Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

"We're threatened with the prospect of a Mormon mayor." - Rocky Anderson

Recommended Posts

Ummm, Rocky, you are, or at least you were, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'm always amazed (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that supporters of a particular party or candidate believe that the best way to garner support or to get elected is to ridicule a sizeable portion of the electorate.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Typical of politics. The LDS of the city should band together just to spite em. I don't know anything about these candidates, but there seems to be a bit of mud-slinging going on. What I find reprehensible about it is to move in or live in a primarily LDS area and then complain about it. No one made non-members move or live here.

Here is part of what is on Rocky's Facebook page "Now, we're threatened with the prospect of a Mormon mayor (Luz Escamilla), who seems willing to do the bidding of the church, the developers, and the bank where she has been employed (and which employs so many elected officials -- and not because they're bankers!)." So it's a throw the mud at all the Democratic pressure points and get some to stick with each Democrat reader type approach. Anyway, shame on Rocky. Just imagine if he did this to a Muslim candidate back east.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Disappointing:

I did not know Rocky Anderson was . . . like this.

I think it is appropriate to push back about this sort of thing.  Not to incite an online Outrage Mob.  Not to virtue signal.  But publicly addressing and repudiating open bigotry is an appropriate thing to do.  Kudos to Michelle Quist (the author of the above opinion piece), and the Trib, for addressing it.

I also recently came across this article by Dr. Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye (a Senior Lecturer in Asian Studies at the University of Auckland, with a research programme focused on global charismatic religion):

Dr. Inouye is, like Michelle Quist, a member of the Church.  Kudos to her for addressing the religious and racial bigotry inherent in the Book of Mormon musical.

I like that members of the Church, particularly women, are speaking out in defense of it, and against religious prejudice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is Michelle Quist virtue signaling, does she have an agenda that has nothing to do with the LDS? Considering the cherry-picking, whatever her motive it seems suspect.

Rocky Anderson: "Now, we're threatened with the prospect of a Mormon mayor (Luz Escamilla), who seems willing to do the bidding of the church, the developers, and the bank where she has been employed (and which employs so many elected officials -- and not because they're bankers!)."

Has Michelle Quist accurately represented Rock Anderson's statement with her cherry-picking of "For, if you haven’t heard, “We’re threatened with the prospect of a Mormon mayor.”

Has Rocky Anderson claimed no Mormon should be Mayor?

Should voters be concerned about a candidate that may show a propensity to do the bidding of special interest groups? I think voters should be concerned.

Edited by provoman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

nvm, I read it wrong.

Edited by longview

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ummm, Rocky, you are, or at least you were, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'm always amazed (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that supporters of a particular party or candidate believe that the best way to garner support or to get elected is to ridicule a sizeable portion of the electorate.

It didn't work too well for Hillary either.

This will be an interesting election 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Typical of politics. The LDS of the city should band together just to spite em. I don't know anything about these candidates, but there seems to be a bit of mud-slinging going on. What I find reprehensible about it is to move in or live in a primarily LDS area and then complain about it. No one made non-members move or live here.

Here is part of what is on Rocky's Facebook page "Now, we're threatened with the prospect of a Mormon mayor (Luz Escamilla), who seems willing to do the bidding of the church, the developers, and the bank where she has been employed (and which employs so many elected officials -- and not because they're bankers!)." So it's a throw the mud at all the Democratic pressure points and get some to stick with each Democrat reader type approach. Anyway, shame on Rocky. Just imagine if he did this to a Muslim candidate back east.

Welcome to daily business in the mission field. Out here it's more like "This fool actually believes in God!"

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Disappointing:

I did not know Rocky Anderson was . . . like this.

I think it is appropriate to push back about this sort of thing.  Not to incite an online Outrage Mob.  Not to virtue signal.  But publicly addressing and repudiating open bigotry is an appropriate thing to do.  Kudos to Michelle Quist (the author of the above opinion piece), and the Trib, for addressing it.

I also recently came across this article by Dr. Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye (a Senior Lecturer in Asian Studies at the University of Auckland, with a research programme focused on global charismatic religion):

Dr. Inouye is, like Michelle Quist, a member of the Church.  Kudos to her for addressing the religious and racial bigotry inherent in the Book of Mormon musical.

I like that members of the Church, particularly women, are speaking out in defense of it, and against religious prejudice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Rocky Anderson did respond (in the comments section):

Quote

 

It's unfortunate that yet another "journalist" at The Salt Lake Tribune has so little regard for the facts and is unwilling to engage in the slightest research before she stoops to her uninformed (and poorly written) ad hominem attacks -- while misleadingly omitting the rest of the sentence from which she cherry-picked a partial statement she used to set up the straw man she viciously attacks.

Here's the full statement, most of which Quist omitted: "Now, we're threatened with the prospect of a Mormon mayor (Luz Escamilla), who seems willing to do the bidding of the church, the developers, and the bank where she has been employed (and which employs so many elected officials -- and not because they're bankers!)."

That statement wasn't focused on religion. It was focused on whether the public interest is going to be betrayed, yet again, by a Utah politician beholden to special interests, including the Mormon Church.

Michelle, you're flat-out wrong about me having anything to do with the medical cannabis case recently before the Utah Supreme Court. I not only had nothing to do with that case; I virtually begged the citizens' group that brought it (without any lawyer representing them) to drop the case. Where DO you get your information?

How hard could it be for you to perhaps read the articles in the "newspaper" for which you write to determine that I'm handling a completely different case, in a different court, involving different issues relating to Prop. 2? And why do you fail to note in your personal attack piece that the LDS Church vehemently opposed Prop. 2 and, having lost when the people voted for Prop. 2, choreographed the undermining of the people's initiative? That's exactly the type of religious interference in all of our lives to which I object. It has nothing to do with one's religion. It has everything to do with abuse of governmental power.

Not only did you blow it (truly, pathetic journalism), but if you have an editor or fact-checker, he/she blew it as well.

You could have discovered the truth had you picked up the phone and called me, as I invited you to do on the Facebook page where you assured people you were going to write about this. Are you too busy writing fiction-as-fact to pick up the phone so you can get your facts straight? And perhaps get a handle on the subject you're writing about?

Where were you and your newspaper when Luz baselessly accused me of "attacking" her "from a racist perspective" -- then, when called upon it by OTHER journalists (not from the Tribune), refused to explain her accusation and said she had "no comment"? It's not newsworthy when a mayoral candidate makes such an accusation toward a former mayor, then cowardly tucks tail and runs, refusing to either explain her accusation or retract it and apologize?

Contrary to your malicious attack against me, my statements have nothing to do with bigotry. They have to do with the reality that our state is run by Mormons and, in large part, by the Mormon Church. Nine of 10 of our legislators are Mormon, way out of proportion to our population. Our entire congressional delegation is Mormon. (I have the same problem with our nation's Supreme Court being comprised of 6-out-of-9 Catholics. Don't you?! Or maybe you don't care about women's reproductive rights.)

Am I not free, without your baseless accusation of "bigotry," to call for elected officials who will not just blindly toe the Mormon Church's line? Your attack is like that "Gentiles" have faced since the time of Brigham Young. Speak the truth about religious domination and face scurrilous attacks by irresponsible journalists and others who seem content with religious oppression.

Where was Luz Escamilla when the Mormon Church announced its perverse, cruel proclamation that same-sex couples are "apostates" and that their children could not be baptized until, after 18, they left the home and renounced their parents? Did she utter one word in protest as an elected representative? Where was she when we were protesting Proposition 8 and the Mormon Church's role in that? (And where are your charges of "bigotry" when the Mormon Church has engaged in its mean-spirited bigotry toward the LGBTQ community?)

 

Quote

You need to read the rest of the sentence -- and even the rest of the post -- that Michelle Quist (dishonestly) omitted. I was simply talking about political domination by the church and developers.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Typical of politics. The LDS of the city should band together just to spite em. I don't know anything about these candidates, but there seems to be a bit of mud-slinging going on. What I find reprehensible about it is to move in or live in a primarily LDS area and then complain about it. No one made non-members move or live here.

I'm not sure the grievance is that there are a lot of members in Utah, or that the Church is headquartered in Utah.

Rather, I think the complaint/accusation is that politicians are or have been corrupted and/or unduly influenced by the Church and its members.  If such corruption is happening, then I would welcome complaints about it from those not of our faith.  However, I think the issue here is Rocky apparently making inflammatory and bigoted accusations against a political opponent based solely on her religious affiliation.

Quote

Here is part of what is on Rocky's Facebook page "Now, we're threatened with the prospect of a Mormon mayor (Luz Escamilla), who seems willing to do the bidding of the church, the developers, and the bank where she has been employed (and which employs so many elected officials -- and not because they're bankers!)." So it's a throw the mud at all the Democratic pressure points and get some to stick with each Democrat reader type approach. Anyway, shame on Rocky. Just imagine if he did this to a Muslim candidate back east.

Yes, the incongruity is . . . striking.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here's more from Rocky's response (smac, maybe you know more regarding the details he gives?):

Quote

 

First, Michelle Quist publishes online a factually erroneous piece, based on a partial sentence taken out of context and stating, falsely, that I was involved in the Utah Supreme Court case relating to medical cannabis. Then she gets skewered in the Comments for doing such an incompetent job as a journalist. Then, without acknowledging her error and making a "correction," she rewrites her hatchet job (which is slimy, but good for baiting clicks, the life blood of what remains of a once great, once independent newspaper) without acknowledging her earlier blatant factual errors. Such editorial revisionism reflects a lack of integrity.

If a lawyer misrepresented the truth or misleadingly used only a few words of a sentence to malign someone in court, he/she would be subject to a Bar complaint and possible discipline. But the standards at the Tribune are obviously much different.

Now, Quist has just compounded the error, by replacing the false reference to my representing people in the Utah Supreme Court action with another totally inaccurate representation. And she's a BYU-educated lawyer! How tough can it be for her to get it right about a couple lawsuits?

In her "replacement" piece, she writes: "Rocky is a main driver behind a case in federal court that argues the state violated the Constitution when the Legislature amended Proposition 2. But a similar case just lost in front of the Supreme Court last month. He probably blamed the ruling on the justices' church membership." What a hack as a "journalist"! These are not similar cases at all. And I didn't blame the ruling on the justices' church membership. The idea never crossed my mind. Quist's ramblings and speculations are the product of someone with an irrational persecution complex, not caring about the truth so long as she can malign the target of her religiously-based venom.

Contrary to Quist's irresponsible, baseless speculations, I actually agreed with the Utah Supreme Court's ruling in that case. Quist could have discovered that if she'd just picked up the phone and called me, like most journalists do before they publish their speculations about what another must be thinking or feeling.

Quist's big lie: I never attacked anyone for her religion. If Quist had bothered to read, or at least refrain from omitting the rest of my sentence, I was pointing out that we don't need any more Utah politicians who do the bidding of the dominant Church (even a non-Mormon like Deedee Corradini, who sold a block of our City's Main Street to the Mormon Church) or developers.

If Paul Rolly were writing for the Tribune, instead of people like Michelle Quist, we would get the information we expect from our news sources to learn about what's really behind the actions of our elected officials. We'd also be getting the truth, rather than an attack piece based on a partial sentence taken out of context and the malicious ravings of a "writer" who won't first check her facts and is eager to recklessly (and erroneously) speculate about what the target of her religiously-motivated diatribe is thinking.

 


 

Quote

 

Perhaps if any remaining journalists at the SL Tribune really cared about these fundamental issues of Utah politics, they would ask why Luz pretends to oppose the Inland Port when, in fact, she absented herself from a vote on giving $24 million in transportation funds to the Inland Port commission. Leaving the floor of the Senate and not voting is political cowardice. We all deserve to know where she really stands on the issue -- and who's yanking her chain. Paul Rolly would have inquired and let us all know. Michelle Quist simply sits back and writes her religiously-based, paranoid fiction, misinforming her readers.

We also all deserve to know why Luz Escamilla joined with her right-wing friends, Daw and Vickers (whose pharmacies have sold more opioid pills than any other in his county), in sponsoring a bizarre bill that removes whistle blower protections for state employees charged with distributing medical cannabis, providing that they cannot complain they are being required to violate federal law. We deserve to know who put Luz Escamilla up to that.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what you mean by "cherry picking."

As for her "motive," well, she's a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune.  She's also politically conservative, and a member of the Church.  I'm not sure any of that disqualifies her from reporting and commenting on Rocky Anderson's Facebook post.

Are you suggesting that her reporting if factually incorrect?

First, she provided a link to Rocky Anderson's full FB post.

She cherry-picked a quote for shock value, and her cherry-picking has worked. That she provided a link to the fb post does not negate that she cherry-picked the quote for the article

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, it was Rocky that called specific and emphatic and pubolic attention to Excamilla's religious affiliation.

It was not just religious affiliation, it was affiliation with allegiance to that affiliation instead of the voters/citizens; there is a significant difference.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, it was Rocky who publicly and specifically and preemptively accused Escamilla of corruption.

This is not relevant to a cherry-picked reporting on the part of Michelle Quist.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, Quist's point remains pretty apt.  If a long-time politician in, say, New York City, were to publicly say "Now, we're threatened with the prospect of a Jewish mayor who seems willing to do the bidding of the rabbinate and bankers where he has been employed...", that would, I think, rightly be seen as anti-Semitic.

Labeling something "anti-*insert group*" while misrepresenting the accused does not hold much value.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He has specifically and publicly pointed to Escamilla's membership in the Church as a "threat," and also preemptively accused her of being unduly influenced by the Church in the performance of her official duties.  Again, this accusation is based on her membership in the Church.

Rocky's comments seemed to be preemptive accusations of corruption.  And the accusation is specifically based on Escamilla's membership in the Church.  I think that is inappropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

He pointed out affiliation with allegiance to that affiliation, there is an important difference. He also pointed out affiliation with Banks - does that make him "anti-banks". Or is he anti-special interests

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Rocky Anderson did respond (in the comments section):

It's unfortunate that yet another "journalist" at The Salt Lake Tribune has so little regard for the facts and is unwilling to engage in the slightest research before she stoops to her uninformed (and poorly written) ad hominem attacks -- while misleadingly omitting the rest of the sentence from which she cherry-picked a partial statement she used to set up the straw man she viciously attacks.

She provided a hyperlink to his FB post.  

And I don't think the second part of his statement mitigates the apparent bigotry in the first.  If anything, the second part reinforces the first.  He is publicly and preemptively accusing Escamilla of corruption.  That she will let the Church exercise illegal or undue control or influence over her political functions.  Because she is a member of the Church.

Quote

Here's the full statement, most of which Quist omitted: "Now, we're threatened with the prospect of a Mormon mayor (Luz Escamilla), who seems willing to do the bidding of the church, the developers, and the bank where she has been employed (and which employs so many elected officials -- and not because they're bankers!)."

That statement wasn't focused on religion.

Yes it was.  It mentioned religion twice, in fact.  It drew a one-to-one correlation between her membership in the Church and her susceptibility to corruption and undue/illegal influence by the Church.

Quote

It was focused on whether the public interest is going to be betrayed, yet again, by a Utah politician beholden to special interests, including the Mormon Church.

See?  There it is again!

Quote

Where were you and your newspaper when Luz baselessly accused me of "attacking" her "from a racist perspective" -- then, when called upon it by OTHER journalists (not from the Tribune), refused to explain her accusation and said she had "no comment"? It's not newsworthy when a mayoral candidate makes such an accusation toward a former mayor, then cowardly tucks tail and runs, refusing to either explain her accusation or retract it and apologize?

Hmm.  I'm not familiar with Quist's prior accusation of racism.  And if it was unfounded, then she should retract it.

But her criticism of Rocky for his religion-based disparagment of Escamilla is, I think, appropriate.

Quote

Contrary to your malicious attack against me, my statements have nothing to do with bigotry.

Yes, they do.  

Insert "Jew" or "Muslim" or "Atheist" into his statement, and the bigotry of it would be a foregone conclusion.

Quote

They have to do with the reality that our state is run by Mormons and, in large part, by the Mormon Church.

"They have to do with the reality that our state is run by Jews and, in large part, by the rabbinate."

"They have to do with the reality that our state is run by Muslims and, in large part, by imams."

These accusations seem inherently bigoted.

Quote

Nine of 10 of our legislators are Mormon, way out of proportion to our population.

"Nine of 10 of our legislators are Jews, way out of proportion to our population."

"Nine of 10 of our legislators are Muslims, way out of proportion to our population."

Again, these accusations seem inherently bigoted.  Religious affiliation is not a qualifier or disqualifer for political office.  Rocky is injecting religious animus into politics.

Quote

Our entire congressional delegation is Mormon. (I have the same problem with our nation's Supreme Court being comprised of 6-out-of-9 Catholics. Don't you?! Or maybe you don't care about women's reproductive rights.)

Mormons.  Now Catholics.  

But Rocky's statements "have nothing to do with bigotry."  Nothing, you hear?!

Quote

Am I not free, without your baseless accusation of "bigotry," to call for elected officials who will not just blindly toe the Mormon Church's line?

Is Quist not free to criticize bigoted and baseless accusations that Escamilla, being a Latter-day Saint, will "just blindly toe the Mormon Church's line?"

Holy cow.  Are these really Rocky's comments?  Is is possible that someone is scamming us?  Is he really this tin-eared?  This oblivious?  This lacking in self-awareness?

Quote

Your attack is like that "Gentiles" have faced since the time of Brigham Young. Speak the truth about religious domination and face scurrilous attacks by irresponsible journalists and others who seem content with religious oppression.

Oh!  My irony meter just broke!

Again, Rocky's statements "have nothing to do with bigotry."  Nothing, you hear?!

Quote

Where was Luz Escamilla when the Mormon Church announced its perverse, cruel proclamation that same-sex couples are "apostates" and that their children could not be baptized until, after 18, they left the home and renounced their parents?

Well, she wasn't the mayor.  She was apparently a member of the State Senate in 2015 (when the Church's policy came out).

And the Church's internal policy had exactly nothing to do with city or state politics.

And what, exactly, did Rocky expect Escamilla to do as a politician in response to the Church's internal policy about same-sex couples?

Again, Rocky's statements "have nothing to do with bigotry."  Nothing, you hear?!

Quote

Did she utter one word in protest as an elected representative?

Since when are "elective representative{s}" obligated to "protest" the internal policies and procedures of religious groups?

Didn't Rocky go to lawyer school?  Surely he's familiar with the Free Exercise Clause?

Again, Rocky's statements "have nothing to do with bigotry."  Nothing, you hear?!

Quote

Where was she when we were protesting Proposition 8 and the Mormon Church's role in that? (And where are your charges of "bigotry" when the Mormon Church has engaged in its mean-spirited bigotry toward the LGBTQ community?)

Again, Rocky's statements "have nothing to do with bigotry."  Nothing, you hear?!

🤨

I wonder if we are being trolled.  Seriously.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

She cherry-picked a quote for shock value, and her cherry-picking has worked. That she provided a link to the fb post does not negate that she cherry-picked the quote for the article

I don't think so.  The context doesn't improve or alter the tone or content of the quote.  

Quote

It was not just religious affiliation, it was affiliation with allegiance to that affiliation instead of the voters/citizens; there is a significant difference.

Rocky is publicly accusing a member of the Church preemptively of corruption, that if elected she will be illegally or unduly influenced by the Church, and he is apparently doing so only because of her membership in the Church.

If Rocky has evidence that Escamilla has a demonstrated track record of corruption, or of putting "allegiance" to the Church over her obligations to her constituents, then let's see it.  But so far, Rocky has provided bupkis.  As he is a lawyer, I would expect him to start with evidence of misconduct.  But not only did he not present any such evidence in the first instance, he continues to not present any in the second.  Instead, he's just ranting.  This, to me, indicates he has no evidence that Escamilla has a track record of corruption.  Consequently, his accusation is based solely on her membership in the Church.  That's bigotry.

Quote

Labeling something "anti-*insert group*" while misrepresenting the accused does not hold much value.

I don't know what you mean here.

Quote

He pointed out affiliation with allegiance to that affiliation, there is an important difference.

Right.  Just like anti-Semites like to present evidence-free accusations of Jews of being compromised in their loyalties.  

Again, where's the evidence?  Rocky is an attorney.  He knows the drill.  He's made the accusation.  Publicly.  Now he needs to back it up.

Rocky has preemptively accused Escamilla of corruption.  That she will be unduly or illegally influenced in her political actions by the Church.  So where is the evidence of this?

And if he can't provide any such evidence (he hasn't so far), then his accusation is not based on evidence, and instead is based on . . . bigotry.

And c'mon, what is startling or surprising about Rocky Anderson's animus toward the Church and its members?  Isn't that pretty much public knowledge?

Quote

He also pointed out affiliation with Banks - does that make him "anti-banks". Or is he anti-special interests

Same goes.  Again, where's the evidence of corruption?

If Rocky Anderson publicly said (without evidence or support) "Don't vote for Luz Escamilla.  She's Hispanic, and her allegiance is to other Hispanics, and not to any other voters/citizens," wouldn't that be seen as bigoted?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I don't know anything about these candidates, but there seems to be a bit of mud-slinging going on

There hasn't been.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's more from Rocky's response (smac, maybe you know more regarding the details he gives?):

Perhaps if any remaining journalists at the SL Tribune really cared about these fundamental issues of Utah politics, they would ask why Luz pretends to oppose the Inland Port when, in fact, she absented herself from a vote on giving $24 million in transportation funds to the Inland Port commission. Leaving the floor of the Senate and not voting is political cowardice.

This is a fair question for Escamilla.

But it's a very different statement than the one Quist is critizing, namely, that Escamilla is unsuited for public office because she is a Mormon, and because he somehow knows that in the future she will allow her political actions to be illegally/unduly influenced by the Church.  This evidence-free public accusation, from an attorney and a long-time politician, smells quite a bit like bigotry

Quote

We all deserve to know where she really stands on the issue -- and who's yanking her chain. Paul Rolly would have inquired and let us all know. Michelle Quist simply sits back and writes her religiously-based, paranoid fiction, misinforming her readers.

"Religiously-based?"  So now Rocky is attacking Quist because she is a member of the Church?

Quote

We also all deserve to know why Luz Escamilla joined with her right-wing friends, Daw and Vickers (whose pharmacies have sold more opioid pills than any other in his county), in sponsoring a bizarre bill that removes whistle blower protections for state employees charged with distributing medical cannabis, providing that they cannot complain they are being required to violate federal law. We deserve to know who put Luz Escamilla up to that.

Again, these are fair points to raise.  Politics is a rought and tumble business.

But the more I read from Rocky, the more persuaded I am that his FB comment against Escamilla was borne of bigotry, not evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

... Anyway, shame on Rocky. Just imagine if he did this to a Muslim candidate back east.

He'd be lynched ... at least metaphorically and rhetorically speaking.  Luckily for him, prejudice against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members is among the last of acceptable prejudices.  Reminds me of what Mark Steyn wrote about Hillary Clinton's reaction to The Book of Mormon: The Musical.  (Blank) You, Allah is offensive, but (Blank) You, God is a fun toe tapper for the whole family!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ummm, Rocky, you are, or at least you were, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'm always amazed (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that supporters of a particular party or candidate believe that the best way to garner support or to get elected is to ridicule a sizeable portion of the electorate.

I heard just today that the two stars of “Will and Grace” (can’t remember their names, which shows how interested I am in them and their show) were calling for the blacklisting of Trump supporters and that they backed away from it when their handlers told them it wasn’t a cool thing to do. I thought blacklisting was supposed to be anathema among Hollywood types ever since the Joe McCarthy hearings of the1950s. 

Edited to add: Oops! I meant to say Trump supporters. I’ve fixed it here, but sorry for any confusion I caused. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

He'd be lynched ... at least metaphorically and rhetorically speaking.  Luckily for him, prejudice against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members is among the last of acceptable prejudices.  Reminds me of what Mark Steyn wrote about Hillary Clinton's reaction to The Book of Mormon: The Musical.  (Blank) You, Allah is offensive, but (Blank) You, God is a fun toe tapper for the whole family!

I love Mark Steyn. I could listen to him for hours. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I love Mark Steyn. I could listen to him for hours. 

Perhaps the thing I like best about him is that he's a Happy Warrior who has a keen sense of humor.  That's how he makes his points rather than with mean-spirited, venomous invective.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Major click bait win for the Trib.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

When I did a search for the most gerrymandered states in the US  Utah was among them.  https://rantt.com/the-top-10-most-gerrymandered-states-in-america/   America is a democracy?. Yes right.

It looks like one of the least gerrymandered from the map so wondering about how they got to that conclusion.

Here is an explanation of how gerrymandering is determined:

https://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-states.html

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps the thing I like best about him is that he's a Happy Warrior who has a keen sense of humor.  That's how he makes his points rather than with mean-spirited, venomous invective.

My favorite line from him was when he said smoking marijuana must have put Kamala Harris in a space-time warp. It was in reference to the interview she did wherein she was cackling about smoking weed while listening to two rappers whom she named. Thing is, the rappers weren’t even around at the time she said she was doing the weed. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...