The Meteor on Course

[Meadowchik]

As citizens of the world we have a challenge coming in the form of the next election. It's one that guarantees to sow extraordinary discord among Americans themselves yet also elevate hostile global relations in its results.

In this light I appreciate the Church's statements supporting refugees tremendously. I am thankful that we've been counseled to share light and testimony and also engage in respectful discourse on civic issues.

We have our work cut out for us. And there are LDS who fail to remain civil and who fail the test of reasonable dialogue, we all probably fail at times. But in my opinion we have to keep trying, we must join a cross faiths and beliefs with allies for reasonable, civil exchange. It may become exponentially harder to do so.

MDD is a good proving ground for this, but perhaps some of us should reach out of this relatively comfortable zone eyond to those we interact with in real life. Time to prepare by reinforcing ourselves personally and the bonds of family and community.

Sorry for what may seem a clicheed word salad but I do think we're being and will be distinctively challenged in this way.

[Calm]

How are the candidates viewed in your area, especially among church members?

Edited July 31, 2016 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

How are the candidates viewed in your area, especially among church members?

I haven't talked US politics much lately with Church members, but our stake is currently participating in a refugee service project and at least 20 percent of our current weekly attendance is made up of new immigrants.

Our friend and neighbor, a moderate Muslim from Tunisia, sees Trump as the type that would compel his home country to revolution. My friend's brother is in Colorado, thinks Clinton is coming for his guns and fears a civil war.

My parents are lifelong Republicans but just began what they say are the first of many donations to the Clinton campaign.  Dad says that Trump gives him nightmares. My brother "guarantees" Clinton will bring us into a foreign war.

All these people I cite are educated and informed professionals who've lived less insulated lives who have also lived abroad. They're alarmed.

These are fragile times.

What about you and yours?

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Our stake is currently participating in a refugee service project and at least 20 percent of our current weekly attendance is made up of new immigrants.

I'm envious! Locally, volunteer work with refugees is coordinated through a territorial agency. A couple of months ago, we invited them to an information session we held at our chapel, and they set up a booth with sign-up forms on which we were to indicate what kinds of service we could reasonably do. The queues were long, and I loved seeing so many Saints sign up. To the best of my knowledge, not a single one of us has yet been contacted.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Well, I can't pull in enough LDS content to justify my rant, let us just say both my husband and I see potential disaster with both candidates, but his choice is ruled by seeing internal/economic as worse while I see external/foreign as longer to heal.

 

[Meadowchik]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, I can't pull in enough LDS content to justify my rant, let us just say both my husband and I see potential disaster with both candidates, but his choice is ruled by seeing internal/economic as worse while I see external/foreign as longer to heal.

 

Here's something that bridges from politics to gospel concerns:

Regardless of party or candidate, the wave of populist nationalism we're experiencing is disturbing especially because of its anti-intellectualism and xenophobic nature:

"It could be that in this moment of fear, cynicism, anxiety and extreme pessimism, many voters may have decided that civility is a surrender to a rigged system, that optimism is the opiate of the idiots and that humility and gentleness are simply surrendering to the butchers of ISIS. If that’s the case then the throes of a completely new birth are upon us and Trump is a man from the future.

If that’s true it’s not just politics that has changed, but the country."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/the-democrats-win-the-summer.html?_r=0&referer=http://lm.facebook.com/lsr.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F07%2F29%2Fopinion%2Fthe-democrats-win-the-summer.html&ext=1469964793&hash=AclPRZlnwtS7b5uGQ1R3nfVb2iHOltpsbKLtABromsPPPg&_rdr

Whether you believe him a worthy candidate or not, the undercurrent is dangerous, imo.

 

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

And apparently the US isn't an isolated case:

http://fusion.net/story/318644/brexit-british-people-hate-trump/

[Meadowchik]

From Calm's link right above:

"Hoda Hashem, who runs the @AntiExtremistUK Twitter account, said that Trump is “encouraging the mass hatred of Muslims” both inside and outside of the U.S. Hashem is a British Muslim woman, making her a member of three groups Trump has insulted during the campaign. (He recently tweeted about the UK’s “massive Muslim problem,” an uncomfortable fascist echo that doesn’t exactly help to distance him from the Nazis.)"

 Muslim immigration is a very controversial topic in Europe, too, of course, but it seems to me that at least in France people are willing to talk about it in great detail minus sound bites and generalities.

I'm grateful the Church is making humanitarian efforts too. I think that as tiny as we are in percentages, it still has impact.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Meadowchik

[thesometimesaint]

Meadowchik:

"I'm grateful the Church is making humanitarian efforts too. I think that as tiny as we are in percentages, it still has impact".

Powerful things come in tiny packages. 

[BlueDreams]

Any positive influence is a good one. I've been wanting to do something for or with refugees. But I also have a weird schedule that makes it unlikely I could. Still, I should find a way...I may just have to donate money for the bit.

My neck of the woods is splitting weirdly in this election. My family is super conservative...and HATE Trump. But they've been hating on Clinton for years too. So I'm curious to know who/if they vote. I think there may be a few who will choose 3rd party. Most of my circles are young and educated and I don't know a single trump-supporter among them. There was a talk in my ward the other day that inferred trump in it and it was not in a flattering light. for me the choice is obvious. One person is far far far far more dangerous than the other. Both domestically and economically as well as internationally and with our foreign relations. And he openly admires Putin and quotes a white nationalist while spouting xenophobic stuff and quoting Mussolini. I hate the Make America Great Again slogan. It makes my blood run cold. And he scares the crap out of me. He's bottling fear anger and disenfranchisement and using it as rocket fuel for his campaign. I find myself contemplating what it would look like if he really did become a dictator. What would I do? Would I be brave enough to politically revolt? He's the first American candidate that I feel has a shot at pulling it off in the last century. Oh and he's a certified narcissist. You look in the DSM and there's a picture of him there. And I was never one of those conspiracy nuts or fear mongers. I assume in time things will self correct. But with him...I'm not sure.

 

Edit: I'm aware this is probably not Mormon focused enough and was a political rant. I don't know how not to address the elephant in the room (pun only slightly intended). 

 

with luv and a vote,

BD

Edited July 31, 2016 by BlueDreams

[strappinglad]

Once again fear overcomes logic and rhetoric rules over reasoned debate. I searched for a consistent synonym for the verbs in the previous sentence but was stymied .

[Freedom]

The very nature of the U.S. election system creates this disharmony. The debates go on for two years. In Canada, our elections run at most 6 weeks. Our party leaders are selected at a single convention rather than running for months going state by state. The prolonged selection process forces the candidates to constantly fight to be on top and it inevitably compels them to run negative campaigns. Consider also the fortune spend on campaigning. I, frankly, get tired of the ignorant rhetoric of the right and the patent hypocrisy of the left. 

[waveslider]

The system is so rigged that an appeal by voting doesn't really amount to squat IMO. All one has to do is follow the money trail. (warning it is long and deep rabbit hole, but if followed it brings a lot of understanding on what is really happening) I find that most of the young kids I have talked to here at BYU-Hawaii aren't even going to vote. As for the people in my ward, it seems mixed all across the board. I also find the major news outlets completely ignore most of the important stuff, like the e-mails that got hacked into around the time of the DNC, which shows in plain black and white that it was rigged from the beginning that Hilary would win over Bernie: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ I also think it is rigged so that she will end up in the White house instead of the Big house where she really belongs, at the very least for the large amount of e-mails she intentionally deleted to hide from the Benghazi investigations, but since the FBI decided to not let justice be served even though she was caught red handed, she is free to run her campaign. I personally don't think a vote by the average American even matters anymore.

As for Donald, I don't know what to think of Him. I do know that the mainstream media tries, and apparently succeeds for the most part, to put him in a different light than he himself is really saying he is in. I don't think that fear is all that warranted because he is so self absorbed. I personally think he just wants to be able to run a successful business/businesses in America still before we can't do that anymore. That doesn't mean he is telling us the truth though (and with all the hype that he is a bigot it doesn't help him to sound credible by those who are led by fear instead of reason), but since when has any presidential candidate told the truth anyway. At least he apparently isn't owned by those who have been pulling the strings in an effort to give our sovereignty away to the U.N., but even that could be a sham.

I do think we need to help the refugees but bringing them here to America costs more than if we paid for a safe haven somewhere closer to where they are having to flee for their lives. I definitely think screening is something that is very important because it doesn't take very many bad apples to ruin the whole encampments, or make shift towns that need to be created to house all the true refugees. I can truly see the very real need to have a year's supply of not only food but all the necessities of life, and some so we can share with those who need but won't have, as in refugees whether foreign or domestic when the crap hits the fan. I think the time is not too far that we will be tried and tested like none of us has ever seen, as to how much we really will follow the prophet, while things heat up for the tribulations to start. The way I see it, the death throws of the United States of America are already happening, starting at the money trail: http://usdebtclock.org/ and ending at the destruction of almost all or our constitutional rights, being traded for the false sense of security and safety of the American people.

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Here's something that bridges from politics to gospel concerns:

Regardless of party or candidate, the wave of populist nationalism we're experiencing is disturbing especially because of its anti-intellectualism and xenophobic nature:

I disagree with this. 

Nationalism from dictionary.com

1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.

2. devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism.

3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4. the desire for national advancement or political independence.

5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.

7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

 

There is nothing wrong with nationalism.  Anything can be taken to excess but nationalism is a good thing.   It is what binds a person to their country.  It inspires a reason for a person to want to defend their country.  It instills in the citizens a desire to preserve their culture and way of life.  For Americans, America should be a first concern.  That does not mean we have to hate other nations or not be friends with other nations as we can but our first responsibility and main priority is us.

 

All I can say for the current election is that I view both candidates to be dangerous and whomever wins, half of the country will hate the president.  The best we I think can come from this is a strongly divided government.  If Trump wins, the Democrats control the House and Senate.  If Clinton wins, Republicans control the House and Senate.  That is the only way that the country can be protected from too much damage.  Strong gridlock is what our country needs the next 4 years.

Edited July 31, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

I disagree with this. 

Nationalism from dictionary.com

1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.

2. devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism.

3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4. the desire for national advancement or political independence.

5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.

7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

 

There is nothing wrong with nationalism.  Anything can be taken to excess but nationalism is a good thing.   It is what binds a person to their country.  It inspires a reason for a person to want to defend their country.  It instills in the citizens a desire to preserve their culture and way of life.  For Americans, America should be a first concern.  That does not mean we have to hate other nations or not be friends with other nations as we can but our first responsibility and main priority is us.

THIS wave of nationalism is pathological for specific reasons as stated. A good thing can be corrupted.

[carbon dioxide]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

THIS wave of nationalism is pathological for specific reasons as stated. A good thing can be corrupted.

I disagree with that it is anti-intellectual or xenophobic.  Illegal immigration is not a race but a status.  It is healthy for a country to control its borders and who comes into the country and how many.  A nation that does not control its borders will eventually cease to be a nation.  Trump has said dumb things but he is touching on something that the population feels and its going on in Europe right now as well.  The failure of government to deal with these issues opened to door to Trump to succeed. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Freedom said:

The very nature of the U.S. election system creates this disharmony. The debates go on for two years. In Canada, our elections run at most 6 weeks. Our party leaders are selected at a single convention rather than running for months going state by state. The prolonged selection process forces the candidates to constantly fight to be on top and it inevitably compels them to run negative campaigns. Consider also the fortune spend on campaigning. I, frankly, get tired of the ignorant rhetoric of the right and the patent hypocrisy of the left. 

I loved the Canadian system of 6 weeks.  Because of the shortness, they had to be much better at getting their message out and it was less about personality.  Otoh, I didn't like the package deal, I like the election of the President and VP not being tied to the strongest party in Congress.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I disagree with that it is anti-intellectual or xenophobic.  Illegal immigration is not a race but a status.  It is healthy for a country to control its borders and who comes into the country and how many.  A nation that does not control its borders will eventually cease to be a nation.  Trump has said dumb things but he is touching on something that the population feels and its going on in Europe right now as well.  The failure of government to deal with these issues opened to door to Trump to succeed. 

Trump's rhetoric is definitely xenophobic, bigoted, and anti-intellectual in nature. If you desire a thorough example, see his thirty minute speech in response to the Orlando shooting:

He spoke of Muslims in monolithic terms, ie, as one large single-minded group rather than individuals who share a religion in common.  He spoke of Muslims as if "they" knew about the San Bernidino and Orlando shootings before the fact and did not say anything, rather than pointing out that ANY type of associate of the shooters might have known.  He targeted Muslims in this way. 

Trump spoke of LEGAL immigrants and blamed them for bringing with them terrorists, he said that these LEGAL immigrants are not helping, only making things worse. He said that if LEGAL immigration continues as it has been, the country will be destroyed as there will be "absolutely nothing left." He spoke inconsistently and, on the whole, incoherently, repeatedly speaking in unrealistic and illogical absolutes:

In addition to the ones I already cited, he claimed he would change the immigration system and make America safe for "every" American child, he said he would create the "perfect" screening process.  He spoke contradicting messages, saying that there were good Muslims but also blaming them as I cited above.

Trump is obviously and substantially sounding a xenophobic, bigoted, and anti-intellectual message.  It is resonating with too many people, thus his support.

Perhaps there are some who only agree with the idea of immigration reform and border security.  But there are those disagreeing and not supporting Trump who support those agendas.

You state that the movement is not anti-intellectual or xenophobic, but is about the problem of illegals.  If that is true, you've picked a guy who is polluting and corrupting that agenda. But, before I assume too much about your views or Trump supporters' general views, what are your actual objections to current immigration policy, to the current swaths of immigrants?  Let's hear your concrete reasons and scrutinize them.  Let's see how your reasons overwhelm the gospel-centered justification for welcoming those in need into our borders as we have been.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Meadowchik

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I loved the Canadian system of 6 weeks.  Because of the shortness, they had to be much better at getting their message out and it was less about personality.  Otoh, I didn't like the package deal, I like the election of the President and VP not being tied to the strongest party in Congress.

I do not believe shorter elections and a presidential political structure are mutually exclusive. it seems to me that the system of voting state by state is archaic and no longer needed in today's day of technology. You can elect a president in one day, I do not see why you cannot elect a party candidate on one day. Have the election for the candidate in June and then let the campaigning go from there. That gives several months of empty promises from both sides. 

[BCSpace]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I disagree with this. 

Nationalism from dictionary.com

1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.

2. devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism.

3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4. the desire for national advancement or political independence.

5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.

7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

 

There is nothing wrong with nationalism.  Anything can be taken to excess but nationalism is a good thing.   It is what binds a person to their country.  It inspires a reason for a person to want to defend their country.  It instills in the citizens a desire to preserve their culture and way of life.  For Americans, America should be a first concern.  That does not mean we have to hate other nations or not be friends with other nations as we can but our first responsibility and main priority is us.

 

All I can say for the current election is that I view both candidates to be dangerous and whomever wins, half of the country will hate the president.  The best we I think can come from this is a strongly divided government.  If Trump wins, the Democrats control the House and Senate.  If Clinton wins, Republicans control the House and Senate.  That is the only way that the country can be protected from too much damage.  Strong gridlock is what our country needs the next 4 years.

I agree with you on nationalism.  I disagree with you on gridlock.  Gridlock will not prevent Clinton from getting the judges she wants because there will be no will to resist indefinitely.  Judges is the issue of greatest import and a Clinton victory will guarantee and seal the unmitigated disaster her party has delivered to us these last few decades.

[Calm]

I agree not mutually exclusive, I was going to add that with most political and governmental issues, I saw a better result for both countries (in my opinion of course) was a mix of approaches though I think with the different cultures they should not be identical, but I had to cut short the post so it is ambiguous.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Trump's rhetoric is definitely xenophobic, bigoted, and anti-intellectual in nature. If you desire a thorough example, his thirty minute speech in response to the Orlando shooting: he spoke of Muslims in monolithic terms, ie, as one large single-minded group rather than individuals who share a religion in common.

Talking or being concerned about cultural or doctrinal problems is certainly neither xenophobic or bigoted. I would certainly agree that not all Muslims are active believers in Islam taught by the vast majority of Muslims worldwide.  But you will be hard pressed to find many mosques where violent Jihad against unbelievers, Sharia law over Constitution, and the Jizyah, are not taught.  That is a real and legitimate problem that has to be addressed. And because of Taqiyya and Kitman, you cannot simply rely on asking straightforwardly.  You'll essentially have to go undercover as a Muslim and ask.

Edited August 1, 2016 by BCSpace
Spelling

[Meadowchik]

Problem with quote function on phone!

To "Freedom:"

I agree that the current election process is archaic. In my opinion it profoundly hinders our ability to select righteous leaders as instructed by apostles and prophets. I call it the "two-party trap." This year is a glaring example of how the two party system promotes a worsening of standards for leaders rather than improvement.

I'd also like to see shorter elections but with more intense grilling for the major candidates: for down with 6 reporters specialising in 6 major areas like economy, education, health care, security, immigration, and foreign policy. Let them each grill the one candidate 30 minutes on the spot, live.  Then do another candidate the next night. Expect them to speak and respond to the issues in detail and under pressure. 

We need to promote a process that helps us reason out the competencies or incompetencies so we can better select righteous leaders. Imo

[BCSpace]

Quote

In this light I appreciate the Church's statements supporting refugees tremendously.

Yes, the wording is quite careful because being an illegal immigrant does not necessarily make one a refugee, even an economic one.  Plus the Church is doing is best to make those on the Left feel satisfied without compromising it's doctrine and principles (a very difficult tightrope to walk but successfully done on the homosexual issue).  Recall that the Utah Compact, which the Church signed, is tilted Right and if ever quoted by the Left, certain points are almost always left out (pun intended).

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

I agree with you on nationalism.  I disagree with you on gridlock.  Gridlock will not prevent Clinton from getting the judges she wants because there will be no will to resist indefinitely.  Judges is the issue of greatest import and a Clinton victory will guarantee and seal the unmitigated disaster her party has delivered to us these last few decades.

Reasonably we cannot expect an anti-Clinton to be automatically better than Clinton. Why are our two major candidates frought with questionable leadership morals, to put it nicely?