The coming reconfiguration of Latter-day Saint politics

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 The sale of public lands was always a way of garnering large amounts of cash with which to endow colleges and to pay for public works.  Why not to buy slaves?  We certainly had enough land which we had gained through the Louisiana Purchase, through taking native American lands, and then through stealing much of Mexico (and the bogus Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).

Again look at the huge numbers even in the mid 1840's let alone the staggering ones by 1860 and ask what they could sell land for at the time. Further at that Atlantic article notes that assumes the South would have accepted buying out all the slaves. Almost certainly they wouldn't have given the rhetoric of the time.

Edited May 4, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Ever try challenging one?

I have,  4 years later and one victory in the court of appeals and I am still fighting. (the state want's to appeal to the supreme court)

It ain't easy and and it isn't for the faint of heart.

 

Freedom and a democratic republic is not easy, it can be slow and exhausting, but worth the work. 

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Freedom and a democratic republic is not easy, it can be slow and exhausting, but worth the work. 

And I would say pretty much impossible for those without the resources and knowledge to do it.

My issue is a rather mild one (probably no one here would care much about it), and still it has cost the organization I work with more than twenty thousand dollars.

As an individual, without extra help I never could have afforded it.

 

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again look at the huge numbers even in the mid 1840's let alone the staggering ones by 1860 and ask what they could sell land for at the time. Further at that Atlantic article notes that assumes the South would have accepted buying out all the slaves. Almost certainly they wouldn't have given the rhetoric of the time.

I don't believe we will ever know in this life. But maybe it would have been better if the south picked their own damn rice.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't believe we will ever know in this life. But maybe it would have been better if the south picked their own damn rice.

Are we talking about the same South? 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Trump didn't win the popular vote. Further his win in the Electoral college was one of the smallest in history. Clinton was never a shoe-in. She was about 2% ahead of Trump.

 

She obviously was not a shoe-in.  The impression I got as I watched the experts leading up to the election--she was going to win.  I should have put shoe-in in quotation marks on such grounds. 

[thesometimesaint]

2% is well within the margin error for just about any poll. She ran a lousy campaign, but still won the popular vote. I'm no fan of Hillary. She wasn't my first choice. But Trump???. I question the sanity of a significant minority of Americans.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

2% is well within the margin error for just about any poll. She ran a lousy campaign, but still won the popular vote. I'm no fan of Hillary. She wasn't my first choice. But Trump???. I question the sanity of a significant minority of Americans.

All I know is folks on TV, who at least acted like experts, went from acting calmly about a couple states, presumably unexpectedly,  going red and saying that Trump would have to win all these other states to have a chance, to wondering what the hell happened within a few short hours.  It was kind of funny even if I really disliked the results. 

[thesometimesaint]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

All I know is folks on TV, who at least acted like experts, went from acting calmly about a couple states, presumably unexpectedly,  going red and saying that Trump would have to win all these other states to have a chance, to wondering what the hell happened within a few short hours.  It was kind of funny even if I really disliked the results. 

WikiLeaks and the Comey letter.

Here is where we stand on multiple investigations of the Trump/Putin affair.

SEE http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/where-are-we-trumprussia-investigations

Edited May 4, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

If anyone thinks that Mormons are going to leave conservatism (the doctrine of personal responsibility) to frothing at the mouth liberalism (I use the modern sense of liberalism) they're nuts.

False dichotomy. I have met irresponsible conservatives and liberals not afflicted with rabies.

[clarkgoble]

On 5/2/2017 at 11:40 PM, halconero said:

All ya'll need to join the glorious Canadian reality of a multi-party system. You got your neo-Conservative big tent party, your neo-liberal big tent party, your social democrats, your separatists, your economically conservative environmentalist party and more! Nobody is an enemy when everybody is an enemy!

Canada definitely has its own problems. A big question is how responsive an MP is in Canada compared to a congress person or even Senator in the US. There's a lot more patronage appointments in Canada as well and rewarding of friends. That happens in the US of course. By and large most ambassadors are rewards to people who helped with the election except for some key positions. But it's much worse in Canada. And don't get me started on the unelected Senate or Canadian jurisprudence.

Edited May 4, 2017 by clarkgoble

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Are we talking about the same South? 

Originally the black slaves were imported to pick rice.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Trump didn't win the popular vote. Further his win in the Electoral college was one of the smallest in history. Clinton was never a shoe-in. She was about 2% ahead of Trump.

 

In a very recent poll, if the election were held today, Hillary still loses. And this time she loses the popular vote as well as the electoral vote.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

All I know is folks on TV, who at least acted like experts, went from acting calmly about a couple states, presumably unexpectedly,  going red and saying that Trump would have to win all these other states to have a chance, to wondering what the hell happened within a few short hours.  It was kind of funny even if I really disliked the results. 

It was hilarious. I watched the replay on YouTube of the election night coverage of a few networks just to relish the reactions. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you voted for Trump; Congratulations.

I didn't, but I'm not displeased. 

One way in which a Trump presidency has apparently been good for America is the stock market, which has been rising or stable since election night. My 401K is doing well. Thank you, Mr. Trump!

it might do yet better after today's vote in the House to repeal the disastrous Obamacare. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again look at the huge numbers even in the mid 1840's let alone the staggering ones by 1860 and ask what they could sell land for at the time. Further at that Atlantic article notes that assumes the South would have accepted buying out all the slaves. Almost certainly they wouldn't have given the rhetoric of the time.

Likely so, but the Civil War was so horrendous that we ought to have tried.  We have never fought a more destructive war, and the result was not an actual freeing of the slaves.  That took another century.  We are still dealing with the consequences.

[clarkgoble]

A lot of the consequences were due to the assassination of Lincoln which led to Johnson, a Democrat, becoming President and who largely ended reconstruction. But it did end outright slavery even though many blacks who remained in the south lived under horrible conditions. It did allow many to emigrate to the north though. While bigotry was still strong in the north it was much better than slavery.

The Civil War was horrible, but honestly I don't think slavery would have ended without it. Lincoln arguably could have prevented the war and perhaps gone to a middle ground. But he, I think, arguably knew war was necessary. The problem was not continuing to prosecute the terms of the surrender after Lincoln's death. There simply was exhaustion about the war which allowed a simmering guerrilla movement to arguably act like a hidden government and prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

it might do yet better after today's vote in the House to repeal the disastrous Obamacare. 

And replace it with Trumpcare? Have you seen the replacement plan?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

A lot of the consequences were due to the assassination of Lincoln which led to Johnson, a Democrat, becoming President and who largely ended reconstruction. But it did end outright slavery even though many blacks who remained in the south lived under horrible conditions. It did allow many to emigrate to the north though. While bigotry was still strong in the north it was much better than slavery.

The Civil War was horrible, but honestly I don't think slavery would have ended without it. Lincoln arguably could have prevented the war and perhaps gone to a middle ground. But he, I think, arguably knew war was necessary. The problem was not continuing to prosecute the terms of the surrender after Lincoln's death. There simply was exhaustion about the war which allowed a simmering guerrilla movement to arguably act like a hidden government and prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights. 

There also wasn't a lot of will in the North or South for actual equality. While many thought slavery was going too far you would need to wander the street with Diogenes lantern to find people who believed in racial equality. Johnson did not really end Reconstruction. He slowed it until new elections gave Republicans the numbers to override his vetos.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Likely so, but the Civil War was so horrendous that we ought to have tried.  We have never fought a more destructive war, and the result was not an actual freeing of the slaves.  That took another century.  We are still dealing with the consequences.

It ended chattel slavery. De facto slavery continued in some areas but the Civil War lessened slavery by a vast margin.

[halconero]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Canada definitely has its own problems. A big question is how responsive an MP is in Canada compared to a congress person or even Senator in the US. There's a lot more patronage appointments in Canada as well and rewarding of friends. That happens in the US of course. By and large most ambassadors are rewards to people who helped with the election except for some key positions. But it's much worse in Canada. And don't get me started on the unelected Senate or Canadian jurisprudence.

Oh no...I love the Senate...including the current reforms to it. Is this the first time MD&D shuts down a thread do to Canadian political infighting?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There also wasn't a lot of will in the North or South for actual equality. While many thought slavery was going too far you would need to wander the street with Diogenes lantern to find people who believed in racial equality. Johnson did not really end Reconstruction. He slowed it until new elections gave Republicans the numbers to override his vetos.

It ended chattel slavery. De facto slavery continued in some areas but the Civil War lessened slavery by a vast margin.

Brigham Young said that the War and the Emancipation Proclamation would not end slavery, and jim Crow and the Klan proved him right.  Deliberate segregation in both north and south -- govt redlining in the north -- along with systematic lynching and lily-white policing guaranteed that very little real progress would be made until my lifetime.  The Constitution and human rights just don't mean much to some people.

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a very recent poll, if the election were held today, Hillary still loses. And this time she loses the popular vote as well as the electoral vote.

Because some of her voters would vote 3rd party. Not because of any liking of Trump.

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't, but I'm not displeased. 

One way in which a Trump presidency has apparently been good for America is the stock market, which has been rising or stable since election night. My 401K is doing well. Thank you, Mr. Trump!

it might do yet better after today's vote in the House to repeal the disastrous Obamacare. 

Wall Street isn't a good gauge for Main Street. In 2009 401k's had blood bath. Further any increase in interest rates(Highly likely to occur) will decrease your 401k's value. 

SEE http://theinsuranceproblog.com/the-coming-401k-bond-blood-bath/

The only ones that will benefit from Trumpcare are the mortuaries.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, halconero said:

Oh no...I love the Senate...including the current reforms to it. Is this the first time MD&D shuts down a thread do to Canadian political infighting?

Out of curiosity why do you love the Senate? It does almost nothing except reward people to have a permanent position on a body that doesn't really shape legislation. In theory it's a way for the previous party to shape legislation but with a few exceptions that never happens. 

Edited May 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And replace it with Trumpcare? Have you seen the replacement plan?

Here's an informative, easy-to-understand newsletter about it.

It includes a link to the bill.

http://mailchi.mp/mail/the-everyday-american-tax-reform-633765?e=3e01f2245d

 

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd