Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Also it is fatuous nonsense to label the firing of Comey as a "constitutional crisis." The law gives POTUS the right to appoint or remove the FBI director. That is analogous to the mayor of a city having the province to hire or fire the chief of police.

 

In which case the Watergate firings were not a crisis. That something is legal does not make it right. The President has the right to fire his cabinet and order the military to surround the Capitol building but unless he has a pressing reason that would constitute a crisis.

Please think these things through before you post your crazy Trump apologists coming up with fatuous rationales as to why this is not a serious situation deserving strict scrutiny.

[halconero]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In which case the Watergate firings were not a crisis. That something is legal does not make it right. The President has the right to fire his cabinet and order the military to surround the Capitol building but unless he has a pressing reason that would constitute a crisis.

Please think these things through before you post your crazy Trump apologists coming up with fatuous rationales as to why this is not a serious situation deserving strict scrutiny.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/comey-fbi-investigation-russia-sarah-huckabee-sanders/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/11/president-trump-just-decimated-the-white-houses-entire-comey-narrative/

So the current narrative from the WH really just comes down to "we wanted the Russian thing to go away."

Like you said, is it legal to fire the FBI Director over that? Yup. Is it right to do so while giving 213902194801824 different reasons why you're doing it when it simply comes down to wanting to stop an investigation? Hmmmm.

[Stargazer]

On 5/7/2017 at 1:53 PM, Teancum said:

The fact that Mormons overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump I find shameful as well as amazing.  There are many reasons I feel that way but I think if I make this an overtly political thread that is a problem on this discussion board..

Yes, it is rather political.  As for so many LDS voting for Trump, should they have voted for Hillary, whose political agenda is diametrically opposed to most conservative Mormons' preferences?  Or should they have thrown away their votes on Ewan McMullin?  And why?  Hillary is just as big a liar as Trump, but with him in power instead of her, it is a more conservative agenda that will prevail over the next 2 to 4 years.  With her keeping a Republican Congress, not so much.  I suppose it can be argued that a GOP Congress in power, Hillary's more leftish proclivities might have been kept in check.  

I don't like either Hillary or Obama, and I didn't vote for either, but I prefer Trump being President over Hillary.

I know some very dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians who in 2012 opposed Romney every step of the way in preference to Ron Paul.  Because Paul was pretty much 90-100% in line with their beliefs, and Romney not so much.  But while Romney was defeated by Obama with not that much of a popular-vote margin, Paul would have given Obama a huge landslide.  Would that have served Libertarian purposes?  Not at all.  

Ah, well.  I suppose if Utah had gone for Hillary, or for McMullin, it might not have made a difference.  6 electoral votes more or less would still have given us President Trump.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Stargazer

[halconero]

Conservative by what metric?

Moral stances? The guy is an adulterer, hasn't touched nor intends to touch the same-sex marriage issue.

Fiscally? The amount being charged on living expenses along, including the New York suite and golf trips, shows that throwing money at stuff doesn't seem to be a problem.

Foreign policy? A few Navy Seal missions here, a couple tomahawk missiles there.

I'm really struggling to find the conservativism in this Administration.

Part of that might be the false dichotomy which pervades the two party system. Sure, Clinton was liberal and progressive, but that doesn't make the opposite party conservative. I'm not accusing you of this, but it just seems like there's this Liberal/Conservative line and people fall into one or the other.

The sad part is that you lose some much needed nuance. Progressive, liberal and socialist are all different things despite many in the American public lumping them all together. Heck, even Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy mean different things in significant ways. You can be a Progressive Conservative (in fact, that's the name of an old federal party up here in Canada and still existent provincial parties), a socially conservative socialist (Christian Left) and everything in between.

So Trump can be right wing even if he isn't a conservative. By many metrics he's something of a Nationalistic Reactionary Corporatist (yes...there's a more succinct term for that...but I don't want to pull the trigger on Godwin). If you measure him against traditional conservatism (Burke, Madison, etc) or even modern conservatism (really just repackaged classical liberalism with a dose of adventurism - Mills, Smith, Tyrol) he doesn't meet much of the criteria.

Edited May 12, 2017 by halconero

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, it is rather political.  As for so many LDS voting for Trump, should they have voted for Hillary, whose political agenda is diametrically opposed to most conservative Mormons' preferences?  Or should they have thrown away their votes on Ewan McMullin?  And why?  Hillary is just as big a liar as Trump, but with him in power instead of her, it is a more conservative agenda that will prevail over the next 2 to 4 years.  With her keeping a Republican Congress, not so much.  I suppose it can be argued that a GOP Congress in power, Hillary's more leftish proclivities might have been kept in check.  

I don't like either Hillary or Obama, and I didn't vote for either, but I prefer Trump being President over Hillary.

I know some very dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians who in 2012 opposed Romney every step of the way in preference to Ron Paul.  Because Paul was pretty much 90-100% in line with their beliefs, and Romney not so much.  But while Romney was defeated by Obama with not that much of a popular-vote margin, Paul would have given Obama a huge landslide.  Would that have served Libertarian purposes?  Not at all.  

Ah, well.  I suppose if Utah had gone for Hillary, or for McMullin, it might not have made a difference.  6 electoral votes more or less would still have given us President Trump.

I disagree that she is as big a liar as Trump. Trump lies about pointless, stupid, and easily checked things. Hillary lied more rarely and most of what her enemies call her lies are statements they politically disagree with that they label lies. One can be wrong without lying. You can argue her policies are more wrongheaded but Trump lies much more.

Read this interview and count the fabrications: http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript

I especially like the part where Trump seems to think he invented Keynsian economics and a popular metaphor for it that has been around for almost a century.

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree that she is as big a liar as Trump. Trump lies about pointless, stupid, and easily checked things. Hillary lied more rarely and most of what her enemies call her lies are statements they politically disagree with that they label lies. One can be wrong without lying. You can argue her policies are more wrongheaded but Trump lies much more.

Read this interview and count the fabrications: http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript

I especially like the part where Trump seems to think he invented Keynsian economics and a popular metaphor for it that has been around for almost a century.

Well, I won't argue with you, and I haven't done a lie census with these two.  But I'd say that her lies could be more consequential.  Just my opinion.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree that she is as big a liar as Trump. Trump lies about pointless, stupid, and easily checked things. Hillary lied more rarely and most of what her enemies call her lies are statements they politically disagree with that they label lies. One can be wrong without lying. You can argue her policies are more wrongheaded but Trump lies much more.

Read this interview and count the fabrications: http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript

I especially like the part where Trump seems to think he invented Keynsian economics and a popular metaphor for it that has been around for almost a century.

Trump: We have to prime the pump....Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?
The Economist: Priming the pump?
Trump: Yeah, have you heard it?
The Economist: Yes.
Trump: Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just…I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.



Its almost as if he believes that things don't fully exist until they take form in his brain.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[halconero]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I won't argue with you, and I haven't done a lie census with these two.  But I'd say that her lies could be more consequential.  Just my opinion.

Trump is the most powerful man in the world and habitually lies about almost everything. How would his lies be less consequential?

Yesterday you had him come out about the real reason for firing Comey. Then you had a tweet of him and Pence watching TV saying they were watching Senate proceedings. Guess what? In the mirror's reflection you just see him flipping channels. Why lie about that?

Then this morning you have him threatening Comey in his latest tweets, saying that Comey better hope that the tapes of their conversations don't come out. Whhhhhhhy?

[BlueDreams]

Considering the recent revelations about this, I really don't see how anyone could see anything but shady self-serving reasons for Trump's actions. Oh and lying. And threatening to punish those who may question his reality and motives. 

There is no courage in this, there is not softer consequences for his actions, and there is absolutely nothing I can find redeemable about his actions. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 12, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Gray]

On 5/11/2017 at 8:57 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

She's trolling. They all are. They are loading false meaning into everyday symbols and succeeding at both disarming those who call them out on it and also making it all a funny joke.

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/alt-rights-newest-ploy-trolling-false-symbols/?mbid=social_gplus

If you call them out on it, you're a snowflake cuck infringing on their free speech. If you don't, Gas the Jew jokes and throwing Heil Hitler hand gestures in the White House becomes the new normal.

https://www.google.co.th/search?q=white+house+white+power+symbols&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjri7if_-fTAhXKLI8KHUFgBb0QsAQIMg&biw=1280&bih=703

I don't think you say those kinds of things unless at some level you believe them. People said the same thing about Trump - ignore what he says, he'll do great things. At this point if someone tells me they're full of hate, I'm willing to take them at their word.

[Gray]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What Coulter has said may be inflammatory in some quarters, but it does not meet the definition of white supremacy, any more than it is supremacist for members of an ethnic minority to complain about and resist being culturally assimilated into another group. Coulter does have a point in saying that such a thing would likely be labeled by some as cultural genocide, yet few would abide calling it genocide when the goal is to compel a predominant culture to become more ethnically, racially and culturally diverse.

Again, you can disagree with Coulter until the cows come home. But does that justify having her right to be heard cut off?

 

Coulter is constantly parroting white supremacist talking points. Perhaps you think her reference to the KKK mission statement is a reasonable one? “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

In any case, Coulter has the same right to free speech as anyone else. I support her right to say whatever she wants. No one has curtailed her free speech.

[Gray]

The hounds are closing in:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/anne-arundel/ph-ac-cn-fbi-raid-0512-20170511-story.html

Quite a few GOP leaders could end up going down with Trump, including McConnell and Sessions.

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree that she is as big a liar as Trump. Trump lies about pointless, stupid, and easily checked things.

Was his lie that the US elections were compromised by millions of people voting illegally harmless? How about the time he lied about the sitting US President wiretapping his home in Trump Tower? How about that time he said Mexico would pay for the wall and then he passed the $21,000,000,000 bill on to us? I could go on and on unfortunately.

These aren't exactly pointless and stupid things, they are manipulative and intentional lies.

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What Coulter has said may be inflammatory in some quarters, but it does not meet the definition of white supremacy, any more than it is supremacist for members of an ethnic minority to complain about and resist being culturally assimilated into another group. Coulter does have a point in saying that such a thing would likely be labeled by some as cultural genocide, yet few would abide calling it genocide when the goal is to compel a predominant culture to become more ethnically, racially and culturally diverse.

Again, you can disagree with Coulter until the cows come home. But does that justify having her right to be heard cut off?

 

You have a right to speak/write. No one has to listen/read. You don't have a right to a publicly supported venue to do it.

Edited May 12, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[halconero]

In a certain way it might be beneficial for the columnists to consider this quote I found today from Elder Oaks:

"Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism - but I find no salvation in any of them."

Edited May 12, 2017 by halconero

[SteveO]

3 hours ago, halconero said:

In a certain way it might be beneficial for the columnists to consider this quote I found today from Elder Oaks:

"Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism - but I find no salvation in any of them."

Which is why I'm reading this thread and scratching my head, wondering why any of you think the political elite have any interest to serve other than their own.  It's cliche to say, but they're all crooks.

Just work and pay your taxes like everyone else.  I've found it largely irrelevant who sits in the White House when it comes to my personal affairs.

I've heard it said that the scripture, "peace on earth and goodwill towards men," is a mistranslation.  It should read, "peace on earth to men of goodwill."  We may not have much influence beyond our immediate surroundings, but we don't have to be angry and miserable about the goings on in Washington.  Live your life full of goodwill, and I've found it to bring a greater measure of personal peace.

 

[halconero]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Which is why I'm reading this thread and scratching my head, wondering why any of you think the political elite have any interest to serve other than their own.  It's cliche to say, but they're all crooks.

Just work and pay your taxes like everyone else.  I've found it largely irrelevant who sits in the White House when it comes to my personal affairs.

I've heard it said that the scripture, "peace on earth and goodwill towards men," is a mistranslation.  It should read, "peace on earth to men of goodwill."  We may not have much influence beyond our immediate surroundings, but we don't have to be angry and miserable about the goings on in Washington.  Live your life full of goodwill, and I've found it to bring a greater measure of personal peace.

 

I'm sorry, but while I can understand then sentiment it's not one I can wholly agree with. Being part of a family where PTSD is a thing caused by a violent overthrow of a seemingly stable government has made me wary of the "everything is okay" mentality.

What I am trying to communicate is not that politics or ideology aren't important, and I don't think that's what Elder Oaks is trying to communicate either. It's that ideology is imperfect, not one particular one reflects the Gospel, and salvation cannot be found therein. That differs from saying it doesn't matter.

Edited May 13, 2017 by halconero

[SteveO]

8 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm sorry, but while I can understand then sentiment it's not one I can wholly agree with. Being part of a family where PTSD is a thing caused by a violent overthrow of a seemingly stable government has made me wary of the "everything is okay" mentality.

What I am trying to communicate is not that politics or ideology aren't important, and I don't think that's what Elder Oaks is trying to communicate either. It's that ideology is imperfect, not one particular one reflects the Gospel, and salvation cannot be found therein. That differs from saying it doesn't matter.

I'm all for respectful dialogue of the issues and concerns--but the argument on this thread has become, "my guy lies less than your guy".  And at that point, it really doesn't matter--its just a silly argument that doesn't persuade anyone, and gets people unnecessarily worked up.  Trump shouldn't be your concern--its the anger I see at his election.  The same anger that came from the opposite side of the political spectrum when Obama was elected.  People are getting angry because they're being told they should be angry.  Some of you guys are talking like this is the end of democracy and the coming of the apocalypse.  I quit watching the news, but I see it at work during break, and I saw on CNN the other day reporting that Trump ate two scoops of ice cream with his meal when everyone else in the room got just one scoop.  Something about inequality in his administration.  Its not just silly, its also fanning the negativity we really don't need any more help in finding.  A quote from my favorite historian probably says what I'm trying to in a better way: 

 

“Disaster is rarely as pervasive as it seems from recorded accounts. The fact of being on the record makes it appear continuous and ubiquitous whereas it is more likely to have been sporadic both in time and place. Besides, persistence of the normal is usually greater than the effect of the disturbance, as we know from our own times. After absorbing the news of today, one expects to face a world consisting entirely of strikes, crimes, power failures, broken water mains, stalled trains, school shutdowns, muggers, drug addicts, neo-Nazis, and rapists. The fact is that one can come home in the evening--on a lucky day--without having encountered more than one or two of these phenomena. This has led me to formulate Tuchman's Law, as follows: "The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold" (or any figure the reader would care to supply).”
― Barbara W. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century 

 

   

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2017 by SteveO

[Rajah Manchou]

Speaking of free speech at universities and hypocrisy. Just when you thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous, this is happening:

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/05/10/geller-milo-to-speak-at-afdi-cancelsarsour-protest-at-cuny/

Imagine that. The non-American British guy that feels his Constitutional rights of free speech were unjustly censored at Berkeley by protestors, is now participating in protests to prevent an American Muslim woman from speaking at CUNY.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, SteveO said:

I'm all for respectful dialogue of the issues and concerns--but the argument on this thread has become, "my guy lies less than your guy".  And at that point, it really doesn't matter--its just a silly argument that doesn't persuade anyone, and gets people unnecessarily worked up.  Trump shouldn't be your concern--its the anger I see at his election.  The same anger that came from the opposite side of the political spectrum when Obama was elected.  People are getting angry because they're being told they should be angry.  Some of you guys are talking like this is the end of democracy and the coming of the apocalypse.  I quit watching the news, but I see it at work during break, and I saw on CNN the other day reporting that Trump ate two scoops of ice cream with his meal when everyone else in the room got just one scoop.  Something about inequality in his administration.  Its not just silly, its also fanning the negativity we really don't need any more help in finding.  A quote from my favorite historian probably says what I'm trying to in a better way: 

 

“Disaster is rarely as pervasive as it seems from recorded accounts. The fact of being on the record makes it appear continuous and ubiquitous whereas it is more likely to have been sporadic both in time and place. Besides, persistence of the normal is usually greater than the effect of the disturbance, as we know from our own times. After absorbing the news of today, one expects to face a world consisting entirely of strikes, crimes, power failures, broken water mains, stalled trains, school shutdowns, muggers, drug addicts, neo-Nazis, and rapists. The fact is that one can come home in the evening--on a lucky day--without having encountered more than one or two of these phenomena. This has led me to formulate Tuchman's Law, as follows: "The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold" (or any figure the reader would care to supply).”
― Barbara W. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century

To be accurate there has been only one President that has had much of an effect on my personal life. That was President Nixon when I was in the US Military. Their effect one my country has been more clear.

[Teancum]

On 5/11/2017 at 7:26 PM, Stargazer said:

Yes, it is rather political.  As for so many LDS voting for Trump, should they have voted for Hillary, whose political agenda is diametrically opposed to most conservative Mormons' preferences?  Or should they have thrown away their votes on Ewan McMullin?  And why?  Hillary is just as big a liar as Trump, but with him in power instead of her, it is a more conservative agenda that will prevail over the next 2 to 4 years.  With her keeping a Republican Congress, not so much.  I suppose it can be argued that a GOP Congress in power, Hillary's more leftish proclivities might have been kept in check.  

I don't like either Hillary or Obama, and I didn't vote for either, but I prefer Trump being President over Hillary.

I know some very dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians who in 2012 opposed Romney every step of the way in preference to Ron Paul.  Because Paul was pretty much 90-100% in line with their beliefs, and Romney not so much.  But while Romney was defeated by Obama with not that much of a popular-vote margin, Paul would have given Obama a huge landslide.  Would that have served Libertarian purposes?  Not at all.  

Ah, well.  I suppose if Utah had gone for Hillary, or for McMullin, it might not have made a difference.  6 electoral votes more or less would still have given us President Trump.

I think it a dilemma for Mormons this last go round. I voted for Gary Johnson as I could not bring myself to vote for Trump or Clinton.  I was so disappointed that one of many republicans I could have supported to one degree or another lost out to the loud mouth populism of now President Trump.  However, watching Trump I think I would now take Clinton over him.  I think this man is going to reak disaster of the USA and the office of president.

[Mars]

i voted clinton.

i work in DC and know more than just a little bit about email servers and classification markings.  i think a lot of the criticism hillary gets wouldn't come her way were she not a woman or a clinton.  it's entirely reasonable and possible to disagree with her proposed policies and track record and vote for her, and the recent political scandals that have tarnished her legacies appear to be exaggerated failings -- she didn't kill anyone in benghazi through negligence or incompetence, the DC pizza scandal thing boggles the mind, and the private email server wasn't a prison-worthy offense although it was incredibly stupid and high minded of her.  

whatever garden variety corruption you get from a DC politician, you'll get from hillary.

donald trump is awful.  he cares nothing -- nothing -- for the weak and vulnerable.  he bullies, he pushes around, he accepts zero responsibility, and his treasure/heart lie in slippery treasures that are stolen by his enemies. i understand and embrace some conservative values, and i can only just barely see holding your nose and voting for him, but his administration and leadership have been a glorified turd show.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Mars

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, SteveO said:

Which is why I'm reading this thread and scratching my head, wondering why any of you think the political elite have any interest to serve other than their own.  It's cliche to say, but they're all crooks.

Just work and pay your taxes like everyone else.  I've found it largely irrelevant who sits in the White House when it comes to my personal affairs.

I've heard it said that the scripture, "peace on earth and goodwill towards men," is a mistranslation.  It should read, "peace on earth to men of goodwill."  We may not have much influence beyond our immediate surroundings, but we don't have to be angry and miserable about the goings on in Washington.  Live your life full of goodwill, and I've found it to bring a greater measure of personal peace.

 

We live in a democracy. If they are all crooks (which I do not believe) it is because we want crooks in power though of course people will protest that they do not. People lie a lot.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, SteveO said:

I'm all for respectful dialogue of the issues and concerns--but the argument on this thread has become, "my guy lies less than your guy".  And at that point, it really doesn't matter--its just a silly argument that doesn't persuade anyone, and gets people unnecessarily worked up.  Trump shouldn't be your concern--its the anger I see at his election.  The same anger that came from the opposite side of the political spectrum when Obama was elected.  People are getting angry because they're being told they should be angry.  Some of you guys are talking like this is the end of democracy and the coming of the apocalypse.  I quit watching the news, but I see it at work during break, and I saw on CNN the other day reporting that Trump ate two scoops of ice cream with his meal when everyone else in the room got just one scoop.  Something about inequality in his administration.  Its not just silly, its also fanning the negativity we really don't need any more help in finding.  A quote from my favorite historian probably says what I'm trying to in a better way: 

 

“Disaster is rarely as pervasive as it seems from recorded accounts. The fact of being on the record makes it appear continuous and ubiquitous whereas it is more likely to have been sporadic both in time and place. Besides, persistence of the normal is usually greater than the effect of the disturbance, as we know from our own times. After absorbing the news of today, one expects to face a world consisting entirely of strikes, crimes, power failures, broken water mains, stalled trains, school shutdowns, muggers, drug addicts, neo-Nazis, and rapists. The fact is that one can come home in the evening--on a lucky day--without having encountered more than one or two of these phenomena. This has led me to formulate Tuchman's Law, as follows: "The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold" (or any figure the reader would care to supply).”
― Barbara W. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century 

 

   

 

 

 

 

This is the first election I can remember that I was ever frightened by. I liked George H.W. Bush, did not like Clinton but whatever, was dubious about George W. Bush, and cautiously optimistic about Obama.

Trump is the kind of person that could bring down or irreparably damage a democracy. Pretending that democracies cannot fall is falling off the other side of the horse from the hysterical ramblings of some who think the fate of the world hinges on every election.

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We live in a democracy. If they are all crooks (which I do not believe) it is because we want crooks in power though of course people will protest that they do not. People lie a lot.

Oh, we are definitely getting what we deserve.  Not even us millennials' fault, but a bunch of miserable older people who were looking for someone to blame for their own shortcomings in life.  Trump is the result of anger, and there's just too much of it in the country at the moment. 

Just to clarify, I spent the primary season glued to my laptop for hours a day, researching, reading commentary, and analyzing polls.  I was infuriated that Trump won the nomination.  I also noticed I was making myself miserable.  At some point, we need to accept that Trump is in and is going to stay in until 2020.  Disagree, vote, and write your representatives.  But the anger I'm seeing on the TV though--the protests, the town halls, the incivility in congress--that scares me more than anything Trump is doing.