Jump to content

Ron Paul Courts Mormon Voters In Nevada


CQUIRK

Recommended Posts

Here...

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is courting Mormon voters in the heavily Mormon populated state of Nevada, as the candidates prepare to shift their focus from Florida to Nevada, which holds its caucus voting on Saturday.

Mr. Paul’s ability to win over Mormon voters will be essential in Nevada, where in 2008, 25 percent of the caucus voters were Mormons, according to a U.S. News and World Report article published Monday.

The front running Republican candidate Mitt Romney is expected to get the majority of Mormon voters though, as 90 percent of Mormon voters in the 2008 Nevada Republican caucuses voted for the former Massachusetts governor.

“You cannot grow up in the church and not hear of and be taught that the Constitution is an inspired document,” said Connor Boyack, a Mormon that runs the Utah Tenth Amendment Center told U.S. News and World Report. “And when it comes to who best supports and defends the Constitution, Ron Paul is that guy.”

The Texas congressman has consistently ran his campaign based on his core belief in of government being limited and strictly constitutional. Mr. Paul is a constant preacher of individual liberties. He believes programs like Preisident Barack Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act should be repealed.

Mr. Paul’s campaign has a Facebook page dedicated to how his legislation benefits Latter Day Saints called the Latter Day Saints for Ron Paul page. The page has received 1,473 likes by Facebook users, and currently has 344 people talking about it on Facebook.

The page also reads: “Ron Paul preserves, protects, defends LDS constitution view.”

Mormons consider the Constitution to be extremely important as far as defending their freedom of religion. The Constitution is also mentioned in the Mormon church doctorine.

“Members of the LDS church make up one of those important coalitions, all of which are great assets in this campaign. Dr. Paul’s message resonates with everyone who believes in the principles he espouses: limited government, personal and economic liberty,” said Gary Howard, a spokesman for Mr. Paul.

Mr. Romney has rarely mentioned his religion in his campaign speeches, and there is no mention of his Mormon faith anywhere on his presidential campaign website.

In contrast, Mr. Paul’s campaign team posted the U.S. News and World Report article entitled “Ron Paul’s Appealing to Mormons,” to his presidential campaign website.

The Texas Republican is hoping that a victory or top tier finish in Nevada will help his candidacy hopes for winning the Republican nomination in 2012. While his rival candidates await the results of the Florida Republican election on Tuesday, Mr. Paul will give an election night speech in Las Vegas.

He's got my vote. :good:

And unlike what one idiot monster blogger here claims, this is not a pro-Romney article 8P

Link to comment

Which Constitution, the one that didn't gave full citizenship to "Free Persons" or the one that did?

Which Constitution, the one that had the Prohabition of alcohol or the one that removed it?

Which Constitution, the one that gave women the franchize or the one that didn't?

Which Constitution the one that gave 18 year olds the right to the franchize or the one that didn't?

Link to comment

Which Constitution, the one that didn't gave full citizenship to "Free Persons" or the one that did?

Which Constitution, the one that had the Prohabition of alcohol or the one that removed it?

Which Constitution, the one that gave women the franchize or the one that didn't?

Which Constitution the one that gave 18 year olds the right to the franchize or the one that didn't?

The Lord gave His approval to the Constitution as it stood in 1836. I don't know if He still approves of it as it stands today.

Women did not need the USmerican Constitution to give them the franchise: individual states had that power, and many of them exercised it long before Congress intervened. Eighteen-year-olds were in the same position. States could have enfranchized them, but, having become used to the Feds stepping on their rights, they waited. (It is not proven that today's 18-year-olds arequalified to vote, having, themselves, become used to having other people tell them what to do.) The rationale used for granting them that right was that young men of that age were required to "die for their country", so they ought to be able to help determine who sent them to war. That logic no longer (and should never have) applies.

Slavery was a state issue, too, and many states had outlawed it long before 1861. The others would have followed suit when it became even more apparent that slavery is a loser, economically. But the Constitution did lay the ground work for abolition.

Prohibition and its repeal were a great failure, one compounded by the War on Drugs (and the families of people who use them).

If the Lord says He raised up wise men specifically for this purpose, and that He justifies us in befriending the Constitution, it seems dangerous to question that counsel.

77 According to the laws andconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

• • •

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

Abusing the power ceded to the state and to the republic by the constitutions, and over-stepping the bounds set therein is treason. All office-holders, elected and otherwise (as far as I know) have taken an oath to uphold the Costitution (and those of their states, if appropriate). Those who over reach, who disregard, who trample the Document are oath breakers, and deserve the worst fate possible. I wish them no good.

Lehi

Link to comment

Slavery was a state issue, too, and many states had outlawed it long before 1861. The others would have followed suit when it became even more apparent that slavery is a loser, economically. But the Constitution did lay the ground work for abolition.

Lehi

Not likely (emphasis mine). Southern states succeeded from the Union because of slavery, and they were not getting close to outlawing it, in fact they were looking for expanding it as states came into the Union. Bleeding Kansas was a result of trying to have states decide on slavery (popular sovereignty) as slave proponents (ruffians) snuck into Kansas from Missouri to violently harass those against slavery. I disagree with you as far as southern states are concerned. Furthermore the Dred Scott Decision made slavery a federal issue along with an individual state issue.

Link to comment
Not likely (emphasis mine). Southern states succeeded from the Union because of slavery, and they were not getting close to outlawing it, in fact they were looking for expanding it as states came into the Union. Bleeding Kansas was a result of trying to have states decide on slavery (popular sovereignty) as slave proponents (ruffians) snuck into Kansas from Missouri to violently harass those against slavery. I disagree with you as far as southern states are concerned. Furthermore the Dred Scott Decision made slavery a federal issue along with an individual state issue.

You seem to have missed the part where I said it would become obvious that slavery is (and it always has been) an economically unviable situation.

Whatever racist people may have said under that condition, it would not have been sufficient to allow slaverty to continue if it didn't make the owners more money. A thousand slaves could not harvest the cotton one cotton harvester can. And the harvester doesn't require food, clothing, or shelter when there is no cotton to harvest. A hundred slaves could not make as many nails as a single nail making machine can, and it works night and day costing nothing to operate except power and steel. Thomas Jefferson employed two slaves making nails, and he lost money at it, even though they were fairly efficient at their jobs.

No chattel slave has an incentive to produce any more than will keep the master of his back. If the master does get on his back, the slave is made less efficient because the injuries sustained make him unable to work as well as he did when he was shirking.

Slaves require overseers and taskmsters. They cost money. Slave require chains and shakles. They cost money. Slaves require food, clothing and shelter. They cost money. Slaves get sick, and the master has to take care of them to protect his investment in them. Slaves must eat, and the master must feed them to keep his investment in them from disappearing.

The costs of slavery were (and are for Islamic and African slavery) high and the benefits low.

Slavery is economically unrewarding. Wage labor would have destroyed slavery without a single shot's being fired, much less a million men killed and wounded.

The Constitution provided a means by which slavery could have ended, and would have ended without Lincoln's useless war. Daniel Webster's "Union now, union forever" diatribes and Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin were inflammatory and led directly to those deaths. Within forty years of Appomattox Courthouse, steam power and electrical generation started becoming common enough to do away with that evil. Even before then, the obvious benefits to their employers of wage labor over slavery would have contributed to slvery's withering on the vine.

Lehi

Link to comment

Lehi,

I see your point and in much of it I agree with. My point was simple at the time of the outbreak of the Civil War, it was slavery that caused the war. The antebellum period was a very divisive time between the North and South. Slavery was on the decline until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and then it sparked back up.

You seem to have missed the part where I said it would become obvious that slavery is (and it always has been) an economically unviable situation.
Slavery has not always been "an economically unviable situation" if so all whom have ever used slaves would not have done so, (note, I abhor slavery).

Just saying...

Link to comment

Lehi:

Why wouldn't he? It still gives the basic structure of our form of government, and tells us the rules our government has to live by.

Appearently Utah didn't get the message. When it became a state women lost the franchize.

Appearently 18 years olds needed a Constitutional Amendment to vote.

See Article one section four, and Article four Section two of US Constitution.

Who died and gave you the authority to determine whom is "qualified to vote". 18 years are mature enough to die for this country but according to you they are too stupid to have a say in who sends them off to die. BTW that parallels the inciped argument against giving women the vote. They were too stupid, and too used to having their husband think for them to allow them to vote.

Yah ahuh. The South cesseedd to make sure the blacks got their Constitutional rights. All they really wanted was to make sure that blacks got to vote. What planet do you live on? It took another century of Jim Crow for northern whites to finally see the need for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Ron Paul and his racist acolytes still haven't gotten the message after nearly 50 years.

One small flaw in your analogy Prohibition was in the Constitution. The War on Drugs is not. I agree that Prohabition was a classical failure, and from all appearences so is/will be the War on Drugs.

Such power was not invested exclusively in the states. Congress according to the US Constitution may at various times changes state/national laws governing elections, and voting rights. To say nothing of Constitutional Amendments that mandate such changes.

I too have sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution, including state a constitution, and a county constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is not my argument. My argument is that you neither get to decide whom that enemy is, nor what steps you may take to effect any action against that enemy.

Ps. As for Slavery being economically unviable. It sure has lasted for thousands of years and is still practiced illegally in the US.

Link to comment
Appearently Utah didn't get the message. When it became a state women lost the franchize.
That wasn't Utah's fault, that was a requirement by the Federal Government in order for Utah to become a state.

I think 18 year olds who enter the military should have the right to vote. As to the rest....I am iffy. If they are dependent on others, if they spend most of their time partying and not going out adult activities I personally wouldn't want someone like that helping to make decisions for the rest of us.

PS: I am not proRon Paul. I have had relatives that have attempted to work with him on certain projects and the result makes me highly doubt his actual personal ethics.

Link to comment

calmoriah:

So the Federal Government does have the Constitutional authority to overide individual state laws on voting.

Why not 18 year olds that joined the Peace Corp, or 18 year olds that joined political campaigns, or 18 year olds that worked in an essential industry, or 18 year olds that wanted to complete their education and become medical doctors. Why allow "adults" that drink themselves into oblivian every weekend the vote. Why allow Mormons the vote after all they'll just vote how their prophet tells them. Why allow Catholics the vote they'll just vote how their Pope tells them. The list is endless in both directions.

I'm not a supporter of any political candidate. This election for me is just about like every other election I've ever voted in. I'll vote for the lessor of two evils to hopefully prevent the greater evil of the two from winning. I am often disappointed

Link to comment

calmoriah:

So the Federal Government does have the Constitutional authority to overide individual state laws on voting.

I'm not arguing whether it does or doesn't. Just pointing out a fact.

Why not 18 year olds that joined the Peace Corp, or 18 year olds that joined political campaigns, or 18 year olds that worked in an essential industry, or 18 year olds that wanted to complete their education and become medical doctors.

Please read what I said.
Link to comment

An important issue to the slave states was that slavery continue to expand, because it would eventually die unless it did expand. This has been demonstrated by a number of historians. The slaveholding states insisted that a slave state be admitted to the Union for every non-slave state admitted. And we drew nearer to the Civil War when this did not happen.

Lehi, I agree with you usually, but not in the case of "Mr. Lincoln's war."

Lincoln did not agree with slavery, personally. He said one time:

Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

But while he opposed slavery, his Job No. 1 was preservation of the Union. He also said:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

If he had not waged war on the South after secession, and won it, then the Union would have been broken, and irreparably so. This, I believe, was contrary to God's intent.

Link to comment

Stargazer:

I don't agree it was/or economically unviable. It still happens even today in the US albeit illegally. Minimal imputs(substandard housing, substandard clothing, substandard food, no educational opportunities, no opportunities for economic progression, no ability to safely leave) and nearly unlimited profit.

There was one advantage to the slave. They had to feed you. Dead slaves didn't produce anything, and cost money to replace. Today if you are an wage slave you aren't even guaranteed to get fed by your corporate owners, and there are at least 5 more just like you to take your place. IE. Apply to Walmart for a job. You get an application for a job alright, and an application for Food Stamps at the same time as well.

Ps; I'm not picking on Walmart they are not alone in this practice. But the Waltons combined are the richest family in the US and maybe even the world.

Link to comment

Stargazer:

I don't agree it was/or economically unviable. It still happens even today in the US albeit illegally. Minimal imputs(substandard housing, substandard clothing, substandard food, no educational opportunities, no opportunities for economic progression, no ability to safely leave) and nearly unlimited profit.

There was one advantage to the slave. They had to feed you. Dead slaves didn't produce anything, and cost money to replace. Today if you are an wage slave you aren't even guaranteed to get fed by your corporate owners, and there are at least 5 more just like you to take your place. IE. Apply to Walmart for a job. You get an application for a job alright, and an application for Food Stamps at the same time as well.

Ps; I'm not picking on Walmart they are not alone in this practice. But the Waltons combined are the richest family in the US and maybe even the world.

Well, let me say that it was Lehi who claimed slavery was economically unviable, not me. Not saying that I diagree with him, but you'll have to lock horns with him over that.

The rest of your post sounds like it came straight out of the Occupy Wallstreet movement, begging your pardon.

You think it was an advantage to the slave that his owner had to feed him? I call BS on that one.

I shall drop by Walmart this afternoon in order to see if they do indeed include food stamp apps with their employment apps. I shan't hold my breath.

So-called "wage slavery" is not slavery. A subsistence farmer out in the middle of the wilds of Somalia might be characterized as a slave, in a figurative sense, because the moment he stops his unremitting labor he dies from starvation, and he has little enough choice, but he is not a slave, really. And a Walmart employee is perfectly capable of leaving minimum-wage employment at Walmart and entering minimum-wage employment somewhere else, or perhaps, find a job where the skills required are not possessed by 90% of the population, and be paid more. In a market-driven free enterprise society, those in jobs requiring only common skills are generally paid lower wages than those in jobs requiring scarcer skills. If you think this is unjust, and nuclear physicists should be paid the same as store clerks, well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think this would work, somehow.

Link to comment

The Lord raised up wise men to establish a constitution. The Constitution of the United States is a product of wise men seeking to avoid the pitfalls of a monarchy. Thus, we have 3 seperate but equal branches of Government, and states that retain certain rights. However, the creation of the Constitution was a result of debate and compromise. The last time I looked, scriptures were not created by that process.

Reading Section 101 of the Doctrine and Covenants in context does not lead one to the place some Latter-day Saints seem to be headed. It leads to a respect for the Rule of Law and a desire for a fair and just social order.

Link to comment

Here...

He's got my vote. :good:

And unlike what one idiot monster blogger here claims, this is not a pro-Romney article 8P

While his fiscal policies are sound his foreign policy is abyssmal. I cannot imagine Dr. Paul being able to work with our international allies.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Anijen
      In reading some of the posts involving crimes [sexual assault], allegations, [Kavanaugh, President Russel Topic], or even controversial subjects such as Climate Change, Book of Mormon Geography, etc.. I have thought to myself there are a lot of faith based concepts juxtaposed up to scientific method and actual evidence. I'd like to discuss both and how it might affect our concept of that topic and what we take away.
      Personal belief systems can take root at a very early age, sometimes as a part of our cultural or ethnic identity. As a result, they are almost impossible to remove without eroding the soil of substance that gives one both a sense of identity and purpose. However, also true, as a consequence, most will not surrender a deeply held personal belief for fear it could lead to their spiritual loss or death. There is nothing wrong with personal beliefs. I, for one, am deeply faithful and active in church. Each person finds meaning and purpose in their own way and that is how it should be. There is a difference between faith and scientific method and reason. Personal faith is not a problem unless it gets in the way of objective forensic investigation and examination.
      For example; using faith based reasoning (let's say using the Bible to prove a point), the premise of an argument and the conclusion are a matter of personal belief and subsequently often considered above criticism. Those who question the premises of such beliefs, religious and otherwise dogmatic, are labeled heretics or worse. I have been called an apostate for not subscribing to a heartland theory, a racist for objecting to a safe-place policy, a climate denier for even questioning global warming (which I know there is climate change, my interests is, is it really all just man made?), a racist and a bigot for disagreeing about kneeling as a protest, a chauvinist pig for thinking men and woman are different and we should use the appropriate public bathrooms.  
      In faith and personal belief, there is little room for critical thinking and no place for doubt. As a consequence, the nature of faith runs contrary to knowledge building. My faith tells me men and women are both children of God and are different from each other, science also tells me there is a biological difference too. We still have debates to how we should act and even appropriate ways to speak. For example is refusing to bake a cake with a message one does not believe in compelling speech?
      Questions, questions, questions... When is testify via faith and testify via science appropriate and acceptable and when is it not?
    • By bcuzbcuz
      This evening, the returns are in. The "Sweden Democrats", Sweden's neo-nazi party, have won 13% of the federal election vote. Roughly 85% of the population have voted. The nine major parties have collected only enough votes to, almost exactly down the middle, split power between the right coalition and the left coalition.. And guess who gets to sit in the middle of the balance, the neo-nazis.
      All of you who said that socialism would lead to ruin, were right.
      Both left and right coalitions have said they'll have nothing to do with the SD's but time will tell. Me, I'm a pessimist. It can only get worse. The end of times is upon us.
    • By volgadon
      http://mormonliberals.org/marriner-eccles/
      A very good friend of mine wrote a fascinating piece on Mariner Eccles, one of the more influential Mormons in the 20th century, and sadly much-neglected now.
      The bit about Mariner and Reed Smoot during the depression is particularly revealing of the political and economic dynamics at play in the church.
    • By CQUIRK
      Here.
      IMO, these people are no better then the Westboro Baptist Church; both are vile, slanderous, and will go to the extreme to "further" their agenda.
×
×
  • Create New...