The Meteor on Course

[waveslider]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

"This is also why the mainstream media portrays him as a bigot..."

Idon't actually watch much news.  I made my decision about his bigotry by listening to him, not to what others reported.

I hear him and find that he only sounds like a bigot if you take things out of context as to what he is actually saying, mostly because he isn't trying to be politically correct in his manor of speaking. Like for instance him wanting to stop illegal immigration, it isn't that he wants to stop immigration altogether, just the illegal kind. He doesn't want to get rid of Muslims, just stop more of them from entering while we asses the problems of why we have so many terrorists in the form of radical Muslims coming in to commit their acts of terror. These are common sense things, but taken out of context it seems like a bigoted response.

I know that if I had visitors to my house coming from questionable places where terrorists come from, or have been found coming through, I wouldn't tolerate them breaking in, while standing around just letting them do it unimpeded and in many cases being catered to at the expense of the my own dime. I would also enact a more thorough, and effective, screening process before allowing strange visitors into my home. I just wonder how much listening is really being done, or is it just hearing enough to ignore what it is that is actually being said.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, BCSpace said:

It's open. The border patrol basically stands aside now.  It's solely at Obama's feet now because he's in charge and that is the directive he's given. 

Facetious to be talking about tax base since the Democrat's policies continue to reduce the tax base at a rate that far outstrips any population based argument.  Humanitarian reasons is also a facetious argument.  At some point, people need to rise up where they are and fix their own country.  With open borders, we enable Socialists and other dictators by taking the pressure off them.  Rather, we should be exporting democracy (in the form of a constitutional republic of course) much like we did with the Arab Spring which Obama promptly destroyed by supporting all the wrong people such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

CFR that the border patrol basically stands aside.  

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, BCSpace said:

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.

I see you have at least a basic understanding of Islam, which I believe most Americans lack. They would rather call anyone who is anti-Islam a bibot, etc. At its core Islam is an Anti-Christ religion with no tolerance for nonsupporters despite its rhetoric that there is no compulsion in religion. Every country in the world which has become Muslim has followed a pattern antithetical to freedom and Christianity. Europe is only just beginning to feel it. I am not espousing a complete ban on immigration of Muslims - I believe that would be anti-American. However, I see nothing wrong with a vetting process designed to find out the history of Muslim immigrants and exclude those with known terrorist connections, etc. I think the same would apply to Mexicans or others seeking citizenship. Birth certificates or other paperwork proving they are who they say they are should be required. If they don't have it, I'm sure some other Muslim country should be willing to accept them. I don't seem to hear about the Saudis, Iranians, etc lending them a helping hand. Just admitting boatloads of immigrants Obama's own failed policies helped to create is a recipe for future trouble. We already have Muslims here wanting to set up Sharia law - the first step in overthrowing state and Federal laws. How did that happen if we only allow immigration of Muslims who promise to uphold the constitution? Or did we fail to do that under Obama?

[waveslider]

24 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I think the mods should be thanked for allowing the continuation of this thread. Every once in a while we need to vent on politics and release pent up steam , particularly now after 2 fractious conventions . Of course , now that I've jinxed the whole thing... sorry.

Yeah, me too.

I do think that we need to be accommodating toward those in need of a safe haven, but the current forms that are being peddled to us from the current administration, which Hillary will only extend if she becomes president, are not geared toward true charity like that of which our church leaders have talked about, but rather a more manipulative motivation in a concerted effort for these modern day Kingmen/Gadianton Robbers to assure themselves a proper place in the hierarchy of the New World Order, where there is no such thing as a U.S. Constitution or personal freedoms. We definitely need to have the Spirit of Discernment with us when we do charitable acts like helping refugees. It doesn't help to have such a Godless society calling all the shots on how we need to do such charitable services. It seems to me that we could do it in a far less expensive way than to ship them all over here as immigrants, and instead give aid to help them create a safe place to go to somewhere closer to the danger zones they are fleeing from.

[waveslider]

10 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

CFR that the border patrol basically stands aside.  

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/policy-force-border-patrol-agents/2016/02/04/id/712787/

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, waveslider said:

How about decentralizing the power of the Federal government, and considerably downsizing it's spending of tax dollars, giving the power back to the smaller local levels of government? There is a reason we are called, "The United States of America," not, "The State of America," The answer isn't in increased immigration as much as getting rid of the over spending wasteful, unconstitutional government.

Immigration is just a matter of course, it's a quality of human life.  That's the default, the openness to those coming to our borders yearning to be free.  The intervention is in controlling that to a steady, manageable state, or trying to prohibit it all together, or anything in between. Currently the US intervenes, it is not an open borders nation.  In other words, people who enter do not automatically enjoy all the rights and priviliges of citizens. And of course, not all who request entry are allowed to enter. Careful control of allowed immigration is imo responsible stewardship of our federation and borders.

I am a conservative, I totally agree with better localised government, including taxation shifted more locally as well as spending. That promotes the principle of us as citizens being better stewards of our government and communities.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, BCSpace said:

So, speaking of morals Meadowchik, how does one justify, in light of an approximately 20% real unemployment rate, importing low cost workers to compete with the jobless here and at the same time, enacting policies that drive down jobs and wages forcing everyone, jobless and imported workers (who remain or become jobless) into dependence on government?

First, CFR on all that. But, on second thought, I think you're wading too deeply into politics. 

The reason this topic is important as Church members is because of the unChristian attitudes being openly encouraged and exemplified in the existing anti-Muslim sentiment, in addition to the openly vulgar unkindness characteristic in Donald Trump's behavior.  Are you concerned about what children will see displayed by their President in everyday public speech? Are you concerned by the increasing hostility and dumbing-down that his speech encourages in public discourse?  I am.

We've been counseled to be civil, to be Christlike, to chose righteous leaders, and we have as a major candidate someone who  generally cannot seem to acknowledge other human beings with respect. I'm not talking about the way "media" portrays him.  I'm talking about his own words, in context.

I've described it previously.  Have you listened to his thirty-minute response to the Orlando shooting? We all are probably where of the continual ugly things he says to people on Twitter and about people in interviews.  Look deeper and ther is more ugliness.  If you want another detailed study, look at th edocumentary "You've Been Trumped," which captures his dealings in Aberdeen, Scotland as he builds a golf course. See how he treats people and gets what he wants.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

No one can explain why Americans have only two viable parties. It's just the way it continues to go. But give us a few thousand more years. Maybe the people will change their minds about voting only for one of two parties that are nearly the same. Ultimately, it is this way because that is what the people want. But who knows why?

Of course people can explain it.  There is actual math that does.  Basically, with the first-past-the-post voting system, it is next to impossible for a relatively growing party to make inroads.  Then there's also some other rigidity in the rules which also makes it harder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I see you have at least a basic understanding of Islam, which I believe most Americans lack. They would rather call anyone who is anti-Islam a bibot, etc. At its core Islam is an Anti-Christ religion with no tolerance for nonsupporters despite its rhetoric that there is no compulsion in religion. Every country in the world which has become Muslim has followed a pattern antithetical to freedom and Christianity. Europe is only just beginning to feel it. I am not espousing a complete ban on immigration of Muslims - I believe that would be anti-American. However, I see nothing wrong with a vetting process designed to find out the history of Muslim immigrants and exclude those with known terrorist connections, etc. I think the same would apply to Mexicans or others seeking citizenship. Birth certificates or other paperwork proving they are who they say they are should be required. If they don't have it, I'm sure some other Muslim country should be willing to accept them. I don't seem to hear about the Saudis, Iranians, etc lending them a helping hand. Just admitting boatloads of immigrants Obama's own failed policies helped to create is a recipe for future trouble. We already have Muslims here wanting to set up Sharia law - the first step in overthrowing state and Federal laws. How did that happen if we only allow immigration of Muslims who promise to uphold the constitution? Or did we fail to do that under Obama?

Let's assume for the moment that Islam is inherently violent at its core. I'm not saying it is, but let's do it for the sake of argument. 

People are born into Islam.  If someone has more moderate tendencies or wants to reform it, they need to have the space and freedom to do so, without being extorted on either side, be it to violence or to absolute prohibition of Islam.

We should not want a world where moderate Muslims are backed into a corner with extremists.

We've invited Tunisian Muslims to live here and he's renovated the pool room into a studio and does our gardening in return for living there.  He also looks out for us, as we have a tenant who is pretty scary. He's visited our ward, but is still practicing his faith with his wife. He calls Jesus a prophet and we have that in common in addition to many other values.

Our ward has several immigrant member families who will be out of a home tomorrow because their grace period ends, thus by French law the Church may no longer help them pay their rent.  They also cannot get jobs until their status is resolved. They also cannot go back to their country of origin because it is too dangerous.  The process for them is taking long in part because of the anti-Muslim sentiment over immigration, which is making caseloads heavier and slower.  Lots of people are suffering as a result, not just Muslims or others.

[Meadowchik]

In other words, regardles of who gets elected but perhaps especially if it's Trump, we need to push back against hateful and bigoted rhetoric so that we can still maintain peaceful ground where growth can occur, in and outside the Church.

[stemelbow]

This thread shows why politics is not allowed as a topic on this forum.

oh wait....what happened?  Well I will say one thing about it.  The type of rants we see in politics are similar to what we see in religious discourse.  The type of emoting we see in political talk, we see in religious talk.  People's politics and people's religion are based on emotion, it feels.  Our intellect kicks in after our emotions have settles the question of what is right and who is wrong, as we gear our rationale to explaining why our choice was a good one.

Edited August 1, 2016 by stemelbow

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This thread shows why politics is not allowed as a topic on this forum.

oh wait....what happened?  Well I will say one thing about it.  The type of rants we see in politics are similar to what we see in religious discourse.  The type of emoting we see in political talk, we see in religious talk.  People's politics and people's religion are based on emotion, it feels.  Our intellect kicks in after our emotions have settles the question of what is right and who is wrong, as we gear our rationale to explaining why our choice was a good one.

Perfectly said!

[BlueDreams]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This thread shows why politics is not allowed as a topic on this forum.

oh wait....what happened?  Well I will say one thing about it.  The type of rants we see in politics are similar to what we see in religious discourse.  The type of emoting we see in political talk, we see in religious talk.  People's politics and people's religion are based on emotion, it feels.  Our intellect kicks in after our emotions have settles the question of what is right and who is wrong, as we gear our rationale to explaining why our choice was a good one.

Uhhhh....maybe when I was younger and less informed and kinda went with the crowd in beliefs. After that it was more of a prioritzation of my main concerns, education on systems, and basic education of national/international problems. I don't know everything and some of my concerns hold emotions. Even my concerns with Trump are based more on his hate/extreme rhetoric, an understanding of history and the problem with strongman political heads, and my knowledge of narcissism and working with a few in my practice. 

Emotions and passion are there obviously, but they're not my primary  decider. I also recognize that using my good sense, experiences, and knowledge base doesn't mean that people will agree who also are fairly intelligent. For example my cousin and I are close friends, both intelligent, both high achievers, and agree with a number of concerns for our nation and social issues. But I lean democrat and she's more libertarian. Every once and a while we believe yet again that we see things eye-to-eye politically because we're spouting similar views or concerns...Only to realize we don't agree on what should be implemented to address our similar concerns. 

I think emotions kick in most when  we assume that there's only one right way to believe in political choices. When we assume religion and our political choice or party go hand in hand then we lay judgment on all of our fellow saints who see things differently and go beyond what the church and leaders have actually said about politics. We push our knowledge base beyond what can actually be known and ignore the fact that Very rarely in our history has a party been indicative of our righteousness. And only in extreme cases could a political choice be equivalent to a moral act.

Likewise my religious opinions are not based solely on feeling. They're not based solely on fact either. But nothing I do or say can be completely divorced of emotions or reason. and the vast majority of humanity is exactly the same on that. It's not one or the other or any form of sequential experience. They bounce off each other and both my emotions and intellect can inform me.

Also, it's kinda ironic that you stated "People's politics and people's religion are based on emotion, it feels"...just saying. Your critiquing people on emotional choices...by your own emotions or feelings as to what you're seeing. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This thread shows why politics is not allowed as a topic on this forum.

oh wait....what happened?  Well I will say one thing about it.  The type of rants we see in politics are similar to what we see in religious discourse.  The type of emoting we see in political talk, we see in religious talk.  People's politics and people's religion are based on emotion, it feels.  Our intellect kicks in after our emotions have settles the question of what is right and who is wrong, as we gear our rationale to explaining why our choice was a good one.

I seriously need to use this! Would you be okay with it, if I ever need it?  I'll be sure to attribute to someone I know of. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Uhhhh....maybe when I was younger and less informed and kinda went with the crowd in beliefs. After that it was more of a prioritzation of my main concerns, education on systems, and basic education of national/international problems. I don't know everything and some of my concerns hold emotions. Even my concerns with Trump are based more on his hate/extreme rhetoric, an understanding of history and the problem with strongman political heads, and my knowledge of narcissism and working with a few in my practice. 

Emotions and passion are there obviously, but they're not my primary  decider. I also recognize that using my good sense, experiences, and knowledge base doesn't mean that people will agree who also are fairly intelligent. For example my cousin and I are close friends, both intelligent, both high achievers, and agree with a number of concerns for our nation and social issues. But I lean democrat and she's more libertarian. Every once and a while we believe yet again that we see things eye-to-eye politically because we're spouting similar views or concerns...Only to realize we don't agree on what should be implemented to address our similar concerns. 

I think emotions kick in most when  we assume that there's only one right way to believe in political choices. When we assume religion and our political choice or party go hand in hand then we lay judgment on all of our fellow saints who see things differently and go beyond what the church and leaders have actually said about politics. We push our knowledge base beyond what can actually be known and ignore the fact that Very rarely in our history has a party been indicative of our righteousness. And only in extreme cases could a political choice be equivalent to a moral act.

Likewise my religious opinions are not based solely on feeling. They're not based solely on fact either. But nothing I do or say can be completely divorced of emotions or reason. and the vast majority of humanity is exactly the same on that. It's not one or the other or any form of sequential experience. They bounce off each other and both my emotions and intellect can inform me.

Also, it's kinda ironic that you stated "People's politics and people's religion are based on emotion, it feels"...just saying. Your critiquing people on emotional choices...by your own emotions or feelings as to what you're seeing. 

 

With luv,

BD

It wasn't meant as a criticism, BD.  I've seen different quotes saying the same as I said, or something similar, around.  I know as I learn things it affects my emotions and affects my opinion of different things.  While I see some good reasoning for some libertarian views, or on the flip socialist views, by using my intellect, it still comes down to my preference based on my biases and emotions.  I don't know that we can divorce our emotions from our intellect. 

I have a really good friend who is a big fan of and supporter of Trump's.  As we talk his reasoning becomes clear.  His position, though, is largely based on his emotions, I'd say.  I don't know how we escape it, really. 

[Meadowchik]

58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This thread shows why politics is not allowed as a topic on this forum.

oh wait....what happened?  Well I will say one thing about it.  The type of rants we see in politics are similar to what we see in religious discourse.  The type of emoting we see in political talk, we see in religious talk.  People's politics and people's religion are based on emotion, it feels.  Our intellect kicks in after our emotions have settles the question of what is right and who is wrong, as we gear our rationale to explaining why our choice was a good one.

In my opinion there has to be some way to talk about the hateful rhetoric coming out Trump's mouth here, from an LDS perspective. Hopefully everyone will agree that even if a person supports Trump as a candidate, that they will reject his ugly, unkind, cruel language.  Reject it from him and the masses as well.

If we cannot have the ability to talk about that and what our role might be in pushing back against that kind of sentiment then I don't see the point of this forum. There has to be a way to talk about what we can do to support our brothers and sisters who are caught between countries, who are looking for a better life, even if we cannot receive them, we can still respect them and not demonize or blame or suspect them because of their religion or condition of transiency.

If you support Trump, shouldn't you join everyone else in rejecting the horrible things he says? Why not demand that he speaks with respect?

That discussion imo merits existence here. It wouldn't be the first time gospel topics legitimately bridge over into politics.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Meadowchik

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I seriously need to use this! Would you be okay with it, if I ever need it?  I'll be sure to attribute to someone I know of. 

Sure.  No problem.  I think you can find a quote from a more credible source out there that might say the same thing, and express it much better. 

Years and years ago, I read this in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maitenance":

Quote

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”  

I decided then that ideas regarding politics and religion are theoretical, largely, and our decision one way or another is based on our emotional ties to the one or the other, as much as anything. 

[Jeanne]

Before this thread gets banned.., I just need to express that I have been a democrat most of my entire life.  There have been times on a local or state level that I just picked the best person for the job.  This year..simply baffles me and yet it is a history making thing that I am quite excited about.  The thing is, no matter Trump's positives or negatives, I close my eyes and see Hillary with blood all over hands.  I won't be voting democrat.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  No problem.  I think you can find a quote from a more credible source out there that might say the same thing, and express it much better. 

Years and years ago, I read this in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maitenance":

I decided then that ideas regarding politics and religion are theoretical, largely, and our decision one way or another is based on our emotional ties to the one or the other, as much as anything. 

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.” — Mark Twain in Eruption

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In my opinion there has to be some way to talk about the hateful rhetoric coming out Trump's mouth here, from an LDS perspective. Hopefully everyone will agree that even if a person supports Trump as a candidate, that they will reject his ugly, unkind, cruel language.  Reject it from him and the masses as well.

If we cannot have the ability to talk about that and what our role might be in pushing back against that kind of sentiment then I don't see the point of this forum. There has to be a way to talk about what we can do to support our brothers and sisters who are caught between countries, who are looking for a better life, even if we cannot receive them, we can still respect them and not demonize or blame or suspect them because of their religion or condition of transiency.

If you support Trump, shouldn't you join everyone else in rejecting the horrible things he says? Why not demand that he speaks with respect?

That discussion imo merits existence here. It wouldn't be the first time gospel topics legitimately bridge over into politics.

 

I can see all sort of reasonable ways to tie in politics to discussions on this forum.  but as I've viewed it in the past, such attempts to reasonably tie in politics are rejected by the mods and topics are closed.  But this one has gone on for pages so what do I know?

my view:  Trump is a bit too privileged (we all can come off a bit privileged, though).  I think there's some amount of sincerity there to say he wants to fix America, or whatever.  I think he probably has some skills to execute in the job.  But, politically speaking, he's a mess.  I think that's largely the cause of his success though.  People in the country are fed up with the political games and he's trying to play like he's above them or outside them.  I don't know that he'll win, but the spirit of his message carries some weight. 

I'm not sure what's worse to view, honestly--the things he says, or the things people are trying to paint him as saying or thinking.  I think he's in part a demagogue, as someone recently characterized him.  He's got a handful of points that are really resonating and that's been enough for some.  He's probably a bit out of his element on so much of what it is being President, I honestly don't see how he'll ever achieve it. 

But Hillary certainly has her weaknesses too. 

[rodheadlee]

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I'm just curious if you have read sura 9:5. Of the Quran?

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, BCSpace said:

 

 

6 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm just curious if you have read sura 9:5. Of the Quran?

Just curious if you've read the Old Testament where God commands Joshua to kill all the men, women, and children.

[rodheadlee]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

Just curious if you've read the Old Testament where God commands Joshua to kill all the men, women, and children.

Yes I have. Can you explain the context of Sura 9:5. Is it a one-time deal?

[thesometimesaint]

I've read major parts of the Koran in English. It's no worse than the Bible.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Verse

Ps; Jews, Christians, and Muslims are not pagans in Islam, but are People of the Book.

Edited August 1, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

In my opinion there has to be some way to talk about the hateful rhetoric coming out Trump's mouth here, from an LDS perspective. Hopefully everyone will agree that even if a person supports Trump as a candidate, that they will reject his ugly, unkind, cruel language.  Reject it from him and the masses as well.

If we cannot have the ability to talk about that and what our role might be in pushing back against that kind of sentiment then I don't see the point of this forum. There has to be a way to talk about what we can do to support our brothers and sisters who are caught between countries, who are looking for a better life, even if we cannot receive them, we can still respect them and not demonize or blame or suspect them because of their religion or condition of transiency.

If you support Trump, shouldn't you join everyone else in rejecting the horrible things he says? Why not demand that he speaks with respect?

That discussion imo merits existence here. It wouldn't be the first time gospel topics legitimately bridge over into politics.

My concern is that a number of supporters are willing to excuse the speech or basically agree because of fear and ignorance. Many do not have the opportunity that you have to directly interact as you've had. And that makes it difficult. It's easier to ignore or excuse prejudicial language when you don't really know the groups that you're discriminating against. There's a video that I think shows a few of the problems: