Falling out of the American mainstream?

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but protests do not discourage them. Terrorists are not usually up for reelection and seeking to impress the voters. Nor are they seeking the goodwill of the people they are terrorizing. Protesting terror would be like protesting the Soviets in the Second World War. It does not influence the intended target.

It did in the Vietnam war.

[Vance]

On 2/2/2017 at 9:47 AM, Five Solas said:

I don't disagree - and yet I suspect these differences have grown larger in recent years.  To turn this back to the subject of the thread - do you think are some parts of the country where political/cultural norms are a more natural fit for LDS to grow their membership?  Clearly they haven't been doing well in Bernie-lovin', Trump-hatin' Seattle, as evidenced by the number of ward closures and consolidations. 

What do you think?

--Erik

Not to worry, the west coast is going to slide into the ocean before the second coming.  The saints will be leaving the area one way or another before that blessed event. 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Vance

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, emeliza said:

Um...pretty certain the Obama administration already did this because of the issue in Kentucky.

Also pretty certain Trump is the one who said he was going to ban Muslims as part of his campaign process.  

Whether Obama tightened it up enough is a question I am not prepared to answer.  Are you?  A temporary moratorium on certain countries (and in my opinion he should have included Saudi Arabia and a few others) can be argued to be a reasonable and cautious step to take while the vetting process is reviewed.  Some could argue reasonably that the present process is adequate, but if Trump just ignored his campaign promise it would seem that he was breaking faith with those who supported him.  

Yes, Trump tends to shoot off his mouth and say things that he later has to walk back -- he's not a politician, and so actually says what he thinks.  I knew from the start that he couldn't make a religious test for entry to the US, and once he was confronted with that fact he modified it.  In fact, typical politicians campaign on impossible or unlikely or undoable positions all the time.  For example, Bernie Sanders said he was going to provide free college education for everyone.  Do you think that would have been possible, or even wise?  Barack Obama said he was going to let all those prisoners out of Gitmo.  Did he, in the end?  No he didn't, nor was it entirely a wise thing to do anyway. 

Trump's going to say and do a lot of things over the next four years.  How many of them will be boneheaded, and how many of them will actually be good for the country?  I wish I knew.  I do believe, however, that he will in the end have proven to be at least an averagely good president.  And perhaps he will favorably surprise us all. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but protests do not discourage them. Terrorists are not usually up for reelection and seeking to impress the voters. Nor are they seeking the goodwill of the people they are terrorizing. Protesting terror would be like protesting the Soviets in the Second World War. It does not influence the intended target.

If anything, it would encourage them since they want as much attention as possible for their agenda to work.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

A temporary moratorium on certain countries (and in my opinion he should have included Saudi Arabia and a few others) can be argued to be a reasonable and cautious step to take while the vetting process is reviewed.  Some could argue reasonably that the present process is adequate, but if Trump just ignored his campaign promise it would seem that he was breaking faith with those who supported him.  

If it had been initiated in a reasonable way, I would have been more willing to wait to draw conclusions.  Issuing it without clear instructions leads me to think there was very little thought and effort put into the decision making process.

[Vance]

On 2/1/2017 at 10:55 PM, Calm said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html?_r=0

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-order-blocks-green-card-visa-holders-airports-article-1.2957910

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38783512

https://www.wowo.com/trump-order-delays-refugee-resettlement-area/

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14446080/muslim-ban-stopped-still-airport

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-immigration-order-sparks-confusion-despair-at-airports-1485709114

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/Assali-Family-Syria-Donald-Trump-Vote-Allentown-Immigration-Ban-Travel-Order-412238593.html?_osource=taboola-recirc

 

So, the ONLY interruptions that occurred were for the INDIVIDUALS affected.  No global, national, regional, or community interruption occurred.

 

Just more of the hysteria of the political left. 

[Vance]

On 2/1/2017 at 11:37 PM, The Nehor said:

I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me if I take the opinions of experts and my own amateur reading of the data over your argument that a minority of scientists being wrong in the past is credible evidence that the consensus is wrong now.

You mean like the "opinions" of these "experts"?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/climate-science-rocked-by-another-scandal.php

 

[Calm]

I disagree with your conclusions.  For example, from above...

"President Donald Trump on Friday suspended the entry of people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The decision caught airlines off guard, according to the International Air Transport Association.

"I cannot think of anything comparable. This brings a mix of administrative confusion, impact and uncertainty for many travelers as well as practical operational headaches and complexities for airlines in planning their flight programs," independent aviation consultant John Strickland told Reuters."

[Vance]

On 2/1/2017 at 8:18 PM, Five Solas said:

Vance is serving us the world as Breitbart portrays it.  Obviously he finds it very compelling and is prepared to go on & on with their talking points.   

Very rarely go to Breitbart since his passing. 

You, apparently, are mistaking me for a Trump supporter. 

If anything this election, I was anti-Hillary.

 

But now, I am just enjoying the hysterical tantrum of the progressive left.  More popcorn please.

 

On 2/1/2017 at 8:18 PM, Five Solas said:

It raises a question I hadn't considered when I authored my OP.  What exactly is the "American mainstream" these days?  Following the utter shock of last November's election outcome, there's been some introspection in our local press about whether we in our city live in a "bubble"--made possible by Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing and many smaller but growing companies.  We've been largely isolated from the economic hardships experienced in many of the states that backed Trump following the "great recession."  We have confidence in free (relatively speaking) trade and travel.  Our local companies (including my employer) depend on employees with H1B visas and so forth for essential work.  The "alt-right" agenda is anathema around here.  Is Seattle, its culture, its values--American mainstream?

Apparently not.  You didn't know that Hillary lost, right?

On 2/1/2017 at 8:18 PM, Five Solas said:

  Or is Vance's Georgetown, Texas a better representation? 

It's an interesting question, as I think about it.

--Erik

Well, since this county went against Hillary, like the rest of the country, I would have to say YES!

[Vance]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree with your conclusions.  For example, from above...

"President Donald Trump on Friday suspended the entry of people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The decision caught airlines off guard, according to the International Air Transport Association.

"I cannot think of anything comparable. This brings a mix of administrative confusion, impact and uncertainty for many travelers as well as practical operational headaches and complexities for airlines in planning their flight programs," independent aviation consultant John Strickland told Reuters."

So, individuals from those countries were inconvenienced.  And you have the OPINING of ONE individual.

Where is the proof of disruption to other travelers?

 

Or is this just more FAKE NEWS from the progressive left propaganda machine main stream media

Edited February 6, 2017 by Vance

[Stargazer]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it had been initiated in a reasonable way, I would have been more willing to wait to draw conclusions.  Issuing it without clear instructions leads me to think there was very little thought and effort put into the decision making process.

LOL. This actually describes most government initiatives, some of which cause more problems than they solve.

[emeliza]

34 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Whether Obama tightened it up enough is a question I am not prepared to answer.  Are you?  A temporary moratorium on certain countries (and in my opinion he should have included Saudi Arabia and a few others) can be argued to be a reasonable and cautious step to take while the vetting process is reviewed.  

Yes, I am prepared to say it was enough as the proof is in the results.  How many refugee attacks have we had on US soil?

Now I can understand if VISA restrictions needed to be tightened or even if they wanted to figure out a way to ensure VISA holders were complying with their VISA requirements.  But refugees and LPRs, I was basically good with what we were currently doing 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

LOL. This actually describes most government initiatives, some of which cause more problems than they solve.

I don't disagree with that.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, emeliza said:

Yes, I am prepared to say it was enough as the proof is in the results.  How many refugee attacks have we had on US soil?

Now I can understand if VISA restrictions needed to be tightened or even if they wanted to figure out a way to ensure VISA holders were complying with their VISA requirements.  But refugees and LPRs, I was basically good with what we were currently doing 

How many refugee attacks did we have before they were tightened up?  None, to the best of my knowledge.  Yet they still had to be tightened up.  The question is, were they tightened up enough to prevent a future attack?  And since future attacks haven't happened yet, we cannot say whether or not they will be totally prevented.  

I have installed elephant repellent on my property.  As proof of its effectiveness I note that I have seen no elephants around here since installing it.  But does this prove that my elephant repellent actually works?  Nope!

As to your being good with what we were currently doing, may I doubt that you knew what we were doing?  Or even that you know what we're doing now?  Even the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by refugees, but by legal visa holders who overstayed their visas.

I profess to be inadequately informed as to what our vetting procedures are.  So I can make no judgment on their thoroughness.  I have to rely upon others.  Are you up to speed on what those procedures are, and how well they are reckoned to work?  I'd love to correct my ignorance.

[3DOP]

Hi five solas.

You quoted Daniel C. Peterson as follows:

Growing up in the fifties and sixties, it was easy to assume that American society respected Latter-day Saints. We might be out on the theological fringe, regarded as a bit quirky, but American civic religion was at least theoretically pretty much on our side. For example, Americans seemed to honor ideals of faithful, heterosexual marriage, with fathers taking the lead and mothers caring for children. Society was, in other words, largely in sync with, and supportive of, fundamental, practical Mormon values. In fact, Mormons seemed quintessentially American — which, in the postwar era of the Pax Americana, benefited our church not only in the United States but in Europe and Japan.

Today, though, Mormonism and Western society seem to be parting ways in crucial respects.

He is right about a trend away from Mormon values and Christian values in general. So it isn't Traditional Mormons or Catholics or Protestants who have fallen from a "mainstream". It is modern Mormons, Protestants, and Catholics who stay in what they think is some mainstream because they have a media driven perception of being the majority. But even today, there is so much opposition to their views, that they lost the presidency! The mainstream doesn't have the presidency? How can that be? I guess there is another stream that is not "main"? If the stream that loses is the mainstream what is the stream that wins?

The recent presidential election doesn't seem to make this "mainstream" realize that many many people disagree with them. This "mainstream" vehemently rejects Donald Trump. Who in history besides Hilary could they like? Their views on sexual morality have only become less than repulsive to the vast majority of the public in the last ten years. Even Obama ran against same sex marriage! It is laughable when people over fifty act like homosexuality is okay. Where were they in the 70's and 80's and 90's? They were alive but they sure were quiet about their "deeply held convictions". I tend to think they just believe what the TV preaches. Lincoln and Jefferson and Washington wouldn't be in the mainstream today. Would Wilson or FDR or JFK or Nixon or Carter or Reagan be in the mainstream today? I kind of doubt it.

If the mainstream is moral, fine, stay in the mainstream, but I am glad that a lot of Mormons would be good Catholics and don't care whether what they perceive to be good and right and true happens to be mainstream.

People of faith don't care about today alone. We also care about yesterday and forever. After this election, I do not admit that there is one mainstream that is anti-religion and anti-tradition, but if some "one American mainstream" ever goes to Hell, maybe its okay to get out of the boat?

Interesting post five solas. Thanks to Dr. Peterson for good reflections as always. And God bless America, may she never sacrifice good and right and true just to be acceptable to some here today gone tomorrow fads that have nothing to do with the Gospel or natural law. So far in 2017, so good, as far as I can see. 

Rory

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

It did in the Vietnam war.

No it didn't. The US protests in the Vietnam War were aimed at US politicians and to gather support amongst the people of the United States and not at any terrorist organization.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Whether Obama tightened it up enough is a question I am not prepared to answer.  Are you?  A temporary moratorium on certain countries (and in my opinion he should have included Saudi Arabia and a few others) can be argued to be a reasonable and cautious step to take while the vetting process is reviewed.  Some could argue reasonably that the present process is adequate, but if Trump just ignored his campaign promise it would seem that he was breaking faith with those who supported him.

I am prepared to answer that question and yes, I believe it is tight enough.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, Trump tends to shoot off his mouth and say things that he later has to walk back -- he's not a politician, and so actually says what he thinks.  I knew from the start that he couldn't make a religious test for entry to the US, and once he was confronted with that fact he modified it.  In fact, typical politicians campaign on impossible or unlikely or undoable positions all the time.  For example, Bernie Sanders said he was going to provide free college education for everyone.  Do you think that would have been possible, or even wise?  Barack Obama said he was going to let all those prisoners out of Gitmo.  Did he, in the end?  No he didn't, nor was it entirely a wise thing to do anyway. 

That he is saying what he thinks is horrifying. I don't think Bernie was sure he could succeed. He promised to try for it. He knew he would face a Congress opposed to him (including many Democrats). I think shutting Guantanamo down would be a wonderful thing. At this point we have tried just about everyone we can. Most of the people we are holding now we suspect are dangerous but we cannot build a case against. This is also horrifying. Can you imagine the outrage if these were US citizens being held that way? These detainees were not even necessarily picked up because they were involved in some kind of criminal action.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Trump's going to say and do a lot of things over the next four years.  How many of them will be boneheaded, and how many of them will actually be good for the country?  I wish I knew.  I do believe, however, that he will in the end have proven to be at least an averagely good president.  And perhaps he will favorably surprise us all. 

He is not normal. If he continues to undermine Constitutional processes and attempt to act like a dictator our best hope is that we make it through with the Constitution intact.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

So, the ONLY interruptions that occurred were for the INDIVIDUALS affected.  No global, national, regional, or community interruption occurred.

 

Just more of the hysteria of the political left. 

That is a stupid comment. Since the ban specifically targets certain individuals of course those individuals were the only ones affected. Were you expecting this ban to cause trains to be derailed or something?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

You mean like the "opinions" of these "experts"?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/climate-science-rocked-by-another-scandal.php

Here is a quick fact check on the previous scandals that have supposedly blown open the Climate Change conspiracy:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

This one is new so we will have to wait for the facts to come out but suggesting this proves your point is disingenuous to say the least. I hope you never serve on a jury. You will hear the crime the person is accused of and assume guilt before the evidence comes out. Perhaps like I presume you did with the previous Climate Change 'scandals'.

[strappinglad]

DT is acting like the businessman he is. When a boss gives an order he expects it to be carried out ASAP. Unfortunately he is unaware that he is now like the giant in Lilliput being restrained by a thousand ropes ( and 10 million twitters ) . Maybe he will learn, maybe he won't.

[boblloyd91]

23 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

DT is acting like the businessman he is. When a boss gives an order he expects it to be carried out ASAP. Unfortunately he is unaware that he is now like the giant in Lilliput being restrained by a thousand ropes ( and 10 million twitters ) . Maybe he will learn, maybe he won't.

I am interested to see how gray his hair gets these next four years.

[Kenngo1969]

President Obama certainly isn't the dark-haired young buck he used to be!  

[Calm]

5 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

I am interested to see how gray his hair gets these next four years.

Depends on what dye color he chooses.  Chances are it is already naturally gray or white.

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/did-donald-trump-change-his-hair-color-w464280

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hair-evolution_us_576025e9e4b0e4fe5143c597

I wish he would allow a professional to cut his hair.  But he appears to have developed a phobia over his receding hair line or maybe the hairplugs are too obvious or something else he is embarrassed about (scar, birthmark, whatever...too bad he cares so much).  Every time it looks like he's toning down to a more sensible style, it gets ricochet up a notch or two.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

President Obama certainly isn't the dark-haired young buck he used to be!  

He actually looks much better now that he is out of office.

[rodheadlee]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No it didn't. The US protests in the Vietnam War were aimed at US politicians and to gather support amongst the people of the United States and not at any terrorist organization.

From the eyes of the NVA, we were the terrorist. Pressure at home help bring about the end of that fiasco.