straightup

It's hard watching debates and getting to really see a candidate when there are so many of them and they each have approximately 30 seconds to respond. It also causes people to sit around and not make up their mind, because they rest their decision upon the masses.

When should someone who has never received more than 3% of the votes anywhere, or someone who has experience a major fall with no hope of getting back up, step down and throw their support behind someone else? Should that never occur, because anyone who wants to run should be allowed to? I'm not sure where I really stand on this, but thought I would see what others had to say.

I'm not necessarily a supporter of Romney (actually a registered Democrat), but most of the things people allege he has flip-flopped on I don't think he has. Most of the time he has changed his position, or possibly evolved, which is much different than flip-flopping (which means going back and forth). I know I've certainly evolved over the last 10 years politically.

I don't think he has flip-flopped on abortion, gay rights, immigration, or anything else, but would certainly be open to some evidence that he has. Please provide supporting links so I can check it out. Thanks.

I don't have anything against Thompson, but it does strike me as odd/interesting that he is receiving such high numbers and support without anyone knowing what he's about or anything (clearly there are those that do know what he's about, but I've read quotes in articles and people are holding him up on a pedestal without knowing anything). Is this bothersome? Does is at all scare anyone to think Thompson is taking votes away from qualified candidates without proving his own qualifications? Is it because he's an actor and that alone makes people think he's like Reagan? That's my guess, which would be a shame. Any thoughts?

I understand that some of the spending measures inserted into bills are good or beneficial, but I would like to see more transparency. I think of this because of the Iraq funding bill presented to the President by the Democrats. Would the Democrats not look better if they didn't fill the bill with all sorts of unrelated spending? Aren't they just giving the President rationale for vetoing? Why aren't they lauding the other points of the bill, or do they feel safer keeping it silent because most of these benefit constituents (buying votes)? The American people just seem to only get a slice of the picture, most of the time. This goes on with both parties, no one is exempt.

It is interesting to me that older generations are much more conservative. Also, I have found in my own life and in the lives of those I have grown up with that the older we get the more conservative we get on certain issues. I have considered myself a Democrat my whole life (although I don't vote party-line and will vote for the best individual), but I find myself leaning more conservative on some issues. I have my own theories on this, but would like to hear other's thoughts.

According to a new Harris Poll, 50% of Americans would not vote for Hillary. That is crazy, it's not even good amongst Democrats...and she's their frontrunner. Should the Democratic party be really worried about her winning the nomination? Do you think someone else will win the nomination? Why are so many people unwilling to vote for Hillary? I know, a lot of questions. I think it's funny also, because it has been brought up that 30% of Americans wouldn't vote for a Mormon (re: Romney) and how that would hinder him, but this is much worse, because it's personally about her, something much more difficult to overcome.

There was a letter/opinion to the editor or something in an Oregon newspaper that stated how they are required for their job to take a monthly urine test. They went on to state that in order to earn a wage they take drug tests, and his taxes pay for welfare recipients, so why not make they, who are recipients or our hard labor, also take drug tests. They emphasized they don't have a problem helping the poor and needy, but do mind helping those that aren't helping themselves. Any thoughts?

The gallup poll found in the link below has some interesting findings. "These responses suggest that the negative impression held by many [about Mormons] may be a fairly straightforward result of disagreements on doctrine."

Because someone disagrees with another on doctrinal matters do they look negatively upon the other? Wouldn't that be wrong? In a country that prides itself in diversity and freedom to practice one's religion are people negatively judging people based on their individual beliefs? And not just based on their beleifs, but on the fact that they don't hold their beliefs.

Another interesting part of this poll was the most common thing that came to peoples minds was polygamy, which hasn't even been practiced in the Mormon church for nearly 120 years. Apparently people still think it happens. Odd.

What makes our country great is the diverse views and beliefs. I don't judge someone because of their belief and respect all people.

Harry Reid is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader; a strong and outspoken Democrat. He also happens to be a Mormon. I've seen a lot of people questioning whether Mitt Romney could be elected because he's Mormon and was just wondering if it was ever an issue with Sen. Reid. Anyone know? It obviously wouldn't be an issue with Orin Hatch, because he's from Utah. I personall don't understand why it's an issue, as politics/government don't really mix, unless you consider their morals. The Mormon church doesn't tell you how to vote or what you must do, but tells its members to become educated and active in their communites, and in the end make their own decisions. I'm guessing Romney wouldn't be any different then Reid as far as the Mormon influence goes. I'm not sure why people think it would. Maybe just unfamiliarity with the Church and its members.

Honest question, just wondering if anyone may know if it came up with Reid.

Why do Asians meet or exceed the same levels of achievement as Caucasians, but other minorities have less success?

For example, results of studies regarding the success rate of students in grade school always show a large gap between Hispanic and African American students and Caucasion and Asian. Why do Asians, a minority group that has experienced great racism in the past (in America), including internments/slavery, etc., continually find success in all areas, yet other minorities don't?

I hope this doesn't come across racist or anything, because that's not my intention. I do think it would be beneficial to understand, to better enable us to provide the best resources to all citizens.

This is a serious question. I know pornography is discouraged in the Mormon faith, but is usually just mentioned when talking to the men, and that it could be destructive. But what if a couple wants to watch it together to add spice to their sex life (which is an important part of a relationship). Sex is meant to be an enjoyable and a bonding experience (in addition to the procreation thing), so what if it really helps? Hopefully I can get some genuine answers.

[I am an active Mormon and my wife is agnostic]

I am being serious...do you wipe from the front or from the back? And, what are the reasons for one way being preferred over the other? I was thinking about this because I'll soon be potty training a little boy and I recall having heard someone before mention there was a "correct" way.

If there was a channel that was called White Entertainment TV and only showed shows with all white people, etc., would it be considered racist? Likewise, if there was a "White History Month" would there be an uproar? I would hope not, but part of me thinks there would be.

I'm not racist, but think sometimes political correctness has gotten out of hand and that at times in the world there is reverse discrimination in the name of equality.

Again, I could care less either way, just wanted to some honest opinions out there. Thanks.

to win an Academy Award when she isn't full African American? Why wasn't she the first bi-racial American to win one?

I'm not being racist, but it seems odd.

I know Mormons pay 10% of their income for tithing (and I understand tithe actually means 10%), but do other religions have a tithe? Is it an optional thing? I guess it's always optional, as we have a choice, but you get the point.

I would especially like to know of those outside of christianity, because I am assuming most Christians believe this. If not, what Christian faiths do not?

I know Mormons and strict Therevada Buddhism, but I have heard of others, which I can't recall. What are they? Or do some just discourage getting drunk?

It seems that a lot of people, especially in the political and religious areas, are just looking for answers to support their beliefs, but don't want honest and sincere answers (the questions aren't sincere either). Are people really that insecure?

I never quite grasped this doctrine, that the wine and bread of the sacrament/eucharist become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus in your mouth. I know Catholics believe it, but am not sure if others do. Your thoughts?