Would you vote for a Mormon...

[JustAsIam77]

Ok. I'm voting for a Mormon. He's the lesser of two evils in my view. Obama is a communist.

That is the only sane conclusion one can come to after having done due diligence. Pro-life vs pro-abortion alone is enough of a reason for my vote.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Ok. I'm voting for a Mormon. He's the lesser of two evils in my view. Obama is a communist.

Obama is while many things certainly not a communist nor even a socialist (I'm supporting Romney BTW)-the left dislikes Obama for example on health care because Obamacare didn't have single-payer health care.

 

[AndOne]

I've since changed my stance on this issue. I will be voting for Romney.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Thoughts on Paul Ryan?

 

[Deano715]

I like Paul Ryan myself. I think he would be a strong leader. But im not sure the people want a strong leader.

 

[General Mung Beans]

My main wish is that the Romney-Ryan campaign would if they would seriously support deficit reduction would advocate cutting military spending also which makes up a fifth of our budget.

 

[JustAsIam77]

would advocate cutting military spending also which makes up a fifth of our budget.

You must be jesting, no?

 

[Amber Bird]

To be the President of the United States?

Of course! I'd vote for an atheist if they were qualified and I trusted they were honorable and fit for the job.

There's no religious test to be President of the United States.

 

[freezerman2000]

I'm with Amber Bird on this..We need to get the spending under control, and I just don't see BHO doing that.

 

[Amber Bird]

I think I left the wrong impression in my first reply. Yes, I'd vote for a Mormon. That was the OP question. However, I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney, who also happens to be a Mormon.

 

[Rhamiel]

i think it is kind of weird that there is no Protestant on the GOP ticket

 

[General Mung Beans]

You must be jesting, no?

If one is serious about cutting the budget, why should we not cut military spending too-cuts should be balanced not all in one area and none in the other. Most of America's current threats are being dealt with by drones and special forces not by massive presence on the ground. I don't think we need for example 13 carriers.

 

[General Mung Beans]

i think it is kind of weird that there is no Protestant on the GOP ticket

Depending on the President's real beliefs (I don't think his Muslim personally but either a Deist or an agnostic) there may be no Protestants on the ticket of either major party.

 

[JustAsIam77]

If one is serious about cutting the budget, why should we not cut military spending too-cuts should be balanced not all in one area and none in the other. Most of America's current threats are being dealt with by drones and special forces not by massive presence on the ground. I don't think we need for example 13 carriers.

The security of our nation is priority #1, Russia and China are ramping up their military while the Muslim nation of Iran is on the brink of a nuclear weapon not to mention N. Korea as a threat. I would rather sacrifice some of my impending Social Security and Medicare benefits, (that I have paid into for 42 years), than lessen the military might of the US by one iota.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

If one is serious about cutting the budget, why should we not cut military spending too-cuts should be balanced not all in one area and none in the other. Most of America's current threats are being dealt with by drones and special forces not by massive presence on the ground. I don't think we need for example 13 carriers.

Very simple: You can NOT take and hold ground with just Special Operations Forces and drones. You cannot force opposition away from a piece of ground with just Special Operations Forces and drones.

You need boots on the ground to do things like that...lots of them. Presently the US Army is down to 10 Active Combat Divisions, and the US Marines down to three Active Marine Expeditionary Forces (Division + augments), and we're about to lose some more forces.

The Mission of Special Operations Forces depends on the particular Special Operations Force involved.

Green Berets usually train indigenous forces to fight as either conventional or insurgent troops. A Special Forces ODA consists of 12 men.

SEAL teams do small scale operations.

Rangers and Force Recon Marines do larger unit commando type operations.

Delta and SEAL team 6 are counter terrorist oriented.

Air Force Pararescue and Combat Controllers rescue downed pilots, and serve as 'forward air controllers' with ground units respectively.

NONE of those Special Operations units are designed for large scale operations, and to use them as such is to abuse them. It takes MILLIONS of dollars to train a Special Operations Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman. To use them as regular line soldiers for any reason except an emergency is a waste.

You must also be aware that there are big differences between "Military Spending" and Defense Spending. There are ways to cut military spending without hurting national defense, but those are politically unworkable no matter who is in the White House. Nobody is going to pull all forces from Europe, Korea, and Japan, and many of the 135 countries in which we have troops based.

As for carriers, we actually have only 11 that are presently in service. As new ones are built, older ones will be retired. Enterprise (CV- 65) is scheduled for retirement as soon as the USS Gerald Ford (CVN-78) is constructed. We will retain only 11 active carriers. The fact is that the planet is covered with water, and carriers are the only way to project power at sea. Equipment wears out, but the oceans don't get any smaller.

Force structure is a problem. We've been involved in the so-called "War on Terror" for 11 years this coming October. Our combat involvement in Vietnam was for 12 years with a much larger force structure than exists today. This is why you have some combat brigades currently on their SEVENTH deployment. We're trying to do too much with the force structure that we have.

BTW, the 'Peace Dividend' that George H. W. Bush spoke of after the collapse of the Soviet Union was a great big myth. Our military spending actually went up. A large part of that is because we pay contractors to pay people $120,000/year (+benefits) to do a job that an Army Private can do for substantially less money.

i won't even go into what 'Political correctness' and attempts at social engineering do to the military budget. i can't go into that and maintain my decorum.

 

[General Mung Beans]

The security of our nation is priority #1, Russia and China are ramping up their military while the Muslim nation of Iran is on the brink of a nuclear weapon not to mention N. Korea as a threat. I would rather sacrifice some of my impending Social Security and Medicare benefits, (that I have paid into for 42 years), than lessen the military might of the US by one iota.

We are already secure in the conventional military sense, no power can even hope to invade us. The Russians and Chinese would remain inferior to us even if we were to reduce our strength-compare how many carrier groups we have (not counting our allies) to how many the Russians and Chinese have. And I already acknowledged the threat of North Korea. Incidentally I'm not opposed to Medicare and Social Security reform such as the Paul-Wyden plan or raising the retirement age but to address the deficit seriously at least two of the following options must be taken:

1. Reform Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security
2. Cut military spending
3. Raise taxes

 

[JustAsIam77]

We are already secure in the conventional military sense, no power can even hope to invade us. The Russians and Chinese would remain inferior to us even if we were to reduce our strength-compare how many carrier groups we have (not counting our allies) to how many the Russians and Chinese have. And I already acknowledged the threat of North Korea. Incidentally I'm not opposed to Medicare and Social Security reform such as the Paul-Wyden plan or raising the retirement age but to address the deficit seriously at least two of the following options must be taken:

1. Reform Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security
2. Cut military spending
3. Raise taxes

I agree with #1. The others no, especially raising taxes, that would reduce growth in the private sector not only with individuals but also the backbone of the economy which is small business. Think about it, with less taxation there is more revenue for business and individuals to spend thereby creating more jobs and economic growth, if the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the country were taxed at an inordinate rate of 50 percent of their income it would run the country for about 2 days, higher taxation will not solve the debt crisis.

 

[RisingSpirit]

All of the Elects don't vote for Mormon presidents.

 

[JustAsIam77]

All of the Elects don't vote for Mormon presidents.

I'm one of the elect and I'm voting for President not the pastor of my church, go back a couple hundred posts to see the same viewpoint by some other Reformed folks. To each his/her own, if you like the direction the country is going in by all means don't change the current Administration. One final thought, They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matt. 22:21

 

[General Mung Beans]

I agree with #1. The others no, especially raising taxes, that would reduce growth in the private sector not only with individuals but also the backbone of the economy which is small business. Think about it, with less taxation there is more revenue for business and individuals to spend thereby creating more jobs and economic growth, if the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the country were taxed at an inordinate rate of 50 percent of their income it would run the country for about 2 days, higher taxation will not solve the debt crisis.

I don't support raising taxes personally (except in the sense of overhauling the tax code by getting rid of loopholes and subsidies while reducing overall rates)-even with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and otherwise having an optimal situation, without Medicare reform deficits would rise unsustainably in a few decades.