Has anyone seen the video of McCain and his mother on a national TV show talking about Romnney and what he did for the Olympics? McCain's mother starts to go off on how the "Mormons" put the Olympics in the situation to have to have Romney come in and fix the problem and how it was all "the Mormons" fault everything went wrong. If you haven't seen the video its all over the internet.
So my question is this. As a state that is a red blooded republican state, is the LDS population still going to vote for a man who has a mother that is anti LDS? Yes it might be his mother and not so much him but to have his mother sitting right there next to him and have her go off on the LDS religion leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth. If you have not seen this video I really suggest that you go online and find the video. This man with his Mormon hating mom could be our next president and the worst part is you could be giving him your vote.

snoscythe wrote:

happyvalleycougar wrote:

Sure, you can call it discrimination if you want. I personally think you should look at all the candidates and see who best matches your views and vote for that person. Just a couple of weeks ago my Thesis advisor said "Well, I guess I know who you're voting for this election..." (I'm not at BYU) and I said I am voting for Romney, but not because of his religion, but because of his economic understanding.

I also don't believe that voting for Romney because he's LDS is equal to not voting for him because he's LDS. Going with the Ice Cream example. If I really like chocolate and someone asks me what flavor to get, I'll say chocolate, even if I might actually enjoy strawberry more (but I haven't tasted it). On the otherhand, if I tell someone, get anything but strawberry, because I've heard it's bad, that would be discrimination in my book. Again, I personally don't think you should vote for someone just because they are LDS, but that's not as bad as not voting for them because they are LDS.

The ice cream example is still discrimination, but not with all the negative connotations that we give to it. It is ignorant discrimination as opposed to willful discrimination.

Then everything is discrimination. I discriminate against politicians I think don't understand fiscal policy. When we say our favorite color is Blue, that's discrimination. So you are right, it still is discrimination to vote for someone because they're LDS, but not as bad as not voting for them because they are LDS.

Because this is Cougarblue, I will use a football example. I am fine with people cheering for the Utes... I don't agree with it, but I am fine with them. I don't enjoy people only cheering against the Cougars. I'm sure we've all complained that most Utes would rather BYU lose than Utah win. That's all I'm saying.

imuakahuku wrote:

jbar1221 wrote:

blue42 wrote:

Now this unofficial survey taken at BYU where 9 out of 10 said they are voting for Romney because he is Mormon I have to take with a grain of salt because I am pretty sure if you asked the same question on whether they would vote for Harry Reid if he was running for President you would probably get 9 out of 10 that would say no.

I imagine this is directed at my post. You took what I wrote out of context. Heres what I said jbar1221 wrote:

In my experience here at BYU 9 out of 10 of the people who gave this reason for voting for Romney had no idea what his platform was. There only reasoning was that a Mormon candidate is more fit for office BECAUSE he is mormon.

So what Im saying is in my experience people who supported Mitt because he was Mormon were ill informed as to policy, record, experience, etc. Now I thought I made it clear that this was MY experience and didnt try to generalize.

I still dont see the diference between supporting Mitt because he is Mormon and opposing him because of the same. I also think its ridiculous to support Hillary because she is a woman or Obama because he is Black. In the same way it is ridiculous to oppose them because of their gender and race. As for the assumption that BECAUSE Mitt is mormon members know what he believes in and can trust him. I have never had a Bishop use my idea of sound economic policy or health care reform to determine whether I am a good worthy member of the church. There are TOO many important aspects of a presidential campaign that are not covered by knowing he holds a temple recomend to base my support or opposition on his membership in the church.

For some though because he holds a temple recommend that is enough. He does not affiliate with all those things they say in the interview. Some people may not give a hoot about the war in Iraq or about healthcare or about the economic stance that he takes. Some people just want to eat chocolate ice cream.

So then why is it discrimination if I oppose Mitt because he holds a recommend??

I recall the exit polls for Utah were running 90% Romney in the Republican primary among Mormons. When analyzed further, it was clear that many remember what a great job Romney did with the Olympics, they remembered what Hucklebee said about Mormons and his overt bigotry, and they further cited that McCain has never had a following among Mormon Republicans. Romney was really the default candidate because he had done very well when in Utah with the Olympics and he wasn't the other candidates.

Obama did exceptionally well among Mormon Democrats as well, due to his positive speaking ability and because HE AIN'T CLINTON!!!

My personal experience in coming around to support Romney is this. I actually used his religion against him. I know he's an active Mormon and being Mormon myself, I would be branded as supporting him on that basis only. Plus, there were other candidates who had distinguished themselves at the national level already. It wasn't until I began seeing he was gaining the support of the conservative columnists who explained his platforms, his changes in light of what a Republican can and can't do in Massachussets, which I've lived and voted before so I knew what that meant and counted it a plus for Romney, and what he needed to do to attract a wider base than what he had to garner within the Mormon community and Massachussetts. Once I saw he had the mettle and policies that stood apart from his faith, then I came around and supported him as the best candidate in either party.

I hope others did the same thing, even if they didn't get to explain that when polled in the exit polls.

Here's a news release talking about a study about Romney.

So the point of this thread we can all take and sleep well at night is that everybody discriminates every single day they are alive. (I don't know if you can discriminate when you are dead, unless you discriminate against the other cemeteries by being buried at one and not the others.)

By the pure definition of discrimination if you choose to do one thing over the other you are discriminating against the things you do not choose. So when I go to the store and have a choice of which checkout line I get in, I will go to the smaller one, even though that always moves the slowest, because I am anti long lines and therefore I discriminate against long lines. There I said it and I am glad I finally got it off my chest, I HATE LONG LINES!!! So see we can nit pick anything we want and twist any definition to meet our agenda, which is discriminating against other agendas!!!!! Will it ever stop?? Oh the humanity. I think I am getting pretty dizzy on this ride.