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

[bsjkki]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

It’s going to be a very interesting decision. 

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, alter idem said:

We can't discuss politics so there's no point in addressing point by point.

I know statehood for DC is not new, but you must acknowledge that it wasn't ever popular,  ever, with the voters. This time it had unanimous partisan support in congress except for one lone dissenter. The plan is to add two additional senators for a particular party, to gain the majority. But it also gives opportuntity to concentrate power in one tiny 'state'. 

I trust the judgment of the founders. As supported in revelation,  I trust they were  warned and inspired to set up the country with help from Heavenly Father.  I trust the founders a ton more than modern politicians, who I won't get started on.

The majority rule in this country would mean the dense population urban areas would control elections,  which not surprisingly,  benefits one of the  parties. The Electoral College has prevented that and given less populated states a voice as well. 

Imo, This is a power grab, it's following the patterns of past events where nations have been overthrown and communiist and fascist governments have taken over. But unfortunately our schools have not taught these history lessons the last 40 years, that unless they've educated themselves, they have no idea they're reenacting history. 

You undermine and destabilize a country, cause trouble within, lie to them that you offer stability and a better system, but the cost will be freedom and religion is always suppressed or outlawed. There is no country in the world like the United States of America., and it's forever been in the cross hairs of despot controlled government systems and their adherents.

Tearing down statues, indiscriminately,  is a dead giveaway of the idealogy we're dealing with. 

Fyi, the organization you support has admitted on their website their goal is to do away with the 'western' nuclear family. Since when was 'family' a western idea? And how is the goal of the destruction of the family compatible with the principles and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?   I doubt many lds who display the little black square actually know what they've embraced. So yea, there are secret combinations out there and people need to Wake Up, imo.

A lot of this has moved on or been talked about quite a bit. So I don’t want to repeat too much or veer into things too political (you’re right, it’s difficult to do considering the topic). 
 
I understand yours and others points about the EC. And if it was just the EC up as a reform idea, i could see more your point of this indicating a secret combination to gain power. But it’s not. It’s often tied with several different ideas that put in aggregate equals a more fair electoral process, emphasis again on collaboration and less partisan voting, and better overall representation in the government. They’ve included neutral independent boards to make electoral districts to reduce gerrymandering, rank choice voting, changing some of the rules in congress to increase collaborative bills, and measures to increase voter participation and automatic registration for citizens to vote. And ethical oversights. Secret combinations had very strong purposes. Specifically to maintain power over the general populace, they valued violence and death as a form of power, they were focused on gaining. These changes in aggregate to me point to trying to have a government that is representative of the people and better functioning with hopefully less corruption involved. Whether one agrees or wants these changes is one thing (i do because i see them as a fairer balance between minority and majority rights and voice)...but whether they point to nefarious purposes such as a secret combination is an extreme stretch. 
 

on what you describe about early leaders...i also disagree. It reads as a simplified narrative to me that leans towards hero worship. They were flawed and limited and, yes, inspired...there needs to be corrections and changes to better match the current needs of the people which ate extremely different than their times. likewise, tearing down statues aren’t random, 9 times out of 10. They glorify people who fought for oppression or imagery maintains a vision of racial inequality. There are limits, sure. And there are discussions about certain people that i think is reactive to a simplified hero-narrative that is also, likewise, simplified. But i think it’s more indicative of the unrecognized pain that had been apart of many minority communities. 
 

which leads me to my last point. I’ve been workign with politics and social issues to first validate and understand others views even when I drastically disagree with them. I’m not perfect, but it’s been helpful at the very least to help me step into their stories and viewpoints. What you’ve written and discussed often feels more like reacting and assuming to views that differ to the point that if they’re not pretty close to yours they may have a nefarious subplot or at best in error or unstudied, etc. in short it usually paints people in a negative light and i think that’s won’t of our political illnesses we suffer from. 
 

from my experience, very few people have deeply evil purposes. They have reasons and beliefs often built from different experiences within the US, many of which i’m not privy to. When we label or write off too quickly their viewpoints of others and assume something intolerable about their stances (lik secret combinations), i worry that we fall into the experiences right before Christ’s coming in the americas where they stuck with their own kin and groups and were fundamentally divided as a people. 
 

I get BLM’s stance in family. I think Calm is partially right. But i think for black communities, the nuclear family has often been weaponized to dismiss their problems, concerns, and deaths and the justice system failures. The oppression, in essences, must be in our minds and because of our “broken families” which is causing more crimes. It i frustrating to have one’s family defined as “broken” because it doesn’t fit the structure of another. And it is worse to have that said structure ans experience blamed for your unlawful death and disproportionate jailing and artificial  disruption to the family. It is annoying that one can work hard, grow strong ties, become a vibrant and loving extended family and community and always be picked apart and never be good enough because it does not match the white American ideal of family. So disrupting the systemic favoritism and weaponization can happen at the same time that they support and welcoming families of all stripes into the bigger family of a blessed community.
 

side note: DC may be geographically small, but population wise it has around the same as 4 other states
 

with luv, 

bd 
 

Edited July 3, 2020 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Anijen said:

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.

And when expressing those religious freedoms through gathering as a people puts significant risk on the life and health of the public in a deadly pandemic, then what? Which option puts lives at greater risk?  Should we fight for the right to gather in churches in that scenario, or should we respect and allow the 10th amendment powers endowed to local governments to quarantine people from gathering at churches to take effect?

Which places life at greater risk?  Should we say "never again" (regardless of how nasty it gets), or should we say "with restraint and limits"?

Which places life at greater risk?  Should we say "religious liberty is paramount among all fundamental rights", or should we say that "life is paramount among all fundamental rights"?

The position he espouses absolutely will place lives at risk if he gets his way.  He wont get his way though, people have tried and failed in the courts, thank goodness.  

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Anijen said:

. 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.

I never said you didn’t know the law.  I’m sure you know it much better than I do, obviously.  I would never question your ability.

Perhaps you could provide examples of me “constantly questioning your abilities”.   You may know the law, but you have misread me.

You stated your credentials in the last thread you accused me of questioning your abilities in too. Trust me, they are crystal clear, and quite respectable.  I haven’t  questioned your ability in this thread and I didn’t do it in that one either.  I’m honestly perplexed by the accusation.

I think there was one post in the other thread you accused me of lecturing you about the law, but in reality I was just explaining my perspective of things and how I felt it applied to my argument.  It was not meant to question your legal intelligence/ability in any way.  Honestly.

In fact, knowing that you know the law so much better than I do, I have been very careful to preface any references to law with, “I could be wrong...” and “according to my understanding.” Etc.

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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.

I hope you’re right. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Did you mean this for the polyamory thread?

??????

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

I was using the pronouns you and your in a generic sense. I was not referencing you or your state specifically. If you replace those pronouns with the indefinite pronouns one or one’s, you might get my meaning more easily. 
 

In short, what I’m endeavoring to say is that folks in the less populous, non-coastal regions of the country have a great deal at stake in the continuation of the electoral college — and a great deal to lose if it is ever abolished in favor of the popular vote. It would amount to tyranny. 

[Tacenda]

3 hours 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 read the other day that the democrats and republicans basically swapped in the early years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#:~:text=Some southern Democrats became Republicans,John Connally and Mills E.

[bsjkki]

Interesting question/opinion about having room to disagree with BLM about their stated goals. From ESPN.   https://twitter.com/GavinWax/status/1278924620394115072?s=20

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by bsjkki

[JamesBYoung]

11 hours ago, Anijen said:

Oh please. Really that isn't necessary.

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.

All I can say is lucky them.

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

I did not mention, but was talking about some types that I think carry the 'religious freedom' thing far too far.

Neither you nor Elder Bedar has the right to spread disease in public.

The 10th Amendment gives We the People the right to elect leges who make these kinds of decisions.

You, as a member of We the People, get to obey them.

You are not a victim.  Those who are infected are the victims. 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[JamesBYoung]

13 hours ago, alter idem said:

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.

I would give the correction to the above but it would be a violation of the political rules.

Edited July 3, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[alter idem]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

I was referring to Utah state, local politics. I'm sure if you have lived here 41 years and pay attention to local politics then you will agree. 

[alter idem]

15 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

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.

I'm not sure he ever said it was inspired by communists, but was recognizing that communist sympathizers and agitators were sticking their dirty fingers in the civil unrest pie, by getting involved and encouraging violence., hoping to destabilize the country. That's a reasonable assumption and if you search, I bet you'll find it was true. And he knew that many groups who were involved did embrace communist idealogy.  Communism was at one time, recognized as the direct enemy to the American Constitutional idealogy, and so of course, Pres Benson spoke out against it, to the point that some lds who wanted social acceptance and to be part of the popular crowd, wished he'd shut up. Some things don't change because human nature doesn't change.

And I should clarify, I think Pres Benson may never have formally joined John birch society, but his son did (?). Regardless,  he shared their belief that communism was a real threat to the free western world.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was using the pronouns you and your in a generic sense. I was not referencing you or your state specifically. If you replace those pronouns with the indefinite pronouns one or one’s, you might get my meaning more easily. 
 

In short, what I’m endeavoring to say is that folks in the less populous, non-coastal regions of the country have a great deal at stake in the continuation of the electoral college — and a great deal to lose if it is ever abolished in favor of the popular vote. It would amount to tyranny. 

I get that.  I think that is the problem. When some citizens votes are worth more, it kinda negates the whole we are all equal under the laws of this country.  Of course those whose votes have that advantage don't want to give up on that advantage.  It doesn't make it right though.  An American citizen in one state shouldn't be valued over an American citizen in another.  It is the only election where one citizen, one vote doesn't apply.

While it is unfair representation, I know darn good and well, those states are not going to give up their privileged  positions.  They like that their votes count more in presidential elections.  

I just have one question for you.  Do you think this electoral college system has given us a fair presidential selection process when only a handful of states determine who is elected and a hanging chad can be the deciding factor?  

Edited July 3, 2020 by california boy

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I was referring to Utah state, local politics. I'm sure if you have lived here 41 years and pay attention to local politics then you will agree. 

I agree, but the discussion was surrounding presidential elections and why presidential candidates don't campaign in Utah much.  I was supporting Seekingunderstanding's point about this being a give-away red state with presidential elections.  It will be interesting to see how this next election in Utah goes however.  For the first time, I'm honestly not quite sure how Utah will vote.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I get that.  I think that is the problem. When some citizens votes are worth more, it kinda negates the whole we are all equal under the laws of this country.  Of course those whose votes have that advantage don't want to give up on that advantage.  It doesn't make it right though.  An American citizen in one state shouldn't be valued over an American citizen in another.  It is the only election where one citizen, one vote doesn't apply.

While it is unfair representation, I know darn good and well, those states are not going to give up their privileged  positions.  They like that their votes count more in presidential elections.  

I just have one question for you.  Do you think this electoral college system has given us a fair presidential selection process when only a handful of states determine who is elected and a hanging chad can be the deciding factor?  

I believe a system that precludes what amounts to the disenfranchisement of citizens in less populous states is more fair than one that does not. 
 

The genius of our Constitution is that it precludes the tyranny of the majority even as it vests the people with governing power. That’s why each state gets two senators and only two senators regardless of population, though each state is allowed members in the House of Representatives proportionate with its population. The electoral college is based upon that representation in the Senate and the House. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd