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

[alter idem]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From Wiki:

”In the October 1967 general conference, Benson declared that the civil rights movementwas a tool of Communist revolutionaries, and that it was led by mostly white male Communists who want to "destroy America by spilling Negro blood". He also stated that accusing law enforcement of "police brutality"against black people should be recognized as attempts to discredit and discourage law enforcement.^[39] His talk was re-published the next year by the church's Deseret Book as a pamphlet titled "Civil Rights: Tool of Communist Deception".^[40]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_and_Mormonism#Benson_against_the_civil_rights_movement

And how is President Benson's personal views relevant?  I know he said this, he was a member of the John Birch Society.  Please read the article I linked to. It was the Republican party that was pushing the civil rights legislation, and the democrats were fighting it, as they supported segregation.  And now, I really have to bow out of this tangent, since it is veering into politics.

[JamesBYoung]

Anybody, including Elder Benson, who thinks that King was a commie or a tool of commies was then (and now) misinformed.  The Elder had a right to a personal view, but to suggest Civil Rights action was commie-inspired is ludicrous, imo.

Edited July 2, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[JamesBYoung]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's easy to label those who disagree with us (whatever the topic) as immoral or having some kind of mental disease or deficiency.  But that is rarely (i'd guess almost never) the case.  The biggest reason that people do things we disagree with or feel are wrong is because they have a different perspective on it than we do, or different beliefs, etc.  

One of the reasons that we are currently lacking in unity in our country is because everyone is so quick to believe that when there is a difference of opinion, they hold the moral high ground while those who disagree with them are behaving immorally.   And so righteous indignation, anger, and intolerance towards those that disagree are acceptable (and even favorable) emotions to spew out into the world.  

I don't think calling other people names or trying to diagnose them with mental diseases really helps anything.  

Having said all of that, I'd guess that it's because Elder Bednar doesn't believe that he is spreading disease in public.

Suggesting reasons is healthy, I believe.  I do believe that if Elder Bednar believes he is not spreading disease in public that the 10th Amendment gives the executives in the State of Utah to order him to wear a mask, nonetheless.  That is a health issue not a religious issue.

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Yea, that's not true, I've lived here for 30 years and I can tell you, it doesn't 'lean' the way you think it does anymore.  And, we'd have to have a population explosion to  ever become a 'battleground' state.

I have lived here for 41 years.  We have never voted for a democratic president in my lifetime.  I'd say we are pretty solidly red when it comes to presidential elections. 

Last Democrat we voted for was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.  That is not saying much because there wasn't a red state who  voted for the republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, except his home state of Arizona. 

Before that it was Harry Truman in 1948.

I am just stating facts.  Not being political. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Isn’t this how every state government works? Each state is a mix of rural and urban. Each governor is elected by popular vote decided almost entirely by urban population centers. Has this been a problem for you? Why would it be any different at a national level? 

There are 15 states that are more than 50% rural and another 19 states that are more rural than the US average.

But even in states that do have large urban areas, the proximity of the two groups to each other, and the experiences they often share can have a real impact.

In Wyoming the urban areas are greatly affected by their rural parts. Even the biggest city in the state (which was around 60,000 last I checked) is largely rural in attitude because even there the economy is largely rural leaning or neutral. Plus, the average Wyomingite has personal experience with and can relate to the rural areas of their state.

I would imagine the same is true for the average Alaskan in regards to the realities of rural Alaska, or Iowan with the needs and challenges of rural Iowa.  Or Mainer for rural Maine. In a state, the rural and the urban often aren’t very far removed from each other.  There can be obvious interdependencies (not always, but often) that force a good working relationship.

Can the same be said for the average resident of urban Chicago relating to and having personal experience with the residents of rural Nebraska?

Can the average New Yorker or Los Angelean relate to the needs of the people in Wyoming?  Or Nebraska?  Do they have experience with the needs and realities of living in the state?  It’s much much less likely.  The gap between them is too wide, not just in experience but in geography, which is also a significant issue that wouldn’t impact residents in a state the same way it impacts residents of a very large and geographically diverse country.

In my experience, that’s what makes the difference. It’s easier and more likely for residents in urban areas of a state to understand the rural mindset and needs of people in the same state.  They have a great deal in common and aren’t far removed from each other.

There will still be some discordance sometimes but it seems unusual for the urban side of a state to rule the rural without consideration (and when it does happen, the state usually has some real issues, like talk of secession by the rural population).

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Suggesting reasons is healthy, I believe.  I do believe that if Elder Bednar believes he is not spreading disease in public that the 10th Amendment gives the executives in the State of Utah to order him to wear a mask, nonetheless.  That is a health issue not a religious issue.

Does he disagree?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m still in favor of the electoral college though. 

Until there is another option that avoids likely perpetual domination in the executive position by one party or the other, I am for the college though I dislike it.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Well actually it would mean that the American people get the president that the majority of citizens would want.  Any of the big states you mentioned has both Republicans and Democrats.  So NO state would be voting as one big block.  And actually it is cheaper to campaign nationally rather than state by state.  The reason it is done the way it is now is because the vast majority of votes don't really matter.  If a state leans heavily on one party or the other, then the minority party gets no say in who the president is and no money is spent in that state.   

I guess I see myself as American first, Californian second and San Franciscan third.  When I am voting for national offices, I am voting for what I believe the best president will be for the whole country.  What state I live in is irrelevant. 

The state you live in has a great deal of impact on your life. If your state is apt to be ignored by the federal government because your state has little-to-no collective voice in presidential elections, yes, that can be harmful to you and your neighbors. It has little to do with whether you regard yourself as an American first, second or last. It has everything to do with how well your interests as an American are represented. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

NPV

Net present value?

added:  national popular vote...took a minute

Edited July 2, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

think part of the problem is that many individuals who refuse to socially distance or wear masks are refusing, imo, no matter what they say elsewhere, is that they simply do not value the lives of other people. 

I know some very nice people who are charitable, etc who think this whole thing is overblown and they truly believe they are doing no harm not social distancing etc.  They are ready to do it if they feel it is really needed...what will convince them it is needed, I don't know.  I assume people they know getting sick will likely be sufficient, but it isn't real to them yet.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Where does it say "they want to disrupt the western nuclear family"? 

It comes across to me they are intending on 'disrupting' the ideal of self sufficiency, that one is only responsible for one's spouse and children along with oneself and those looking for help outside that structure are therefore failures in parenting or marriage.  

Rather than a nuclear family ideal, they aim for an extended family ideal.  However, I think they worded it poorly...they should have focused on promoting the ideal and moving towards it without referring to destroying/disrupting any family structure requirement because it is too easily misinterpreted.

[Anijen]

Just a few comments and I am trying to keep this in the religious realm and not political (a difficult task concerning the topic of this thread).

On the Electoral College (EC). It is true, to change the Constitution a 2/3 vote would be required. However states are starting to use runaround loop holes to make the EC non-essential (pun intended). I live in the flyover state of Nebraska with the magnus of 5 EC votes (at one time it had 8). Nebraska is a very religious state where the church's outnumber the bars (a good sign). However, here in good ol cornhusker territory (oh BTW, Go Big Red!), the electoral college is almost non existent where the districts with the popular vote gets to choose their electors. Thus, in 2008 election McCain received 4 electoral votes and Obama received 1.  I do also foresee a split vote this coming election. Here, the EC is actually a popular vote.

Furthermore, Nebraska is the only state in the union that does not have a bicameral polity. We have a unicameral. I do not like this either because there is no bicameral the state legislators have an overwhelming favor compared to the state executive and judicial branches (e.g., the bills once voted on does not need a senate approval because the state legislators are all one voice). 

Elder Bednar's talk did not put lives at risk. Elder Bednar as an Apostle of the Lord is simply saying that religious freedoms are worth fighting for during these pandemic times. Elder Ezra Taft Benson as an Apostle of the Lord was speaking of communism and its dangers. One of Communism's most quoted sayings is that "religion is the opium of the people." In 1997, Russia passed a law that gave its government officials the authority to ban religious groups and thereby prohibit all of the activities of a religious community. Although religions exist in Russia today it is micromanaged by the state. Before 1997, the USSR had the same authority. Elder Benson saw first hand the effects of communism and was assigned to Europe to help relieve the casualties of war by both the Axis and Allied forces. He personally saw the dangers of communism. He was appointed to be in President Eisenhower's cabinet as Secretary of Agriculture. Benson actually never was a member of the John Birch Society although he strongly supported it. President Benson abhorred communism and socialism not just for their failures but in a large capacity for their detrimental impact of religious freedoms. He was asked to be George Wallace's running mate (for the vice presidency), but President Benson put the church ahead of his political ambitions and when President David O'Mckay did not want him to run he immediately informed Wallace of his decision not to run. It is plain to see these two men Elder Bednar and President Benson are Witnesses of Christ and they place a very high importance on religious freedom. No, neither has ever put lives at risk during trying times. 

Too a certain poster, I'll keep nameless. I do know the law. I practice in North Dakota and I am authorized to pursue cases in their Supreme Court. I am also in the process of being able to practice law in three other states. I have degrees in History both in undergrad and in grad school. I am uncomfortable tooting my own horn, but when you constantly question my skills and abilities I have to bring out those little letters behind my name, ugh.

Thanks Anijen Esq.

 

 

[The Nehor]

7 hours 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.

It is harsher then just giving more voting power to some people.

The Electoral College was created to make sure slaves gave their owners voting power without actually giving them a vote (part of the 3/5ths compromise). There is a reason that outside of John Adams and his son every early US President before Martin Van Buren was from the South. They had a lot more voting power then they should have had based on the actual number of voters. John Adams only got in due to being the heir apparent of Washington and his son only got in because of a hanged electoral college. The Electoral College is special pleading that some people's vote should count more than others. Claiming that without it people in New York and Los Angeles whatever would always win is saying that a voter in North Dakota somehow should have more of a vote. The Electoral College still favors many. It does benefit swing states who get all the attention in elections. That and early primaries in their states is why the corn lobby is so freakishly influential and punches way above its actual weight.

Protection for minority political views is found elsewhere. We could also push the Senate back to being the representatives of the state governments/elites instead of the people.

I think state schemes are wrongheaded. I think it would be easier just to erase the electoral college as an anachronism and have each state report the total number of ballots cast for each candidate. It is a dumb system whose ideals were never really tried and the flaws were immediately apparent and still persist.

The big state vs. small state thing is also a joke. All that matters are the swing states whether large or small.

Edited July 3, 2020 by The Nehor

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Protection for minority political views is found elsewhere.

I would like to see strong protections against gerrymandering within a state to ensure a party's domination.  If we are going to do majority vote on a national scale, there needs to be ways to protect minorities within a state and in Congress so they get representation through those avenues.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”) refers to attacking the individual (or the man) instead of engaging his arguments on their merits. Disparaging someone’s message because you don’t like the forum on which it appears is, by definition, ad hominem and is, by nature, weak sauce. 

So you are saying you gave the Unabomber's manifesto a fair reading and only judged it on its merits and not its method of delivery?

When someone presents themselves and acts like a conman or a shyster I take them at their word. If that is ad hominem we need more of it, not less.

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Why has no one told me why Elder Bednar has the right to spread disease in public?

Oh please. Really that isn't necessary.

 

Quote

many individuals who refuse to socially distance or wear masks are refusing, imo, no matter what they say elsewhere, is that they simply do not value the lives of other people. 

No matter what they say elsewhere. So, If Elder Bednar speaks of the importance of religious freedoms he simply does not value the lives of other people? If I say, and I have, that I believe the lives of others are important I must be lying, in your opinion I do not value the lives of other people? I wear masks where they are required and do not where they are not required because I don't value the lives of others. Hmm, amazing mind-reading abilities you have. Or could it be that I am suffering from narcissism, or am I machiavellian, or maybe I am a psychopath? Maybe all three (the evil dark triad). 

I have never met you. You do not know me, yet because I disagree I am somehow putting lives at risk. Then to double down on your ad hominym attack I must also be a narcissist, machiavellian, and a psychopath.

 

Quote

My advice always has been to have as little to do with them as possible.

All I can say is lucky them.

Can we count the number of board rule violations in JamesBYoung's post?

[Anijen]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think it would be easier just to erase the electoral college as an anachronism and have each state report the total number of ballots cast for each candidate. It is a dumb system whose ideals were never really tried and the flaws were immediately apparent and still persist.

I can find examples of good too in contrast to your bad examples. All the elected Republican Presidents starting with Abraham Lincoln fought to end racism first by ending slavery while Democrats fought to keep slavery in. Heck. President Woodrow Wilson had his own viewing of A birth of a Nation and proclaimed it to be his favorite movie up to that time. Oh, and BTW slavery was in the U.S. before it was the U.S., before Washington was even a president.

It was put in exactly for a the minority to have a voice. So that Rhode Island had an equal say about who the president would be and so that a New York President couldn't just run the country in favor of New York residents to the detriment of Rhode Islands.

Yes, I imagine it is considered a dumb system for those whose choice of president did not get in. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

It depends on how open they are and how hidden their true agenda is.  Just with the two of us, we both read the same thing, but disagree on what their actual intent is.  So, I'd say that suggests that this particular organization could be hiding their Marxist agenda, since they don't call themselves 'The People's Organization to demand that Black Lives Matter'.  

 Sometimes groups don't start out being evil, but as they evolve, they can become evil, by what they do and what they bring about by their influence.  I think an example would be the Danites in Missouri.  I'm certain that some who were involved in Danite activities thought they were doing right, fighting against the Missourians who were attacking the Saints, trying to drive them out of the state, disrupt their lives and destroy their property.  But, they were working in secret, they were hiding their associations and they were encouraging violence. They became the very thing they were fighting against, and we can call them a secret combination because they were making oaths with eachother to hide their identities and to protect eachother.   

Some of these protesting groups started out demonstrating against police violence, but then they themselves brought about more violence and death in the riots, destruction and looting they spawned. 

The notion that the nuclear family ought to be de-legitimized in favor of a state-run, or collectivist, entity is very Marxist in flavor — and, by the way, antithetical to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you are saying you gave the Unabomber's manifesto a fair reading and only judged it on its merits and not its method of delivery?

When someone presents themselves and acts like a conman or a shyster I take them at their word. If that is ad hominem we need more of it, not less.

???????

[bsjkki]

And while we are discussing the electoral college, let us not forget that we are awaiting a Supreme Court opinion on faithless electors. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/chiafalo-v-washington/

"Issue: Whether enforcement of a Washington state law that threatens a fine for presidential electors who vote contrary to how the law directs is unconstitutional because a state has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot and a state penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment."

This will be an interesting decision. I listened to the oral arguments. My gut says the court will try and rule in favor that electors will be bound to vote by what the states determine in their popular vote. Otherwise, we have chaos.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I can find examples of good too in contrast to your bad examples. All the elected Republican Presidents starting with Abraham Lincoln fought to end racism first by ending slavery while Democrats fought to keep slavery in. Heck. President Woodrow Wilson had his own viewing of A birth of a Nation and proclaimed it to be his favorite movie up to that time. Oh, and BTW slavery was in the U.S. before it was the U.S., before Washington was even a president.

It was put in exactly for a the minority to have a voice. So that Rhode Island had an equal say about who the president would be and so that a New York President couldn't just run the country in favor of New York residents to the detriment of Rhode Islands.

Yes, I imagine it is considered a dumb system for those whose choice of president did not get in. 

I know slavery existed before the Revolution. Starting with Lincoln? Lincoln was the first Republican President. The Democrats fought to keep slavery in following Lincoln's election? There were very few democrats at all in the Union at that point.  As to your weird pointless anecdote about Wilson is not surprising it was his favorite movie. It was the most impressive movie production of the time. The film is still studied as it was innovative and we still use many of the filming techniques that were pioneered by that movie. Wilson was a racist (as most were at the time) though he weirdly promoted self-determination to the point that he was used as a figurehead by some to help dismantle colonialism. The League of Nations  (Wilson's pet project) failed to include a statement on racial equality (Japan wanted it) because the United States did not want to inflame the South and Australia wanted everyone to ignore what was happening to the aborigines. France supported it as their language was supposed to civilize anyone who spoke it and the British were torn by the whole thing. It may have also been about Japanese immigrants in other nations primarily. It is darkly humorous that the Japanese encouraged this clause while having no interest in it in regards to the Chinese or Koreans in their midst. What in the world does Republicans at the time being more liberal about ending slavery have to do with the electoral college? And ending racism? Yeah, that was a small minority view even amongst Republicans.

Your Rhode Island example is not supported by history. It was the South that wanted the electoral college, not Rhode Island. Popular vote for the President was not very seriously considered by the Founders. The most popular plan was for Congress to elect a President but some were dissatisfied as the Executive would be unlikely to act as a check on the legislature. Many founders assumed that a hung electoral college would be the norm (this was before political parties were formed) and thought the college would be a formality before the House chose the President as the electors all selected various locals and a majority of the college would be the rare exception and not the rule. Of course they also envisioned the electors as independent people not bound to the will of any voter. Small states were the biggest objectors to the electoral college, not the biggest supporters. Virginia was the biggest supporter because they clinched a quarter of the electoral votes due to their high slave population. Ever noticed how many Virginians won the Presidency back then? The Electoral College is further scarred by creating the compromise of 1877 which involved an agreement to give disputed electoral votes to a Republican President in exchange for the (way too early) end of Reconstruction which rapidly led to the southern states disenfranchising their former slaves and trying to rebuild the good old days.

As a minor point not all states had votes for electors in the beginning and it was not constitutionally required and still is not. If California or New York or Missouri or Texas passed a state law that the state legislature would choose the electors that would be perfectly fine legally and this was not rare in the early republic. As late as 1824 about a quarter of states had electors chosen by state legislatures. I am surprised no state has tried to bring it back honestly. Getting rid of the electoral college constitutionally would prevent this from happening.

There are downsides to a popular vote. Mostly that Presidential candidate will have to spread out more which costs them money and time. I am okay with that. Another issue is that a very tight election could drown in lawsuits over voting totals nationwide as opposed to individual states. I think it is worth the risk and I would keep the election totals to state reporting. I am not suggesting any attempt to federalize the election process. Just that each state reports the voting total of their state for each candidate.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And while we are discussing the electoral college, let us not forget that we are awaiting a Supreme Court opinion on faithless electors. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/chiafalo-v-washington/

"Issue: Whether enforcement of a Washington state law that threatens a fine for presidential electors who vote contrary to how the law directs is unconstitutional because a state has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot and a state penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment."

This will be an interesting decision. I listened to the oral arguments. My gut says the court will try and rule in favor that electors will be bound to vote by what the states determine in their popular vote. Otherwise, we have chaos.

More chaos but more of the founder's original vision. If we have to keep the institution we might as well make it more interesting.

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

???????

I am saying his approach with this book is like that of a conman and/or shyster. Seriously read the chapter titles if you have any doubts there.

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The notion that the nuclear family ought to be de-legitimized in favor of a state-run, or collectivist, entity is very Marxist in flavor — and, by the way, antithetical to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Did you mean this for the polyamory thread?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The state you live in has a great deal of impact on your life. If your state is apt to be ignored by the federal government because your state has little-to-no collective voice in presidential elections, yes, that can be harmful to you and your neighbors. It has little to do with whether you regard yourself as an American first, second or last. It has everything to do with how well your interests as an American are represented. 

I didn't say that my state doesn't have a great impact on my life.  I am very grateful that California is a big enough and wealthy enough state to be able to create a state that does so many things right.  Our current president has implemented punitive punishments in retribution for the state not embracing some policies that Californians think are quite toxic.  But we have enough wealth from a prosperous economy to not really be affected by his punitive  actions.  

California is not perfect, but there are real reasons why it is the most populous state and our housing prices are the highest in the nation.  Too many people escaping other parts of the nation where opportunities are not as good want to live here.  Just like my father who moved from Utah when I was only 4, they seek a better life.  But that is a different issue.

That doesn't mean that I am willing to ignore all the policies that get implemented in the rest of the country that imo cause social unrest and endanger the health of those that follow the president's lead based on political motive rather than health concerns.