NeedleinA

But this does not happen. Those who fear getting the dread Covid virus have but to "mask up" to gain the near-magical protection offered thereby.

Them pesky Americans, at it again. 
In other news... pesky Australians appear to be demanding liberty too. 


 

Them pesky Americans, at it again. 
In other news... pesky Australians appear to be demanding liberty too. 


 

I would laugh, except it's true rather than funny.

When nothing of stellar intellectual wonderment is available, resort to a bear meme:

I only read Benson as: " help preserve freedom and extend the gospel ".
On a personal note...Republican, beer, bikinis, Trump aren't part of what I envision when it comes to helping preserve freedom and extending the gospel.
I see a need to fight for freedom because through it the gospel can be spread and lived to its fullest. I personally have no allegiance to a political 'person' or a 'party'. In both cases I have to take the lesser of two evils.

To their credit, the media has been doing a bang up job repeatedly drilling into our brains that conservatives = bass-ackwards Jerry Springer inbreed hill billies not even worthy of NOS Grey Poupon.
As much as I tried to fit their mold, all my cousins and sisters were already married once I got off my mission.

I only read Benson as: " help preserve freedom and extend the gospel ".
On a personal note...Republican, beer, bikinis, Trump aren't part of what I envision when it comes to helping preserve freedom and extending the gospel.
I see a need to fight for freedom because through it the gospel can be spread and lived to its fullest. I personally have no allegiance to a political 'person' or a 'party'. In both cases I have to take the lesser of two evils.

To their credit, the media has been doing a bang up job repeatedly drilling into our brains that conservatives = bass-ackwards Jerry Springer inbreed hill billies not even worthy of NOS Grey Poupon.
As much as I tried to fit their mold, all my cousins and sisters were already married once I got off my mission.

I only read Benson as: " help preserve freedom and extend the gospel ".
On a personal note...Republican, beer, bikinis, Trump aren't part of what I envision when it comes to helping preserve freedom and extending the gospel.
I see a need to fight for freedom because through it the gospel can be spread and lived to its fullest. I personally have no allegiance to a political 'person' or a 'party'. In both cases I have to take the lesser of two evils.

To their credit, the media has been doing a bang up job repeatedly drilling into our brains that conservatives = bass-ackwards Jerry Springer inbreed hill billies not even worthy of NOS Grey Poupon.
As much as I tried to fit their mold, all my cousins and sisters were already married once I got off my mission.

Indeed.  But what (addressing his fifth point) what happens when the Gentiles ARE the problem?  What happens when a defensive alliance merely bolsters the position of people who themselves are planning to devour you in the decades after the current crisis is passed and their own power is assured?
As much as I love Elder Benson; I’m not sure his allegiance to the federal government of his day is any more applicable to us at this point in time, than is President Young’s open willingness to let the federal government of his day go hang.
I’ll continue to vote rightward and respond to Church calls to action.  But I think I’m pretty much over the idea that Elder Benson’s statements constitute a theological obligation for me, as a Latter-day Saint, to consider myself in perpetual hock to the guns-beer-and-bikini-babes faction that now seems to be dominating the 2021 iteration of the Republican Party.
We, the Latter-day Saints, have resources that the world knows not; power that the world knows not.  I would like to focus on qualifying myself to use that power; rather than giving my allegiance to a political has-been who has a track record of treating his supporters (from Manafort and Cohen and Pence and McConnell on down) little better than his whores.

I appreciate and largely agree with your analysis. But I see a great deal of corruption in the political "my side", which pains me. As for Charlie Kirk, anyone who viciously misrepresents an institution associated with me or with the Restored Church merits my immediate skepticism. And anyone who engages in exactly the same kind of dishonest hyperbole as we generally see coming from CNN, MSNBC, and other "normal" leftist sites arouses both my suspicion and my gag reflex.
I do not know for sure what to do or even to think. "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" Even the very kingdom of God seems to my half-deaf ears to be giving an uncertain sound. When hatred for Trump and for the cult of personality surrounding him causes even leaders to turn their support toward the likes of Joe Freaking Biden, I honestly do not know what to make of it. Am I truly to believe that our nation (or the kingdom of God) is better off under the likes of Biden and Harris than we were under Trump and Pence? Whatever your argument against Trump's abrasive personality or lengthy list of personal defects, how can any reasonable religious conservative argue against most of the results of his presidency? As for Biden and Harris, their actions speak for them. Yet the barely disguised contempt for Trump and the personal support for Biden among at least some in the highest quorums of the Church echo in the silence of the Church's political "neutrality".
Like JAG (and you, and Needle, and many others here), "my side" is the kingdom of God. At least, that's what I believe and try to act accordingly. The Republican Party's planks are nothing even approaching the voice of God to us, but they are a far sight better than the Democrat bilge water that flows nonstop from that side of the aisle. But in the end, I'm not married to the Republican Party. I'm not a Republican, politically speaking, even though I usually vote Republican. My loyalty is not to the Republican Party, or any other party. My loyalty is to the kingdom of God. Politically, my loyalty is to the United States of America and the Constitution that is supposed to define her. Will Charlie Kirk stand strong in defense of the principles of freedom as outlined in our founding documents? If so, then he is politically on my side. If not, he is not.

Watching non-members do the heavy lifting in the fight for freedom makes me think of the following excuses that members might give for not doing more of the heavy lifting themselves.
From Pres. Benson:

 

Watching non-members do the heavy lifting in the fight for freedom makes me think of the following excuses that members might give for not doing more of the heavy lifting themselves.
From Pres. Benson:

 

So do you guys remember when Mike Lee compared Trump to Captain Moroni?
I remember when I watched this I just busted out laughing. Not because I thought it was ridiculous...but because I knew that so many people would find it ridiculous and just HATE it because they were thinking small-mindedly on the matter and have strong biases. Which was true. In other words, I laughed because it was inadvertent trolling. I don't think Mike meant to troll (he certainly does sometimes, but I don't think so this time). I think he was sincere. But boy howdy is such a statement geared to raise hackles.
Anyhow, I bring it up in regards to "sides" and who's "side" we're on.
Charlie Kirk isn't a Latter-day Saint. Ben Shapiro isn't a Latter-day Saint. Tim Pool isn't a Latter-day Saint. Jordan Petersen isn't a Latter-day Saint. Trump isn't a Latter-day Saint. Etc. And so, obviously, if that's the criteria for "sides" then none of them are "on our side". But is that the criteria? We're talking the political (and by that I mean our government, institutions, and the like) arena here, right? What "side" is "our" side in that regard? I don't believe in party-line thinking. I know you two don't either. But in general principle, what's the standard by which someone counts as "on our side"?
I knew what Senator Lee meant. I think Latter-day Saints who were thinking myopically were bound to take his comparison of Trump to Captain Moroni as a comparison of righteousness. That's obvious nonsense. And Mike Lee didn't mean that. He's not an idiot. He knows very well Trump is not righteous like Captain Moroni. What was he comparing then? Obviously, the fight for "the cause". Which cause? Well, the principles set forth in the Title of Liberty: "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children." This is what Senator Lee meant. There is (was) a man at the head of our nation fighting for "the cause" of freedom. Was it a perfect comparison? No. Few are. But the point was obvious. Do you want to sell out your rights to religion, freedom and family to someone who hates them and is actively working to destroy such, or do you want to vote for the man who's fighting tooth and nail to protect such?
So I cannot help but wonder where we quibble over "sides" based on specific foibles, personality traits, or individual points with which we disagree. Because when I consider Charlie Kirk, I think there's no doubt what cause he fights for. And there is no doubt that cause is aligned with mine and my "side". Yeah, I think he's wrong here. Private schools have the right to require vaccinations and if students don't like it, go somewhere else. It's really simple. But as an overall "side" goes...Charlie Kirk is one of the frontline warriors fighting the good fight. Of that there is little doubt in my view.

maybe it's Maybelline?
 
Seriously though, he is hard to watch for very long.

Desert News shared the following:
Probably the same vibe that area authorities get, 'decide what is best for your area' is my guess. 

Here is the most recent filth, vile, fruit of those pushing CRT (by their fruits you shall know them):
 

Indeed I still remember when Trump won the election against Hilary.. and the utter shock that many had (even here) that Trump could have enough followers to win.  While any cult of personality (And every politician is at the head of one) will have its die hard followers.. To win elections you have to tap in to something more.  Trump tapped into the wellspring you described and those people saw their lack of trust verified by how the major tech and media tried to silence Trump.  Biden tapped into the "He is not Trump" wellspring. 
That wellspring (that produced Trump as a viable candidate) is still there, being feed a daily diet of so called 'fact checking,' suppression, and lack of any real critical thinking toward the current administration in the media.  This means that Trump 2.0 is still very much a possibility.   Because until you treat the disease, the symptoms will keep returning
 

This^^^
I read 80% of the link you provided. Enough to go... yep, that is me. Disgusted and saddened by the direction of our country and the crumbling of it's once(?) respected institutions. Top it off with a heaping load of Big Tech and Govt. censorship = double sucks.

I laugh when I hear folks narrowly minded talk about Trump as if he is the leader of the America First movement, he is not. 
I'm also fine when I hear that people dislike Trump, because again, this is not about Trump. Trump for me was  simply the best option we had in 2020 to avoid the steaming mess of a country we have right now. Was he perfect, no. Simply the better of the two options. 

So, you know I have no love lost for Trump; and his post-electoral conduct has made me dislike him even more.
That said:  I think it’s fair to point out that for a lot of the supporters, this is less about Trump (or even purported election fraud) than about the dawning realization that the country and values they learned about in high school civics doesn’t exist anymore (if ever it did).  The last few years have illustrated the obvious hollowing out of a number of previously-trusted American institutions—not just the press and academia but the courts, DOJ, FBI, corporate America, and even increasingly the military.  Take a look at the Twitter thread that’s been copied and pasted here.  

I still think conservatives need to stay engaged in the traditional civics game; because short of bloodshed, that’s really all there is to play—if nothing else, the January 6 capitol occupation/hasty retreat (and the squealing like stuck pigs ever since) has shown that even the Trump wing of the GOP doesn’t have the guts for a bona fide revolution.
But I can understand why people are mad; and while I can fault Trump for stoking that anger when he had a responsibility to at least try to tamp it down—there’s no point in pretending that he created the situation.

If there is no election fraud, then I agree, the mid-terms are a viable solution.
If there is election fraud, then what would make the mid-terms any more hopeful then the past elections we just went through?
If individuals have cracked the code and are gaming the system, then no election moving forward means diddly squat as it can just be gamed after the fact.

Every current anti-audit person should be EXCITED to see the audits completed, then they can forever rub it in everyone else's face that there was no fraud. They will be vindicated and should be able to shoot down future claims of election fraud with ease. Why wouldn't they enjoy a big, "I told you so audit conspiracy nuts"?

Do you mean Maricopa County (the one who ignores subpoenas) was none to happy to have anything said about their voting procedures? Shocker.
The same county that has restricted and tried to impede the audit at every turn... you mean that group? Shocker again.
I guess one Twitter post from MC and we should all just pack it up and go home now.
Since the auditors are working with limited access/restricted information, they said they may need to resort to door to door since the county is withholding necessary data.
IF the county would simply provide the necessary information:
1. No door to door would be necessary
2. They could voluntarily, in goodwill, demonstrate to their citizens that they were 100% forthcoming and followed all election laws.
Spoiler: they won't do it.

Republican, Democrat, Independent... I don't care at all. Prove that the system works and put this to rest for the voters and following elections.

Appears clear that Arizona is determined to get to the bottom of their election system and confirm to it's voters that either it functions securely/properly or there was fraud in the Presidential election. Today Arizona had a preliminary hearing where they shared that the audit on Maricopa County alone had issues with 74k votes. That is just Maricopa. 
Both Pennsylvania and Georgia appear to be next to conduct election audits. 

What would be worse, stopping an individual from taking office OR trying to remove them from office it was acquired?
Perhaps we might find out. 

I'm still with Carb though:
 

Not only that... if we are talking election fraud.. we need to be careful about thinking along party lines only... Fraud is fraud and if it is wide spread it is really doubtful that it is limited to just one party.. So the idea that a member of a different party is protesting findings is not definitive it is simply another set of claims to process.

This is a whole lot of double speak that relies on the conflation of "mail-in" with "early voting".
Either that or you really need to re-word this.  It really makes no sense to use this as an explanation for the claims in Maricopa County.
Did you want to re-word this?

Depends on what you mean my removing them.  The Supreme Court has never removed a sitting president and I really doubt this conservative court will try to break new ground (and I am not sure it is constitutionally possible)  But what we do have is the mid-terms... The current setup is on very narrow margins and historically the party out of power makes gains in the mid terms.  If either the House or the Senate flips then the current administration is stalled and limited to executive actions.
If they get the House then they can move to impeach (Because that has been weaponized now and claims do not need to be proven to start it) on the basis of being fraudulently elected, that process would allow for a federal election investigation.  The results of that would be interesting.  If the impeachment process runs to the end that could remove the President and we have been over that ground before and we know what it looks like.