing up for 5 years of free healthcare that will not be effected if she gets a better paying ***. What if the mom doesn't want to sign up for something (as there are always strings attached)?

So the mom can feel free to search for a way more better paying *** and not worry that she will have to give up anything!

5 years later the child is in school now, the mom's life is more stable and she has a better *** , and that that point the normal insurance fees go into effect...

the first 5 years of free insurance are the reason the mom will stick with the plan.

Stay in the plan = never have to pay that money back. And here is the catch as to why some may not sign up.

They also are the same reason the child will always also stick with the plan.

Suddenly you have in place a health insurance plan that is a normal part of every person's life, and the government is not in the story at all!!!!

Now thats just my example of a child with only one parent...and I hope you can see that I was not saying that the "dad" cant be part of this idea....

I hope the dad is very much in the story of each child.....

it will not change the insurance of the child, and it would make the life of the child better... But, you have written the father out of your policy here---a dangerous thing to do in my book allowing the father to 'opt-in' to being a father.

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 12:08 PM

if your mom signed you up for this type of legacy life-long insurance, and under the rules at a certian age (like age 21 or 31 for example) you decide that you no longer wish to be covered under your old insurance?

Fine....

Good for you!

There is no law that says you have to have insurance.

being an American means you have the freedom to decide this for yourself!
Enjoy your freedom my friend.

But oh by the way, remember that first 5 years of free insurance you have already received when you were a baby?....You still owe that.
and..the insurance company now wants you to pay that bill off today!......

LOL...

It's about $20,000 bucks...and they want it in cash.LOL

so you now face a choice>

Either you drop your insurance and take out a loan to pay off the $20,000.00 insurance bill you owe for the 5 years?

Or...

You keep your current insurance going and never have to pay off that 5 year bill?

you tell me what you think most people will do?_________

So your idea is to sucker in the naive and then have them trapped into paying insurance. Good, the insurance companies can have an absolute ball with that one.

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 12:09 PM

there actually would need to be only one real change to our current broken system.

its the same change that insurance companies have been telling us they would like to use to save the system for years.

its about the ability of a parent to sign for a child , and have it binding on the child even into the age when the child is an adult.

that's why this is called "legacy" insurance.
You get it from your parents, they sign you up and commit you to a life-long relationship with their insurance.

So the insurance is "p***ed down" to you

But it works the other way too.

legacy means that some of the money paid in to the insurance by the grand kids, goes back to old Grandma!

"legacy" insurance, is all about a family ....it works to bind the family closer.
when your children sign up their own children, it lowers the fees for everyone else that you signed for ...The more members of the family under you that get signed up, the better it is for everyone!

Do you see how this plan has totally replaced the 'stick' of the State turning lose the IRS on you to force you to get insurance, with the "carrot" of lower rates, cash to grandma, and free insurance for baby Joey!

Everyone wins....

even the insurance company wins as they get everyone in the family all signed up for life-long insurance before they can even speak!

Wow, and what if I don't want to be forever attached to an insurance company (that I now hate) that my parents roped me into or I get stuck with a huge fine that I may not be able to pay. Wow, this is not freedom as you describe. This is a form of bondage that was signed on by my parents. This is what the Book of Mormon describes for how the devil "binds with flaxen cords" until the person is trapped.

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 12:22 PM

Nothing is ever free. Who is going to pick up the tab on this?

perhaps I could have made this more clear...

Under the legacy healthcare insurance plan, the mom will never have to pay for the first 4,5 or 6 years of their child's insurance coverage.

But this amount is recorded, and it is credited to the child.
this means that when the child is old enough to decide to cancel theiur own insurance, that the total bills for their own first 5 years of coverage would now come due.

In every-day terms, what Legacy insurance means, is that you only have to pay for the first 5 years of your coverage if you stop paying your monthy fees.

it does not matter for what reason you stop paying your insurance fees...be it because you dont want to have insurance anymore, or you die.

at that moment that you stop paying your month insurance fee you then owe your bill for the first 5 years.

if you decided to just stop having insurance?
fine, that's your right...
the terms of the contract your mom signed on your behalf are thereby fulfilled, and you now just have to pay off the bills for the first 5 years....(might be about $20,000.00 so good luck with that)

But what if you die?
Your monthly insurance fee also has within it a life insurance coverage payable to the company at your death, so they get paid back for covering you for your first 5 years..

So everyone ends up happy.

No one is forced to carry insurance.

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 12:27 PM

Wow, and what if I don't want to be forever attached to an insurance company

You can drop out of the plan at any time....

You just owe for the coverage that the insurance company carried you for and didnt bill your mom for.

It was free to her.

But it was for you....and you received the benifit of that coverage.
thus you can walk away from the insurance company at any moment you want.
no law says you are stuck with that company forever.

But you do still owe them, and no matter where you go, where you work, you will need to pay off that debt.

remember, the goal ?

The goal is to have everyone covered under their own health insurance plan, and to keep the State out of the mix....

thats the goal..

so that everyone grows up with great insurance, and its there when they need it..
and to do this without a State 'mandate"

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 12:30 PM

But, you have written the father out of your policy here.

You really awake yet?

Im thinking that you did not really understand that i gave only the 'single mom" example as a typical worst-case example..

Im not saying that only single moms can apply....LOL

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 12:33 PM

see....the idea is that you want the average person to feel very connected to their insurance.
You want them to always want this connection.

that way you dont have a 31 year old guy walk in to the ER with no insurance later.....

You want that 31 year old guy to have had a life-time connection with insurance....thats what you want to bring about....thats the goal...

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 01:08 PM

You cant lose sight of the goal.

Whats the goal Julie?

You talked about a guy walking into the ER with no insurance, and the bills for his health care falling on the State to pick up.

We want to stop that.
That is the goal.

We dont want the IRS to be going after people who simply dont want to have insurance.
That also is the goal.

We dont want all the bills for people's health care to land on the State to cover.
That also is the goal.

The goal is to have that same guy walk into the ER when he gets sick, and have some darn good insurance to cover his bills.
That is the goal.

Q - How long did this guy have his insurance?
A - all his life.

Q - did the government or his parents put the pressure on him to always have good insurance?
A - his parents.

Q - Who should receive the benefit if he always has insurance, the state or his family?
A - his family

Q - when he signs up his own children for insurance, who should receive a kick-back for that, the State or his parents?
A - his parents, for they have successfully p***ed on to the 2nd and 3rd generation the importance of always having insurance...so they they deserve the reward of lower rates by the company.

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 02:55 PM

the insurance companies can have an absolute ball with that one.
if you think that the answer to the health care problem in America is somehow to "stick it" to the insurance companies?....you are in error.

The insurance companies are going to be the heart of the final, correct answer to the problem..

Any, and I mean ANY answer that our leaders come up with have to have high on their list a means to make the insurance companies VERY happy.

Unless they take this into account, all efforts to fix the problem are useless....

My views as i have presented here, do allow for all parties of this to come away happy.

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 02:57 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;103363]perhaps I could have made this more clear...

Under the legacy healthcare insurance plan, the mom will never have to pay for the first 4,5 or 6 years of their child's insurance coverage.

But this amount is recorded, and it is credited to the child.
this means that when the child is old enough to decide to cancel theiur own insurance, that the total bills for their own first 5 years of coverage would now come due.

In every-day terms, what Legacy insurance means, is that you only have to pay for the first 5 years of your coverage if you stop paying your monthy fees.

it does not matter for what reason you stop paying your insurance fees...be it because you dont want to have insurance anymore, or you die.

at that moment that you stop paying your month insurance fee you then owe your bill for the first 5 years.

The problem I see with this program is that the parent is locking the child into a bum deal---either stay or pay. That doesn't sound like freedom at all to me.

Compare it to a phone company---you start, it seems like a real good deal--but as the year goes on, the service gets worse and worse. You want out, but you have this big charge if you do. Yours is one step worse--where the parents opted in with the child having no voice. And with a $20,000 opt out bill, who could afford it. It is subtle bondage, but bondage all the same.

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 03:00 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;103364]You can drop out of the plan at any time....

You just owe for the coverage that the insurance company carried you for and didnt bill your mom for.

It was free to her. Yes, then it should be her bill when you opt out, but not yours as she is the policy holder and chose the policy, not you.

But it was for you....and you received the benifit of that coverage.
thus you can walk away from the insurance company at any moment you want.
no law says you are stuck with that company forever.

But you do still owe them, and no matter where you go, where you work, you will need to pay off that debt. Wow, I think this is the same policy the government has. Give you benefits that you didn't want and then you are stuck with the debt. Bondage is bondage--whether it is to a government or an insurance company.
remember, the goal ?

The goal is to have everyone covered under their own health insurance plan, and to keep the State out of the mix....

thats the goal..

so that everyone grows up with great insurance, and its there when they need it..
and to do this without a State 'mandate" We could do this without the state and without this bondage as well. It is called, letting the hospitals turn people away who cannot pay. Callous---yes, but that is also total and complete freedom for both all individuals involved--provider and providee.

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 03:01 PM

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 03:04 PM

if you think that the answer to the health care problem in America is somehow to "stick it" to the insurance companies?....you are in error.

The insurance companies are going to be the heart of the final, correct answer to the problem..

Any, and I mean ANY answer that our leaders come up with have to have high on their list a means to make the insurance companies VERY happy.

Unless they take this into account, all efforts to fix the problem are useless....

My views as i have presented here, do allow for all parties of this to come away happy.

I don't think we need to stick it to the insurance companies---I also don't think putting our children in bondage to them is the solution either.

Actually, I dont' think we have to keep the insurance companies happy. One of the problems we have right now is the government protections for insurance companies. The last thing an insurance company would want (compared to what they have right now) is a total and free market. That is why Romney states he was trying to use the "free market" system as much as possible. I haven't read the bill--haven't seen it through. But, I know your system is just a form of holding children hostage to an insurance company and I would personally never go for it.

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 03:05 PM

Alan--this system of yours reminds me so much of systems I hate---free for the first 30 days, etc. and then you are stuck with this bill every month and you fight on the phone for hours trying to get rid of it. I can't imagine doing this to my child and the opt out payment is $20,000 or so. No way.

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 03:13 PM

[QUOTE]

The problem I see with this program is that the parent is locking the child into a bum deal---either stay or pay.

Julie you got to ask yourself, what is the goal?

You seem to have as a goal to make it easy for kids to drop their insurance?

trust me Julie, thats the case right now,,,
so how has that worked out?

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 03:20 PM

Julie, I think you need to take a look at the goal you have in mind as you think about this issue....

You listed the situation where a guy walks in to the ER because he is sick, and he has no insurance....

The hospital treats him, and the bill gets paid by the State.

This situation is the same as what the insurance companies have been warning the country about for over 20 years!

thats if you make insurance unneeded, you invite people to treat their State supported healthcare as if it were a All-you-can-eat buffet.

The goal you should always have in mind is finding a way to get people to have their private insurance.

so in the future when that 31 year old man walks into the ER, he has an insurance card in his pocket.

The best way to bring about such a better future is to bring up that young man in a home where from birth he learned the value of good insurance.

the best people to teach him that valuble lesson is not the state, nor the IRA....,but rather the pest people to handle that *** are good old mom and dad.

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 03:22 PM

Julie you got to ask yourself, what is the goal?

You seem to have as a goal to make it easy for kids to drop their insurance?

trust me Julie, thats the case right now,,,
so how has that worked out?

But you are subs***uting your goal with giving the insurance companies too much power over the now-grown child. This is just a set-up that would allow insurance companies to be able to be very abusive.
I would never do that to my kids and therefore would reject the option. (It is akin to leasing a car and all those other abusive programs where it sounds good on the front and bad on the back side.)

As I stated, if we want total freedom --then we need to allow hospitals to turn away people who can't pay or don't have insurance. That would give plenty of people incentive to get and keep insurance. BUT, and this is the big BUT---as a society, can we accept the death of our citizens because of their own poor choices when WE could do something to save them?

BigJulie

11-18-2011, 03:27 PM

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 04:06 PM

alanmolstad

11-18-2011, 04:13 PM

BigJulie

11-19-2011, 09:17 AM

Im talking about a system that is different than Mitt's system to be sure.
And my system is based on the idea that we want to make insurance the most easy for every man to have when he walks in the door of the ER.

My system is completely voluntary...and thats the thing that a lot of Mitt supporters dont know how to deal with about Mitt's past..

a fact is a fact, and it is a cold hard fact that one of the issues that was the very foundation of the Tea Party is the Clinton, then Mitt/Obama health care push to bring in a mandate.

This is also the reason for the media being so kind to Mitt, while it tries it's best to destroy anyone who is a challenger to Mitt to leading the ticket.

The liberal press wants Mitt to win the primary!

The liberals know that the moment that Mitt wins the primary, the whole health care mandate issue is taken off the table.

I don't know if I like the idea of a mandate, which is why I like the opt out options, but your idea is worse than a mandate, it is bondage to an insurance company. It is a terrible idea and lures the parent in and then traps the child. I don't know if the press really wants Romney all that bad---it seems they go for the person who is at the "top of the polls" which Newt is right now.

BigJulie

11-19-2011, 09:25 AM

clearly our goals are not the same....

You seem to always be worried about if its easy to drop the health insurance?

You also seem to always come back to the issue of a hospital tossing out a sick person who has no insurance.
Time and time again you keep getting to that image of a hospital shutting its doors in the face of need.

Well....my wife works at a hospital, and let me tell you something, no one that works at the hospital got into the work because they thought that down the line that sort of dark future would be real.

Lets design a system where that never happens....thats should be our goal.

Not to toss a few people out on their ****s, watch them die in the street, and hope others, "Learn a lesson"

My concern is that i want to make growing up with insurance to be a normal way to grow up for everyone.

I want to make the chances great that the person walking into the ER in the future will have insurance because they always had it from the beginning.

I actually want to make it 'hard" for a person to drop their insurance.

You want to make it easy to drop insurance.

I want it to be that the chance that a person has dropped his insurance to be very rare...

You want it to be common.

Well guess what?
It is already common.....and thats the problem.

You are clearly not seeing my perspective on this. Right now, the problem exists because those who have insurance pay for those who do not have insurance either via medicaid or higher insurance and/or hospitial costs. So, effectively, we have a tax already. The question is, does the government address this tax we are paying in the form of higher medical bills and insurance costs or not.

Your plan puts someone in bondage TO an insurance company. That gives the insurance company all kinds of leverage to abuse. I have seen this already with cell phone plans---easy in and then a fee to opt out. This is why I personally would rather pay for my phone then to renew my plan with a "free" phone as I have seen the difference when you can say--well, I am done with this company, I am going to go to another and how they treat you versus when you would have to pay a few hundred to opt out. And yet, you want to slap this $20,000 bill to opt out---sheesh. That would be worse than a tax. Imagine the person who is at odds with their insurance company over a bill and would rather go to another insurance company? And that company has a $20,000 bill to hang over their head. Talk about ugly.

So, no, I am not talking about it being easy to drop insurance, I am talking about keeping the playing field level between the insurer and the insuree.

Your idea is terrible and only the naive would adopt it.

And the reason I bring up hospitals being able to turn down people without a way to pay is because that is total freedom which is what you say is YOUR goal. Total freedom means that not only do you have the choice to do what you want, but so do others so others do not have to pay for your bill if you choose to be irresponsible. The question is---do you want THAT much freedom or not?

alanmolstad

11-19-2011, 01:35 PM

I don't know if the press really wants Romney all that bad--

Rush had something up on his website the other day on this topic.
Rush was talking about all the attack stories that the Liberal media had going against the others in the race....

Take MSNBC for example, story after story attacking all the other guys.

and how many attack stories against Mitt?......none?

Mitt is the Liberal's dream!

Mitt will take the Health Care issue off the table....

Think of that for a moment.

The very foundation of the Conservative agenda, totally taken out of the election?????

Obama must get down on his knees every night and thank GOD that "Mitt the Flip-Flopper" is about to be his only opposition in the next election.

BigJulie

11-20-2011, 10:30 AM

Rush had something up on his website the other day on this topic.
Rush was talking about all the attack stories that the Liberal media had going against the others in the race....

Take MSNBC for example, story after story attacking all the other guys.

and how many attack stories against Mitt?......none?

Mitt is the Liberal's dream!

Mitt will take the Health Care issue off the table....

Think of that for a moment.

The very foundation of the Conservative agenda, totally taken out of the election?????

Obama must get down on his knees every night and thank GOD that "Mitt the Flip-Flopper" is about to be his only opposition in the next election.

Mitt says that the first thing on his agenda is to repeal Obamacare. He says it is bad for our economy and the people don't want it.

To me, it appears the media always goes after who ever is in the lead--right now it is Newt---so Newt is taking it on the chin. And do you remember on the news Jeffries calling Mitt a member of a cult? Why did the news cover that if they want Mitt to be the contender and there are so many (as N.T. Wright calls them) American paranoid evangelicals who run in fear any time the word cult is mentioned?

And go look at the front page of CNN today---on the front is a story on Cain's faith, Mitt's faith and Rick Perry's faith. So, tell me that they are attacking Mitt (as well as the others) based on religion.

alanmolstad

11-20-2011, 06:23 PM

BigJulie

11-20-2011, 11:28 PM

Nevermind what we were talking about...

Julie, did you hear this?
http://tv.breitbart.com/thrill-is-gone-matthews-turns-on-obama-i-hear-stories-that-you-would-not-believe/

The gum fell out of my mouth when I hear this video....This is Obama's Number 1 guy in the media......

I saw this earlier, but it wouldn't open---this time it did. (I read Drudge every day, do you?)

I am glad Chris Matthew finally has the guts to say what even he as a liberal sees as far as this White House. As far as I am concerned, Obama is best at shutting down good companies, giving money to his cronies, and taking vacations.

alanmolstad

11-21-2011, 05:04 PM

I was shocked...totally shocked that the guy spoke up as he did.....

I never saw this coming....

BigJulie

11-22-2011, 09:49 AM

I was shocked...totally shocked that the guy spoke up as he did.....

I never saw this coming....

We live in a strange time to say the least.

BigJulie

11-28-2011, 09:56 PM

We live in a strange time to say the least.

Alan, if you are around, what do you think about Newt? I just got a recorded phone message from him. I know he has backage. Do you think he can stand up to Obama?

alanmolstad

11-29-2011, 06:11 AM

Newt has what Mitt lacks...a good conservative track record.

at this time we all think Newt is running for the top place on the ticket, and this is true for now....

But the real truth is that Newt is running for the VP position just like everyone else still in the race.

The only chance Newt has of actually winning the lead on the ticket is if he can win early and get all of the true conservative support of the party.

This means that I think Newt has to win early, say in Iowa.
If he can win Iowa, it might cause Rush to support him into the next few weeks and that would be enough to show Mitt's support is wide,but thin deep.

So knocking down Mitt in the early contests is key.

on the other hand, if Mitt comes in a close 2nd in Iowa, and then wins the next States its all over....

The race right now is to see who will get the most support from the tea party type conservatives?
Right now its between Cain and Newt....

and Cain and Newt are in a race to see who will get the VP position should Mitt win...

The guy who delivers the conservative vote in the first States is in the best position to bring to a Mitt ticket what Mitt needs to win.

Right now....without the Tea Party type conservatives, Mitt cant win.

and based on his own track record there is no way for Mitt to improve his standing with such conservatives.
Mitt needs to cover himself with a blanket like Cain or Newt that people will see....

BigJulie

11-29-2011, 04:18 PM

alanmolstad

11-29-2011, 07:20 PM

On one hand, it appears you think Mitt has it hands down--in the next line, you say that he can't win the support of the conservatives, which he needs.

Yes..this is true...But I should have added a word to make my point more clear...

I believe that Mitt has the Republican nomination won hands down...

However I don't think Mitt can win in the general election against Obama unless he has strong conservative voter support.

The problem then is based on his past record of stabbing conservative issues in the back, he will nevr get the amount of support he needs to win.

So, alone Mitt cant win.

I dont believe that just because the country os going down hill now as for ***s that that alone will be good enough to get Mitt elected.

Mitt needs the conservatives....he needs guys like me...and so far i dont really see Mitt as a guy i would want to vote for.

This makes it clear to me that Mitt should be watching the primary's very close as to what name gets the Tea Party members vote.....

thats the person he will need as his VP.

so right now the whole rest of the primary is all about going for the VP slot on the ticket...

Mitt cant pick a no-name.

Mitt has to pick a name that right away smacks everyone as a strong tea party type conservative.

If Mitt picks a no-name like how McCain picked Sarah alin, he might as well give up .

There are just too many recordings of Mitt making strong pro-Abortion statements , and in the general election these will be played non-stop on PBS and MSNBC and in time Mitt can just forget about beating Obama...

Without the correct VP to stand next to him, Mitt dont have a chance....

BigJulie

11-29-2011, 08:41 PM

Yes..this is true...But I should have added a word to make my point more clear...

There are just too many recordings of Mitt making strong pro-Abortion statements , and in the general election these will be played non-stop on PBS and MSNBC and in time Mitt can just forget about beating Obama...

Without the correct VP to stand next to him, Mitt dont have a chance....

I can see his more liberal leanings could be a problem especially in this day and age where everything has been recorded. That said, do you think a politician always stays the course? I mean, Perry was a democrat. Reagan was a democrat. Are people not allowed to grow and change?

alanmolstad

11-29-2011, 09:36 PM

do you think a politician always stays the course? ....

a 'politician understands that they will NEVER free themselves of the name "Flip-flopper" if they go from one extreme to the other.

Thus you do not see many real politicians changing their views once they start answering questions.

The other thing that is important is that when a person does change their mind, we have to be carefull as to how quickly the person did.
by this I mean that we got to look at such things with a bit of doubt.....

We have to always look at a politician's claim to have 'seen the light" and changed their mind on an issue with the eye that they might not be telling the full story.

I can understand a person changing their mind on a issue after years of soul-searching and after a slow movement to a different position.

But I do not really have much trust in a person if they have a lifetime of being on one side of an issue, then suddenly after talking to one person, or seeing something on Tv or reading one paragraph of a book , they have a 180 flip of a position, and now they are all 100% in support of the other way.

Yes, history has shown us that every once in a while God meets a Saul on the road....But is that what I take Mitt's story to be about his many flips over the last few years?....

Nope!, not for a second

To me that sounds like one of 2 things.

#1 - it sounds fake.
By this I mean it sounds like the politician just knew he needed to switch positions on a issue that no longer was as popular as it once was, and so they say"I see the light" and flip positions.

or...

#2 - it a sign of being without a rudder
By this I mean that the person seems to be saying that can be 100% behind one position, and then be ****n to the other position after just a little work.
In that case, it really does not matter what position the guys claims now, it's moot because in a week he could be back to the original position , and week after that flipped again...

because even right now, even as i write this Mitt is in the middle of flipping his positions on all the problems he has with Conservatives such as myself.

I was sent an email with some of the concerns that Christians have about Mitt, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=361029 and they are REAL concerns!

And in every case i see listed, Im watching now Mitt is flipping on the issue to make it less of a damage to him.

That's one of the differences between him in a more conservative person.
a conservative would have a strong starting position that is who they are at their core....

The conservative person's core becomes the foundation of the strong house they are as a person.

I dont think Mitt has a core that he is....

Mitt is more like a wind sock .....

So while the fact that Mitt now 'claims' to be against Abortion, I still don't believe his story behind this flip and all the other flips that he is sending up the flag pole this election.
the story Mitt tells, is well... to me it just sounds "aimed' at me.

Like a person wanted me to believe that Mitt had a "Saul, Saul' moment and came away changed from it.
It seems too much aimed at Christians.....too much in-line with what we are supposed to respond to.

BigJulie

11-30-2011, 06:15 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;105217]a 'politician understands that they will NEVER free themselves of the name "Flip-flopper" if they go from one extreme to the other.

Thus you do not see many real politicians changing their views once they start answering questions.I've actually seen this many times...haven't you? The last that was made public was on the debt ceiling when Obama changed his mind (and his vote) from supporting it to not supporting it.

The other thing that is important is that when a person does change their mind, we have to be carefull as to how quickly the person did.
by this I mean that we got to look at such things with a bit of doubt.....

We have to always look at a politician's claim to have 'seen the light" and changed their mind on an issue with the eye that they might not be telling the full story. Agreed, but Mitt's voting record was pro-life when he was the governor of M***. and so this change did not come about when he was running for president.

Yes, history has shown us that every once in a while God meets a Saul on the road....But is that what I take Mitt's story to be about his many flips over the last few years?.... What are the flips you see? You have mentioned abortion--what others?

because even right now, even as i write this Mitt is in the middle of flipping his positions on all the problems he has with Conservatives such as myself.

I was sent an email with some of the concerns that Christians have about Mitt, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=361029 and they are REAL concerns!

And in every case i see listed, Im watching now Mitt is flipping on the issue to make it less of a damage to him. List please.

alanmolstad

11-30-2011, 06:27 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=7OQoBxZZPqU

BigJulie

11-30-2011, 11:12 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=7OQoBxZZPqU

Watching:

1) Protecting the M***. abortion laws.
2) I have heard the whole time-table speech, Mitt basically said that everybody should know their goals. He didn't say to telegraph it--that is a misrepresentation.
3) Mitt has not changed his stance on global warming as far as I am aware.
4) His stimulus package was much smaller than what was p***ed. The stimulus is good economics. Basically, our laws are set that when a recession hits, an automatic stimulus goes into effect for unemployment and medicaid. This is a safety net for people.
5) His TARP statements are correct and he has not gone back on this. The banks cannot function, by law, without a certain amount of reserves. Had TARP not p***ed, banks would have shut down and no longer been able to loan. Our country would have seen a lot worse of a recession.
6) I haven't seen his gun laws completely.
7) Immigration policy clearly changed after 9/11 and now were seen as a possible threat. Immigration also changed based on the recession and our symbiotic relationship that we had in the past.
8) We have discussed the mandate issue. I am not sure if Romney has changed his stance on this.

BigJulie

12-01-2011, 12:45 AM

Another video to watch. Tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=youtu.be

alanmolstad

12-01-2011, 06:30 AM

alanmolstad

12-01-2011, 06:31 AM

this is why, when I look at the videos I have posted dealing with Mitt, Im just so fed up with him!

If it were up to me, Mitt would drop out now...

alanmolstad

12-01-2011, 06:34 AM

BigJulie

12-01-2011, 08:33 AM

See Julie, the pro-abortion statements he has already made will mean that conservatives will NEVER in a million years support him.

It doesn't matter what he says now..

The fact that he might have claimed to have flipped on the issue is moot.

This means that Mitt has to wrap himself with a VP pick that no conservative will question.

The healthcare mandate statements, are also enough to drive conservatives like myself away...

This is why the conservatives want so much for anyone else to win...
Mitt is not a conservative and i want to vote for a conservative.

Hmmm, when I listened to the tape, it said that he would not change the M***. laws regarding abortion. He was also the governor when a more liberal abortion law came to his desk and he did not support it.

Did you watch the other video regarding Newt? Curious what you think.

BigJulie

12-01-2011, 08:34 AM

The fact that he is not a Christian?...well.....when i put that on top of the rest of this pile...it sure doesn't help his case....

The key will be if Mitt has a loss early and the conservatives gather around the other name....

Iowa is moot,
Iowa does not matter, as long as Mitt is close.

But over the following few contests we do find the make-or-break moment for Mitt.

Mitt has to win big in NH or the whole Party will turn on him like you wont believe.

Did you watch the video on Newt? What do you think about his lobbying and making so much money off of Freddie and Fannie? Or that he also supports mandates and global warming? I think the "christians" are putting up another John McCain---long term politician with little business experience.

alanmolstad

12-01-2011, 05:45 PM

actually Christian conservatives like myself were totally against Mccain.

and he never once tried to seek my vote.

and he lost.

That's the lessen to be learned here.

Christian conservatives are the heart of the Party, and if you want to win the general election, you better pack your team with people that speak to my issues with the words I use.

McCain had stabbed in the back every cause I believe in.
Mitt also has stabbed in the back every cause I believe in.

The thing Mitt has to do if he wins the Primary is pick a real winner for a VP....and also drop a few names of strong Christian conservatives as the people he will bring to Washington with him.

BigJulie

12-01-2011, 07:01 PM

alanmolstad

12-01-2011, 07:24 PM

newt is a conservative, thats what you know for sure about newt.

newt never fakes being this or that just to get elected...
Even in the few places where Newt and i disagree, i can tell that his views are part of who he is at his core.....

Newt has a strong inner core that drives him
I like Newt....I think he is interesting, and can tell a good joke.

If it came down to a vote between Mitt and Newt, I would vote for newt ...Newt just seems more "real " to me.....

Now as for what do i think of newt?....
I think he cant control himself.

His mouth gets him into a lot of trouble.

While he has the support of the Christian conservatives like myself , he also has an odd way of shooting from the hip, and go off into things that are better left not done.

While I enjoy the fact that we finally have a real conservative leading the pack and that even mitt is in 2nd or 3rd place to Newt right now....I also understand that with Newt there is always the chance that he is just one off-the-wall remark from being totally out of this race...

So Im happy he is still in the hunt, but Im not real sure he will last ling...

alanmolstad

12-01-2011, 07:45 PM

Julie, the real fun part of this topic over all the other ones, is that this one actually has an ending.

This one will come to a final moment when the voting starts and the talking stops.

We will know one way or the other how this will play out....

I have give my predictions, and I will do so right up to the moment people are starting to vote in Iowa, (or whatsver they do there?)

My predictions:
I know being that Mitt is a mormon and you are two, that it's only natural that you want to support your team in the big game.

Be that as it may, in time the novelty of having a guy with your faith or your skin color in the White House wears off very fast...

So lets just see how this election might stack up for Mitt?

The first place to make news in this election will be Iowa, (Jan 3rd)
Mitt can lose Iowa with no real damage to his chances.

What we have learned in the past is, "As Iowa goes, so goes....Iowa"

So as long as Mitt is a respectable 2nd or 3rd, there is no issue not winning.

The real test of Mitt is on Jan 10 in New Hampshire.
This is the place where Mitt can bury the rest of the pack, or really screw up and be in for a nasty fight over the next few weeks.

The best thing that Mitt can have happen is that he wins big in New Hampshire. If Mitt wins, and wins big, most of the pack will have packed it in as they would not have the money to hang on untll January 21, atSouth Carolina.

South Carolina is always the ideal spot for a Christian to break out of the pack....This would have been the state for cain to rise to the top. But if cain os all but finished right now, this means that South Carolina will be the big religious test for Mitt.

If Mitt does well by South Carolina, then that means that the Christians are swinging in behind him, and he is all set.

However if Mitt cant win Sough Carolina, ...or worse, if Mitt drops to 3rd or lower there it means that he better start looking at "Christians Only" when he thinks about a VP,

Florida is on Jan 31, and it will be all over by then one way or the other...

So the best thing for Mitt is to place 2nd in Iowa, and then win in New Hampshire.

Whats the worst news for Mitt?
What would be the sign for you to look for that Mitt has totally failed?

Look for Mitt to come in 3rd in Iowa, and then 2nd in New Hampshire.
That would lead to a 3rd or 4th pl;ace finish in South Carolina.
and that brings us to Florida where Mitt would have to drop out if he could not bring home a victory.
But...we shall see....

BigJulie

12-03-2011, 08:10 AM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;105414]Julie, the real fun part of this topic over all the other ones, is that this one actually has an ending.

This one will come to a final moment when the voting starts and the talking stops.

We will know one way or the other how this will play out....

I have give my predictions, and I will do so right up to the moment people are starting to vote in Iowa, (or whatsver they do there?) Yes, we shall see the outcome here.

My predictions:
I know being that Mitt is a mormon and you are two, that it's only natural that you want to support your team in the big game.

Be that as it may, in time the novelty of having a guy with your faith or your skin color in the White House wears off very fast... Actually, Mitt being a Mormon is not what drives me to like him. John Huntsman is a Mormon too, remember and so is Harry Reid. And as many of my friends are Mormon--both strong Republicans and Democrats---they range all over the place as well as who they like. That said, I like Mitt because I am more of a moderate who likes and studied economics and so when Mitt talks, he makes sense to me. I still think one of his big draw backs is that he talks over people's heads. Ron Paul made this same mistake when he discussed "M1" in the debates as most people don't know what that is.

What I don't like about Newt is that from paying attention, I think we might be getting another George W. Bush--too much cowboy (you call it badger). Whatever it is---it appears to me as not enough smarts in the mouth department.

South Carolina is always the ideal spot for a Christian to break out of the pack....This would have been the state for cain to rise to the top. But if cain os all but finished right now, this means that South Carolina will be the big religious test for Mitt. It is sad to me that people like WM have sensationalized my religion so much that people would be afraid to vote for Mitt based on his religion. Personally, it comes across to me as just plain bigoted.

So the best thing for Mitt is to place 2nd in Iowa, and then win in New
Look for Mitt to come in 3rd in Iowa, and then 2nd in New Hampshire.
That would lead to a 3rd or 4th pl;ace finish in South Carolina.
and that brings us to Florida where Mitt would have to drop out if he could not bring home a victory.
But...we shall see.... And here I thought that you thought Mitt had it totally locked up.

Here is one article I read on the subject:

"Newt can't take the scrutiny," agreed a Democrat, "and he has the personality of an angry badger."

Some Insiders argued that a Gingrich nomination would be a gift to the Obama campaign.

"Shhhhhhhhh - don't tell them!" begged a Democrat, tongue firmly in cheek. "They seem hell-bent on finding anybody but Mitt. Grandpa Newt and all his quirks and quacks would be just fine, thank you."

"Bigfoot dressed as a circus clown would have a better chance of beating President Obama than Newt Gingrich, a similarly farcical character," quipped a Republican.

"Come on," sighed another GOP Insider, "the White House is probably giving money to Gingrich as we speak."

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/12/insiders-not-so.php

When I think that the "christian right" might not vote for Mitt because of religion and put in Newt, I sit back and think, here we go again...another John McCain.

alanmolstad

12-03-2011, 09:00 AM

And here I thought that you thought Mitt had it totally locked up.

.
Yes, I was giving you a list of the "Good News" and the "Bad News" for Mitt...

The good news would be in Mitt comes in a close 2nd in Iowa, and then kicks **** in NH and by the time Florida happens Mitt has it all wrapped up.

the bad news is if Mitt is far back in Iowa, and this hurts him in NH where he comes in 2nd....if that happens, then by the time Mitt gets to Florida he may be already out of the race.

So yes, i do think based on the history of the Republican party, that Mitt has it already won and will be the person who will lead the ticket.
But, this is all in the future and I dont know the future...so it's unknown to me as well.

I believe Mitt has it won, but there is always a chance Mitt might screw it up yet...

alanmolstad

12-03-2011, 09:03 AM

as for the idea that many Dems want Newt to beat Mitt?

They might....

I remember many leading liberals were very happy to see Ronald Reagan lead the ticket against Jimmy Carter, as they felt no one would vote for an actor....

BigJulie

12-03-2011, 08:51 PM

alanmolstad

12-04-2011, 02:03 AM

who was once a Democrat! ;)

yes...but I believe it was the dems who changed.

You have to remember that at the time the dems were seen as the more Pro-military....the whole Kennedy staring down the USSR and stuff.

Then step by step the liberals took over the party.
The Dems lost the South for a whole there remember?

The Dems used to be a conservative party...but over this generation the Liberals have gotten rid of all the conservatives.

Try to be pro-Life and a D
em that speaks out now.....and you get hammered down.

BigJulie

12-04-2011, 11:27 PM

yes...but I believe it was the dems who changed.

You have to remember that at the time the dems were seen as the more Pro-military....the whole Kennedy staring down the USSR and stuff.

Then step by step the liberals took over the party.
The Dems lost the South for a whole there remember?

The Dems used to be a conservative party...but over this generation the Liberals have gotten rid of all the conservatives.

Try to be pro-Life and a D
em that speaks out now.....and you get hammered down.

On Reagan:

Allowed abortion as CA Gov.; didn’t push pro-life as Pres.
Reagan was not as obsessive about anti-abortion legislation as he often seemed. Early in his California governorship he had signed a permissive abortion bill that has resulted in more than a million abortions. Afterward, he inaccurately blamed this outcome on doctors, saying that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law. When Reagan ran for president, he won backing from pro-life forces by advocating a cons***utional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Reagan’s stand was partly a product of political calculation, as was his tactic after he was elected of addressing the annual pro-life rally held in Washington by telephone so that he would not be seen with the leaders of the movement on the evening news. While I do not doubt Reagan’s sincerity in advocating an anti-abortion amendment, he invested few political resources toward obtaining this goal.
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 812 Jul 2, 1991

It looks as if Newt is leading Iowa. I do predict that if he wins, Obama will have another four years as Newt has sooo much baggage, all of it will come out in the next year. And Newt has a propensity to say very s.tupid things---I don't think he can keep a lid on it for the 11 months necessary to win the election. *sigh*

alanmolstad

12-05-2011, 05:43 AM

Iowa I think is on Jan 3rd.....

Mitt can lose Iowa....he only has to be close.

So the headlines that say "Newt leads in Iowa" are actually rather meaningless.

But Mitt really needs to do well in NH because for the next few weeks after that ,( if he has lost both Iowa and NH )Mitt can have a lot of bad news given the next states to vote.

The rise of Newt is because many see him as the last conservative name left at the table.

But I agree, Newt has to keep his mouth shut for another 30 days in a row?......thats going to be tricky for him.

newt left office because he was running around with women, cheating on his wife, and over the years has been doing this same thing off-and-on .

In this year of Cain's clearly cheating and the general feeling of 'fed up" by the Republican voter, with that kinda of behavior by the guys in the race, I dont think Newt would be the first name i would suggest to lead the ticket.

alanmolstad

12-05-2011, 05:45 AM

Just think....in less than a month we will have our final "Iowa" answer....

Thank GOD!

alanmolstad

12-05-2011, 06:18 AM

Reagan never flipped his position of abortion during his life.
But he did support a bill that used the term "Therapeutic" and when questioned at the time, said this was for 'self defence" to save the life of the mother.

The term both the law and Reagan used was "Therapeutic" and it was a medical term, and was to point us to the understanding that if it was needed, that a doctor had the duty to protect the life of the mother, and that this bill would back-up the doctor's decision.

However it soon became clear that (Just like with medical pot today) that more and more doctors just were using a law to do whatever they wanted to make money.

it's just like the medical pot laws there now.
On paper it reads that every once in a while you "might" see a person with a note that allows him a little pot during cancer treatments...
But thats is NOT how the law has worked out.

My guess is that many Cal Republicans also voted to support the Medical pot laws, only to now find that it blew up in their faces....

It does not mean that the Republicans have flipped their views on pot...

But the term "medical pot" like the term "Therapeutic abortion" can mean things that other people would not make it mean....

BigJulie

12-05-2011, 12:00 PM

But I agree, Newt has to keep his mouth shut for another 30 days in a row?......thats going to be tricky for him.

newt left office because he was running around with women, cheating on his wife, and over the years has been doing this same thing off-and-on .

In this year of Cain's clearly cheating and the general feeling of 'fed up" by the Republican voter, with that kinda of behavior by the guys in the race, I dont think Newt would be the first name i would suggest to lead the ticket.

You think he needs to keep his mouth shut for only "30 days"---you are forgetting that this is the "conservative hope" that will need to keep his mouth shut for the 11 months. Good luck with that! If New is the conservative aka "not Mormon" candidate---heaven help us.

BigJulie

12-05-2011, 12:00 PM

Just think....in less than a month we will have our final "Iowa" answer....

Thank GOD!

Or, if Newt wins it---I don't think God has had much to do with it as I think Obama will be able to slaughter him in the coming year. There is too much footage of Newt being an i.diot to overcome.

BigJulie

12-05-2011, 12:02 PM

BigJulie

12-05-2011, 12:09 PM

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House, worked with Pelosi in Congress from 1987 to 1999. Pelosi also served on the ethics committee that investigated Gingrich for tax cheating and campaign finance violations in the late ’90s.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/197173-pelosi-plans-to-reveal-information-about-gingrich-when-the-time-is-right

It is only beginning. If "evangelicals" insist on this 'true conservative' for their candidate---I predict that he will not make it through the election.

BigJulie

12-05-2011, 02:20 PM

Newt's response to The Hill blog (also found on the The Hill) said he thanks Nancy for the "early Christmas Present" as in that if she discloses what went on in that investigation, she will violate the rules of the committee. The report then goes on to say:

Pelosi served on the ethics committee that sanctioned Gingrich for violating tax law and lying to an investigative panel when he claimed tax-exempt status for a college course he ran for political purposes. Gingrich agreed to a $300,000 fine and admitted that he submitted inaccurate statements to the committee, but maintained Monday that the majority of the charges "were repudiated as false."

Okay---this is the "true conservative" that evangelicals want??

alanmolstad

12-05-2011, 07:01 PM

And if you read Mitt's stance, he also said he "flipped" or "flopped" because of the abuses he saw of the laws.
See thats the thing..I dont believe this "story" he came up with to make his flip look better.

I believe it is a political lie....a falsehood told for political gain...
and this points me back the the lack of "core" that i and a lot of Republicans see in Mitt.

There just does not seem to be a real core to the man...nothing underneath that drives him and his views.

The truth is, all I see in him is....a "product"
Mitt as a person is just all product.

BigJulie

12-05-2011, 10:00 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;105730]See thats the thing..I dont believe this "story" he came up with to make his flip look better. Then why do you believe Reagan's?

I believe it is a political lie....a falsehood told for political gain...
and this points me back the the lack of "core" that i and a lot of Republicans see in Mitt.This is interesting because as governor of M***. when a law came before him, he voted pro-life.

There just does not seem to be a real core to the man...nothing underneath that drives him and his views.

The truth is, all I see in him is....a "product"
Mitt as a person is just all product. And you think Newt is a man of integrity???

alanmolstad

12-06-2011, 05:40 AM

[QUOTE]

And you think Newt is a man of integrity???

I believe Newt, for all his personal flaws, is actually a conservative at his core.

I believe that Newt's core views drive him into politics in the first place.
When Newt takes a political stand on an issue, its based on his core views of right and wrong...good and bad...

With Mitt on the other hand, I get the feeling that a guy just off stage had whispered to him what point of view to have depending on the audience he was standing in front of.

alanmolstad

12-06-2011, 05:51 AM

Oh, and Julie,

I noticed that the topic that had your name in it (and against the forum rules) has turned up missing?

I tried to warn people....LOL

I tried to tell them that they are breaking the rules, and that when their topic gets removed its going to be seen by us as them being bent over a knee and publicly spanked.

But some kids have to learn the hard way i guess.

Oh, and did you notice how when i pointed out that it's against the rules to aim by name a topic at another member I was accused of being a Mormon sympathizer?

Thats the way some people are...they cant permit anyone to even slightly disagree with them....so when i stood up against what i saw was wrong, it was immediately branded "Satanic" in their minds....

Some people!>>>I just dont get.

I really do feel ashamed for the way some people of my faith went on and on with their false accusations.

It never seems to come to some people, that they dont make their faith look better to the Lost, by breaking the rules and thinking they can get away with it because "they are Christian, and the other person is not"

BigJulie

12-06-2011, 10:07 AM

BigJulie

12-06-2011, 10:10 AM

I believe Newt, for all his personal flaws, is actually a conservative at his core.

I believe that Newt's core views drive him into politics in the first place.
When Newt takes a political stand on an issue, its based on his core views of right and wrong...good and bad...

With Mitt on the other hand, I get the feeling that a guy just off stage had whispered to him what point of view to have depending on the audience he was standing in front of.

You need to read up more on Newt---he is actually far more of a RINO than Mitt Romney. I am sure this will be coming out---if not before the primaries--if he wins, then after the primaries. And I am sure it will also come out all of his lobbying and big money that he made (NPR reported yesterday that it was 55 million) for green energy lobbying efforts. He also made a boat load off of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is what people are disgusted with and he will not win. I wish so badly you could look at Mitt without tainted eyes and look at his voting record instead of the talking points.

All I can see is someone who is smart enough to solve problems economically. You see an empty suit. I see a brain.

alanmolstad

12-07-2011, 06:06 AM

I appreciated you standing up for me. I also appreciate the fact that criticism against the Mormon faith is felt so strongly that anyone who tries to defend us is seen as "satanic." *sigh*

the ones who were against me got spanked...

But I doubt they learned their lesson...

I bet they are watching for the next time I stick my neck out and try to defend the right thing to do ....

but I dont care all that much,

, I was right, and proved right in the end,
they were always wrong and now are proven wrong for all to see.

BigJulie

12-11-2011, 06:25 PM

Alan--can I honestly say that if evangelicals are so close-minded to a Mormon being president that they would rather vote for someone who believes in mandates, has believed in global warming, has numerous ethics violations, has received a ton of lobbying money and has been investigated and fined for his violations regarding his lobbying, has cheated on not one, but two wives, and believes in child labor, etc...well, I don't know if I can ever vote along with the "evangelical right-wingers" again.

alanmolstad

12-11-2011, 06:51 PM

Alan--can I honestly say that if evangelicals are so close-minded to a Mormon being president .....
While the "Mormon thing" is big news right now, trust me, it will fade into the background if Mitt plays his cards in the correct manner and allows the issue to fade.

About the only thing that can really bring that up again is if there are any video recordings of Mitt as a younger guy going door to door, or if there are any recordings of Mitt saying or doing something in connection to the Mormon religion, or with the Mormon temple ceremonies that get out.

If that happens this close to Iowa, Mitt would be finished...

The deal with Newt is that he is not now, nor has he ever been the conservative top choice for the ticket.

What Newt is?.....he is the last guy standing that is even slightly a conservative.

Mitt is liberal,,,thats just a fact.
The chick in the race does not seem on top of her game.
Perry and Paul keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Cain is history.

The others in the pack just never caught on and have run out of steam.

That leaves right now only Newt to carry the banner "Anyone But Mitt" that the conservatives will support....even if they have to hold their nose when they get close to Newt.

I think we are less that 600 hours until Iowa is over.....so we shall see how things pan out in the end.

I do know that by the time North Dakota gets to vote it will be all over by then.

BigJulie

12-11-2011, 10:01 PM

[QUOTE]The deal with Newt is that he is not now, nor has he ever been the conservative top choice for the ticket.

What Newt is?.....he is the last guy standing that is even slightly a conservative.If you say that, then you haven't paid attention to his voting record, nor his record for ethical violations. Or in your mind, does conservative equate with someone who makes a boat-load of money in ethics violations for lobbying?

Mitt is liberal,,,thats just a fact. He is a moderate--I will give you that, but he is a financial conversative in regards to letting businesses work.

The chick in the race does not seem on top of her game. You must like provoking me with this sexist comments.

That leaves right now only Newt to carry the banner "Anyone But Mitt" that the conservatives will support....even if they have to hold their nose when they get close to Newt. Yes, but when you compare their stated beliefs---Mitt and Newt are not that dissimilar other than one has character and one doesn't. And that is when I go---wow, this party is made up more of bigots than anything else and I have to question if I really want to endorse that.

alanmolstad

12-12-2011, 05:18 AM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;106390]
If you say that, then you haven't paid attention to his voting record,

.http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/gingrichs-unimpeachable-conservative-credential/

The voting record is very clearly conservative.
In fact, under Newt the whole congress turned the tide in the 90s and it was in no small way all because of Newts leadership...

So from a Conservative point of view, I will have no trouble at all supporting Newt over Obama should Newt win the ticket.

alanmolstad

12-12-2011, 05:22 AM

Or in your mind, does conservative equate with someone who makes a boat-load of money in ethics violations for lobbying?

.
Newt does seem to have some trouble filling out foarms, but all his problems seem to be more with House rules than anything else, so i cut a guy slack for that stuff.

My view of conservatism is that all men can work hard at their ***s, and can expect to try to earn as much as they can...

Its about freedoms to both seceded and fail.

So I got no issues at all with any money Newt has earned in and out of Washington.
If Newt got a *** talking or handing out advice, then that would be what I expected given that seems to be what he does best.

alanmolstad

12-12-2011, 05:32 AM

The only concern I have is if Mitt starts to act like a guy in 2nd place, and hitting the TV talk shows and sending out his supporters to cause harm to other conservatives.

There is something to be said for not opening himself up too much.

I think that there is still time for Mitt to **** his chances if he starts to act like a guy who thinks he is going to lose.

If he starts to attack other in the race, the media will be more than happy to go after him.
The "Mormon thing" right now is a sleeping dragon that seems for the most part to be off the radar screens of Conservative voters.

But if Mitt starts to get desperate, and do things that remind people a little too much that he is "Not like us"
Then, Im sure the Mormon question will awake up in the minds of many Christian conservatives,and that will end Mitt chances.

The weird thing is, that while there is a chance that the "Mormon thing" might doom Mitt's chances if he starts to act desperate and do things that push that issue forward in the minds of the voters, that this might actually help other Mormons in the race and in the future....it would sorta get us all "over the hump" of voting for non-Christian people for president.

So while Mitt is clearly in the lead and has a lot of support from Party Leadership, there is still the unknown future to deal with, and at this point everyone is only one slip-up from being tossed out of the race, or tossed into the lead...

alanmolstad

12-12-2011, 05:49 AM

But if Mitt starts to get desperate, and do things that remind people a little too much that he is "Not like us"

In the above Im thinking of the last debate, where he reached out his hand to make a public $10,000 bet over some wording in a reprinted book.

To me, this strikes me as just the type of stuff a guy who is just not very confident in his chances anymore would do.
It also seems to just be in very bad taste to do on National TV....

It will turn up in ad after ad should Mitt go up against Obama.

The response is too easy for every American to fill in in their minds "I dont make that kind of money Mitt"
and suddenly everyone in the country is looking at Mitt like he is "One of them, not one of us"

And to be elected you have to appear as "one of us"

The debate error was not enough to doom him.
But it does show that there are some cracks in the armor...there are some situations where even if I believe Mitt has it locked up , that he could do or say things that totally screw up his chances.....

BigJulie

12-13-2011, 11:03 AM

Well, Alan---you can keep touting Newt. Here are a few comments posted on the web:

His favorite president is big government Teddy Roosevelt. He praises huge "national greatness" federal spending boondoggles (rail, c****s, NASA). He's championed goofball techno-mystics and called for a world governing body to help people deal with all the confusing technology that surrounds us. He lobbied for FANNIE (despite his lies). He's an enviro-nut***. He supports expanding medicare. He's a protectionist who supports huge ethanol subsidies. He's an imperialist who giggles at the thought of launching new wars. If that's what it means to be "clearly conservative", then Obama is George Washington. (Edward Cox)

Newt is intelligent, but he is a 'liberal' who supported a single payer mandate, climate change legislation (along with 400 other co sponsored bills with Pelosi), the forming of the uncons***utional department of education, the irresponsible loans from Freddie and Fannie (in fact, while Ron Paul warned of the danger caused by these loans, Newt attacked him). Newt has been a friend to lobbyists and special interests (even bragged about it). His spending and domestic policy match Obama's quite nicely. What is Newts plan to cut spending? He doesn't have one! (Scott Larson)

Moreover, Gingrich's main rival is Mitt Romney, of the Mormon faith. In 2008, Huckabee successfully played on the negative feelings held by many evangelicals toward the Church of Latter Day Saints. And resistance to Romney's faith is still greater than anyone admits. (Washington Post)

I'm hoping that the Republican electorate does not come out of its Newt coma until he is the nominee...*he's the holy grail of candidates for Democrats.*..(Huffington Post)

So, the hunt for the Anti-Romney continues, and it is now sniffing Newt... the contracadictory, didactic, ethically "poorly boundaried*' lifelong pol with a capacity for rhetoric and ideas, and a capacity for antagonizing those who stand too close. Wonder how long he will last before his past catches up to him? Long enough to squash his campaign? (Huffington Post)

All I know is that if I have a choice between the union thug (Obama) who has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to protect his union buddies or this lobbying crook (Newt) who has not only cost taxpayers millions of dollars but many ***s as well--

Well--truth is, I will sit this election out. If this country is going to be destroyed further, it will not be at my hands. And I am one of those swing voters who see problems with both sides. But I honestly can't say that Newt would be better than Obama; in fact, I think he may be just as dangerous. So, if the abortion issue, and not the "political crook" issue is how the GOP is going to decide their candidate---I'm out.

alanmolstad

12-13-2011, 11:32 AM

alanmolstad

12-13-2011, 11:35 AM

BigJulie

12-13-2011, 11:49 AM

I support NASA....

thats one of the main places that troubles me with Mitt.

Newt supports NASA and has spoken out about the dreams he has for NASa in the future.

Nad Mitt?

,nothing.... and Mitt has no vision at all for the future of NASA....

NASA??? That is how you are going to decide? And for the sake of NASA, you can ignore the ethics violations and loads of money that Newt received from Freddie and Fannie, etc. Okay???

BigJulie

12-13-2011, 11:50 AM

and the abortion issue will work to be one of the main reasons conservatives vote in the first place.

I have a feeling that by next year the economy will be seen as on the mend, so that issue will be more or less off the table.

Okay, so you think the economy is on the mend? And what about "big government" and corruption that Newt is in the middle of? You are okay with that?

alanmolstad

12-13-2011, 12:39 PM

NASA is part of the big government Im very much in support of....

alanmolstad

12-13-2011, 12:40 PM

The military is another part of Big Government I fully support...

BigJulie

12-13-2011, 03:03 PM

I am also a large supporter of NASA and the military (especially in light that my family are engineers who design for NASA and missile defense, etc. ;) ), but that said, Newt's propensity for corruption is something that over-rides this for me.

alanmolstad

12-13-2011, 07:49 PM

BigJulie

12-14-2011, 10:15 AM

Like I said before....Iowa is a short time away for everyone except for Newt.

For Newt, Iowa is a long time from now because with every moment of every day he has yet another chance to once again say or do something that lands him out of the race....

Yes, that is my worry---that he will make it as the nominee---then it will be only a matter of time before he gets ****n out of the water by a true exposee into the real Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul has already somewhat begun.

alanmolstad

12-14-2011, 01:12 PM

what is a bit unexpected is that Mitt now runs 3rd or 4th in Iowa polls.

He can lose as I have always said and it would not matter.

So he just needs to be close.
But 3rd or 4th is not close.

If Mitt comes in 3rd in Iowa he has to win the next week, or he might actually face a real uphill path for the next month.

However if he wins Iowa then he is all teed-up to win big, real big in the next State NH as well as the other few right after that.

If he comes in 2nd then all he needs is a very good finish the next week and he can wear the other guys in the race down with his cash.

But if he comes in 3rd in Iowa?
Oh then this is going to be a very fun thing to watch play out!

BigJulie

12-14-2011, 02:19 PM

As noted, if Newt is the nominee, I will sit this election cycle out. If Ron Paul is the nominee, I will rethink my position even though I think Ron Paul is a little too radical for my taste.

BigJulie

12-14-2011, 05:43 PM

From the National Review

Just as heartening, the White House seems winnable next year, and with it a majority in both houses of Congress, so that much of this conservative consensus could actually become law. A conservative majority on the Supreme Court, a halt to the march of regulation, free-market health-care policies: All of them seem within our grasp. But none of them is ***ured, and the costs of failure — either a failure to win the election, or a failure to govern competently and purposefully afterward — are as large as the opportunity.

We fear that to nominate former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in the polls, would be to **** this opportunity. We say that mindful of his opponents’ imperfections — and of his own virtues, which have been on display during his amazing comeback. From Gingrich's mouth as reported by NR:

I’d vote for Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform; Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is radical right-wing social engineering; I apologize for saying that, and no one should quote what I said because I was wrong; actually, what I said was right all along but nobody understood me. I helped defeat Communism; anyone who made money in the ’80s and ’90s owes me; I’m like Reagan and Thatcher. Local community boards should decide what to do with illegal immigrants. Freddie Mac paid me all that money to tell them how ****** they were.

BigJulie

12-14-2011, 05:53 PM

From the New Yorker a list of conservative commentators regarding Newt;

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/the-lizza-list-ten-conservatives-vs-newt.html

Here is the first one:

1. “Gingrich … embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive…. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say, ‘If you want to put people in jail,’ look at ‘the politicians who profited from’ Washington’s environment.”
—George Will
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/the-lizza-list-ten-conservatives-vs-newt.html#ixzz1gYYPiLu1

alanmolstad

12-14-2011, 06:24 PM

There is still around 3 weeks to go before Iowa, but the rise of both Paul and Newt seems to be firming up, and this is BIG trouble for Mitt.

Mitt has to finsih a nice close 2nd in Iowa to drive all the other names off the stage.

If Mitt come in 3rd or 4th in Iowa it will keep Rick Perry,Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum in the race to see what happens in NH.

And if Mitt cant win in NH after all the time and money he had used in that state, this would open the election to everyone else with enough cash to keep going.

Right now Mitt has to come in a close 2nd in Iowa to clear the field of the lower 3 people in the race.
If Mitt comes in 2nd in Iowa i would expect all 3 of the other people to drop out right away.

So as of right now....the poll numbers are not so good for Mitt.
Even after all this time he still does not seem to be able to get to 1st or 2nd in the polls.

BigJulie

12-14-2011, 10:17 PM

Yup---and like I said---if Newt goes forward, I can count on Obama for another 4 years. I just read a Wall Street Journal article on Newt's tax plan. It, like Obama, sounds good in theory and then washes out with the realities. With all of Newt's garbage, it is going to be easy to turn the average voter against him, especially in light of his connections and profiting from Fannie Mae.

And what about all of your comments that the Republican party always backs the person who they have decided at the front end? All I can say is that bigotry is alive and well in America if the evangelical right would back a guy like Newt and slam Romney over his old views on social issues.

From my perspective, it is like the person who turns down a Toyota Prius because it doesn't get good enough gas mileage, stating that they want something better, and then turning around and exclaiming the beauties of an old Ford Aerostar.

alanmolstad

12-15-2011, 05:40 AM

Being ahead in Iowa means you are ahead in Iowa......and little else.

As for the "evangelical right"?

Here are my views on the Republican evangelical right, and the role it may have in the next few weeks.

Lets face the facts of life between Mitt and the evangelical right.
And the facts of life are that Mitt is in a cult, and this is asking a lot for the evangelical right to give up all its normal goals when they go to vote for him.

Remember the evangelical right is well known for what two key issues? -
#1 - Abortion
#2 - prayer in schools.

So when you are asking the evangelical right to vote for Mitt you are asking them to in a very real way to abandon their two major issues.

Because in the back of every single evangelical voter's mind their is the knowledge that Mitt has clearly made statements in the past that link him to a pro-choice position...

And.....

Because the god of Mitt does not in any way, shape or form represent the God that the evangelical Christian voter prays to.

So this means that BOTH of the key issues for the evangelical voter are GONE!

Off the table...

Totally missing from the debate...

Unspoken of....

That the 2 reasons most evangelical voter's rise up in such numbers that they can swing an election, are going to be totally missing from this election.

This fact of life is behind the push for "Anyone but Mitt" that has had one name after another carry it's banner.

And guess what?
Should Newt fall, should he say something so bad that he drops out of the race, there will be such a swing by the the evangelical right to one of the others left in the race that it will be stunning.

My guess right now would be that if Newt falls in the next month that all the people who support him would suddenly switch to Rick Santorum.

BigJulie

12-15-2011, 03:57 PM

[QUOTE]Lets face the facts of life between Mitt and the evangelical right.
And the facts of life are that Mitt is in a cult, ....as far as I am concerned, this is only proganda. There was a time in history that people were beheaded for going against the church and at the time, it was not protestantism. So the term "cult" is a label given by those in power to those who are not--nothing more.

Remember the evangelical right is well known for what two key issues? -
#1 - Abortion
#2 - prayer in schools. And does the evangelical right think this election is about abortion and prayer in school?

So when you are asking the evangelical right to vote for Mitt you are asking them to in a very real way to abandon their two major issues. Yes, even though he has voted pro-life while governor--yes, I get the "cult" issue over-rides a rational opinion on this.

Because in the back of every single evangelical voter's mind their is the knowledge that Mitt has clearly made statements in the past that link him to a pro-choice position... A talking point that is clearly being used but is not based on the reality of his voting record while governor.

Because the god of Mitt does not in any way, shape or form represent the God that the evangelical Christian voter prays to. Proganda again. It is amazing that someone like WM can do lousy research, come up with a half-truth to an out and out lie regading our beliefs and so many people buy it. But hey, he has made a lot of money and we always think the rich are wise, right?

That the 2 reasons most evangelical voter's rise up in such numbers that they can swing an election, are going to be totally missing from this election This is the reason that bigotry is so on display during this election cycle as the "evangelical right" swings from one candidate to another. They come across like a bunch of lemmings jumping off of one cliff and then another. It is embarr***ing to watch.

And guess what?
Should Newt fall, should he say something so bad that he drops out of the race, there will be such a swing by the the evangelical right to one of the others left in the race that it will be stunning.

My guess right now would be that if Newt falls in the next month that all the people who support him would suddenly switch to Rick Santorum. Yes, I get that their bigotry is so fixed, and their minds so set, that they would rather have Obama for four more years than a Mormon. This has become obvious.

alanmolstad

12-17-2011, 08:28 AM

And does the evangelical right think this election is about abortion and prayer in school?

.
These are the two main issues that are behind the rise of the conservative right in this country.

The issue of abortion.
The issue of God being taken away from being part of raising of our children.

They are always important to Christians, and Christians have come to expect that the person who seeks their vote will support their views .

This election is different.

Now this time around the two central core issues to the Conservative right are not even spoken about by the person who may lead the ticket.

This means that driving force to get them in the car and go down and bother to stand in line to vote will be missing from this election.

In place of this will be what?

What issue that is core to the conservative Christian will be as important to them in order to drive millions of them to the voting booth?

The economy?......FAT CHANCE!

By this time next year the media will be all on-board with what will be called "The Obama Recovery" and so scratch that issue off the list of things that might get the right to vote for Mitt.

How about the issue of taxes?.......well, being the gov of what is called "Taxachussetts" means that Mitt has no "I will lower your taxes" , type footing to stand on ...

So that issue is dead too.

What about healthcare?.....right........thats lost to Mitt as an issue too.

How about the Space program?
Obama more or less has destroyed the NASA space plans, so would that issue be a point that might drive the conservative right to support Mitt over Obama?.....not if Mitt's remarks in the debates is any guide. And the fact that the space program is really not a big deal to the conservative Christan voter....

The point Im making is that no Republican can expect to win the White House without getting the core Republican right all fired-up to help him get out the vote.
This means the whoever is on the ticket has to be able to stand before the Conservative right and say, "Im with you, "

Mitt cant do that.

There are others in the race (The 3 names in the lower poll numbers) that can stand before the Republican conservative base and say "Im one of you"...."I believe as you do"....."I support the same agenda as you do"

They could bring with them the Republican core base.

dfoJC

12-17-2011, 12:06 PM

I just wanted to drop in and congratulate the two of you on this particular thread! No insults, no name calling, hardly any negativity at all. My hat is off to you both!

While I am here let me add just a couple of thoughts to this discussion.

I plan on voting in this presidential election, and if I do not agree with whoever the nominee is, I will write in someone if that is an option.

When I decide who I am going to vote for I will do so based on a couple of things.

First, the person's ideology, I definitely want a cons***utional conservative in the White house. It seems that some of our current group do not meet that standard. I continue to hope that it becomes clearer as this process moves forward.

Secondly, I want to know the leadership ability of that person. I knew Barak Obama would make a horrible president based on that one thing. A man who has run only a "community" type group is not properly equipped to run a nation. His failure to lead has cost this nation greatly, and we simply cannot afford 4 more years of him, he will in his weakness push us over the edge morally and economically.

I see some strong leaders in our current group of republicans, I am not sure just yet who is the strongest, but I will find out as I study them.

So there is my two cents on this all important election. I would also encourage us to be praying for America, I am devastated in considering that those lost in the Revolution, Civil, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and our current wars in the east were for naught because we have forgotten what this nation stands for and represents.

God bless you two, take care and Merry Christ-mas,

dfoJC

BigJulie

12-17-2011, 04:10 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;106914]These are the two main issues that are behind the rise of the conservative right in this country.

The issue of abortion.
The issue of God being taken away from being part of raising of our children. I agree these are hefty issues, but I think all of the GOP candidates will back a strong family stance. While you may criticize Mitt Romney on his position on this; Newt Gingrich hasn't really shown himself to be stellar family man. ;)

The economy?......FAT CHANCE!

By this time next year the media will be all on-board with what will be called "The Obama Recovery" and so scratch that issue off the list of things that might get the right to vote for Mitt. This is why I wish the "evangelical right" would spend more time educating themselves on the economy. Right now, Obama is doing everything in his power to throw money into the economy. This is why our government debt will have almost doubled under his watch. He knows this year is crucial and so he has told his cabinets to scour every bill and find any money they can and start dumping it this year. The end result will be a temporary improvement in the economy, but not a long-term one. Obama knows his best hope is to get us thinking this economy is turning around---to the extreme that Ben Bernanke is even now dumping money into European banks which continue to drag us down. So, if you think "FAT CHANCE" on evangelical right voters paying attention to the economy because of the "recovery"---then they are not paying attention. We are at a critical stage--a tipping point, so to speak--on whether or not we will be a free society as far as business goes. I hope more will spend time thinking about this when they vote. Newt Gingrich stands for the status-quo in how Washington does business. As I said, to me, he is a lobbying crook. Can I thank Michelle Bachman for pointing this out in the last election? She nailed it!

How about the issue of taxes?.......well, being the gov of what is called "Taxachussetts" means that Mitt has no "I will lower your taxes" , type footing to stand on ... M***. is a very blue state. Mitt was able to take a down-graded credit rating and improve it and worked with both a democratic house and senate. That is impressive from my standpoint.

The point Im making is that no Republican can expect to win the White House without getting the core Republican right all fired-up to help him get out the vote.
This means the whoever is on the ticket has to be able to stand before the Conservative right and say, "Im with you, "

Mitt cant do that. I think this is more because of the "cult" image than anything else. I think the stereotyping has gone on for so long, he is having a hard time getting past that and Newt knows the talking points and uses them. Huckabee did as well. Sad when there are easy ****ons to be pushed of the voters and they fall for it.

BigJulie

12-17-2011, 04:12 PM

alanmolstad

12-17-2011, 06:03 PM

I got a chance to listen to a TV round table of well known political guys. and it was interesting to see them talk about Iowa and Mitt.

Their conclusions matched my own as I have posted here.
That Mitt can lose Iowa and come in 2nd easy with no damage all all....as long as he does not come in 3rd, or even 4th.

If in 10 days (or whats ever it is when you read this) we watch Tv that night that Iowa decides and we see Mitt come in 3rd, it better be a close 3rd....or the next week might be very messy for Mitt.

On the other hand, if Mitt comes in a nice 2nd place in Iowa it will not mean anything bad at all..

2nd in Iowa is good news for Mitt.

A Mitt win in Iowa would really work to clear the decks and force the lower 3 people out of the race,

BigJulie

12-19-2011, 11:03 PM

Ron Paul is rising---the next "not Mormon" candidate---tee hee hee.

P.S. Do you think it will eventually circle back to Michelle Bachman?

alanmolstad

12-20-2011, 07:36 AM

Ron Paul is rising---the next "not Mormon" candidate---tee hee hee.

P.S. Do you think it will eventually circle back to Michelle Bachman?

there is a chance that Bachman might be able to close on the conservative vote...I know she has good standing in the conservative voter's mind.

In fact all 3 of the lower ranking people are actually the 3 strongest conservatives in the race.
So there is a chance any of the lower 3 can improve their numbers as this thing starts to draw to the moment of voting.

Remember being ahead in Iowa is more or less not all that important.
So the fact that in Iowa we may see one person rise up in the poll numbers and another drop down does not mean anything in the real world.

The real poll numbers that we should pay attention to are in NH, SC, and Florida.
These 3 states will tell us who will be leading the ticket and if they have a chance to actually beat Obama.

NH, because it is the first real State to decide anything that really matters...NH will give us our answer about Mitt and his ability to rally people to his side?

SC, because it will show us the level of support each person in the race can expect to get from the Christian far right.
That is important because a weak showing in SC is doom for anyone who leads the ticket.

Florida, because it has so much at stake at that point in the primary.
Lose Florida and you simply will not become President.

From the beginning I have felt that Mitt has a build-in advantage in this election and if he dont screw up, will lead the ticket.

The main problem Mitt has is that he simply does not reflect the views of Conservatives , nor has the personal history of supporting his views over the long-haul that he needs to draw to his side the number of Conservative voters he needs.

I know a lot of people try to highlight Mitt's history with business, but I think this will not be useful by next year as I expect the media will be giving lots, and lots of credit to Obama, for the better economy by then.

The traditional drawing points that conservatives use to rally people to vote is missing in this election.
The traditional social issues are not in play.
Mitt is never going to be making the rounds outside churches....Mitt is never going to be talking to church leaders, nor talking to Christian media.
So this means that a lot of the normal outreach into the Conservative community will not even happen this time.

If Mill does lead the ticket, how is he going to reach out to the conservative christian?

You can NOT win an election by only pointing out how "bad" the other guy is.

You have to inspire..,
You have to show vision, and an ability to draw people to a common cause.

Obama does this very well.
Obama will have the core of the Liberal wing of his Party all fired up to vote.
Obama will be speaking at churches, praying with ministers, bringing up God in his speeches.
Obama knows that Christians, and both liberal and conservative are well known to be good voters.

Christians vote....and in high enough numbers that Christians swing elections that are close....or provide landslides too sometimes.

So we can count on Obama seeking out the Christian voter.
Obama will speak with Christian wording.
Obama will go where Christians go...address issues that other Christians think about.

Has Mitt yet even slightly attempted to do the same?

alanmolstad

12-20-2011, 10:08 PM

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1328290470001/limbaugh-on-the-phenomenon-of-the-not-romney/?playlist_id=87937&intcmp=obinsite

alanmolstad

12-21-2011, 05:31 AM

What I see in the conservative media is that there is a very strong push by conservatives for someone else other than Mitt.

This does not mean for one second that it should be seen as good news for Obama.
Rather it should only be seen in the light that the conservatives are pushing back inside the republican party , and that this needs to be accounted for later in the year by whomever leads the ticket.

I expect Mitt to lead the ticket, and I expect that he is smart enough to understand that he does not have a hope in hell of beating Obama without the conservative base of his Party fully supporting him.

That being the case, I expect Mitt to see the wisdom in appealing to the conservatives in the naming of his VP...as well as in the Party Platform.

The VP picked does not have to appeal to the middle of the road voter....Rather Mitt needs a VP name that will draw the unquestioned support of the conservatives Christians that he clearly lacks right now.

alanmolstad

12-21-2011, 05:47 AM

all this will be a moot point if in a few days Mitt does not turn out to do well in Iowa.

Mitt needs a good 2nd place finish in Iowa to really put him in the lead going into NH and headed to SC and Florida.
If Mitt actually wins Iowa?..well, thats going to drive half the names off the playing field right away.

Everyone else in this race is counting on Mitt to come in 3rd...
They all want Mitt to come in 3rd because that would be seen as a big **** to Mitt's chances of beating everyone, and it would open up the field for other names to fill the void.

In-fact, if Mitt came in 3rd, or worse yet, 4th, it would open up the race to the idea that new people might think about getting into the hunt too.
Sarah Palin would be tempted to toss her hat into the ring should Mitt finish 3rd.
Trump is also watching from the fence....
as are a few other names we could list who are also looking for the sign in Iowa's results that Mitt does not have it wrapped up already.

So in a few days we shall see what we shall see.

I dont know the future, and so I can only offer a guess, and then go back later as see how my guess worked out?

My current "guess" is that Mitt comes in a close 2nd in Iowa...
and that this leads to one or two names dropping out before the next week in NH.

My current "guess" is that based on the lack of a real conservative name that is able to challenge Mitt for more that a few days in a row, that there is a good chance that Mitt could actually win in Iowa.

In such a situation, if Mitt wins in Iowa? then it is my "guess" that we could lose up to half the names in the race in the 2 weeks after Iowa and from that point on it's an easy ride for Mitt all the way to the convention.

On the other hand, if Mitt were to come in 3rd or 4th in Iowa, then it is my "guess" that this would make this race a lot more interesting for everyone, and would tempt other names into getting into the race too.

In fact, should Mitt actually come in 4th in Iowa it would be almost a knock-out punch to his chances to go on to win. a 4th place finish for Mitt would be very close to a sign that his run to the White House is doomed, and would put him in position to really get spanked later if he stayed in the race.

Libby

12-23-2011, 03:09 AM

I don't think any of the GOP candidates have a chance in hades of beating Obama, as it stands right now. Mitt Romney would be their best bet, but the polls are showing Obama beating him, as well. The Republicans are really messing up in Congress, right now, which is going to make it difficult for them in November, if things haven't gotten better, by then.

Libby

12-23-2011, 03:11 AM

Alan, I think you are right that many of the Republicans are looking for "anyone but Mitt". There is prejudice against his religion, whether it is spoken or not.

alanmolstad

12-23-2011, 03:23 AM

I listened to NPR on my car's radio last night and was amused to find that the political expert that were interviewing was saying point-by-point the very same ideas that i have come up with on this topic.

The ideas the expert was talking about were dealing with the likely results of Iowa and how they will change who is in the running the next week in NH?

IF MITT WINS-
if Mitt wins in Iowa, then this will cause about 1/2 the field to drop out...perhaps 2 names would drop out of the race the night of Iowa is over, and within the next 2 weeks it might be down to Mitt and one other person headed to a final show down in Florida.

IF MITT COMES IN 2nd -
If Mitt comes in 2nd in Iowa this will cause the top polling conservative to ask all the other conservatives to drop out of the race before NH...
The reason is that the Top Conservative will say that you cant expect any conservative to beat Mitt in NH if the conservative vote is split between 4 different people all polling in the mid-teens, and all losing to Mitt who is polling in the mid-20s.

The leading conservative in the race after Iowa will point out that if there was only one conservative name to pick from he would be able to draw on all the conservative votes, and beat Mitt easy...

IF MITT COMES IN 3RD OR 4TH -
Then the race is WIDE OPEN!!!!
A 3rd place finish for Mitt in Iowa kicks open the door to other names not even in the race right now.
a 4th place finish by Mitt would be also hint of doom for Mitt's chances.

But even a close 3rd place finish for Mitt would be all the proof everyone would need to understand that the whole Conservative wing of the Party feels that the current names in this election are not the best team the Party can come up with, and so there will be a lot of talk about who else there is left to pick from?

Its all up in the air right now, but the NPR expert did talk about the same thing I have always thought when it comes to looking at pre-Iowa polling numbers in this election and how they seem to suggest Mitt is in the lead.

Consider that from the start we have seen Mitt poll in the low 20%.....never really getting any higher polling numbers no matter who else if getting the media attention.

A lot of pro-Mitt supporters look at the lower polling numbers of the 4 conservatives in the race and are fooled into thinking that Mitt is still in the lead....
Im not sure that we can say that.

Yes, Mitt has better numbers compared to any of the others, but is he really in the lead?
I think this is a false understanding of the polling.
The real understanding should be that Mitt is stuck at about 20% whereas the more conservative names in the race are splitting around 60%-70% of the polling numbers between them.

Had there only been one name for the conservative voters to choose from, then it is a good guess to say that Mitt's lower 20s% numbers would never give us the idea that Mitt has ever once been in the lead in this election.

But that's all just water under the bridge right now.

The current situation is that Mitt is seen as the Liberal in this race, and he is going against 4 conservatives right now....
and that in all likelihood we shall see 2 or 3 names drop of the list following Iowa and NH.....
and so in a very real way everything right now is in flux....

But with each day that p***es we are a little more closer to the ending of all this political speculation .....

alanmolstad

12-23-2011, 03:36 AM

I don't think any of the GOP candidates have a chance in Hades of beating Obama, as it stands right now.

Here is some information to always keep in mind when thinking about Obama's chances...

Any president going into his re-election that polls below 45% will always lose..
Everyone that polled 45% or lower always turned out to lose in the general election.

and...

Every president that polled at 50% before the election always wins later in the general election.

so if Obama can come up in his polling numbers in about the next 6 months he will get reelected....

But right now Obama polls in at around 43% or lower.
This means that as of right now, it is clear from the polling numbers that Obama is going to lose.

Obama has about 6 months to raise his numbers up to 50%...

For most president this would be something they could pull off...But Obama has shown a very poor ability to raise his polling numbers over the last 2 years no matter what new program he came out with.

Obama's last address to congress about the ***'s bill of his was planned to raise his numbers and help him sweep into the election with higher polling numbers.
But after his address before Congress we never saw much of a rise in his polling numbers at all.....

The ***'s Bill more or less turned out to moot point in this election.

The speech before congress turned out to be also a moot point as far as a kick-start to his election.

So when you take all this into account:
#1 - The fact they he spoke before Congress in such a big-deal manner and to was all for nothing...
#2 - The fact that the one issue Obama was going to hang his reelection on (***'s Bill) had just dropped completely off the radar screen.
#3 - And that fact that Obama has not had any rise in his polling numbers over the last 2 years of being stuck around 43% no matter what elses he tried...

All this adds up to a very weak president, and a very good likelihood that he can be beaten by a strong Republican candidate,....

Perhaps even spanked hard in the 2012 elections.

Libby

12-23-2011, 04:01 AM

That's the problem (for the GOP), though, Alan. They don't have a "strong" contender. Not even Mitt is beating Obama in the polls, right now, and Obama is polling at 49% approval. He's getting a lot of help from the poor performance of the Congressional Republicans.

I am an Obama supporter, btw. Not a Democrat. I am a left leaning Independent voter.

alanmolstad

12-23-2011, 04:03 AM

....There is prejudice against his religion, whether it is spoken or not.

If you have a chance Libby you might drop back to my post on 12-20-2011 07:36 AM where I talk about the reason for a lot of Christian/Conservatives always looking for "anyone else but Mitt".

Turns out that while there is some connection to religion, its more based on the fact that Mitt is just not the guy the Conservatives were looking for in this from the start.

Let me quote what i have said on this issue to save time-

"The main problem Mitt has is that he simply does not reflect the views of Conservatives , nor has the personal history of supporting his views over the long-haul that he needs to draw to his side the number of Conservative voters he needs."

and....

"The traditional drawing points that conservatives use to rally people to vote is missing in this election.
The traditional social issues are not in play.
Mitt is never going to be making the rounds outside churches....Mitt is never going to be talking to church leaders, nor talking to Christian media.
So this means that a lot of the normal outreach into the Conservative community will not even happen this time."

The point Im getting to here is that Mitt has really done nothing so far at all to draw closer to the very voters he must know he will need to stand behind him in order to beat Obama.
And in all likelihood will do nothing much else to draw closer to the Christian Republican voter.
Yes, there is a issue of religion in this, but it's not Mitt's relationship to a cult that is the problem....its the fact that its up to him to draw closer to the voters he wants to support him.

and he has not done that...

and chances are, he never will....

So we really cant turn and point a finger of blame at the typical Christian/conservative republican voter and blame them for not supporting Mitt, when Mitt has not done SQUAT to attract such a voter.

Mitt has never been the type of person that would appeal to conservatives at this point in the election.

The problem is not based on his religion, rather its the total un-connection Mitt has with the typical Republican conservative that is going on in Mitt's continued lower polling numbers with conservatives.

Mitt is just not the best conservative in the race....and when you add this to that fact that there are 4 different strong conservatives in the race right now all splitting up the conservative vote.....
well.....all this adds up to the fact that if Mitt does win the lead spot on the Republican ticket he will need to make a lot stronger effort to attract the conservatives than he has managed to do so far...

So at this moment, the "anyone but Mitt" movement is not really based on his attachment to a Cult.

Rather it is based mostly on the fact that Mitt does not have the conservative voice in this election.
And there are 4 others in this race right now that have the needed conservative voice.

There are 4 others in this race right now that have the personal track record that the Conservative wing of the Party is looking for in their candidate.

The Future:
Right now the opposition to Mitt by the conservatives is all split up with the 4 or 5 other names in the race...
But after Iowa that list of names for the conservatives to pick from will be shorter.

After NH we may be down to a very short list of names to pick from.

Then the people out to stop Mitt will move from a "Anyone but Mitt" point of view, to a "This other guy and not Mitt" type of mindset.

The support for a more conservative person to go against Obama will not be split up among 4 names, but will have centered on just one person to take out Mitt.

After Iowa we shall see what becomes of this.....

alanmolstad

12-23-2011, 04:26 AM

That's the problem (for the GOP), though, Alan. They don't have a "strong" contender. .

yes.....but a lot of this is just the normal bickering between names that goes on before Iowa and NH voting.

traditionally a person who has the lead for the republicans going into NH, SC and Florida will watch as the other names drop out of the race and his own polling numbers getting better and better.

But it is true that Mitt right now is polling lower that Obama at times...

But lets remember to keep this in context.
We have to keep in mind that all the more conservative voters are not in Mitt's corner at all.

So if you poll them right now, they are never going to say that "as of right now" they support Mitt over Obama...because right now in the heat of the moment,its like comparing apples and apples to them.

But after Iowa, after NH, after Florida this election will have narrowed down to likely a race between two names on the republican side...
At that point the Republican Conservatives will be not so split up between 6 different names on a list.

Mitt always polls amoung republicans in the lower 20%

But when you add up all the names who are being supported by the more conservative voters, you have up over 65% to at times 70%.

In other words....if after the NH and SC primary there is only one conservative name on the list to go up against Mitt???, then it may be possible for the last conservative name on the list to draw all the 65% conservative voters to his side...

at that point, it may get very interesting....

alanmolstad

12-23-2011, 01:48 PM

A lot of people that dont know much about how to view polling numbers get the wrong ideas about how things actually stand when they see results that seem to support their own private views.

Like the polling numbers that people quote that suggest that Obama is beating Mitt right now.
The polling numbers might suggest to you...'if" you dont do a little more thinking about the issue.

Let me give you an example of what Im talking about.

lets pretend that we have been hired by President Obama to see if as of right now Mitt is winning or losing to him?

So the typical way this question is answered is to come up with a representative study group and poll them and from their answers project to the wider numbers of voters how things stand...

So in our case, lets pretend we have a study group of 10 people.

After questioning we find that of these 10 people, 3 of them identify themselves as lift long Democrats.

Also we learn that 5 of the people list themselves as life long Republicans.

and that leaves us 2 people that swing back and forth between the two parties.

Now we ask them all "If the election were held today, who would you vote for as President?

Then you have a list of all the names or everyone in the race right now....for example right now there are 7 - 9 Republicans and one Democrat to pick from.

We let the people in the room vote, then we add of the votes...

Obama got 3 votes.
Mitt got 2
Paul got 1
Newt got 1
the chick got 1
and so on down the list until all 10 votes are accounted for.

So, what did we learn?

Did we learn that Obama is winning?

Did we learn that Mitt is behind or winning?

Some might just count the 3 votes for Obama and the 2 for Mitt and conclude Obama is winning.

Well perhaps on paper it might look like that is so...
But the real message to take away from this sample polling is that of our sampling of 10 likely voters, only 3 that support Obama, while the other 7 voted for anyone else but Obama.

This seems to suggest that the election is very close right now.

Current polling of support for Obama is running in at around 40 - 43% in favor.
But we got to be careful how we understand that number and what we compare it to....

We cant compare that 43% to Mitt's support numbers of around only 20% because there is still the matter of how baddy the more conservative voters are split between 4 other names right now.

My guess is that in real numbers of likely voters we have a basic 50/50 split right now between Obama and whomever ends up leading the ticket against him....

This also means that anyone who claims that Obama is leading, or is far behind is simply stating their personal views....and thats fine....
My own gut feeling is that Obama is dropping way behind and the Republican has a chance to win in a landslide election. ...

But being able to support such personal views with polling data is risky, because there are a lot of ways to become convinced the polls are showing you just what you wanted to see....

I think it's best to see what we can learn from the polls after Iowa and NH, and SC have voted and the herd of names on the Republican list has thinned...

alanmolstad

12-23-2011, 02:00 PM

Any questions?

Libby

12-23-2011, 02:12 PM

No, no questions. I know that it is early and anything can happen. Politics is very volatile and things can change overnight.

But, it will be interesting to see what happens with Romney. I am thinking that, normally, most Republicans would jump behind the candidate that is finally chosen, but in Mitt's case, I'm not so sure that will be true. I have seen a lot of religious conservative claim that they would not vote for Mitt under any circumstances. Not sure how large that group is....if it is large enough to make a difference...but, as close as political races have become, it may very well have an impact.

alanmolstad

12-23-2011, 11:10 PM

I have seen a lot of religious conservative claim that they would not vote for Mitt under any circumstances. .
meaningless, and yet expected at the same time.

remember we are in the middle of a fight ....and because we are in the middle of a primary fight no one wants to say they would support anyone except for their guy alone.

We all want our guy to win.

and remember>
We have 4 very good conservative names in the race right now, and so there are always going to be people that support them that swear up and down they would never even consider supporting anyone else..

Thats expected....

Everyone has to support their team after all....

but in the long run lets back-up and look at the situation from a wider point of view.
And from a wider point of view we find a lot of conservative Republican are active, and that they are attempting to push what they think is the strongest conservative voice to the head of the pack over Mitt.

in the end, no matter how this ends up, we have to keep in mind this core of conservative Republican voters that is all fired up to beat Obama..

The goal of Mitt, (should he win the primary as I expect) should be to draw closer to the Christian conservative movement any way he can...

so right now,,,,it's no big deal that many Christians say they would never vote for Mitt
That's fine, because we are still in the middle of a race with many better conservatives in the hunt.

alanmolstad

12-25-2011, 08:03 AM

from my own point of view this Christmas season was a very good one , from the stand point of the economy.

I believe that when the final numbers come on how much money was spent this last month , that it will show that Americans spent tons of money....and yet did not go into debt too much with the use of credit cards.

This points to a lot more spending from savings, and that hints that people are saving their credit for other things,

So if asked do I think the economy will be doing way better in a year?...I would have to say 'yes"

I think the economy will be doing a lot better in a year, and that might take that whole issue out of the next election.

This means that there might be a return to the core issues that Republicans have always used to get elected.
Issues of faith.
Issues of how we raise our kids.

Libby

12-25-2011, 06:10 PM

This means that there might be a return to the core issues that Republicans have always used to get elected.
Issues of faith.
Issues of how we raise our kids.

Really, those should not be political issues, but, rather, personal issues.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, Alan!

alanmolstad

12-27-2011, 05:25 AM

to the voter , all national politics are local politics, all political issues are personal...

The lack of the traditional issues in this election is going to mean that the traditional things that a republican votes to support are missing.

There is none of the normal calling to arms that the Conservative voter hears in his heart.

What things will Mitt use to bring support from the conservatives?

I believe the economy will be in the up-swing by this time next year, and so i dont believe ***, or the unemployment rate will be an issue.

Health care is not going to be an issue because Obama's health care plans are all just dressed up plans based on Mitt's home state.

Obama will be able to claim he ended one war and is wrapping up a 2nd as well as having killed Osama, so the defense of the country is not going to be an issue that Mitt can raise.

Mitt has made fun of people that spoke up is support of a bigger budget for NASA, so that issue is off the table.

Both Obama and Mitt have made statements in the past supporting abortion rights, so that issue will not even come up in this election.

Mitt is in a cult, so he cant even pretend to speak about the issue of religious faith and the raising of children, so that issue is mute.

Mitt is from one of the highest taxed states in the country, so the normal issue of wanting a guy who has always supported lower taxes is not going to be in play this election.

I have no idea what issue Mitt could use that would cause Conservative Christians republicans to draw closer to him?

and without the conservative voter coming out strong in his corner, Mitt would not have a chance of beating Obama.

You cant just say that unless the Christians support Mitt that they are bigots,,,you have to give Christians a REASON to support Mitt...

what reason would there be for a Christian to support Mitt?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/224965/

All this leads me to fully understand the search for "Anyone but Mitt" that has been going on for the last 2 months within the conservative wing of the Party.
Simply put, the conservatives look at Mitt and see nothing worth voting for.
Mitt stands for not one single issue that the conservative voter supports.

Mitt is the poster child for the middle of the road.

BigJulie

12-29-2011, 03:40 PM

Just finished reading Boomerang---you should read it Libby and Alan--I think you would both enjoy it.

Mitt is rising. I will be interested to see if "the christian right" will support him. Santorum (sp?) is rising as well. I am not surprised as the group shifts again. At least he has more going for him.

I think Europe will either help or drag our economy and I think it will be the economy that ultimately decides this election IF "the christian right" votes out of rational versus emotion.

Libby

12-29-2011, 04:03 PM

Had to look up "Boomerang", as I hadn't heard of it. Looks kind of interesting. I might put it on my Kindle. Thanks, Julie.

I do think Mitt will, ultimately, pull off the nomination, simply because there is no one else. The GOP candidates are dropping like flies. It will be interesting to see, if he gets the support from his own (in the fundamentalist camp, I mean). I think he could give Obama a run for his money. He is smart, well spoken, defends his positions well, doesn't have a lot of personal baggage, as so many of the other candidates do. Will be an interesting election year.

alanmolstad

12-29-2011, 04:38 PM

. Santorum (sp?) is rising as well. .

My prediction at some point, perhaps a while ago now....?...Well at some point in this topic i predicted that the "Anyone but Mitt" wing of the conservative movement of the Republican Party would sooner or later land and remain in Rick Santorum's camp.

I think it was a few months ago I took a look at all the people in the race, and except for Rick Santorum I saw nothing but an embar***msnt.

I never liked this team, i never felt it was the best team to go up against Obama...and it seemed to me to be a long list of hyped-up names that were too weird or crazy, or silly to take serious.

I felt at the time that Christians like myself would end up in Rick's camp not because we like him, but rather we will end up supporting Rick because Mitt is liberal, Newt is crazy, and Ron Paul is more crazy still.

Rick is nothing more then just the last Conservative standing that does not seem to have any type of "Republican self-destruct" smell to him.

alanmolstad

12-29-2011, 04:43 PM

I think Iowa is on Jan 3rd?

and NH the next week

and SC soon after with Florida down the road from there.

I have made my guess already as to how things may go over the next 2 weeks.

It will be interesting to see how closely my predictions about how Iowa and NH results will change this race....

I expect by this hour in 2- 3 weeks the list of names running for President will be a lot shorter....

BigJulie

12-29-2011, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by alanmolstad
Michele Bachmann
Really is not even in the race anymore.
Might have a future position in the cabinet of a future Republican president...or might end up working at a bait shop on a lake in Minnesota.......hard to say right now whats more likely.

Herman Cain
The only fun guy in this election.
I only wish he had run for a mayor or govenor before this jump.
I dont know if he is actually any good at this type of political office holding.
I would still vote for him, if he ends up leading the ticket...
But i would do so with my fingers crossed

Newt Gingrich
The house guest that never caught the hint that it was time to leave.

Jon Huntsman
Who?

Ron Paul
smart, right most of the time, with just enough crazy to him to suggest he would just as likely **** up the world as be the best president ever.

Rick Perry
Make a wish children, its a falling star.

Mitt Romney
great hair,
Has no core views.
Seems to want to ride shotgun to whatever popular movement is going at the time....
I would vote for him over Obama...but not with a smile on my face.

Rick Santorum
who?

Do you remember this post? I posted it because I wanted to give you an idea of the changes in the christian right. I could find another of your posts touting Newt I am sure just a while later. It appears you ebb and flow along with "the christian right." ;)

BigJulie

12-29-2011, 06:23 PM

My prediction at some point, perhaps a while ago now....?...Well at some point in this topic i predicted that the "Anyone but Mitt" wing of the conservative movement of the Republican Party would sooner or later land and remain in Rick Santorum's camp.

I think it was a few months ago I took a look at all the people in the race, and except for Rick Santorum I saw nothing but an embar***msnt.

I never liked this team, i never felt it was the best team to go up against Obama...and it seemed to me to be a long list of hyped-up names that were too weird or crazy, or silly to take serious.

I felt at the time that Christians like myself would end up in Rick's camp not because we like him, but rather we will end up supporting Rick because Mitt is liberal, Newt is crazy, and Ron Paul is more crazy still.

Rick is nothing more then just the last Conservative standing that does not seem to have any type of "Republican self-destruct" smell to him.

And from the headlines:

Iowa's evangelicals moving to Santorum

Yup---the last move before the voting starts. It would be so much more believable that Mitt was just too liberal for the "christian right" if they weren't so busy jumping from one candidate to another---those who have more garbage and history and even left leanings that Mitt. At this point, Mitt's moderation seems nothing more than an excuse. *sigh*

alanmolstad

12-29-2011, 06:43 PM

Do you remember this post? I posted it because I wanted to give you an idea of the changes in the christian right. I could find another of your posts touting Newt I am sure just a while later. It appears you ebb and flow along with "the christian right." ;)

Actually in my post you see what i have been talking about in this topic from the start...

My point is that this is just not the best team to put on the field against Obama.

NONE of the names on the list are any where close to a top of the line name that i would think might make a great president!

My feelings for Newt have not changed at all.
from the start I felt that while he is more able to speak from a true conservative mindset that mitt will ever be..I always felt that newt was just one more remark from dropping out of the race.

I liked Cain because he was the only fun person in this whole list....Cain kept the election interesting.

I think Perry was a good man to consider, but the debates showed him to be really not the best guy to run in a close election...Perry seemed to fall asleep in the bright lights.

Rom Paul has many great ideas...Ron paul has many good things to remind this country about...and yet, with all his good ideas he has every once in a whole a pure crazy idea that shows me that he would destroy this country if given a chance.

The chick in the race showed in the debates that she just was not equal to the task.....she might make a great person in congress, but as president?....I don't think so.

Mitt I think is a joke.
I predicted him to get the lead spot on the ticket, but as for beating Obama?.....I dont see it...he lacks any real core views on anything.

Mitt just goes with the mob.....

Rick is just the last man standing that Conservatives could support....

This means that in the real race that actually going on (For Mitt's VP spot on the ticket) Rick might end up at the top of the pile right when he needs to be there...

Rick needs to get the vast majority of the Christian conservative vote in the next 3 -4 weeks, and it may guarantee him the VP spot on Mitt's ticket.

SC will be very important for learning who Mitt should pick for his VP

So, from all this I see None of the names have shown me that have anything even close to being what i would seek out in a President.
Theyt are just the guys Im forced to pick from.....

I will never support Mitt in the primary....
I could support any of the 4 names on the list that are stronger in the conservative corner than Mitt.

But because I live in ND the question of who I support over Mitt is moot.

By the time ND is asked it's views this will be all over.

On a side note....why do you seem to ridicule the interest a Chjristian like myself has in looking at each name on the list and allowing them their time to show what they have to show?

I think that having a close look at each person means that none of the names on this team can claim that they never had a chance....

They all have had their time in the spotlight
They all have had their moment to shine.
I think that is actually a sign of a open and fair primary.....

Remember, in totalitarian governments, you dont get to ever have the chance to look at different names and hear their views.
Freedom, and free elections mean that there should be a way for people that were overlooked at the start of an election to rise to the top later based on hard work ....and luck.

alanmolstad

12-29-2011, 07:03 PM

At this point, Mitt's moderation seems nothing more than an excuse. *sigh*

Im a normal conservative Christian.....so I can speak in a small manner as a representive of this rather large section of the republican party.

Im seeking a person to vote for that is someone that i can trust?

name me someone the list of names that has shown a lifetime support for the very same issues I think are important?

Take Abortion for our 1st example.

Give me the name on our list of the person who has a lifetime record of fighting abnortion?
who has marched year after year for Life?

Who speaks every year to the prolife cause?

who is always known as the pro-life canidate?

Next issue : Gay marriage

Give me the name of the person that has voted to stop gay marriage, and has worked hard to stop gay marriage?

You can get back to me with that name.....
The fact is that there are names on our list that do have just what im looking for, and I would be able to support them strongly if they lead the ticket.

But because of other side issues, they all seem to carry with them some extra stuff that makes them not really the best team i would have liked to pick from....

Mitt is not a name I would have wanted to be on our list
Newt is not as well
Ron Paul is.....well...he is like that crazy uncle that is always saying crazy things, but is married to a nice girl so we have to invite him to every party we hold...

Thats brings us to the others on the lower end of the list.....

BigJulie

12-29-2011, 09:28 PM

On a side note....why do you seem to ridicule the interest a Chjristian like myself has in looking at each name on the list and allowing them their time to show what they have to show?

I think that having a close look at each person means that none of the names on this team can claim that they never had a chance....

They all have had their time in the spotlight
They all have had their moment to shine.
I think that is actually a sign of a open and fair primary.....

Remember, in totalitarian governments, you dont get to ever have the chance to look at different names and hear their views.
Freedom, and free elections mean that there should be a way for people that were overlooked at the start of an election to rise to the top later based on hard work ....and luck.

I don't mind people looking and evaluating, but this is clearly not what is going on. This looks more like hysteria as the evangelical right jumps from one to another---and then to listen to the talk shows---the way I listen, it is one adulterer supporting the next adulterer. (Not to say that Santorum is---but the way they backed Cain and Gingrich, I wanted, as the "chick" on this forum, to throw up. Please, a bunch of men making excuses for each other...thank you, but no thank you.)

So, no, this did not look like a thoughtful, well educated decision process, but a bunch of people trying to make excuses for their selection until even they knew they looked pathetic and then a jump to the next one that is "not Mormon."

BigJulie

12-29-2011, 09:32 PM

If our economy goes down the tubes, what will it matter our stand on abortion or gay marriage? Read up on what is going on. I keep praying that voters who support conservative values will look at the bigger picture and stop micro-focusing on what they think this "Mormon" represents rather than what he has accomplished in terms of economic stability. I have no doubt he will protect marriage and the life of a child. I just think that he will fight where the fight needs to be had.

alanmolstad

12-29-2011, 10:36 PM

If our economy goes down the tubes...,
I actually see a lot of good news in my local economy.

The parking lots were full this Christmas,,,and a lot of this spending came not with credit cards, but rather came from savings..

This means that people are not ****ing money they dont have..

and that points to a pick up in the economy this spring.

I believe we may even be talking about the "Obama upturn" by then...with full credit going to Obama.

I believe that will be the message the media will be pushing so as to take the economy off the table.

So if the economy is off the table...what else has Mitt got?

Christians value social issues above much else.

Abortion....Gay marriage....the freedom to raise our kids and educate them as we think best....etc,

I dont see Mitt making any outreach to christian conservatives at all before the election.

I cant think of even one place he has tried so far to reach out to a voter like myself....and at this rate i would view it as 'fake" if suddenly he was talking all "Christian " on me...

Thus while I do expect that Mitt will win the primary, but without drawing the Christian Conservative he needs to beat Obama...I dont see Mitt moving into the White House..

I actually dont see any reason to vote for Mitt by Christians, do you?

It's not enough to say, "He is better than the other guy"

Thats not a good enough reason to go stand in line to vote....

A person has to inspire...

Mitt has to have a reason for me to support him...
and he dont...
and he dont plan to give me any.

Remember, he is not owed the vote of the Christian, he has to deserve that vote....

So far, there are 3 or 4 other names in this election that do legitimately deserve the vote and support of Bible-believeing Christians.

I believe Mitt has written-off the support of Conservatives like myself.
I dont see his making any effort to get us to vote for him....

Mitt perhaps thinks he can replace the Christian voter with the "undecided voter"
If this is true , then he is doomed.

To fail to seek out the largest and most important group of conservatives in the Party will only result of pushing such voters into Obama's corner.

BigJulie

12-29-2011, 11:05 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;109030]I actually see a lot of good news in my local economy.

The parking lots were full this Christmas,,,and a lot of this spending came not with credit cards, but rather came from savings..

This means that people are not ****ing money they dont have..

and that points to a pick up in the economy this spring.

I believe we may even be talking about the "Obama upturn" by then...with full credit going to Obama.

I believe that will be the message the media will be pushing so as to take the economy off the table.

So if the economy is off the table...what else has Mitt got? Things may go well---but Europe poses a big problem that they have yet to solve. So does California and other states. Ben Bernanke is pumping money at a rapid rate---we shall see if this works. WHat is predicted right now is that housing prices will continue to drop next year. Greece is still a problem. Have we dumped enough money to solve the problem? We shall see. In the mean time---our government has promised more than it has the ability to pay. At some point, we need to pay the piper. Will that be under a president who doesn't know how to restore economic stability, or one that does?

alanmolstad

12-29-2011, 11:08 PM

Now as i have said before, I dont know the future, so I cant predict who will win in Iowa and NH , SC, etc in the next 2-3 weeks.

But I can guess what it might well mean if this of that person comes in at this or that ranking coming out of Iowa and NH.

In Mitt's case a win in Iowa would doom the final 4 names on the list right away.

I would expect that one or two names would drop out before the next week's vote in NH....

if Mitt were to win in Iowa it would also push one name above all the others as the lone Conservative voice to stand against Mitt going into SC and Florida.
So a Mitt win early on in this primary will allow whomever is in 2nd or 3rd to turn to all the lower guys and ask them to drop out and swing all their support to a "stop Mitt" movement with only one person at it's lead.
But the truth be told..a Mitt win is a near-guarantee of his final victory in this primary.

a 2nd place finish in Iowa would not be any real harm for Mitt at all.2nd place in Iowa is more or less meaningless as far as who wins big the next week.
So a 2nd place finish is "good enough" considering how little Mitt was actually in Iowa for most of this last year.

If Mitt came in 2nd in Iowa, it would keep a lot of names in the race, and would make NH fun to watch....But once again, it would mean that for a whole long week the media would have someone else in the lead, and that person is going to be working the phone to get as many as he can to drop out before people vote again in NH and SC. Florida.

What if Mitt comes in 3rd or 4th in iowa?
I dont see this as much of a chance given the most recent poll numbers, but "if" this were to happen?....

That would be some serious trouble for Mitt.

Mitt would have a huge problem to overcome, and he would need to win big in NH the next week.
If Mitt comes in 3rd in Iowa we might have a chance to watch anyone in the race pull this out...even the lower 4 names on the list could rise up and take it all in Florida.

So in other words.....
Mitt can lose Iowa.
But Mitt has to win big in NH.....or this game might go into extra innings.

SC. is the other big State that will show us how Mitt is doing with conservatives like myself.
If Mitt shows some good numbers in SC it will prove that he is being supported by Christians like myself.

on the other hand...no matter how big Mitt might win in Iowa and NH, if he gets to Sc and runs into trouble, then he really will be forced to pick a strong Born-Again Christian like myself to be his VP....

He needs a person as his VP who is not a flip-flopper on abortion and other issues important to people of te Christian faith...He needs a person who can walk in the door of a real Christian church and not hear "cult, cult, cult"

he needs the VP to be able to speak on matters of faith without just reminding Christians that Mormons spend eternity burning in hell's fire.

Right now the race is for who will be on the VP ticket....
There are 3 or 4 good names that Mitt can pick from, and he can go off that list and pick someone who is a more well known supporter of Christian issues...

But I think he will try to pick a name from one of the 4 good Christian conservatives in this race.

BigJulie

12-29-2011, 11:11 PM

Right now the race is for who will be on the VP ticket....
There are 3 or 4 good names that Mitt can pick from, and he can go off that list and pick someone who is a more well known supporter of Christian issues...

But I think he will try to pick a name from one of the 4 good Christian conservatives in this race.

What about someone not on this list---like Chris Christie?

alanmolstad

12-29-2011, 11:39 PM

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/iowas-evangelicals-moving-santorum-234727190.html

alanmolstad

12-29-2011, 11:47 PM

My guess right now would be that if Newt falls in the next month that all the people who support him would suddenly switch to Rick Santorum.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/iowas-evangelicals-moving-santorum-234727190.html

My quote above was posted 12-15-2011, but Im actually just saying that here that i have been saying to my friends on facebook for a few months now.

i cant predict the future, But I can look at the names in this race from a conservative point of view and see some mighty slim pickings......
Rick is not the best guy I would want to go up against Obama....
But Rick is about the last conservative standing at a moment when it pays to be ......

Rick has to really try to push hard over the next few days....he needs to come in 3rd or 4th to be still in this hunt by Florida.

I give him a very low % of being still around by Florida.....Mitt would have to really fall on his face for Rick to be still here by Florida....
But remember, Rick is in this now to place high enough to claim he would make the best VP pick....
So Rick does not have to beat Mitt at all.....
Rick just has to beat the lowest names in iowa and NH....

alanmolstad

12-30-2011, 01:15 AM

Right now the race is for who will be on the VP ticket....
.
http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/why-is-no-one-attacking-romney.php

This is all about who is left standing and can be seen as a person the conservatives will support.

Once there is only one name left in the race with conservative views, then that is the moment we likely know who Mitt will pick as his VP

alanmolstad

12-30-2011, 07:23 AM

What about someone not on this list---like Chris Christie?
The big guy made it very clear that he is not interested in the ***.

And , so, thats-that...

He made some very clear statements that he was not really interested in being president, , and a VP has to be ready to do that.

I guess there is always the chance that he might yet try to get himself into this race for VP or President....But I dont see any way that could happen except for if Mitt drops out.

I dont see any real "lets pick someone else" movement if Mitt wins big in Iowa and NH in the next few weeks.

Right now there is only one little thing that is in the back of my mind that "might" spell Mitt's doom.
Well actually 2 little things.

The first is if anyone is sitting on a recording of Mitt as a Mormom missionary pushing his false religion.
The fact is, that Mitt has been able to keep his Mormon church out of this election up until now.
But if down the road it turns out that there is some type of recording of him preaching?....then his run is doomed as that would cause about every person in the country to connect Mitt to the Mormons, and that would spell the end of his run this time around.

Such a recording would receive constant play in the media....over and over it would turn up on YouTube and on the nightly news.
Every poll would turn on questions about it.
Every Christian preacher would have to come out with a statement about it...
The recording would take over the news....
Mitt would likely drop out at that point so that the Party would have a better chance in the election.

The 2nd thing that is a concern is SC.

The fact is, that when this primary turns to SC we will have the answer to the question - "Can Mitt find support within the conservatives?"

If Mitt has a good lead going into SC, and gets a win there?, it would mean that the conservative Christians had come over to his side, and he has a very good chance of even beating Obama in the general election.

On the other hand....Lets say that no matter how far in the lead Mitt is going into SC he runs smack into a wall, and ends up with a loss there?

At that point I would expect a lot of names not in this race right now to suddenly start getting phone calls from the Party leadership about getting in to save the Party.

So Iowa will tell us if Mitt has this in the bag?
NH will tell us if anyone will be left in this for later on?
SC will tell us if Mitt can draw conservatives?
Florida will tell us if Mitt can beat Obama?

a loss in Iowa is not that important to Mitt
a loss in NH meas that this will be interesting from now on
a loss in SC means Mitt can expect a lot of trouble from other names not listed right now.
a loss in Florida means Mitt will have his hands full against Obama

a win in Iowa means Mitt has this already won,
a win in NH means all the lower names will drop out
a win in SC is huge, and means he has a lot of christian backers
a win in Florida means that he has a good chance against Obama

So when it comes down to who will Mitt pick as his VP?
We shall have to see how he does over the next few weeks...

If he shows that he lacks support with the conservatives, then he will need to find a very good leading conservative to be his VP.
The more trouble he is in with conservatives, the more likely he will pick someone in the race right now like Rick to run with him.

On the other hand, if Mitt is sitting in a good position with conservatives, then he can use his VP pick to draw the middle of the road voter...
If he is in a very strong position, then he can pick any name he wants at that point.

If i had it my way....he would pick a person like Condoleezza Rice

alanmolstad

12-30-2011, 08:42 AM

I could find another of your posts touting Newt I am sure just a while later. It appears you ebb and flow along with "the christian right." ;)

I believe you better check that out again to see if your statement is all that correct?

.....and see how my views of Newt are about the same now as ever.

I like Newt
newt is a far better voice for the conservatives than Mitt ever will be.

Newt clearly has a set of core views that drive his words and teachings.

So i would vote for Newt over Mitt at this point in a primary.

But the trouble with Newt is the problem all conservatives know all too well...
Newt is always saying and doing things that go too far....

Newt going against Obama in a debate would be fun to see...but Newt attempting to control himself for month after month of a national race?.....thats asking too much of him.

I have always felt that Newt is just one more comment from dropping out of the race.

I cant support a guy that i am always going to be afraid will drop out tomorrow...who could?

Newt is a good guy to have on a team.
Newt turned things around back in 06.
Newt stood up to Clinton.
newt can take a lot of credit for many of the good things that congress did, and also credit for stopping many of the bad things that almost happened.

Newt only issue is that he acts a little crazy at times....his mouth has no "mute" switch.

So to sum up my views about Newt-
I like him.
I like him more than I like Mitt.
I think Newt has a real conservative core that is more real that anything I see out of Mitt.

But Newt is not a person i would really like to see lead the ticket.
The reason is that Newt tends to self-destruct right when conservatives needed him to be at his best.

So, I would vote for Newt over Mitt
But Im not sure I would vote for Newt over Obama....

This is how I feel about him.
I believe this is right in-line with all that I have ever written or said, or believed about the guy.

Now if down the road i see that Newt has turned over a new leaf?
Then I will judge him in a better light.
Im not going to say that "he is always crazy" just because I felt that way at one time...
I would give the guy a chance to improve his standing in my eyes...

I dont believe that we should say to people,,,"A while ago you said once you didnt like him, so how can you say you do now?"

That would be silly...and non-Christian to take an at***ude that once a person falls we wont allow them the chance to do better.

it's like with my friends that get divorced.
I would rather they did not get divorced.
i would rather they went back to their wife and got remarried to them again.
But be that as it may, I will still respect the new wife they have, and i will offer my friend the friendship we had with his 1st wife....

I allow the person to make a real honest change.

BigJulie

12-30-2011, 12:17 PM

Now if down the road i see that Newt has turned over a new leaf?
Then I will judge him in a better light.
Im not going to say that "he is always crazy" just because I felt that way at one time...
I would give the guy a chance to improve his standing in my eyes...

I dont believe that we should say to people,,,"A while ago you said once you didnt like him, so how can you say you do now?"

That would be silly...and non-Christian to take an at***ude that once a person falls we wont allow them the chance to do better.

I allow the person to make a real honest change.

Yes, it is clear that the "christian" will allow another "christian" to make changes for the better, but if that christian is also a Mormon, well then, he is labelled a flip-flopper for life. ;)

alanmolstad

12-30-2011, 09:24 PM

Yes, it is clear that the "christian" will allow another "christian" to make changes for the better, but if that christian is also a Mormon, well then, he is labelled a flip-flopper for life. ;)

actually Mormons are not Christian, however they can 'act" very much like one would hope a Christian acts...

But as I said a while back...Mitt is a flip-flopper out of his political need to get votes.

Does anyone think Mitt actually has ever had a change of heart based on personal reasons?

nope.. Not even close.

We all know what he is up to...

I dare say that not one single person in this country believes any of the stories told by Mitt....LOL

So what we are left with with Mitt, is a guy who will tell one thing at one time, and then when he has a political need to, will tell another, different thing later.

This reminds me of a guy who stopped being married to one girl to hook-up with another after the 2nd girl won the Loto...LOL

I would not respect that type of marriage at all...because its not based on personal feelings, but rather in selfishness at the expense of others.

that's what i think of when I hear Mitt talking about why he is such a fip-flopper....
He changes views and supports different sides of issues when he thinks there is political advantage in doing so.

this points us to a fact that I think we all can see concerning Mitt is that he seems to not have a "core" conservativeness to himself.
That also is so very different than the lower 4 names in the race right now.
They might not have the money or origination that mitt has, but there are true believers in the conservative message.

They have hearts that have shown over the long-haul that they are made of Conservative Rock.

Mitt seems more to be a political feather ****ing in the wind....

BigJulie

12-31-2011, 09:22 AM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;109176]actually Mormons are not Christian, however they can 'act" very much like one would hope a Christian acts... You may not call me a Christian---but I call myself a Christian because I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ--or as you say I "act" very much like a Christian. And to me behaving the way Christ taught defines a Christian more than a bunch of megalomaniacs trying to hold onto their own religious power by creating their own definition of 'christianity".

But as I said a while back...Mitt is a flip-flopper out of his political need to get votes. And to me, this is the mark of bigotry or stereotyping. Newt changed his way because he is a changed man and Mitt changes his ways because he wants the votes. See---you think you know the heart of the candidates because you think you know what it means to be "christian"--I don't see it the same way you do because I don't have bigotry against Mormons. ;)

Does anyone think Mitt actually has ever had a change of heart based on personal reasons? Absolutely.

nope.. Not even close.

We all know what he is up to... You make a judgement against Mitt that you do not make against Newt based on what you think is in their heart. See the problem?

I dare say that not one single person in this country believes any of the stories told by Mitt....LOL I am a single person and I believe him, but then again, I have no reason to be prejudice against him as you do.

alanmolstad

01-03-2012, 08:13 PM

So Finally!!!!!!

Finally we will have real answers tonight as to where things stand...

Will Mitt get the big victory that the media hype suggests?

Will Ron Paul get the victory he needs badly?

Will Newt and Rick fight it out tooth and nail?

Will tomorrow bring news that a lot of names are about to drop out of the race?

Or will tonight's results have us going into next week with a Battle Royale on our hands?

Time will tell......time will tell.....

BigJulie

01-03-2012, 08:58 PM

which Rick?? ;)

alanmolstad

01-03-2012, 09:42 PM

Im going to let the events of tonight sit for a while....

I dont want to comment before I have had a chance to go over the numbers more....

But I think we can go over what they may mean to everyone in the next few days, as well as to see how well my views of the past month or so will compare with the results?

BigJulie

01-03-2012, 11:53 PM

A "photo finish"---pretty exciting stuff for candidates!

Libby

01-04-2012, 02:06 AM

Mitt by eight votes....wow!

alanmolstad

01-04-2012, 05:52 AM

ok......time to start summing up Iowa and look ahead to NH....

First everyone...I did not see a dead heat as an outcome.
I did not predict it would end up in a tie....I did not foresee that outcome at all.

But actually.....it doesn't matter in the long run.

It's just very odd.
It's an odd , interesting outcome that is unexpected.

I dont think it matters squat to Mitt.
I believe Mitt did great in Iowa, and is very much on-track to take NH and do very good in SC too.

But there are a few things that are now going to happen because of Iowa.
PHONE CALLS.......thats what is going on now.
Lots and lots of phone calls between the people left in the race and the people who now are looking for the best way out of this race.

Right now there is a lot of dealing going on.

Cabinet positions are being handed out like we are dealing Blackjack.

Im told that already Perry is pulling out of the race.
The phone calls to him all day today are going to keep him very busy cutting a deal.

It will be very interesting to see what person he ends up standing next to and giving his support to in the next few days?

The chick in the race is toast.
She lacks money and support.....and I expect her to drop out very soon too.
She also will be getting the phone calls....

Ron Paul did way better than many wanted.
Ron Paul has the money and supporters he needs to keep in this race all the way to the end.

Now as for Rick?

Rick had a good night.
Rick stood toe to toe against Mitt and did great.
If there is a winner as such in iowa, then it's clearly Rick.

But does that matter?
Not that much....
Rick showed the Party that a lot of people will vote for him.
Rick clearly now is the "Anyone but Mitt" guy.

But Rick is in danger now of running out of money and really has no org in NH to push his name in the media.

Right now, Rick has to get out there all on his own, hit all the talk shows, and keep his name in the news for the next week all due to the fre media hype that comes with winning Iowa.

Will that be enough to help him take NH?
Well, thats hard to say, its a long shot right now.
Its very hard to overcome Mitt's money with anything but lots of money.

NEWT?
Got his *** kicked.

Newt is the loser in Iowa.
Newt is now going to be shown the door and told to go home and watch the election from there.

It will be over the next 2 weeks when we will finally see on TV that Newt is standing next to someone.....and after that Newt will fade away.....sorta.

alanmolstad

01-04-2012, 06:10 AM

Right now Mitt has to come in a close 2nd in Iowa to clear the field of the lower 3 people in the race.
If Mitt comes in 2nd in Iowa i would expect all 3 of the other people to drop out right away.

.
Over the next few days we shall see how this works out....

alanmolstad

01-04-2012, 06:13 AM

I dont know the future, and so I can only offer a guess, and then go back later as see how my guess worked out?

My current "guess" is that Mitt comes in a close 2nd in Iowa...
and that this leads to one or two names dropping out before the next week in NH.

.

We shall see now if this turns out to be true?....

alanmolstad

01-04-2012, 06:15 AM

And guess what?
Should Newt fall, should he say something so bad that he drops out of the race, there will be such a swing by the the evangelical right to one of the others left in the race that it will be stunning.

My guess right now would be that if Newt falls in the next month that all the people who support him would suddenly switch to Rick Santorum.

This prediction turned out to be right on the money!

alanmolstad

01-04-2012, 06:21 AM

So far as I have went back over my posts of the time leading up to Iowa, and looking closely at my predictions....I got to say i was very close.

I have said that if Mitt won Iowa that the field would thin out very fast.
Due to the tie results in Iowa this seems a bit murky right now...But I still believe noting important has changed.

Mitt did very good in Iowa....the only person that did Great is Rick, and thats a small victory as Rick has no money to work with in NH and SC where Mitt has a huge team on the ground all ready to go.

Newt is going to be pushed off the stage in NH.....that's the thing that everyone left in the race has to try to do now.
They all know they each need the voters who support Newt if they want to win NH......so Newt has got to cut a deal and get out fast.

Mitt would LOVE for Newt to stay in the race now....Mitt will want to cut a deal with Newt that keeps Newt in the race until after SC has voted.....

we shall see.....we shall see..
\

But for the most part my predictions so far have been nice and close

alanmolstad

01-04-2012, 07:15 AM

BigJulie

01-04-2012, 07:55 AM

How do I think the "Anyone but Mitt" forces did in Iowa?

Not too bad,

The results show that even after so much effort that Mitt got about the same percent of the vote as the last time he ran there....

The results show us that there is a huge issue with young and conservative voters that simply have not every supported Mitt in Iowa.

The interesting fact of the night was that Ron Paul got something like 70% of the youth vote.

From CNN:

At the same time, Santorum ran best among the state's influential born-again and evangelical voters. Nearly six in 10 caucus-goers identified with this segment of the electorate, and a plurality of that group went with the former senator.

As one poster said--evangelicals seem to think this election is about abortion.

alanmolstad

01-04-2012, 10:09 AM

From CNN:

As one poster said--evangelicals seem to think this election is about abortion.
Its weird how the conservative issues that were missing from the media's coverage of Iowa, turned out to be so very important to the voters there...

I know a lot of people that support Mitt feel that the main issue is ***s and the economy, but while there is some merit to that idea, the real truth for the conservative voter is that social issues are still at the top of the list.

abortion
prayer,
worship of God,
Gay marriage
The ability to raise children as our grandparents did..
etc.

These are the core conservative issues that drive lots of Republicans to vote for someone.

They were completely missing in Mitt's campaign but turned up all the time in the campain of the 4 conservatives in the race.

Time will tell what this means in the long run....

So far?......so far this seems to suggest that there is a huge opening for Rick to enter if he can stay in the limelight long enough to overcome Mitt's money in NH and SC.

What Rick has to do over the next few days is work the phone and get all the lower ranking guys and girls in the race to drop out and stand next to him in front of the TV cameras.

Rick needs......REALLY needs the following:

Rick needs Michele Bachmann to drop out, then give all her support to him.
Rick needs this to happen fast...very fast....

Rick needs Newt Gingrich to drop out after NH....
Im not sure it helps to get Newt's support...but Newt does have to go.

Rick needs Ron Paul to say something very crazy....

Ron Paul is just not going to go away...so this means that the best hope for Rick right now in dealing with the whole support there is for Ron Paul is for someone to dig up more dirt on Paul, or for someone to ask paul a question that leads to Ron saying something that goes too far over the line...

So what Rick needs is for Ron Paul to look crazy....and this has to happen before we get to SC.
As it stands now, Ron Paul can expect to get between 12% and 17% of the vote in SC.....
Rick needs that 12 to 17% in order to overcome the money that Mitt has behind him and the lead he may have by then from NH.

So Rick has to have Ron Paul pushed off to the side, while looking just like Ron to Ron's supporters.

Rick needs every voter that right now Ron Paul is getting.

Now....as for Mitt?
Mitt needs to appear as the winner .
Mitt should start appearing as though he was the front runner, and start making the phone calls to get as many people to stand next to him in NH as he can.

The idea Mitt needs is to mow them all down in NH....Dont let anyone in the race going into NH think that have any way to beat him or out spend him.

it's time for the Republican leaders to walk out onto the stage and put their arms around Mitt.

BigJulie

01-04-2012, 02:42 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;110120]Its weird how the conservative issues that were missing from the media's coverage of Iowa, turned out to be so very important to the voters there...

I know a lot of people that support Mitt feel that the main issue is ***s and the economy, but while there is some merit to that idea, the real truth for the conservative voter is that social issues are still at the top of the list.

abortion
prayer,
worship of God,
Gay marriage
The ability to raise children as our grandparents did..
etc.

Mitt Romney will stand behind this issues--he is just not a radical about it. In interesting interview about Santorum--his wife got pregnant, her life was a stake---the doctor admitted oxytoxin and the baby was born at 22 weeks and died. I have no problem with this because I am okay with saving the life of the mother. On the other hand, if morality is the top issue and "evangelicals" see this as an abortion--I wonder how they reconcile this.

Mitt Romney is conservative on these issues but not radical. In other words he is smart enough to realize that if you open Pandorah's box, you may not like what you get. An example is the right fighting to have "christian clubs" in public schools. They won, but now their argument is what is used to allow "gay clubs" in school. The gay, lesbian, straight alliance has used these laws demanded by christians to support their own cause (and have won every time.) So, let's be smart and not radical about these issues.

What Rick has to do over the next few days is work the phone and get all the lower ranking guys and girls in the race to drop out and stand next to him in front of the TV cameras. Rick does not have the political machine in place to beat Obama, nor the money. I guess we will see if the evangelicals can produce another Huckabee/McCain.

alanmolstad

01-04-2012, 08:49 PM

Libby

01-05-2012, 12:21 AM

An example is the right fighting to have "christian clubs" in public schools. They won, but now their argument is what is used to allow "gay clubs" in school. The gay, lesbian, straight alliance has used these laws demanded by christians to support their own cause (and have won every time.)

I don't understand why this is seen as a problem. Both should be allowed..no discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion. ugh. It is exactly these social issues that keep me (an Independent) voting Democrat. I did vote for George Bush, after 9/11, only because I really thought he would be tough on terrorism, but that was a bit of an illusion, and Obama is the one who got bin Laden, in the end.

Anyway, Republicans and their "social issues" drive me a little nuts. The government is not supposed to impose specific religious values.

alanmolstad

01-05-2012, 05:39 AM

I don't understand why this is seen as a problem. .

You dont understand why a Christian like myself thinks its worth defending the unborn, defending the concept of marriage, defending things like prayer, and the duty we have as parents to raise our own children in a manner that reflects traditional values?

That reminds me of another conversation I had a while ago...

LETS REVIEW:

Within the heart of a conservative (Like myself) there is a core of faith in the Christian teachings and truths of the bible.

I did not come up with the things that I hold as important truths on my own.

My views are not things I came up with on my own.

My views are not just my own conclusions based on my own 'standards"

Rather all that true Christian conservative defends should be based on the traditional Christian teachings as presented to us in the bible.

So when there is a point of view that a conservative hold fast to, (Like the conservative's views on the Gays , Abortion , etc) and there is well known support for this view in the Christian church's Bible, THEN it's not the fault of the Christian that a non-Christian might disagree with them on such issues.

Nor is it the Christian's fault that many non-Christians get so spitting-mad at Christians when traditional values are promoted in the modern world.

What simply has happened is that the Christian's views have gotten in the middle of a struggle the non-Christian has on-going with their Lord.

An Example:
A while ago I was locked in a debate with a non-Christian over the question of ABORTION.
This other person went on and on and on with one nasty comment after another......
Mostly she was on about "Keep your hands off of my body you filthy Christians!" type stuff.....

Oh she had so many arguments all lined up to use.

It was her anger that was the most distressing.
The anger that rose up in her, and took over her ability to have a conversation on the issue.

There was just too much to see as a result of my defense of the unborn child.

But when I started to question her things started to drop into place.
I learned that this was the main issue as to why she fell away from the church and why she now completely rejected the whole Christian faith!

It was the wall she had built between herself and her Lord.

It became clear to me as she talked more in depth about her own reasons, that this wall was her attempt to justify some unfortunate decisions she had made a few times in her past concerning her own personal life.

I had just wandered into the middle of her own little private war.

Her own little private hell...

All the justifications they revealed to me that she had worked on them over the years in a vain attempt to insulated herself from the guilt that was ALWAYS there, chained to her heart.

It wasn't really me or my conservative views she was upset with....
It was that I reminded her of some very personal matters that try as she might she could not get over.

And she is going to have to deal with that sooner or later.
My advice would be to give all that to the lord.

So I totally dismiss her arguements, for they simply come forth from her screwed up relationship with her Lord.
Her views have just colored her ability to see the real duty conservative Christians have in this world to "Stand up for what is RIGHT!"...in all places and in all times...

Even in the voting booth

So while the Conservative voter has no right to impose any religious 'teachings" on the country, such teachings like there is only one God, and that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and that Mormonism is a CULT, yet that same conservative voter can seek to push Christians values in this world with his vote.

Things like defending life.

Promoting the idea of prayer.

and, defending the traditional marriage.

Remember it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

BigJulie

01-05-2012, 12:58 PM

Kids are off limits....always....

Unless you hold all the children of people seeking political office as "off-limits' you will soon end up with all your leaders being childless.

I read that some person asked Rick about his child...in my view that person who would bring up such a thing should be nailed to the wall by his *****....

Wait--on one hand you want morality to be your top issue to determine which politician to vote for and on the other hand you can't see if this morality applies to their own decisions regarding their family?

BigJulie

01-05-2012, 01:03 PM

I don't understand why this is seen as a problem. Both should be allowed..no discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion. ugh. It is exactly these social issues that keep me (an Independent) voting Democrat. I did vote for George Bush, after 9/11, only because I really thought he would be tough on terrorism, but that was a bit of an illusion, and Obama is the one who got bin Laden, in the end.

Anyway, Republicans and their "social issues" drive me a little nuts. The government is not supposed to impose specific religious values.

Libby---I don't think either club has a place in our schools. I see school as a place for academic learning and we need to leave value training (other than honesty, etc.) at home. It is not that these clubs are a problem, but I think they become a distraction as kids try to find themselves and also begin to stereo-type, etc. based on these types of clubs. This is why I also support school uniforms. School is not about discovering your individuality (accept in academics), but about learning. To me, the less distractions the better. I think if I tried to go to a mostly evangelical school and set up a "Mormon club" and start handing out pamplets (which is what these other clubs do)--you would see a backlash of upset parents, etc. The school then becomes the stomping ground for a political contest rather than an academic setting. The frontal lobe doesn't develop until at least 16---so, leave it to the colleges to let kids explore their religious beliefs, sexual beliefs, etc.

BigJulie

01-05-2012, 01:08 PM

Even in the voting booth

So while the Conservative voter has no right to impose any religious 'teachings" on the country, such teachings like there is only one God, and that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and that Mormonism is a CULT, yet that same conservative voter can seek to push Christians values in this world with his vote.

Let me get this straight---after this whole discussion--you see religions teachings as "one God" "Jesus Christ was resurrected" and "Mormonism as a CULT"---as part of religious teachings?

To me that is like saying something akin to "I believe in being honest" "I believe in being kind" and "I believe every Chinese person should be considered a threat to our society." What a strange belief system you have Alan.

:confused:

alanmolstad

01-05-2012, 02:43 PM

Wait--on one hand you want morality to be your top issue to determine which politician to vote for and on the other hand you can't see if this morality applies to their own decisions regarding their family?

Yes....drop back and read the name of this topic and from it you should get a more clear understanding of my views.

I believe that it would be wrong to use Mitt's personal private life as a reason not to vote for him as our president.

While I think that there are better people in the race right now, the truth is that I have been very openly saying from the beginning that I expect that Mitt will win the nomination , and i have every intention to vote for him over Obama if he does win.

This is totally different that the voices you may hear on this topic that say that unless the Mormon wins they wont vote for anyone!

I believe my understanding is vastly superior than such voices.

Both the voices from the Blind Mormon camp, and the voices from the blind Christian camp are just a bunch of FAIL in my eyes.

So, I dont hold the personal life of Mitt against him when I consider him for the White House.

I dont judge Mitt or any of the rest of them by how good a husband or wife they are.
I dont judge them for being president based on how good they are at getting their pets to behave.
I dont judge them for being president based on their sex life, or how well they kept their personal vows to their mate.
I dont judge them for being president on if they were a virgin or not.
I dont judge them for being president by the type of god they worship, or their position on the tribulation.

Someone can totally disagree with me on all the non-Political issues of our private lives, and it would not matter a hoot to me.

So the fact that i consider his Mormon faith a joke, is moot.
So the fact I think Mitt's morality if be completely false and evil, is moot.
So the fact I believe Mitt's god to be Satan,is moot.
So the fact that Mitt's willingness to be part of a well-known CULT in spite of the clear warnings of scripture and the Christian church m,arks him out in my mind as a seriously spiritually flawed individual, is moot ,

Because I consider all that personal and private stuff to be off limits when I go into vote for the next President.

Thus, I dont care how many women Mitt has slept with,
or how many abortions his wife has had....

I dont care because all that type of personal stuff is not what I will judge his political ideas by.

I will judge Mitt by his POLITICAL RECORD.....
I will judge Mitt by his plans for the future of this country.
I will judge Mitt by the way he handles himself in the debates, and if he seems to have the political understandings that i think a president should have.

Im not going to judge him or anyone by the fact that his kids posed for Playboy...or got caught smoking crack.....etc, etc, etc.

The ***le of this topic should show you that I consider the personal life of people to not be all that important in that moment I enter into the voting booth.

But I reserve a special place in hell for anyone who brings up the children of people seeking office.
I attack them, I put them in my sights and they know that have made a life-time foe in me......(In short I try my best to get them banned)

The reason i truly deep-down hate the people that bring up the kids of our leaders is that unless we allow the family of our leaders to enjoy privacy, we will end up with only unmarried, childless, non-believers in office....for we had made it too hard to be a parent and a president....

BigJulie

01-05-2012, 04:23 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;110298]So, I dont hold the personal life of Mitt against him when I consider him for the White House.
The fact that i consider his Mormon faith a joke, his morality if be completely false and evil, his god to be Satan, and his willingness to be part of a well-known CULT, is all off limits when i go into vote for the next President.
Yes, I can see you are completely unbiased when it comes to Mitt.:)

Thus, i dont care how many women Mitt has slept with,
or how many abortions his wife has had.... Really. That is surprising because you said you think Newt was a changed man and Mitt, not based on what again?

Im not going to judge him or anyone by the fact that his kids posed for Playboy...or got caught smoking crack.....etc, etc, etc. THat is fine for you. My point was (if you remember) that I had no problem with what Santorum did regarding his baby--my point was that those who use moral judgements (including religion) as a way to decide like Rick Santorum---it seems like a double standard to me.

alanmolstad

01-05-2012, 04:32 PM

I think if I tried to go to a mostly evangelical school and set up a "Mormon club" and start handing out pamplets (which is what these other clubs do)--you would see a backlash of upset parents, etc. .
If your club meets after school, and stays within the guidlines of what you do there, (No damage to school property, provide a safe environment for all children....no starting fires etc.) then No one is going to raise a question.

We have many such after-school clubs in our schools..

I dont see the problem with a Mormon or JW or even a Moonie club.

On the other hand, a private christian school would not have to allow you to use their building for non-Christian events.

So if other faiths,want to start an after-school club?...good for them..

alanmolstad

01-05-2012, 04:42 PM

[QUOTE]
Really. That is surprising because you said you think Newt was a changed man and Mitt, not based on what again?

I believe I said that i do not hold Newt's lovers and the fact that he broke his wedding vows against him when I vote for president.

I believe that if a person has gotten married, and that the marriage is based on the right thngs, that i dont hold the fact that its a guy's 3rd or 4th wedding against him for that.

On the other hand, I have said that there is just this smell to Mitt....
its a smell of insincerity when he talks about his views on important issues.

I compared this "smell" i get from Mitt to a guy who breaks up with his wife to marry another woman because the 2nd women had won the Lotto.

That is a type of marriage i would not respect.

I would not respect that type of marriage just like I don't respect the views of Mitt that he comes barfing out with because they could not appear more insincere to my ears.

And this is a topic i have done my homework on.
I have heard Mitt out on this issue...

I have read the story of when and how Mitt claims to have flipped his positions on important issues...and Im convinced from just the evidence and the timing of such things, that his story is invented.....

When I look at Mitt, I see a guy who will flip positions when it becomes politically needed to do so.

This hints to me that Mitt has no conservative core compared to guys like Rick and newt.

With Rick and Newt you can see in their words the power their core conservative hearts to shape their ideas of the future.

The main problem i have with Newt is not based on his personal life, or his personal religion, rather its the fact they with Newt he tends to go off the rails and is just not there when you need him.

The main problem I have with Mitt as he has shown that on important issues, where I will need a strong conservative President to take a stand, that Mitt has shown in his record that he has left some people who supported him in the past hanging....

I dont want a president who is known to leave people hanging...

alanmolstad

01-05-2012, 04:56 PM

Let me get this straight---after this whole discussion--you see religions teachings as "one God" "Jesus Christ was resurrected" and "Mormonism as a CULT"---as part of religious teachings?

:
yes.....

The idea that Jesus is God Almighty is a Christian religious teaching.

this is different than the values I seek to support with my vote.
In the voting booth I will use my vote to support Christian values...
Such as hard work.
Advancement based on merit.
Defending innocent life...

So this means?
It means that I will seek out people to vote for that support my Christian values, such as protecting my right to worship God and pray....

But I will not vote for a person who thinks that the State should write my prayer.

There is a difference in protecting a right to worship God.
And using the State to force the worship of God.

alanmolstad

01-05-2012, 04:57 PM

BigJulie

01-05-2012, 05:31 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;110364]

I believe I said that i do not hold Newt's lovers and the fact that he broke his wedding vows against him when I vote for president.

I believe that if a person has gotten married, and that the marriage is based on the right thngs, that i dont hold the fact that its a guy's 3rd or 4th wedding against him for that.

On the other hand, I have said that there is just this smell to Mitt....
its a smell of insincerity when he talks about his views on important issues.

I compared this "smell" i get from Mitt to a guy who breaks up with his wife to marry another woman because the 2nd women had won the Lotto.

That is a type of marriage i would not respect. So, you can forgive one of adultery and being changed, but the other, you cannot forgive because it smells fishy to you. I am sure this has absolutely nothing to do with your beliefs regarding my religion as a cult. :)

The main problem I have with Mitt as he has shown that on important issues, where I will need a strong conservative President to take a stand, that Mitt has shown in his record that he has left some people who supported him in the past hanging....

I dont want a president who is known to leave people hanging... You know all I see, Alan---is another Mike Huckabee. Another person that the evangelicals are going to throw out there that has no chance to beat Obama because he doesn't have the organization to win. It would be great if we were having a cooking contest, but this type of contest takes a lot of preparation, money, and organization. Mitt has been preparing for years to take on Obama (the establishment, the unions)...and you want to throw out someone whose chances are limited because Mitt smells "fishy" to you. Okay.

So, to me, I see once again, the evangelicals cutting off their nose to spite their face all because, while they can forgive other candidates of all types of things---Mitt just smells fishy (and it has nothing to do with prejudice...I am sure. ;))

Libby

01-05-2012, 07:33 PM

Libby---I don't think either club has a place in our schools. I see school as a place for academic learning and we need to leave value training (other than honesty, etc.) at home. It is not that these clubs are a problem, but I think they become a distraction as kids try to find themselves and also begin to stereo-type, etc. based on these types of clubs. This is why I also support school uniforms. School is not about discovering your individuality (accept in academics), but about learning. To me, the less distractions the better. I think if I tried to go to a mostly evangelical school and set up a "Mormon club" and start handing out pamplets (which is what these other clubs do)--you would see a backlash of upset parents, etc. The school then becomes the stomping ground for a political contest rather than an academic setting. The frontal lobe doesn't develop until at least 16---so, leave it to the colleges to let kids explore their religious beliefs, sexual beliefs, etc.

Yeah, private schools are different, though...different rules. Basically, they can make their own rules. But, in public school we have to be fair to everyone. I agree that the clubs either have to go, altogether, or they have to allow diversity. I don't really see them as a distraction. They meet after school or at lunch time, on their own time. I think they are a part of socialization, in highschool, especially. I belonged to a couple of clubs in highschool, and it helps to meet friends who share your values and interests, I think. In the case of gay adolescents, I can't think of a group of kids who more need that kind of support.

alanmolstad

01-05-2012, 08:18 PM

Well the election now moves to NH and this is the moment when we will see in Rick can muster support or not?

The most important factor in the race right now is money.

Rick needs a lot of money, so much that at every event in the next few days he has got to raise some cash.
rick also has to start really working the phones to try to get the endorcements he needs to swing voters away from Mitt.

The first thing Rick really has to do is look real hard at the numbers coming out of Iowa and think about how to use them.

Lets look at Iowa and see what it could mean under the right circumstances in NH...

Mitt Romney only got 24% of the Iowa vote after out spending everyone else in the race...at times he was out spending 10 to 1.

24% is what Mitt has been stuck at for months.
No matter what happened to anyone else in this race, Mitt was stuck at 24%.

This hints that 24% might actually all Mitt can expect from the Republican voters, and so this means that there is a HUGE number of solidly "Anyone but Mitt" type of people out there that are voting, and are unmoved by all of Mitt's organization and cash.

Ron Paul got over 21% of the Iowa vote.
Ron has enough money, enough organization and support within the younger members of the Party to stay in this until the ending.

21% is higher that i would have expected...and shows just how loved the guy is among the Party members.
There is very little chance Rick can grasp the Ron Paul voters unless Ron hits some type of self-destruct and drives his own supporters away.

So Ron Paul's 20% is spoken for and off the table

Newt Gingrich got around 13% of the Iowa vote.
This is what Rick has to get on the phone with Newt and get that guy to drop out after next week.
Rick needs every last one of the people who support Newt.
If Rick and cut a deal/push Newt into dropping out after NH votes, then it would show that Rick is ready for the hard battles and arm-twisting in Washington that is part of being President.

Newt and getting Newt to drop out next week, is how we will learn how forceful Rick can be.
Rick needs to look Newt in the eyes and tell him that "It's over. It's been fun, but now it's time for you to throw your support to me, then get off the stage"

Time will tell is Rick has the stones to do this?

Rick Perry has sorta dropped off the radar already.
But Perry still has an important role to play in this election.Perry has to stand on a stage and offer his supprt to Rick,,,then Perry has to work in SC to bring in the strong Christian vote for Rick.

In SC, it would be in Rick's interest to allow Perry to introduce him at a few stops.

Michele Bachmann is holding out for a cabinet position.
Im thinking that she wants Rick to offer her the *** of Sec Of State or Defense.
Michele has been playing it very cool the last few days....and thats got to worry Rick.

Rick needs Michele to help him connect with the Tea Party...
I think the Tea Party has been sitting around waiting for people to start paying attention to them, and that the spark they need would be to see Michele Bachmann surround herself with all the Tea Party leaders and then put her endorsement to Rick...

Rick needs it to look like the Tea Party has officially got behind him.

So to sum up:
Iowa showed us a path that Rick needs to walk if he wants to have any chance at all of overcoming Mitt's cash.
Rick needs to get all the other conservatives in the race to drop out and swing their support and CASH to him....
Rick needs every last dollar they can give him, and every last vote they can swing his way.

Things to look for this week?

Rick needs to get Michele Bachmann to come out strongly supporting him as soon as it can be done.

Next Rick needs a statement of support from Perry.

and after that?
Then Rick has to call Newt after NH votes and tell Newt that "It's time to go"

alanmolstad

01-05-2012, 08:31 PM

[QUOTE] So, you can forgive one of adultery and being changed, but the other, you cannot forgive because it smells fishy to you. ))

Yes,
I can forgive anyone and know my offer of forgiveness is for the best because I can see the honesty of man's words when speaking about his better half.

Does this mean he cant fall again?
No....

Heck the smart money is on Newt falling again in his relationships with his woman....

But i judge the man's heart as sinsere and so I forgive him if he asked me to.

But remember,,,,no matter I forgive his chealing on his wife or not, I dont take his sex life into account when thinking of who i want as President.

Newt could cheat tomorrow, or do other things in his personal life I disagree with, and yet it would be a moot point to the question "Should he be President?"

I allow Newt is private life....
Im not interested in Newt's faith.
Im not interested in his marriage.

Im only interested in Newt's goals for this country should he become president.
Im only interested in Newts political track record with the core issues I think are most important in this election....(abortion, prayer, etc)

As for the smell that I detect Mitt giving off everytime he talks about his many flip-flops?

It's part of the whole issue that Conservatives like myself have with Mitt....

It's not just me,,,,there are a lot of voting members of the Republican Party that look at Mitt and just see "insincerity" and "political expediency"