If he did a valuable job, was he the recipient of welfare or was he receiving his due? Again: the troubling aspect of ffa's comments are that there is no justification for them whatsoever. He implies that anything government touches is tainted and corrupt, yet his own preferred candidate was a governor for goodness' sake!

I will be more than happy to denounce McMullin for a policy stand I don't care for or to criticize his background for acts he personally was involved in which were immoral but I refuse to participate in or do anything but denounce the use of character assassination and guilt by association such as in the claims made by ffa without justification. ffa has declared himself prosecution, judge, and jury and with only his own bias and opinion upon which to act. That directly flies in face of anything an Objectivist would do and I'm going to call him on it. I would expect nothing less if I - or anyone else in this forum - were to engage in the same.

You've proposed a scientific test: that Evan McMullin committed acts in any of three areas which disqualify him for eligibility in the race for President of the United States. That's fine. But you have rendered summary and prejudicial judgment on the man and admitted that you have no evidence to support your conclusion. And you want the rest of us here to support that kind of logical misbehavior? No. I've seen you argue logical points before of this very same nature that you now openly admit to violating. How disappointing.

The only problem I have with his timing is that it seems to be lacking in planning and wasteful. I could understand a patriot acting on his calling in a political situation like this election with 2 unacceptable candidates, but his background is as an insider, and his foreign policy proposals look like more neocon rubbish, and largely inadvisable. Johnson's foreign policy beats McMullin's to dust. Utah is a red red red state that would certainly have gone to Trump. McMullin's candidacy appears to be purposely handing Utah's electoral votes over to Hitlery.

Unfortunately, you might be hard pressed to find 50 million who even know what the Constitution is, anymore.

Probably any of the presidential candidates since the beginning has had some sort of intellectual irrationality or at least inconsistency ! What I would like this time is just to have the socialist tendencies at least slowed down and individual rights respected, and for our country to be respected by other countries and we respect them and their differences.

Hillary will sell me out for the biggest donor, and I dont even know who they are or what it will cost me. Trump at least spent his own money and doesnt NEED to do this at all- he has a good family, a nice business, and he should enjoy life now. I do believe him that he would like to protect the USA and inspire us to be great again. Call me a dumbass for thinking this, but its what I think. I could care less if he mouthed off in some locker room talk. That stuff happens all the time, but is hidden. Bill Clinton did worse than that, as a lot of actual presidents have in the past, but he was enabled by Hillary.

Excellent observation, nick. We have to judge the candidates on what they have done, not merely what they promise. Hitlery deserves to be executed for what she has done. Trump should have his day in court if anyone ever actually has evidence of any crime, and otherwise the so-called accusers should be treated as anyone else with a personal opinion- ignored by an unbiased media. But I predict that women will decide who to vote for based on fear, not with reason, and Hitlery will be elected by cowardly women voters, only to be removed from office having looted the white house (again) for less than a year.

Freedom, you do have a valid point. I would not go so far as to condemn him for that, but it seems a little antithetical to be for less government when you either have worked for said government or one of it's major recipients of it's largess.

They also get a lot of inside knowledge to bring back to the Mothership....

Thank you, sir. Some of the comments do seem to illustrate some questions for him, his timing is also suspect, basically jumping in after the primaries. If he is as dedicated to his principles, I have to wonder where he was at 2 years or so ago, and starting up then? If he was provable, checked and tested for a while, maybe he would have actually had a chance, this late in the game does seem to say "spoiler".

Blarman, I have know quite a few Mormons also, and they have always been a standoffish group. I delved into their religious structure and it is not very mainstream. I also subscribe to the rule that each person is individual, and own their own life in all respects, but also believe they are responsible for their actions. So, I cannot say Mormons are not responsible for their actions, in fact their standoffishness seems to be a result of owning their own actions. So, while I do not want to say they are a cult, they do have some of the traits assigned to the term. Although, in that respect, about 98% of social groups do. As far as espousing principles, I hesitate to rely on anything, anyone says anymore, as propaganda is in high regard in most circles today. Actions speak more to it, and I cannot say I have seen any negative actions from the Mormon community.

OK, blarman, I wasted time looking at McMullin's pages. He wants to increase the size of the military with no rational reason to do so. He wants to continue meddling in the business of other countries where there is no danger to America. He wants to continue neocon empire building which turns friends into enemies and passive enemies into active support of terrorism against Americans. His policies create problems where none existed before. His economic policies are completely non-existant. His policies are rubbish, and are quite predictable based on his career experience.

Well, it seems to my old tired brain that each and every one of the potential candidates brings their own brand of "grand dragon" with them. I just know Hillary Beast is so arrogant she will start/continue to do whatever she wants in open, and damn the law.

Nice! :)

May be, his connections to Washington are undeniable.

Uh, you and about 50 million others, maybe. The politicos are a special species that are immune from all the normal things that bother us mere mortals, and like the greek gods they pretend to be, any mortal getting mixed up with them ends up either rich or dead.

Kennedy groped and drowned a woman, and went on to a 40 year powerful political career.

No backing off, blarman. You are welcome to your opinion. He has admitted to being a CIA agent. He has admitted to working to assist Goldman Sachs and the GOP in the Committee on Foreign Relations. I do not trust anyone who has been looting the people by working for the CIA, helping steal from people working for Goldman Sachs, and assisting government in their efforts to take away my liberty. Then without any experience outside this he wants to be trusted as president? Rubbish.

Thanks for the humor.... :-)

In Las Vegas, the mormon leadership is pretty open about affecting local government to BAN what they call sex clubs and private parties where consensual sex was allowed. And this was to be done through government power. Thats using government power to enforce their beliefs. Its right out in the open here, with the grand local dragon himself saying that if they werent illegal already, they should be made illegal.

I say thats wrong, and its a specific example of what I am talking about with the mormon leadership. Just like with anything else, I have had mormons tell me that they are mormon, "but they do other things..."

For a long time they hated blacks and wouldnt allow them to even be in the church (they gave up on that however ). They do hate gays, and the families of people who come out are instructed to disown them and not have contact with them (I personally know several gay people who have had this experience).

Maybe you are mormon, which is why you defend mormonism so much. If so, I am sorry I offend your sensibilities, but these are my thoughts on the subject and I should be allowed to express them. Note that this does not infringe on any human rights of you or mormons in general. I would never chase them across the USA as happened years ago, and I could care less what their beliefs are, so long as they basically dont use government to enforce them on me.

Actually I can understand why mormons band together and try to get into government positions. Its a protective measure to keep from having what happened years ago repeated. I get it. But I didnt chase them from state to state to get rid of them in the past, and they have nothing to fear from me. I just dont feel comfortable with a card carrying mormon being in a position of power over me. Thats all..

:-)

-1 and more if I could. That's worse than speculation. That's outright accusation and incrimination and I'll ask you to present your evidence of direct culpability immediately or retract your statements in full. We deal in FACTS here. Link to an article that specifically supports any of the claims you have made here. What you are engaging in is nothing short of character assassination by association. You've stuck your neck out. Time to either pony up or back off.

Of course they use their influence to affect public policy! Everyone does and to infer that someone shouldn't should shock anyone on this forum! Such an argument can easily be turned around as an argument against freedom of speech. I reject all such claims that only certain people - like the ones you agree with - are entitled to participate in public policy discussions. And you should absolutely reject such notions as well. You don't have to agree with them - that is different. But to criticize them for being politically active when there are so many "sheeple" in this nation? I wish there were MORE people who knew what they stood for and were willing to lawfully and reasonably participate in the political process!

"There are documentaries that show how it IS a cult, but I havent been close enough to personally see that."

You seem to have obtained all your ideas by listening to their critics. You're a staunch Donald Trump fan. Imagine I'm a Hillary supporter and my opinions of Trump are only what I hear from the Hillary campaign. For the same reasons, I can't really fault you for having a negative opinion. I'm just asking whether or not you are willing to entertain the thought that you are only getting one side of the story. For the same reason that I would never allow a Catholic to tell me what and Objectivist believes, I want to hear what Mormons believe from their own mouths.

"their fiscal ideas are quite good, as are the family values they espouse. I just wouldnt want one to be president and be in a position to push their religious beliefs off on me or use their power to enforce them."

So just a question, but is that paranoia talking or a real concern? Because we've had religious Presidents all throughout our history and none of them have pushed religion from the pulpit... until Obama - and he's been pushing Islam. This question was also brought up specifically when Mitt Romney was running for president and I thought his statements on the matter were pretty clear and well-spoken (assuming McMullin holds to those statements). And when I really think about it, I can't say I'd mind having an honest person with conservative economic views as President. That would be a refreshing and welcome change! And someone who isn't constantly being badgered about sexual improprieties or other such distractions? Who instead of wasting press time and considerable resources defending himself or herself from the scandal of the day could actually get to the issues? I'm really starting to like such an idea.

"Plus the fact that it is a "religion" based on fixed ideas sent down from some prophet and enforced by the grand dragon in salt lake city."

Did you know Harry Reid - a Nevadan - is a Mormon (or claims to be)? If he is any indication of Mormons' "taking orders", I'd say you're pretty safe.

"I am very tolerant of other religions like mormonism"

Really? You'll pardon my skepticism, but your repeated use of words to describe them like "cult" and "grand dragon" lead me to conclude very differently. If you want to show tolerance, the first thing would be to stop using terms like those which have a decidedly negative - and quite frankly offensive - connotation.

"I can be friends with mormons, but I would have to realize that whatever their religion told them to do, thats what they would do regardless of rationality"

They have closely-held beliefs just like you do. And they are entitled to them under the First Amendment just like you are entitled to yours. As to their rationality, again, it seems rather premature to judge their precepts when you don't really even know what they are. That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a reasoned objection. I think a more rational decision would be to look at the principles they espouse and go from there.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Me dino threw my Roll Tide cap into the ring just yesterday!
Just looked around to say, "Oh, yeah, there you are" to the little brown U.S. Constitution paperback WITHIN REACH OF MY (politically incorrect) PC!
Never done those bad things and even my ex has a high opinion of me.
You can't beat that with a stick and I've only used one to whack a couple of convicted felon inmates within a 21-year career.
Dino For Defense (with reasonable restraint).
To paraphrase what a woman says in the samurai classic Sanjuro, "A good stick stays in its baton ring."
I couldn't find a clip of "A good sword stays in its scabbard" but I did find this (just wait for the sound) for you to enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NNaj...
Wasn't that just peachy keen?
Furthermore, me dino done fired two rounds (one bullet for each escape attempt) to keep a total of three inmates from escaping over the years.
Dino For Border Control!
I am old dino and I approve of this message.

His entire career is helping government agencies and a bankster looter that invade our privacy, unethically steal our assets, and steal our liberty. He has been a looter his entire adult life. What has he done in the private sector? Its not paranoid to suspect looters are up to no good. They have proven it repeatedly. McMullin expects support without showing any intention to reform? Not a chance.

So which specific actions concern you? That he worked at Goldman-Sachs? Your response here doesn't tell me your specific concerns with McMullin other than allusions to his work history. That's pretty paranoid imo.