Covid, Race Relations, Environment, Etc. - Alarmism + Misappropriation = Secret Combinations?

[Anijen]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I just want my vote to count but admit I'm not too savvy on the whole thing, but willing to learn more. 

I am glad you want to learn more. I would suggest reading Tara Ross. She is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and has graduate degrees in History and a Juris Doctorate. 

Your vote counts more than you think. If you abolish the electoral college you have no vote, meaning; your vote is whatever the majority wants. What if they [the majority] wants bad stuff?

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Can you be more specific? The pandemic problem and staying safe without limiting our religious freedoms or right to assemble. I never mentioned the Tenth Amendment, but please, if you want, include it in your answer (without making it a political post)

I could be wrong, but from my reading I understand that it is the 10th amendment which primarily endows local governments and governors with power to enact quarantines etc. in emergency, including the power to close businesses and churches temporarily.  It is my understanding that these type of executive orders have been tried in the highest courts and found to be constitutional. It has been enacted throughout our countries history in pandemics past.  Thank God for it!  I posted all the link in the other thread.  I asked for references to dispute the laws and judicial findings, and nobody was able to produce anything.  I don't find that constitutionally endowed power to be a real threat to religion.  I think it helps preserves religion and the people who practice it.  I don't doubt that there may be isolated incidents of abuse, but that is not indicative of a conspiracy to overthrow our religious freedoms.  Just about every-single governor from both sides of the isle enacted that power. I don't see any conspiracy to overthrow our religious freedoms by enacting the 10th amendment.

Edited July 2, 2020 by pogi

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

When does believing in secret combination become dangerous propagation of unhealthy conspiracy theories by trying to tie all current crisis events into a coordinated effort against freedom?

I guess, because there are some in power coordinating for Satan. Don't ask me who or what side they are on because I don't know (i'm not a member of the SC club). However, when a prophet of the Lord tells me to guard our religious rights during these times I will try to do just that.

Quote

There should be ground rules to prevent things from getting out of hand.

What ground rules would you suggest? Smack already posted the legal way of protesting in Provo. Are those rules that smack posted not sufficient ground rules? Are the waffeling rules of the pandemic sufficient? If your mom was in an assisted living place, would the rules mandating Covid 19 patients be placed there , would that have your support?

Quote

  I find it completely unreasonable to spit-out any reckless theory one can think up

I agree. But, I have to say was it unreasonable to place Covid 19 infected patients with the assisted living? Because I disagree with that decision (and maybe you do to) I am the reckless one, but you're not?

Quote

and then try to use President Benson and the Book of Mormon to defend their theories because these secret combinations exist.

How would you defend the idea that secret combinations actually do exist? 

[Anijen]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I just want my vote to count but admit I'm not too savvy on the whole thing, but willing to learn more. 

This gets me every time:

Assuming there was no electoral college for a minute. How would your vote count if you were in the minority?

Let's say that California and New York wants to get rid of the right to worship, the right to religious freedom, the right to assemble in our chapels. How does one who is opposed to this action have a vote that counts? Answer; they would not have a vote that counts, no electoral college means the majority wins every single time.

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I guess, because there are some in power coordinating for Satan. Don't ask me who or what side they are on because I don't know (i'm not a member of the SC club). However, when a prophet of the Lord tells me to guard our religious rights during these times I will try to do just that.

Did Bednar also encourage us to start speculating and spreading secret combination conspiracy theories about it all?  I didn't get that side of his talk.  Nor am I sure how that will protect us.

29 minutes ago, Anijen said:

What ground rules would you suggest? 

If you don't have verifiable evidence for a conspiracy, don't support or propagate the theory.  The fact that secret combinations exist is not evidence for any particular theory. 

29 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Smack already posted the legal way of protesting in Provo. Are those rules that smack posted not sufficient ground rules? 

He did great.  He very specifically addressed violations of law and avoided conspiracy theories.  We can address violations as we see them.  That is about all we can do.   

29 minutes ago, Anijen said:

 Are the waffeling rules of the pandemic sufficient? If your mom was in an assisted living place, would the rules mandating Covid 19 patients be placed there , would that have your support?

I agree. But, I have to say was it unreasonable to place Covid 19 infected patients with the assisted living? Because I disagree with that decision (and maybe you do to) I am the reckless one, but you're not?

First of all - Red-herring.  Let me get this straight though, rules changed and people made mistakes, therefore secret combinations are trying to take over our freedom by placing infected Covid patients in assisted living facilities?  Is that your logic?

29 minutes ago, Anijen said:

How would you defend the idea that secret combinations actually do exist? 

I don't need to defend it.  I just need to believe in and look to Christ.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by pogi

[USU78]

54 minutes ago, Anijen said:

How would you defend the idea that secret combinations actually do exist? 

There's these guys:

Hells Angels Motorcycle Club[edit]

In 1979, the United States Federal Government went after Sonny Barger and several members and associates of the Oakland chapter of the Hells Angels using RICO. In United States vs. Barger, the prosecution team attempted to demonstrate a pattern of behavior to convict Barger and other members of the club of RICO offenses related to guns and illegal drugs. The jury acquitted Barger on the RICO charges with a hung jury on the predicate acts: "There was no proof it was part of club policy, and as much as they tried, the government could not come up with any incriminating minutes from any of our meetings mentioning drugs and guns."^[18][19]

Latin Kings[edit]

On August 20, 2006, in Tampa, Florida, most of the state leadership members of street gang the Latin Kings were arrested in connection with RICO conspiracy charges to engage in racketeering and currently await trial. The operation, called "Broken Crown", targeted statewide leadership of the Latin Kings. The raid occurred at the Caribbean American Club. Along with Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, Tampa Police Department, the State Attorney's Office, the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were involved in the operation.^{[citation needed]}

Latin Kings in Chicago have been hit in 2009, their nation leader Augustin Zambrano, who was sentenced in 2012 to 60 years on 3 counts.

Gil Dozier[edit]

Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry Gil Dozier, in office from 1976 to 1980, faced indictment with violations of both the Hobbs and the RICO laws. He was accused of compelling companies doing business with his department to make campaign contributions on his behalf. On September 23, 1980, the Baton Rouge-based United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana convicted Dozier of five counts of extortion and racketeering. The sentence of ten years imprisonment, later upgraded to eighteen when other offenses were determined, and a $25,000 fine was suspended pending appeal, and Dozier remained free on bail.^[20] He eventually served nearly four years until a presidential commutation freed him in 1986.^[21]

Key West, Florida Police Department[edit]

Around June 1984, the Key West Police Department located in Monroe County, Florida, was declared a criminal enterprise under the federal RICO statutes after a lengthy United States Department of Justice investigation. Several high-ranking officers of the department, including Deputy Police Chief Raymond Cassamayor, were arrested on federal charges of running a protection racket for illegal cocaine smugglers.^[22] At trial, a witness testified he routinely delivered bags of cocaine to the Deputy Chief's office at City Hall.^[23]

Michael Milken[edit]

On 29 March 1989 American financier Michael Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into an allegation of insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pleaded guilty to six lesser felonies of securities fraud and tax evasion rather than risk spending the rest of his life in prison and ended up serving 22 months in prison. Milken was also ordered banned for life from the securities industry.^[24]

On September 7, 1988, Milken's employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was threatened with RICO charges respondeat superior, the legal doctrine that corporations are responsible for their employees' crimes. Drexel avoided RICO charges by entering an Alford plea to lesser felonies of stock parking and stock manipulation. In a carefully worded plea, Drexel said it was "not in a position to dispute the allegations" made by the Government. If Drexel had been indicted under RICO statutes, it would have had to post a performance bond of up to $1 billion to avoid having its assets frozen. This would have taken precedence over all of the firm's other obligations—including the loans that provided 96 percent of its capital base. If the bond ever had to be paid, its shareholders would have been practically wiped out. Since banks will not extend credit to a firm indicted under RICO, an indictment would have likely put Drexel out of business.^[25] By at least one estimate, a RICO indictment would have destroyed the firm within a month.^[26] Years later, Drexel president and CEO Fred Joseph said that Drexel had no choice but to plead guilty because "a financial institution cannot survive a RICO indictment."^[27]

Major League Baseball[edit]

In 2001, Major League Baseball team owners voted to eliminate two teams, presumably the Minnesota Twins and Montreal Expos. In 2002, the former minority owners of the Expos filed charges under the RICO Act against MLB commissioner Bud Selig and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig and Loria deliberately conspired to devalue the team for personal benefit in preparation for a move.^[28] If found liable, Major League Baseball could have been responsible for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted two years, successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washington or contraction during that time. It was eventually sent to arbitration, where the arbiters ruled in favor of Major League Baseball,^[29] permitting the move to Washington to take place.

Los Angeles Police Department[edit]

In April 2000, federal judge William J. Rea in Los Angeles, ruling in one Rampart scandal case, said that the plaintiffs could pursue RICO claims against the LAPD, an unprecedented finding. The idea that a police organization could be characterized as a racketeering enterprise shook up City Hall and further damaged the already-tarnished image of the LAPD. However, in July 2001, US District Judge Gary A. Feess said that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue the LAPD under RICO because they are alleging personal injuries rather than economic or property damage.^[30]

Mohawk Industries[edit]

On April 26, 2006, the Supreme Court heard Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465, 547 U.S. 516 (2006), which concerned what sort of corporations fell under the scope of RICO. Mohawk Industries had allegedly hired illegal aliens, in violation of RICO. The court was asked to decide whether Mohawk Industries, along with recruiting agencies, constitutes an "enterprise" that can be prosecuted under RICO, but in June of that year dismissed the case and remanded it to Court of Appeals.^[31]

Gambino crime family[edit]

John Gotti and Frank Locascio were convicted on April 2, 1992 under the RICO Act and later sentenced to life in prison.^[32]

In Tampa, on October 16, 2006, four members of the Gambino crime family (Capo Ronald Trucchio, Terry Scaglione, Steven Catallono, and Anthony Mucciarone and associate Kevin McMahon) were tried under RICO statutes, found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison.

Lucchese crime family[edit]

In the mid-1990s, prosecuting attorneys Gregory O'Connell and Charles Rose used RICO charges to bring down the Lucchese family within an 18-month period. Dismantling the Lucchese family had a profound financial impact on previously Mafia held businesses such as construction, garment, and garbage hauling. Here they dominated and extorted money through taxes, dues, and fees. An example of this extortion was through the garbage business. Hauling of garbage from the World Trade Center cost the building owners $1.2 million per year to be removed when the Mafia monopolized the business, as compared to $150,000 per year when competitive bids could be sought.^[33]

Bonanno crime family[edit]

Bonanno crime family boss Joseph Massino's trial began on May 24, 2004, with judge Nicholas Garaufis presiding and Greg D. Andres and Robert Henoch heading the prosecution.^[34] He now faced 11 RICO counts for seven murders (due to the prospect of prosecutors seeking the death penalty for the Sciascia murder, that case was severed to be tried separately), arson, extortion, loansharking, illegal gambling, and money laundering.^[35] After deliberating for five days, the jury found Massino guilty of all 11 counts on July 30, 2004. His sentencing was initially scheduled for October 12, and he was expected to receive a sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.^[36] The jury also approved the prosecutors' recommended $10 million forfeiture of the proceeds of his reign as Bonanno boss on the day of the verdict.^[37]

Immediately after his July 30 conviction, as court was adjourned, Massino requested a meeting with Judge Garaufis, where he made his first offer to cooperate.^[38] He did so in hopes of sparing his life; he was facing the death penalty if found guilty of Sciascia's murder. Indeed, one of John Ashcroft's final acts as Attorney General was to order federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for Massino.^[39] Massino thus stood to be the first Mafia boss to be executed for his crimes, and the first mob boss to face the death penalty since Lepke Buchalter was executed in 1944.^[40] Massino was the first sitting boss of a New York crime family to turn state's evidence, and the second in the history of the American Mafia to do so^[41] (Philadelphia crime family boss Ralph Natale had flipped in 1999 when facing drug charges).^[42]

Chicago Outfit[edit]

In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice's Operation Family Secrets indicted 14 Chicago Outfit (also known as the Outfit, the Chicago Mafia, the Chicago Mob, or the Organization) members and associates under RICO predicates.^[43] Five defendants were convicted of RICO violations and other crimes. Six pleaded guilty, two died before trial and one was too sick to be tried.^[44]

Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella[edit]

A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down a 48-count indictment against former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella.^[45] The judges were charged with RICO after allegedly committing acts of mail and wire fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and honest services fraud. The judges were accused of taking kickbacks for housing juveniles, that the judges convicted of mostly petty crimes, at a private detention center. The incident was dubbed by many local and national newspapers as the "Kids for cash scandal".^[46] On February 18, 2011, a federal jury found Michael Ciavarella guilty of racketeering because of his involvement in accepting illegal payments from Robert Mericle, the developer of PA Child Care, and Attorney Robert Powell, a co-owner of the facility. Ciavarella is facing 38 other counts in federal court.^[47]

Scott W. Rothstein[edit]

Scott W. Rothstein is a disbarred lawyer and the former managing shareholder, chairman, and chief executive officer of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm. He was accused of funding his philanthropy, political contributions, law firm salaries, and an extravagant lifestyle with a massive 1.2 billion dollar Ponzi scheme. On December 1, 2009, Rothstein turned himself in to federal authorities and was subsequently arrested on charges related to RICO.^[48] Although his arraignment plea was not guilty, Rothstein cooperated with the government and reversed his plea to guilty of five federal crimes on January 27, 2010. Bond was denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum, who ruled that due to his ability to forge documents, he was considered a flight risk.^[49] On June 9, 2010, Rothstein received a 50-year prison sentence after a hearing in federal court in Fort Lauderdale.^[50]

AccessHealthSource[edit]

Eleven defendants were indicted on RICO charges for allegedly assisting AccessHealthSource, a local health care provider, in obtaining and maintaining lucrative contracts with local and state government entities in the city of El Paso, Texas, "through bribery of and kickbacks to elected officials or himself and others, extortion under color of authority, fraudulent schemes and artifices, false pretenses, promises and representations and deprivation of the right of citizens to the honest services of their elected local officials" (see indictment).^[51]

FIFA[edit]

Main article: 2015 FIFA corruption case

Fourteen defendants affiliated with FIFA were indicted under the RICO act on 47 counts for "racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies, among other offenses, in connection with the defendants' participation in a 24-year scheme to enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer." The defendants include many current and former high-ranking officers of FIFA and its affiliate CONCACAF. The defendants had allegedly used the enterprise as a front to collect millions of dollars in bribes, which may have influenced Russia and Qatar's winning bids to host the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups, respectively.^[52]

Drummond Company[edit]

In 2015, the Drummond Company sued attorneys Terrence P. Collingsworth and William R. Scherer, the advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates), and Dutch businessman Albert van Bilderbeek, one of the owners of Llanos Oil, accusing them of violating RICO by alleging that Drummond had worked alongside Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia to murder labor union leaders within proximity of their Colombian coal mines, which Drummond denies.^[53]

Connecticut Senator Len Fasano[edit]

In 2005, a federal jury ordered Fasano to pay $500,000 under RICO for illegally helping a client hide their assets in a bankruptcy case.^[54]

[The Nehor]

On 7/1/2020 at 2:19 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Stephen Hawking. 
 

Good post, though. Smart point. Dismissing someone because his words have been “touted on right-wing news shows” is blatant ad hominem attack. 

No, it is the way it is touted. If this guy were interested in changing the scientific consensus he would have focused on articles, challenging the consensus from within, and would have been more honest in what he cited. That he wrote a book for popular consumption with a huge marketing campaign shows what he wants. Gain and glory. He is doubtlessly getting interviews, is a guest on shows, and will probably pick up a fair number of speaking engagements. He is either deeply stupid or he knows the arguments he is making are flawed but went ahead with it anyways.

Ad hominems refer to irrelevant attacks. The method someone uses to share their point is part of the message and pointing that out is not an ad hominem.

[blarsen]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

Why build up a huge straw-man before considering I might feel differently?

Interesting, you ask?  Not really.   Conspiracy theory much?  Let me guess, the cop/s that killed George Floyd were deep state agents conspiring to take over the country. Timing had to be just right, right?

More alarmism.  Let me guess Fauci is an agent for the deep-state.  Wouldn’t be the first time I heard it on these forums.  
How ironic this all is.
 

Same thing he always talked about when speaking of secret combinations - communism.  Is that what you are “alarmed” about?  Do you think there are deep-state, dirty commie agents infiltrating our government and paying homeless people to turn over cars and take over blocks of cities so that we will all become commies one day?  

Let’s rack that hysteria dial up to 11!  The more you speak, the more you keep proving my point.
 

 

 

Straw man?  How so?  I’m just asking a straight forward question.  Do the things I mentioned alarm you, or not?  And I should throw in the potential destruction of our economy due to COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions.  You are not alarmed by all these possibilities and realities?  If not, I guess I could say I admire your sangfroid.  But then maybe its simply ostrich-like behavior, not to be admired.

The “alarming events” I mentioned are events, not straw-man speculations (speaking of ‘straw man’; coupled with mentioning “deep state” again, in conjunction with George Floyd ).  And these ‘alarming events’, could be taken as indicators, or suggestive; they don’t 'prove’ anything.

And Benson in his last public talk while he was President said nothing about Communism.  Go read his talk; at least the last part where he delves into this subject.  I’m still curious about your personal take on what he actually said, as well as your take on Ether 8:22-26, if you have the courage to share it.

Now its one thing to say you’re still waiting to “see these things come among [us]”, in response to the Lord’s commandment to “wake up to our awful situation”.  I can accept that.  But, I hope you aren’t claiming that just because you don’t see ‘these things’, that other people also don’t have very good, valid information confirming the potential reality of ‘these things’

Speculating about the hidden hand being involved in some of our current current events, is not hysteria; its simply reasonable, open-minded and prudent speculation; ESPECIALLY after having been emphatically warned about these possibilities in our scriptures and via recent leaders.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Assuming there was no electoral college for a minute. How would your vote count if you were in the minority?

Let's say that California and New York wants to get rid of the right to worship, the right to religious freedom, the right to assemble in our chapels. How does one who is opposed to this action have a vote that counts? Answer; they would not have a vote that counts, no electoral college means the majority wins every single time.

I read a wiki article on it, and it mentioned race issues with it, and then I found the following article. Seems a bit unfair to me, and I wonder why a certain group is better equipped to decide on who is president than the popular choice.

Here's an excerpt from this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

Right from the get-go, the Electoral College has produced no shortage of lessons about the impact of racial entitlement in selecting the president. History buffs and Hamilton fans are aware that in its first major failure, the Electoral College produced a tie between Thomas Jefferson and his putative running mate, Aaron Burr. What’s less known about the election of 1800 is the way the Electoral College succeeded, which is to say that it operated as one might have expected, based on its embrace of the three-fifths compromise. The South’s baked-in advantages—the bonus electoral votes it received for maintaining slaves, all while not allowing those slaves to vote—made the difference in the election outcome. It gave the slaveholder Jefferson an edge over his opponent, the incumbent president and abolitionist John Adams. To quote Yale Law’s Akhil Reed Amar, the third president “metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.” That election continued an almost uninterrupted trend of southern slaveholders and their doughfaced sympathizers winning the White House that lasted until Abraham Lincoln’s victory in 1860.

In 1803, the Twelfth Amendment modified the Electoral College to prevent another Jefferson-Burr–type debacle. Six decades later, the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery, thus ridding the South of its windfall electors. Nevertheless, the shoddy system continued to cleave the American democratic ideal along racial lines. In the 1876 presidential election, the Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but some electoral votes were in dispute, including those in—wait for it—Florida. An ad hoc commission of lawmakers and Supreme Court justices was empaneled to resolve the matter. Ultimately, they awarded the contested electoral votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who had lost the popular vote. As a part of the agreement, known as the Compromise of 1877, the federal government removed the troops that were stationed in the South after the Civil War to maintain order and protect black voters.

The deal at once marked the end of the brief Reconstruction era, the redemption of the old South, and the birth of the Jim Crow regime. The decision to remove soldiers from the South led to the restoration of white supremacy in voting through the systematic disenfranchisement of black people, virtually accomplishing over the next eight decades what slavery had accomplished in the country’s first eight decades. And so the Electoral College’s misfire in 1876 helped ensure that Reconstruction would not remove the original stain of slavery so much as smear it onto the other parts of the Constitution’s fabric, and countenance the racialized patchwork democracy that endured until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

What’s clear is that, more than two centuries after it was designed to empower southern whites, the Electoral College continues to do just that. The current system has a distinct, adverse impact on black voters, diluting their political power. Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states’ electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. Three of those states have not voted for a Democrat in more than four decades. Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged. It’s the precise reason for the success of the southern strategy. It’s precisely how, as Buckley might say, the South has prevailed.

[blarsen]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I also agree that we should all be spiritually vigilant at all times.   What I see here is not vigilance.  This is fear mongering.  When people sincerely believe that there is a invisible enemy in a crisis, they will start searching and will always find one (even if there isn't one).  That is dangerous.   I have seen it over and over.  It can be spiritually destructive.  The very people that are trying to help us become the enemy of righteousness.  For example, it was just a few weeks ago that a poster was accusing Dr. Fauci and others of being a deep-state agent working in a conspiracy to take over the country.  Likewise, blarsen is throwing around phrases like "medical tyranny".  That is dangerous in a time like this when we need to look to our medical experts.  I understand why some people have lost some trust in them because of poor messaging and other mistakes, but that is not reason to suggest that the medical establishment is seeking to overthrow our liberties.  Those kind of unfounded theories and suggestions are baseless and reckless.  It feeds on peoples fears and anxieties and turns good public servants into conniving villains.  It is not right and it is not a righteous or spiritually healthy way to live.

We should all be vigilant, but this is not the way to do that.  This is reckless.  It is not surprising however and should be expected in times of crisis.  But make no mistake, it is not the spiritually healthy vigilance that we should all aspire for.  It is dangerous:

  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202005/why-do-conspiracy-theories-flourish-during-crisis

So what are you going to do and how are you going to react if medical arguments are used to force you to take vaccinations, stay in your house except given approval to leave under strict rules, force your aging loved ones into nursing homes because of a virus, etc., etc., especially when the actual facts don’t support such draconian measures?

This doesn’t mean “the medical establishment is seeking to overthrow our liberties”, but it MAY mean that other forces are using the medical situation for their own ‘control’ purposes.

The question that comes to my mind when reading your posts, is why are you so ‘hysterical’ about honest, vigilant speculation?

I think most people are intelligent enough to realize that by far, most public servants are well-meaning, good people and would be and are, far removed from the conniving being speculated about.

[Tacenda]

This website paints a bit of a different picture of what = Secret Combinations. Quite alarming if you want my opinion. These things are starkly familiar. https://www.mormonchronicle.com/waking-up-to-secret-combinations-an-lds-perspective-on-conspiracy/

 

[JamesBYoung]

No religious freedoms are being taken away: stop that nonsense right now.

What we don't have is a right to spread disease in public in the name of religious liberty.

If we act as a community of Christian believers, we will be fine.  No one is mistreating me in the name of (or the absence of) religion.

Edited July 2, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[bsjkki]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read a wiki article on it, and it mentioned race issues with it, and then I found the following article. Seems a bit unfair to me, and I wonder why a certain group is better equipped to decide on who is president than the popular choice.

Here's an excerpt from this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

Right from the get-go, the Electoral College has produced no shortage of lessons about the impact of racial entitlement in selecting the president. History buffs and Hamilton fans are aware that in its first major failure, the Electoral College produced a tie between Thomas Jefferson and his putative running mate, Aaron Burr. What’s less known about the election of 1800 is the way the Electoral College succeeded, which is to say that it operated as one might have expected, based on its embrace of the three-fifths compromise. The South’s baked-in advantages—the bonus electoral votes it received for maintaining slaves, all while not allowing those slaves to vote—made the difference in the election outcome. It gave the slaveholder Jefferson an edge over his opponent, the incumbent president and abolitionist John Adams. To quote Yale Law’s Akhil Reed Amar, the third president “metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.” That election continued an almost uninterrupted trend of southern slaveholders and their doughfaced sympathizers winning the White House that lasted until Abraham Lincoln’s victory in 1860.

In 1803, the Twelfth Amendment modified the Electoral College to prevent another Jefferson-Burr–type debacle. Six decades later, the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery, thus ridding the South of its windfall electors. Nevertheless, the shoddy system continued to cleave the American democratic ideal along racial lines. In the 1876 presidential election, the Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but some electoral votes were in dispute, including those in—wait for it—Florida. An ad hoc commission of lawmakers and Supreme Court justices was empaneled to resolve the matter. Ultimately, they awarded the contested electoral votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who had lost the popular vote. As a part of the agreement, known as the Compromise of 1877, the federal government removed the troops that were stationed in the South after the Civil War to maintain order and protect black voters.

The deal at once marked the end of the brief Reconstruction era, the redemption of the old South, and the birth of the Jim Crow regime. The decision to remove soldiers from the South led to the restoration of white supremacy in voting through the systematic disenfranchisement of black people, virtually accomplishing over the next eight decades what slavery had accomplished in the country’s first eight decades. And so the Electoral College’s misfire in 1876 helped ensure that Reconstruction would not remove the original stain of slavery so much as smear it onto the other parts of the Constitution’s fabric, and countenance the racialized patchwork democracy that endured until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

What’s clear is that, more than two centuries after it was designed to empower southern whites, the Electoral College continues to do just that. The current system has a distinct, adverse impact on black voters, diluting their political power. Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states’ electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. Three of those states have not voted for a Democrat in more than four decades. Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged. It’s the precise reason for the success of the southern strategy. It’s precisely how, as Buckley might say, the South has prevailed.

The electoral college protects the rights of small states to have a voice. Without it, bigger states would dominate all political discourse. The needs of rural, smaller states would not matter.  I don't want that. This goes back to the big state vs small state debates they had when forming the constitution. If it's popular vote, no one would ever campaign outside of the big states and smaller states voices would be silenced. I don't want New York and California deciding who is President. True democracy = mob rule. That is why we have all the checks and balances built into the constitution and the electoral college was an important check spreading power to all the states and not just a few.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

No religious freedoms are being taken away: stop that nonsense right now.

What we don't have is a right to spread disease in public in the name of religious liberty.

If we act as a community of Christian believers, we will be fine.  No one is mistreating me in the name of (or the absence of) religion.

You seem uncertain.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The electoral college protects the rights of small states to have a voice. Without it, bigger states would dominate all political discourse. The needs of rural, smaller states would not matter.  I don't want that. This goes back to the big state vs small state debates they had when forming the constitution. If it's popular vote, no one would ever campaign outside of the big states and smaller states voices would be silenced. I don't want New York and California deciding who is President. True democracy = mob rule. That is why we have all the checks and balances built into the constitution and the electoral college was an important check spreading power to all the states and not just a few.

Thanks for this post, still on the fence, which is true about a lot of things.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Straw man?  How so?  I’m just asking a straight forward question. 

Perhaps the better question is how is it not a straw-man.  This is what you said:

13 hours ago, blarsen said:

I'm surprised you aren't alarmed by out-of-proportion  'demonstrations' that devolve into rioting and destruction of property and involve taking over and burning police precincts, defunding-the-police, setting up 'new countries' in places such as Seattle, claims of universal racism, pulling down historical statues, etc., etc.   

When did I say I wasn't alarmed about such things?  And what does this have to do with anything I said?  This is a distraction from my point, a red-herring.

27 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Do the things I mentioned alarm you, or not?  And I should throw in the potential destruction of our economy due to COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions.  You are not alarmed by all these possibilities and realities?  If not, I guess I could say I admire your sangfroid.  But then maybe its simply ostrich-like behavior, not to be admired.

 Again, when did I say I wasn't alarmed, and how do you not see the irony in all of this alarmism?  Have you forgotten the OP so soon?

35 minutes ago, blarsen said:

 And these ‘alarming events’, could be taken as indicators, or suggestive; they don’t 'prove’ anything.

Great.  My point is it doesn't help anything and can actually be very harmful and cause anxiety when we already have enough.  You are all simply replacing one alarmism (one that we can see and do something about) with another alarmism (that we can't see or do anything about).

42 minutes ago, blarsen said:

And Benson in his last public talk while he was President said nothing about Communism.  Go read his talk; at least the last part where he delves into this subject.  I’m still curious about your personal take on what he actually said, as well as your take on Ether 8:22-26, if you have the courage to share it.

I thought I made it clear that I believe they exist.  I just don't think it is spiritually wise or psychologically healthy to speculate.  Have you not seen any signs of dangers in doing so.  I have seen more harm caused by these secret combination conspiracy theories than good. 

46 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Now its one thing to say you’re still waiting to “see these things come among [us]”, in response to the Lord’s commandment to “wake up to our awful situation”.  I can accept that.  But, I hope you aren’t claiming that just because you don’t see ‘these things’, that other people also don’t have very good, valid information confirming the potential reality of ‘these things’

Valid information confirming the "potential" reality of these things?  In other words, you have no good, valid information confirming the reality of these things. When you have some, let me know.  Yep, still waiting...  

49 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Speculating about the hidden hand being involved in some of our current current events, is not hysteria; its simply reasonable, open-minded and prudent speculation...

What is prudent and reasonable about making up conspiracy theories without any evidence to back them up?  Again, the evidence for secret combinations is not evidence for any given theory.  Making up theories of conspiracy without evidence is not reasonable or spiritually sound. 

 

 

 

 

 

[bsjkki]

New study on Hydrocholoquine. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/02/michigan-henry-ford-health-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate/5365090002/

"The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system’s six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 26% of those who did not receive the drug died.

Among all the patients in the study, there was an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 18%, and many who died had underlying conditions, the hospital system said. Globally, the mortality rate for hospitalized patients is between 10% and 30%, and 58% among those in the ICU or on a ventilator."

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Assuming there was no electoral college for a minute. How would your vote count if you were in the minority?

Let's say that California and New York wants to get rid of the right to worship, the right to religious freedom, the right to assemble in our chapels. How does one who is opposed to this action have a vote that counts? Answer; they would not have a vote that counts, no electoral college means the majority wins every single time.

If this is your defense of keeping the electoral college, it is incredibly weak and flawed.  To get rid of constitutional rights, it does not go to a public vote.  You actually have to have a constitutional amendment.  That requires 2/3 of Congress to approve of the amendment.  It requires the president to approve the amendment and it requires 2/3 of the states to approve it.  The electoral college is not even involved in this process, so has absolutely no bearing on your example. 

I thought you claimed to know something about the law?  Am I wrong? 

From Wikipedia

Quote

The Electoral College is a body of electors established by the United States Constitution, which forms every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president of the United States. 

Getting rid of the electoral college means ONLY one thing.  The president would be decided by a majority of votes.  Each citizens vote would be treated equally.  This is exactly how every other elected office is decided in this country.  The chart that Tacenda showed does in fact that often a person's vote doesn't count in presidential elections.  There have been quite a few presidents chosen that did not have the majority of Americans vote for them.  The current president being one of them.  It would completely eliminate the current swing state issue where a hanging chad can determine who is president.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

This doesn’t mean “the medical establishment is seeking to overthrow our liberties”, but it MAY mean that other forces are using the medical situation for their own ‘control’ purposes.

It MAY...and that is the danger in conspiracy theories.  There is just enough to believe that there MAY be something to it, but not enough to do anything about, therefore it just causes anxiety for people who really don't need it right now.

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

So what are you going to do and how are you going to react if medical arguments are used to force you to take vaccinations, stay in your house except given approval to leave under strict rules, force your aging loved ones into nursing homes because of a virus, etc., etc., especially when the actual facts don’t support such draconian measures

Stay on topic, we are talking about conspiracies of secret combinations.  I don't see any conspiracies in anything you stated.  People have been forced to take vaccinations in the small pox pandemic, somehow our religious liberties are still intact.  No take-over.  People are being forced to stay in their homes and isolate (I put people on isolation every day).  No conspiracy there.  No one is forcing anyone into nursing homes - that is a home they, or their family chose for them. (no conspiracy there).  And yes, the facts do support these measures.  The vaccine administration was upheld as constitutional.  Quarantine measures are found to be constitutional.  And while I don't agree with sending sick residents back to nursing homes, what is the conspiracy there exactly?  

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

The question that comes to my mind when reading your posts, is why are you so ‘hysterical’ about honest, vigilant speculation?

I think most people are intelligent enough to realize that by far, most public servants are well-meaning, good people and would be and are, far removed from the conniving being speculated about.

There is nothing vigilant about speculation.  Vigilance entails raising alarms when there is evidence of danger.  Speculation doesn't require verifiable evidence. It is dangerous.  

I am not hysterical.  I do see it negatively affecting my loved ones though, so it certainly concerns me.  I see people going absolutely crazy on facebook with this stuff.  It is troubling. There is good reason to be concerned about it:

Abstract:

Quote

Conspiracy theories offer unvalidated explanations for important political and societal events and thus are likely to develop around a crisis, such as the Corona pandemic. Research has shown that a general tendency to believe in conspiracy theories—a so-called conspiracy mentality—comes with negative societal consequences, such as decreased social engagement and less trust in authorities. However, this has not been tested for concrete conspiracy theories like the ones around the Corona pandemic. Social engagement and trust in authorities are essential to successfully fight the pandemic. Therefore, we examined the relation between the belief in two Corona-related conspiracy theories and trust in authorities, support for governmental regulations, social engagement, social distancing, and hygiene measures in two studies (total N = 909). Believing in a Political Corona Conspiracy (accusing government and media) showed a stronger (and unique) negative relation to all desired outcomes than believing in a China Corona Conspiracy (accusing China of developing the virus). However, believing in the theories was not related to hygiene measures. Overall, believing in specific conspiracy theories predicts harmful attitudes and behaviours similarly to conspiracy mentality, but to a stronger extent. Findings underscore the relevance of conspiracy theories in the context of the Corona pandemic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340650399_Conspiracy_Theories_in_Times_of_Crisis_and_their_Societal_Effects_Case_Corona

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/psych-unseen/202005/why-do-conspiracy-theories-flourish-during-crisis

Read the articles.  Do you disagree?

Edited July 2, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

New study on Hydrocholoquine. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/02/michigan-henry-ford-health-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate/5365090002/

"The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system’s six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 26% of those who did not receive the drug died.

Among all the patients in the study, there was an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 18%, and many who died had underlying conditions, the hospital system said. Globally, the mortality rate for hospitalized patients is between 10% and 30%, and 58% among those in the ICU or on a ventilator."

Wrong thread?

[california boy]

38 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The electoral college protects the rights of small states to have a voice. Without it, bigger states would dominate all political discourse. The needs of rural, smaller states would not matter.  I don't want that. This goes back to the big state vs small state debates they had when forming the constitution. If it's popular vote, no one would ever campaign outside of the big states and smaller states voices would be silenced. I don't want New York and California deciding who is President. True democracy = mob rule. That is why we have all the checks and balances built into the constitution and the electoral college was an important check spreading power to all the states and not just a few.

Well actually no presidential candidates campaign in California and haven't for decades.  So here you have the most populas state in the union and it is completely ignored.  Does that seem fair?  I am not sure, but I think NY is similarly treated.  

Why should smaller states have a bigger say per person than a bigger state in who is president of the country?

That said, I realize that the Electoral College isn't going away any time soon.  It would take a Constitutional amendment, which would never get 2/3 of the states to agree on.  Maine and other smaller states like the fact that they get more say in who is elected.  

 

[Anijen]

40 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

No religious freedoms are being taken away: stop that nonsense right now.

Oh stop. Try telling that to the pastor who got arrested preaching to his flock who were in their own cars and they were fined. Nonsense is selective I guess.

 

Quote

What we don't have is a right to spread disease in public in the name of religious liberty.

You're correct spreading disease is not an enumerated right. However, religious liberty does have two clauses in the very first amendment enumerated. Now do not attack me for believing people have a right to spread disease, I am not saying that and I do not believe that. Although I would like to point out that most infectors of Covid 19, do not know they even have it. But let's stop church service, uh, just in case. Heaven forbid we allow protestors without masks to shout out their grievances, but don't allow church service. Can you see the ridiculousness?

 

Quote

If we act as a community of Christian believers, we will be fine. 

Community of Christian believers usually attend a church service and sing hymns, and congregate, have missionaries, charitable events, funerals, marriages, etc.. Has this not been affected?

 

Quote

No one is mistreating me in the name of (or the absence of) religion.

Ok, I am happy for you. However, because it hasn't happened to you is not the same as saying, hmmm saying what? oh something like this; No religious freedoms are being taken away: stop that nonsense right now.

[Anijen]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for this post, still on the fence, which is true about a lot of things.

Thanks for the huge clip from wiki article quoting the Atlantic.com. Here is one from Tara Ross; 

Quote

 

“The Founders knew that unrestrained power is always dangerous. No person or group is immune from mistakes, selfishness, and greed.

 

Did you know someone who voted for Clinton, Obama, and again Clinton? When they voted then they voted for their own type of electoral college system via superdelegates. Calling it superdelegates or electoral college they are doing the same thing voting for a person regardless of what the majority wanted (see Bernie Sanders voters hating the superdelegate system).

So, steering this away from a political discussion, let us look at ward disciplinary councils. As a ward they support and sustain the Bishopric and Stake Presidency etc., but we don't have say in the disciplinary process we just have faith in those men to choose the right decisions.

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

Wrong thread?

Well, it is also a covid thread so I dropped it here.

*maybe all the withdrawn studies vs this study is another form of 'secret combinations.' (lol)

Edited July 2, 2020 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well actually no presidential candidates campaign in California and haven't for decades.  So here you have the most populas state in the union and it is completely ignored.  Does that seem fair?  I am not sure, but I think NY is similarly treated.  

Why should smaller states have a bigger say per person than a bigger state in who is president of the country?

That said, I realize that the Electoral College isn't going away any time soon.  It would take a Constitutional amendment, which would never get 2/3 of the states to agree on.  Maine and other smaller states like the fact that they get more say in who is elected.  

 

I agree it is not changing anytime soon. I live in Colorado and am quite upset they voted to throw MY vote to the popular vote winner if enough states sign on to the scheme. I wonder if that will hold up if it ever happens. What chaos would ensue!  But, I do think it is interesting that the electoral college was a compromise.

"Originally, the Electoral College provided the Constitutional Convention with a compromise between the popular election of the President and congressional selection."