The Meteor on Course

[Meadowchik]

21 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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:

 

 

Thanks, BlueDreams!

When I thought about it, I realized that the first Muslim I ever knew personally was in my highschool AP English class for 4 years. He happens to be the nephew of Kzir Kahn, who's been in the news for speaking at the DNC. This classmate did quite well in school and I specifically remember him during Ramadan at school.  In predominantly Muslim countries, people typically work only half days during Ramadan, since they have no food or drink during daylight times.  Then they usually stay up late to eat and then sleep more during the day, so for him, going to school all day like that for a month was tough, but he did it.  Now he's a doctor, married with two children. I'm sure he's pretty bowled over by the publicity his uncle and aunt are getting.  Their son and his cousin was his best friend when he was growing up. 

[Meadowchik]

21 hours ago, ERayR said:

Much has been made of Trump's style and how it does not fit with Church values.  But I see no discussion about Clinton's dishonesty and corruption which IMO is much more out of sync with Church values than is Trumps lack of civility.

As I've looked more profoundly into Trump's life and business dealings I see his lack of civility as more than just a style, but something that pervades his personal and business life, reaching beyond thought and speech and into behavior.

If Trump wins the election I do hope that his supporters will call on him to be a civil president, and they should imo do so now in order to make his election an incentive for better behavior.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well you are in France, correct? I know a humble family from Tonga who overstayed their visa here in the United States, and waited over 10 years to become citizens... What took them so long? Should they be forced to wait while Muslim refugees get a free ride? I don't think so. I am not for alienating moderate Muslims. but when I watch videos of Muslims raising their hands to questions in their mosques, I begin to wonder if there really are any moderate muslims. It seems they would all support the death penalty for cartoonists who lampoon Mohammed. I believe the only way for Muslims to truly become enlightened is to convert to Christianity - without threat of death, but rather for love of God. I think the best policy is if in doubt let an oil rich Muslim country provide them aid. I think I would rather have open borders to drug lords than Muslims. I notice you ignored my point about Muslims here who already want Sharia Law. Are we just going to turn our backs to it and let them ignore our laws? Then we are no longer a country of justice... That is when the constitution will really hang by a thread.

That's a weird question.  My point was that the paranoia and political dillemma over radical Islam is hurting everyone.  A Muslim immigrant should be treated like any other immigrant.  People should be screened for violenct and criminal history, including personal affiliation with terrorist groups, but not for religion.

Sharia law is not that different from something like the Law of Tithing for Mormons or the order followed by the Amish. It's not impervious to public law. People who enter into it do so voluntarily, just like private individuals who submit to unbinding arbitration.

Since there is no global government, we cannot just throw the problem at rich Muslim countries.  People are at our door and we should treat them with decency. If we allow a religious test for non-citizens at our door, how will we avoid letting that attitude bleed into domestic problems between citizens?

By the way, there are enlightened Muslims who are devout Muslims. There are also Muslims who are Muslim-Christians, not uncommon in places like India or La Reunion.  I'm not saying the USA should not have boundaries or rules, but we should not keep the love of God for our fellow man out of our decision-making processes as citizens.

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

This question is simply for information as I don't know what the procedures are, not because I hope for any such situation arising . Suppose, in October say, one of the current candidates comes down with a serious and debilitating illness. Does the party of the candidate then forfeit the election? Could another candidate  hurriedly be chosen? How  would the supposedly already printed ballots be fixed up ? Would the vice presidential candidate be next in line as the new candidate? Has this scenario ever happened before in US history?

" If a candidate dies or becomes incapacitated between the general election and the meeting of electors, under federal law, the electors pledged to the deceased candidate may vote for the candidate of their choice at the meeting of electors. Individual states may pass laws on the subject, but no federal law proscribes how electors must vote when a candidate dies or becomes incapacitated. In 1872, when Horace Greeley passed away between election day and the meeting of electors, the electors who were slated to vote for Greeley voted for various candidates, including Greeley. The votes cast for Greeley were not counted due to a House resolution passed regarding the matter. See the full Electoral College vote counts for President and Vice President in the 1872 election. "

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/print_friendly.html?page=faq_content.html&title=U. S. Electoral College%3A Frequently Asked Questions#candidatedies

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

As far as I can gather the point of this thread is to go off on his unfitness for the job, at least from an LDS perspective. 

Which is amazing considering the nature of this Message Board.

Edited August 2, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

As I've looked more profoundly into Trump's life and business dealings I see his lack of civility as more than just a style, but something that pervades his personal and business life, reaching beyond thought and speech and into behavior.

If Trump wins the election I do hope that his supporters will call on him to be a civil president, and they should imo do so now in order to make his election an incentive for better behavior.

Can you overlook the Clinton criminality?  How do you reconcile that with LDS values?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

Can you overlook the Clinton criminality?  How do you reconcile that with LDS values?

What criminality would that be?

I don't know what LDS values condone multiple bankruptcies, and stiffing contractors, and employees.

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

What criminality would that be?

I don't know what LDS values condone multiple bankruptcies, and stiffing contractors, and employees.

 

Read closely.  I did not say they did, so drop the red herring.  I was talking about the obvious selling of influence, The mishandling of classified information and lying about it to name but  few.

[halconero]

On July 31, 2016 at 7:36 PM, BCSpace said:

That would just be transitory at best, a successful third party becoming one of the two.  But, even though their polls are generally rising there are no alternatives among Johnson, Sanders, or Stein and we get Hillary anyway if any of them rise to a competitive level.  I actually like some of the nuances of Johnson, but Johnson has only given lip service to judges (whereas Trump has a Heritage Foundation style list), will not protect the border, and will gut the military.  Go ahead and vote your principles, but if that gets Hillary elected, I would say one has no principles as everything else becomes moot with a Hillary appointed Supreme Court.

I can't vote my principles. I'm Canadian. I disagree with your view on the transitory nature of a significant third party, especially in the Congressional Elections. They serve as a moderating influence and democratic outlet for discontent. They are a permanent feature in many countries throughout the world even with first past the post systems.

[waveslider]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sharia law is not that different from something like the Law of Tithing for Mormons

Sharia law is not the same as the Law of tithing as the Sharia law cannot be followed while obeying the constitution of the U.S.. Tithing doesn't conflict at all with the constitution.

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

What criminality would that be?

I don't know what LDS values condone multiple bankruptcies, and stiffing contractors, and employees.

 

This link I posted earlier in this thread compiled a long list of the criminal behaviors of the Clinton family: https://youtu.be/dqIlD8cGBAM

[strappinglad]

The problem with the current influx of refugees is that there are no longer any records available to check, in Syria especially. The process to verify who is who is extremely difficult if not impossible. So, we just close our collective eyes and hope for the best.

[waveslider]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Kzir Kahn, who's been in the news for speaking at the DNC.

Here is proof that Khizr Kahn is a plant by Hillary, working for the Muslim Brotherhood. She sure does look like she wants to help bring in more radicalized Muslim terrorists to me: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/muslim-attacked-trump-dnc-just-exposed-huge-way/

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, ERayR said:

Read closely.  I did not say they did, so drop the red herring.  I was talking about the obvious selling of influence, The mishandling of classified information and lying about it to name but  few.

There is absolutely no evidence of influence peddling by Clinton. Mishandling of retroactively classified information between official staff and any Cabinet level official is not criminal, if inappropriate. Clinton did not lie about it to the FBI. It is they that matter.

 

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

Here is proof that Khizr Kahn is a plant by Hillary, working for the Muslim Brotherhood. She sure does look like she wants to help bring in more radicalized Muslim terrorists to me: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/muslim-attacked-trump-dnc-just-exposed-huge-way/

Capt Khan was killed in 2004.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 Mishandling of retroactively classified information between official staff and any Cabinet level official is not criminal, if inappropriate.

Not retroactively classified:

"Contrary to her claim that she never sent or received information that was classified at the time, the FBI found 110 emails to have contained classified information when sent or received."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

[thesometimesaint]

Not so much.

SEE http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-james-comey-hillary-clinton-email-probe/story?id=41044927

[Calm]

Iow she had received emails with classified info, right?  She may not have understood she had been forwarded such, but she had received them.

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Iow she had received emails with classified info, right?  She may not have understood she had been forwarded such, but she had received them.

From her own staff that had security clearances. It may have been inappropriate but not illegal.

[Calm]

I never claimed it was illegal, I only pointed out the error of "retroactively".

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

From her own staff that had security clearances. It may have been inappropriate but not illegal.

It was illegal. It is a federal crime to negligently handle classified information under 18 U.S.C. 1924 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap93-sec1924.pdf

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, waveslider said:

Here is proof that Khizr Kahn is a plant by Hillary, working for the Muslim Brotherhood. She sure does look like she wants to help bring in more radicalized Muslim terrorists to me: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/muslim-attacked-trump-dnc-just-exposed-huge-way/

Anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Walid Shoebat is the source which should mark the claim with a strong degree of skepticism.

Furthermore, think this through.  What wild claim did Mr. Khan make in his speech?  He essentially made the point that Trump wanted to prevent people like him and his wife from coming to the US, people who have every intention of raising honorable and patriotic Americans who are willing to serve and even sacrifice for America. 

Do you really want to refuse to believe that claim? Khan provided an example with his son, but even if you whack-a-mole and discredit him, there are many more Muslims and children of immigrants serving the country honorably, many in the military, and there are other Muslim soldiers who have died in service of the USA. In orther words, these are our brothers and sisters, children of God, like everyone else.

Second, Khan implied that Trump had little interest or understanding of what we believe to be the divinely inspired US Constitution. Do you dispute this as a reasonable assertion?  Trump has advocated war crimes, he has recommended a religious test for both citizens and non-citizens, he has recommended a national registry of Muslims. He has repeatedly shown a blatant ignorance of how government works.

So, believe what you want about Mr Khan, believe the disgusting allegations about his son, but you cannot escape the concrete reality of Trump's policies, bigotry, and ignorance.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, waveslider said:

Sharia law is not the same as the Law of tithing as the Sharia law cannot be followed while obeying the constitution of the U.S.. Tithing doesn't conflict at all with the constitution.

CFR. Also, CFR that current attempts to follow Sharia in the US have taken legal precedence over public law.

[Meadowchik]

19 hours ago, ERayR said:

Can you overlook the Clinton criminality?  How do you reconcile that with LDS values?

Why do you need to ask the question?  I am talking about Donald Trump's immoral rhetoric and bigotry, of course I would also be troubled by criminal behavior of any other candidate. It sounds to me that you're thinking from inside the partisan political box.

I am saying that, even if you vote for Trump, the anti-Muslim wave he's riding and perpetuating is immoral and it is within our Christian duty to push back against it. It is especially important that his supporters demand better speech and behavior from him to provide him with an incentive to be decent. If we want righteous leaders we should expect righteousness.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, strappinglad said:

The problem with the current influx of refugees is that there are no longer any records available to check, in Syria especially. The process to verify who is who is extremely difficult if not impossible. So, we just close our collective eyes and hope for the best.

That seems like a pretty broad generalisation but for the sake of argument, I'll can grant it for a significant number. How about simply sticking to the existing stringent process of documentation?  Why say "no Muslims" just because there is difficulty with some from war-torn countries? Continue to expect that all refugees go through the process.

[BlueDreams]

On August 1, 2016 at 7:48 PM, rodheadlee said:

Those stats in the US on the daily beast are counting gang warfare as terrorist attacks. Drive by shootings in gang territory are a completely different motive and method. You will never see a Latino gangbanger go into a church and kill a priest or open up on a bunch of people in swimsuits at the beach.Innocents may get caught in the crossfire but they are not shooting them on purpose. The Cartels and gangs are more like the Gaddianton robbers they are not using terrorism as a political statement. Many of those people are here illegally and need to be sent home too.

Good luck with the back surgery and I don't expect a response any time soon because of it. The first report calm put up pointed to the fact that there was slightly more Jewish terrorist acts than Muslim. Which I find interesting. There's also this article here that points out a couple of the problems with the FBI graph but still points to the same phenomenon: it's a small percentage of terrorist related deaths in the US and an even smaller one of all mass killings. And it's shrinking still. 

With luv, 

BD