JohnsonJones

I was a Boy Scout outside of the Church. I can't say HOW it was run in the LDS Church when I was young or as a boy. When run CORRECTLY there should not really have been the ability for bullies to operate, or at least cut off other scouts from advancement. The Scout program has it in the Law that you are to be Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, and Kind. Inherent in advancement is that you actually LIVE the Scout Law. This is one key point where a committee and scout master would talk to the parents and tell them the problem with advancement as this was a KEY part of being a boy scout. Without that, it's not really a Boy Scout, and more just a bunch of checkmarks to check off. You need to adhere to the actual CONCEPTS (which would be the oath and Law today, as well as the motto and slogan) of Boy Scouts to advance. Did they ignore that part in the LDS Boy Scout program? I know they didn't when I was participating in it with my boys when they were younger, but I don't know how the Church ran it as a whole. However, if a group IGNORED that part of the program, that's more part of a problem with the local group (much like some LDS wards would ignore that their Scout leaders needed background checks and other precautions which led to problems with abuse in some LDS scout units...which is more a problem with that WARD then with the Church or Scouts in that situation) than Scouts.

Isn't it better that the doors where opened then? Instead of hiding it, isn't it better to be revealed and hopefully better measures put into place that help to stop these things in the future? I think it is a SHAME that the LDS church left the Boy Scouts. Their new program (PISS/SIPS...Physical, Intellectual, Spiritual, Social) does not seem to me to be a great success (and in fact, looking at my grandkids, it seems to actually be failing them in the worst ways possible). It allows the bullies to be bullies and the introverts to be ignored. The Boy Scout Program (and despite being a convert, I actually WAS a Boy Scout once upon a time and still have respect for the program) still teaches better morals that are integrated into it's actual program than what I see in the Church program (the Scout Oath, and Scout Law, regardless of whether one follows them are pretty decent things...the Church COULD require something like the 13 articles of faith to be memorized, or the ten commandments, but their program is more "free form" than actually having any requirements of moral codes that it's participants must adhere to in the program itself. Yes, they have temple interviews...but the program as written doesn't actually REQUIRE temple attendance or even temple worthiness). If the Church had tried to stay in Scouting and/or utilized it's concepts, I think it may have been better. Scouting has changed it's programs DUE to that door opening. It is not perfect, but there are MORE protections today put upon youth leaders than there are in the Church currently. Scouts require background checks, youth protection training, and safety regulations (two deep leadership for example and other regulations) in regards to the youth that the Church does not use. I would imagine (no stats on this) that the problems in the Church today are probably far more serious than what is occurring in the scouts, and that with the church leaving the scouts and the little protections that Scouting required, the problems with abuse may actually be rising in the church in regards to the levels it had in scouting. I am concerned in HOW the church has been doing it's youth programs these past few years. There are very little protocols over how youth protection is to be had (a 30 minute video annually is not all that effective IN MY OPINION). I really only have anecdotal experience with the Church's Youth Program (as I have no youth directly anymore, and I'm not in the Church's Leadership that deals with Youth today) through HOW I've seen it affect my grandchildren. With many grandchildren with several that are not the standard extroverted types, I've seen a deleterious situation with some of them in their church groups over the past two years and the results with the relationships between my grandchildren and the Church are starting to have me very concerned a some instances). I love the gospel, but I see more and more of my grandchildren struggling due to how things are going in their own personal interactions in trying to gain testimonies of that gospel. (I won't go into great detail, but some of the early struggles I've had have been voiced here in years prior...and unfortunately it's gotten worse with more of my grandchildren over time. If my experience is anything to go off of, and it may not be, I'd say right now, today, there is a crisis in the church in regards to the youth. Sorry, I went off tangent (drastically there). However, to get back on topic, I think it is good to "Open" those doors. We should be willing to call out these types of things whether it is with other groups or our own groups.

interesting. The hands and fingers in some of those videos REALLY look messed up

I don't have a source for the idea that declining birthrates will lead to the destruction or downfall of the United States, however there are multiple sources out there that point to a declining birthrate as well as the birthrate in the US and some other nations being below sustainability (sustainability is where a nation has enough births to sustain it's population at an even level, lower than that the population declines. Logically, without any other sources to renew that population, if it continues to decline, at some point in the future it would cease to exist). This one is about Europe but it is extremely interesting because it has graphs and charts to show the information as well. What I also find interesting is that much of Europe has a lower birthrate than the US. Europes fertility crisis What is interesting is that the charts at the bottom show that the birthrates all over the world are ALSO declining. Thus far, Europe has taken an approach similar to the US, where we create a sustainable population (refer above to what sustainability in populationIF is) via immigration rather than the live births occurring in the nation. If other nations and areas also have a decrease in live births, logically, eventually they will also not have sustainability and will not be reliable sources to sustain or renew Europe or the US's own population. A more succinct view of Europe's fertility situation currently This next article pertains to the US's fertility situation How low can Americas birth rate go before it is a problem Interestngly enough, the article tries to refute that a falling population is actually a problem and tries to highlight that the ideas that popularized the idea that population growth spurs economic and financial growth may be flawed. Finally, as a last article, the falling birth rates and fertility in the US has garnered enough attention for a call out from the White House itself. Now, the following basically says don't worry, the sky is not falling. However, when you have the White House note something is a problem, but try to say it's not...alarm bells may start sounding in your head as it seems the right hand of the government is trying to do and act something the opposite of the left hand. A First-Pinciples look at  historically low us fertility and its maroeconomic implication Now there are various reasonings many have given for the declining birth rates and fertility, including those given in the articles themselves. What is NOT mentioned are the things @Traveler stated. That said, though the articles do not state it and the authors of the articles themselves would probably disagree with this, I agree with Traveler's summation or ideas (or what I understand what he stated) in that the growing abberations in regards to chastity and gender are the problems that are driving much of this decline. I would broaden it to the sinfulness of our society in general, and that as sin and wickedness increases, it will affect such things as the birthrate and fertility as well as the general well being of society. However, that last paragraph is more of my opinion (obviously, as well as obviously also influenced heavily by my own personal religious beliefs) than anything currently supported or spoken about in scientific communities.

I read a news story recently about a TV series that was recently made (Secret Lives of Mormon Wives or something). As I read the article I was horrified at what these woman who claimed they were LDS were doing. My thoughts were how they had not been excommunicated for their flagrant and blatant acts which were against the church teachings. It was just so blatant. So out in the open about the things they were doing that were obviously NOT what our church teaches us to do. And yet, the news story had them listed as "Mormon" and the TV series apparently highlighted these atrocious acts they were participating in and seemed to be proud of. I would say people can do some pretty crazy things that not only are against the teachings of the church, but would be against the teachings of almost any Christian religion, and still claim to be LDS or Mormon.

Looks like a Trick Question. If they had the Triangles that go across the pyramid correctly, it would be one thing, but all of the choices have one side where the triangles go in the same direction rather than opposite directions of each other.

So, I get something entirely DIFFERENT from this than you. Having served in a Bishopric...that LAST THING I WOULD EVER WANT is the Lord coming to me and asking me...Why was Sister (Doe) starving when you were Bishop? If my answer was...I was just trying to keep your funds safe so those that REALLY needed them could use them... I'm not sure his response would be optimistically enthusiastic. So...the difference I see (with the exception of the kid with the Iphone) is that you had four families that needed food and rental help for an extended period. The ONLY difference that occurred wasn't that their NEED went away, but that the Bishop changed. Which means instead of Five families having their needs met, you now had 3-4 familes that were starving and may have lost housing (wow...if they go homeless does that really solve the problem because it's out of your hair and they are in another ward...is that REALLY how the Lord wants us solving these things) with one or two families that were getting help. Ignoring the problem doesn't actually MAKE it go away. Sure, it may help with your numbers...but it's not doing anything to actually SOLVE the problem or even HELP the problem. So, when I was in the position, I was a STICKLER for the rules. Unlike the one Bishop you mentioned, I would NOT approve exceptions UNLESS I paid for it with my OWN money out of MY OWN pocket (which I have done on occasion, bishop or not). However, if there was a need, I would work to help with that need. I would ALSO use the church resources as suggested to help them plan better, prepare better, or to even get them to church classes that would help them get better jobs or better positions in life. It can be temporary help if you can get the people to gain better positions in life. If you don't help them get a better position in life, and then cease to help them at all...that's just returning them to the bad position they were in the first place. With the individual with the phone bill, it should be clear that the help is temporary and at most will be 3 months, though it could be as little as one month. There are other programs they can turn to if they cannot find a job in 3 months. Also, they may have to scale down their phone bill, depending on HOW much that phone bill was. The church can help cover a phone bill costs for trying to find employment, but it doesn't have to be an expensive one. Putting more money into problems do not necessarily make the problems bigger. What it MIGHT do is that someone is acutally going around FINDING that more problems actually exist that have not been being addressed. Putting money to address those problems actually MAY cause those problems to decrease. It may appear to increase simply because the problem is far more widespread than originally thought, and investing in actually HELPING RESOLVE the problem will help it get better. However, NOT putting money in to something rarely decreases a problem. Prime example...the university felt that every student should have housing. There should be no homeless students. When investing into it, suddenly there were a LOT more students that did not have a place to live than previously thought (by several dozen). This number didn't increase because we put money into it...they were ALREADY THERE. THEY ALREADY EXISTED. Focusing on the program merely highlighted how big the problem actually was. If we had NOT spent money, the problem would STILL exist and STILL be just as BIG if not bigger. However, the requirements started to be that students HAD to live in the Dorms their first year, and after that had a registered place to live that the university could check. Normally there were apartments and rentals the university would suggest strongly. Did this solve the problem? No. The problem probably exists to this day. However, as far as we can tell, though the numbers went up initially, they are lower today when trying to gauge the overall impact, then they when the amount of the problem was finally actually investigated (rather than ignored). Spending less money and saying the problem isn't as big is simply saying...if you ignore a problem...it will go away...but if you investigate it and invest in solving it...it gets bigger. Which is absolutely not true. Normally, if someone isn't spending money on a problem, the numbers are LOWER simply because most of that problem is being ignored rather than the REAL numbers being shown. For a system that works on stats...and you getting rewards for good stats...the first statement is what many prefer...however for a system which looks at what the actual problems and REAL numbers are as well as trying to find solutions, the second statemen is what you want to actually address.

Link? The closest I could find would be this study adult development study Done via Harvard Medical. However, there are many papers done from this study, the closest being this one perhaps What's Love got to do with it? Though there are others as well... Security of attachment of Spouses later in life and then there's this one Long Life Family study though it may also be this one... Families in Later Life The first being done I believe in conjunction with Harvard Medical. Others also being offshoots of it. However, they don't necessarily seem to absolutely agree with what you said the findings were, and some are really talking about other things entirely...though there are some similar conclusions on many points. This indicates that these are not the studies you are talking about. Do you have a link to the study you brought up?

I normally go by instinct on how far I should be behind the car in front of me. By that, I mean, a kind of second hand ingrained idea of how long and how far I need to be behind the car. This is normally far greater than other cars on the highway feel I should be. Many cars cut in front of me while I drive because I'm too slow (old person syndrome I suppose they may think) and following too far behind the car in front of me. I think people in general tend to follow too closely to stop in time of an emergency, rather than giving enough distance to safely stop in case a vehicle in front of them need to stop suddenly. Last wreck I was in was due to my suddenly stopping to avoid an object in the road. I was going around 30 miles per hour. Not a big deal, you would think...yet the concrete truck behind me apparently didn't get the memo. It rammed into the back of my vehicle. Luckily the Lord was watching over me and my wife at the time and no one was hurt, and the damage was covered by the concrete company. In that instance though, I'd think the truck driver was following too closely for a load of concrete and the size of his truck which is why I got hit (edit: When I say I got hit, I mean the vehicle I was in was hit).

To Counter that I'll give some examples of when they DID work (but also note, that in at least two of these examples, it was enforced by the death penalty. In otherwords, you have money and DON'T give it over...well...you die). The First establishment of it was after the death of our Lord and under the direction of Peter. It is also how we know that those who held some back or didn't give up their goods were killed. Interestingly enough, they weren't killed by men, necessarily, but struck dead by the Lord. An even more famous example of it working (and it worked for over 100 years, possibly as long as 200 years...which is longer than most economic systems work without a massive crash or change) was on the American Continent among the Nephite people (which is where I got the phrase, no rich or poor among them). A third attempt, though not so successful for various reasons was in Missouri. Another attempt, with some areas being massive successes while others floundered was in the Utah Territory under Brigham Young. The biggest difference is that these systems were driven by the Lord (and, in some cases the death penalty. Even under Brigham Young, refusal to adhere to the system had extreme penalties in the areas where it was successful. Either you adhered to the system or you had some pretty dire punishments, some of which probably did lead to people dying). I don't think members today realize just how these systems worked (I see constantly the illusion here that if we ever went back to the Law of Consecration and the United Order everyone here would get to keep their stuff and be appointed "stewards" over it...which just isn't how the system worked (sure, you are a steward over what is given to you for your needs...but that's not going to be anywhere close to what you have today. Most probably can't even imagine how little of an amount of riches, money, or stuff it actually would be). Its not how it was designed. You want to know what actually was expected...the Lord laid it flat out to the Rich man in the New Testament and it was obvious his apostles had the same creed of leaving everything and relying soley on the Lord for sustenance and subsistence like the birds and others). All the money and riches were then redistributed...and the members were NOT the ones who got to decide who got what. It was the servants appointed by the Lord who were led by the Lord, and it was meted out according to NEEDS...not wants. I imagine that IF we ever go back to it and how it worked in those times listed above...the Church would probably lose 70%-80% of it's membership over this issue because members are too far into their own wealth...OR...too far into their own political beliefs as their religion rather than the lord's religion to actually DO as the Lord tells us to do. While, at the same time calling the poor members in Africa, Asia, and South America the same thing people call the poor in the US who use some of the few social programs that exist (lazy, sponges, etc). It is interesting that the LORD spoke more highly of the poor than he did of the wealthy (and have no mistake, comparatively to much of the world, people in the US are HIGHLY wealthy), or even those who were relatively well off with property and comfort. I don't know how I would fare if it was re-instituted. At least I'm honest about it though to say I may have difficulty. The greatest difficulty I would have would be with many of my books. To the collector some are worth thousands of dollars, but under the Church I expect they would either be dumped in the trash, or sold for pennies. They are of little worth to those who don't treasure what is between their covers, or is trained to know what they are worth. However, NOT being connected to treasures or riches in this life is better for us. It is better if we lived the law and HAD to give away all we had and LEARN to live with the bare necessities which the church gave us back to live with (and you want to know what necessities may be...Joseph F. Smith grew up in a log cabln smaller than my living room along with all his brothers and sisters after coming to Utah. They had FAR less than almost any member in the US lives with today. And THAT was for a larger family than most members have today. Most members, if forced to go into that...would throw fits about what they FEEL is needed vs. what the LORD feels they need. However, when we do NOT place value on the riches and treasures we find on this earth, we may refocus on what is TRULY important in this life...which is the things of the Lord and that which he treasures. I think that's the true message of the Law of Consecration and the United Order. That instead of putting our love of what we have in earthly treasures, we put it towards the Lord instead.

That may be the crux of the matter right there. Will she or won't she. Is she just putting out empty promises? People know of her actions before she was the Vice-President and many of those actions do not speak highly of her or what she will choose to do later. We know of her actions while acting as Vice-President, and while the Biden administration has done many things, she has generally been kept to the background and so hasn't been seen as doing much of anything significant. She HAS acted in the Senate at times on some crucial matters however. When you look at those things you can see a particularly liberal slant which I'm not sure will win over many Conservatives. In fact, I think looking at that record you may actually have some who swore not to vote for Trump actually rethinking that idea and now on the balance of who they will vote for. Which leaves the Independents like I am. I don't think I can vote for Trump as he is highly Immoral, the problem I see is that I don't see Kamala Harris as being an exemplary icon of morality either. She doesn't have things in the past half as much as Trump, but she has those ghosts of the past of which I don't think she regrets at all. Not that her most famous fling, with Brown, was entirely on her, but she should have been better than to be with a Married man who was blatantly separated from his spouse and actively cheating on the spouse (even if it was an agreed upon and allowable type of cheating by both sides of the marriage). Furthermore, statements of her claiming the work of others whilst ignoring the very people she's taking the credit from seem to have popped up on occasion, indicating that she may not be the most honest in her dealings, and willing to play both sides of the coin by doing one thing that opposes something, but if it happens and is good anyways, taking credit for it from those who actually acted on the issue. So, she does not seem the most moral of people either, and in fact, pretty immoral in comparison to some others. At least Walz, for all I can see about him, seems to be genuinely liked and appreciated by those in his state and seems to be garnered overall as a more honest politician by those who seem to know him in his political position and by many of his adherents in the state he represents. I'd probably have an easier time voting for him if he were running as President than any of the other two who are running. Actually, both VPs are better than their respective presidential candidates who they are running under from what I can see currently,. It's times like these it would nice to have something other than a simple two party system (yes, we have more than two parties but for all intents and purposes, on the Federal level if you want to vote for someone who probably will get into office, it needs to be someone from one of those two parties). I'm not particularly fond of my options.

Perhaps the confusion is between what we label as Right/Left and Conservative/Liberal. If we label Right as going more towards less law and anarchy, Conservatives today in the US would DEFINITELY NOT qualify on that aspect, and especially not the Republican party of today. The Republican Party in states which it controls have been placing MANY restrictive laws on what people can or cannot do (restrictions on abortion, birth control, what one can read or not read, restrictions on medical rights, restrictions on what can be taught in schools, etc..etc..etc). Making more laws and controlling more what people can or cannot do is not going right towards less government and laws at all. This is where the confusion between Nazi/Facism and Conservatives may be stemming from. Conservatives are moving more towards what we would call Authoritarianism. This would be the rejection of other parties or political ideas and the enforcement of a particular idea with the focus on a singular authority or voice (for example, the Bible, or The Church of Latter-day Saints, or Christian brotherhoods, etc). Many times this is more focused towards a party rather than a book or ideology. Facism is more traditional and thus in many instances is generated from a more Conservative slant as it emphasizes a push towards a Social Heirarchy (normally one that was felt was lost, such as pure Germans losing their property and money to others such as Jews and outsiders, or Italians who feel the new ideas that are circulating are wrong and want a return to how it was in the past...etc....make italy great again...MIGA). Facism is normally very Nationalistic. It normally is also centered with one centrally strong leader. Now, some hypothesize that Facism and Communism or Socialism cannot co-exist as normally those who are Facists decry Communism and Socialism and say that those two things are evil. Fuirthermore Facists have traditionally taught that they are the OPPOSITE of Communism and Socialism. That said, I find that there are large similarities between the two at times and how they end up (communism normally ends up more as an authoritarian government rather than what Socialists and the Communist theories posit SHOULD happen) with all other ideologies being crushed, a great political push for national pride, and either an oligarchial government or a Dictator in so called Communist nations today. That said, just because one is in a Conservative party does not mean they are going to opposite direction as Facism. In fact, most of the examples of Facism arose from Conservative parties that were greatly patriotic, wanted to go back to a more traditional Social Heirarchy, and wanted to suppress or restrict (by force if necessary) beliefs, ideas, thoughts, and actions that went contrary to their party or own beliefs (which is why book banning, banning of certain medical ideas and practices as well as the restrictions on minorities and women, and more is common within the lead up to a Facist society). So, with the actions of the Republicans in the States they control, currently the needle is inching closer to Facism...but not necessarily Socialism. On the otherhand, the TRUE Libertarians (those who actually believe in that parties ideals rather than Republicans who just want to be part of them) are probably the only true ones on the Right today (going towards that less government and more anarchy point on the line), but they don't really control any state or federal government at this point as far as I know in the US. PS: In that light, a nation like North Korea which claims to be Communist is probably more a Facist nation today rather than a Communist one. There really is no common distribution of materials to everyone as per their needs, it is more divided by those in power who have and those who are not in power who have not and live in poverty, you have a strong nationalistic push in the nation, you have one strong central leader, and you can't get much more traditional and backwards in time than where North Korea is currently stuck at with the majority of it's population. On the otherhand, on the opposite end of the spectrum you have the Scandinavian nations, of particular note is Sweden which has universal Healthcare, a good welfare system for those who are poor, and a good distribution of goods. However, it is not a pure Socialistic society and has many Capitalistic ideas and so you still have that division of great vast differences between the wealthy and the poor. One of the BEST socialistic societies in the world is probably the US military. Though you have different paygrades, if you live on base you are given a home, you are given a food allowance and even a clothing allowance. You have free healthcare for you and your family, and you have basically everything equal between you and others of the same rank as far as what you are given. Of course, this system could not exist without the external support of a far greater and bigger Capitalistic society in which we reside, but with that support we probably have one of the most successful socialistic societies in the world. In this, as every military member is a taxpayer and a citizen, they literally are the ones who are paying themselves as well and with their votes have a say in what the general direction of the military may go. They have far more say in the military direction (via their elected leaders) than most do in so called Communist nations today!

Until there's a fire and half of the congregation dies in a fiery inferno of sacramental destruction. Looking at that picture it appears people are smashed together in standing room only all the way to the glass doors! That's pretty full. If they would do what they did during the Pandemic and allow people to bless their own sacrament as long as they were a Priest or higher it could alleviate situations like this I supposed. It used to be allowed that we could do these things in our homes as things were necessitated, especially the further you lived from a Ward or church building. I'm not sure WHY they ended it. Normally I can see why it would not be needed, but in situations like the Original Post atop this topic, I could see it being a useful measure to have as a backup.

Well, the Trump Tax "cuts" weren't cuts for me. They actually made my taxes worse (I think I complained about something to that effect years ago when they were being created as well). I see that supposedly they lessened the taxes for those with lots of money... I agree though, with higher power and money one SHOULD be willing to sacrifice more of it to help others. However, we know the nature of mankind is NOT to do that (I mean, just listen to me, just a sentence ago I was complaining about a heavier tax burden). Knowing what you will do if given the opportunity to pay less, vs knowing that it is right to pay more, and knowing that the only way you will do so is if you are mandated by law...well...that's one way to do it I suppose. In a perfect world there would be NO RICH or POOR among us. Those with wealth and money (which, believe it or not probably would include a LOT of Americans in that, including probably most of the active membership of the church, especially those in leadership positions these days, though also including others who may also be among the top 50% of American earners and owners of wealth) would pay the proper amount to bring them to an equal level of those without money or wealth (and if you think you are poor, go visit North Africa sometime, you'll see poverty like you can't imagine. In South America, Asia, and Africa are probably where MANY of our impoverished brothers and sisters are, some who can only dream of what homes with refrigerators, stoves, carpeted floors, etc are like) as all others in the Church, and in the world. We would be more like the Nephites in their time after the Lord came...but I think we tend to be more like the young Rich Man who when asked to give up all he had and go follow the Lord...walked away. It is not an easy thing to give all that you have away and follow the Lord, but that's what we probably need to be willing to do, or at least, that's probably one lesson I need to learn to apply to myself...even if no one else really needs that lesson. I covet the things I have far too much (my library for one) and I am still working on being humble and subservient enough to be worthy of any reward in heaven.

I view it more like this... The Adversary fully knows what the plan of salvation is. He knows fully how it works and why it works. He is very angry and hates the plan and all of us. He knows that at the end he will lose and he is angry about that as well. If he has to be miserable, then he is going to make as many of us just as miserable if not more so than he is. He will use anything in the book to make it so as many of us are miserable and unhappy. It's the only way he feels he can get revenge. If he can make ALL of us unhappy and drag us down to hell...he would. That's his revenge, or so he envisions. If he has to lose, he wants to make sure everyone else loses right along with him. In Adam and Eve's state in the Garden of Eden no one was going to be unhappy or miserable. The ONLY way for that to start happening is if Adam or Eve or both of them fell. Hence, even if he knew that would be part of a plan, it also worked to his advantage. Only by having them fall could he have a chance to make others miserable and unhappy. I think he's being very successful today for those who are in mortality in making a LOT of people sad. With the atonement though, we know that most everyone will not have to suffer like that, so though he has success now, he won't always have that amount of success.

Read my predictions thread in another post (on these forums). It's too long to really post in this thread, and there will be those that would be bothered enough where it is already. Plus, the chance for it to derail this thread into something else (not that it doesn't already happen on a regular basis in our posts on the forums) would be excessive.

I see a LOT of news saying this. However, many don't give a good analysis of the situation. The truth is that she will need to beat Trump by (probably) 5 or 6% points in order to actually WIN the election. (Edit: and some news reports have her getting close to this or exceeding this in polls currently). More importantly, this is due to where the voters are concentrated and how many votes the areas get (for example, votes in California will have a lot more votes for an electoral blue vote, then the votes in idaho for an electoral red vote). However, the bigger things I am not seeing as much is the analysis of the swing states. I've seen one that postulated that the numbers now appear that Harris may win that state, but I haven't seen many others saying the same thing. It's the swing states which will determine how this will go. Harris could win every vote in California and New York State and others and have a vast majority of the population vote for her (even in excess of 60%), but it doesn't matter if she doesn't win enough electoral votes to actually win the election. As it is more of a representative election (done so that large populous states cannot rule by tyranny of the majority, as a wise move by the founders of our Constitution), what really matters is winning the majority of the electoral college. I haven't seen a good analysis yet that shows her decisively winning this...yet. Even if she DOES win though (and as I've pointed out elsewhere on these forums) Trump will still have a Trump card to play (see what I did there) that may nullify the election and let him become President anyways.

So, what I understand the rules were, is that the filming was not supposed to be for any political matter, but they were allowed to film and take pictures. However, positioning it strictly as a political move and a political ad is what is the actual problem and where they got in trouble. The problem is that those complaining are not actually FOCUSING on this part, but focusing on something that actually was done legally and taking outrage for that. It is POSSIBLE that because they are taking this outrage at the WRONG thing, the army (from what I've heard) have already closed the case. They made a statement and said the matter was closed. From what I have heard, those families who were part of the 13 service members being honored who are also Trump supporters were actually very honored to have him there doing this. I have heard that there was at least one family who were not there? that were not favorable to it. I feel it's more complex than some are trying to make it out to be...however neither side is really truly being honest here. The ones that I think it would affect most would be the families of those 13 service members. It is obvious that some of those families were VERY happy with this event. Just remember, when you are shaming this event, you are ALSO shaming them and calling those families out and saying they should not be happy or honored with something they were happy and honored with. At the SAME time, there is at least one family (and maybe more) that was NOT happy with this event. When we try to say this was a great thing and nothing was wrong with it, perhaps remember that these people feel dishonored by it and by putting this event on a pedestal we are dishonoring their wishes about this. Which means, I think the actual way to handle this is FAR more complex than any of us are actually willing to admit. This is why there was the thing about not making this about politics if they were to film there. Adding the political component makes this a no win situation for anybody, because with every way you try to frame it or go with it, someone is going to be unhappy and you will end up dishonoring some family or another. PS: For clarity of how my opinion on this was formed...I should add, that my source for much of my information on this is actually biased, at least people here may think it was biased. I heard an analysis of this on NPR today. It was interesting that they were highlighting the actual problems vs. what is being portrayed by social media groups online.

How about this one?? army responds to alleged incident at cemetery BEFORE I start quoting, I'd like to say something for once. This outrage by Democrats is manufactured in my opinion. Joe Biden filmed in the SAME AREA and used footage of it for his ads while campaigning. This is a hypocritical move by individuals. If I were Trump's campaign staff I'd start bringing those campaign ads which Biden USED during the campaign showing him there as evidence of the other sides hypocrisy in this. They have no right to be outraged as they did the same thing already several years ago. That said...Now I'll quote the article. also

From what I read...he knew. At the latest, he knew ONE MONTH after, and several months before he actually retired. The way he's handled it DOES bother me. The ONLY way I could really feel good about his choice without hearing a better excuse than what I've heard thus far is that he actually went to Iraq the first time around (in the early 90s. That way we would KNOW he would go when called up and this wasn't an instance of him simply shirking when the going got tough. Them harping on 24 years of service is interesting, but 24 years in the Guard isn't equal to 24 years active duty. Sure, he served...but unless he was actually deployed or activated..he was a peacetime Guard under the service of a governor. Even activated...was it for a purpose other than training? I don't have a problem with him claiming the rank (it was the rank he was serving as, even if he didn't qualify for retirement from it. It was taken from him due to technicalities, but he DID actually serve as THAT rank while in). I DO have a problem with someone skirting out of a deployment. Probably because I served far to long in a "deployment" situation long ago. JD Vance may have been a backliner...but at least he went. Thus, I have MIXED feelings on Walz currently. I respect that he did 24 years in the guard. I respect that he was an enlisted member and served in enlisted leadership. I respect that when he was elected (and there was NO guarantee he would be elected the first time which was his supposed "reasoning" for choosing to get out when he did over going with the forces to be deployed) he tried to help Veterans and push bills to help Veterans. Note, he DID technically deploy in 2003...He got to spend time in Italy rather than Afghanistan. At least his unit was deployed at that time. Papers indicate he went with the support groups in Italy rather than elsewhere...from what I've read. (Edit: AS this WAS an official support duty for OEF in Italy, I THINK it actually qualifies him as an OEF veteran...not positive as I don't know the qualifiers for it, but I think it would as he would have been official support). I would be lying though if the things that some have stated about the timing and the deployment and his choice of retirement didn't bother me. The Timing as I understand it... 1. They are notified there is a possible deployment coming in the next changeovers. As a Command Sergeant Major he should have been aware of this. (late 2024/early 2025) 2. He puts his papers in for retirement. 3. A month later his unit is put on standby for deployment, meaning they WILL deploy sometime in the next 24 months. 4. Five months later he puts in his official retirement papers (note, he would have been working on retirement paperwork before this, these are the official papers to finalize that he is actually retiring). 5. He retires. 6. His unit deploys. (late 2005) So, maybe it's a nothingburger and I shouldn't be bothered, but it does. Something just seems off about his retirement timing and it actually does bother me when thinking about it. Perhaps I shouldn't be bothered.

Of interest...After the REPUBLICANS blocked bills to help stem the flow and stop illegal immigration...the Biden administration still attempted to something about it, or all they could even if the Republicans WANTED TO KEEP THE BORDER OPEN to ALL SORTS OF IMMIGRATION. So what did the Biden administration do. Something VERY simple. Previously, border agents were required to ask if the individual crossing the border wanted asylum. Now...they don't. Biden Asylum restrictions Dramatic Fall continues in Immigration Court Cases

I'm still browsing this thread...but...uhmmm.. You know, it looks like at least two of those pictures are heavily photoshopped. Like...obviously photoshopped. Not sure that would lead people to the message you want to leave by posting something like that.

I'm not so sure I'd write China off so easily. We've fought two wars against China, and though we won them, we also didn't not have a total and complete win. In fact, in one instance, after we left the Chinese supported forces basically took over almost immediately. In Korea, we fought the Chinese for the North. Sure, there were Koreans, but there were an awful lot of Chinese. In Vietnam, there were the North Vietnamese, but they all had weapons and stuff from China...and I'm pretty sure some of the individuals were basically disguised Chinese "advisors" that we shot. The PROBLEM in those wars was not that we couldn't have smacked China down hard, but that we weren't ALLOWED to smack China down hard. THAT's going to be the problem if we ever have to fight a war with China again. It's not whether they are a paper tiger or not, or whether they have good enough weapons or not, it's going to be just how far our Politicians allow us to go in defeating China which will determine how successful or unsuccessful they are.

So, who should I cheer for in this one? The Mormon Pride, or the Mormon academics? My Mother in Law used to say that the Utes were the Lord's team (ironic, I know, as many would say that should be applied to BYU, but not for her they weren't), but I don't know...there are a lot of people that seem to say they bleed blue instead of red (and blue and red are both colors of blood from what I understand, the level of oxygen being what determines what color it is... @mikbone would know the truth though)

Probably, but with how corrupt they are, I'd imagine a situation like last year will pop up again and they will ignore their own rules in favor of putting who they think will matter most instead.