Your Political Views Reflects Your Moral Views

[Guest MormonGator]

Am I writing in Yiddish?

No, I know you're being a bit (and a more'n a bit) sarcastic. Because no one could possibly be that poor at comprehension, not even a 'gator.

Lehi

 Yup, I was totally playing. It's a pretty light joke. Not even sarcastic, just some playful razzing. 

Edited January 17, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

I'm just really looking forward to Christ's reign. Does that make me a monarchist? or maybe more of a royalist?

No, it makes you (politically) a theocrat, and, doctrinally, an adventist.

Lehi

Edited January 18, 2016 by LeSellers

[Aussie Mongrel]

This is such a hard decision to make!

 

I do believe there are good and evil in most Governments, institutions, groups and religious congregations. However since Obama has been in office it seems like he has been enabled by the GOP to do whatever he wants (executive orders etc) and this has changed the US so much for the worse.

 

Apparently the US hasn't had an elected president since JFK? They have all been selected at the Bohemian Grove by those Global elite who run the world? So it seems if you do find a presidential candidate that may reflect your own innate moral code  the likely hood that they will ever really be elected is slim to none. In addition to this, there are still those allegations and the proof that the voting for he last US election was significantly rigged by the company that provided the voting machines, which were owned by George Sorros? (Global elite)

 

I have read different articles about how JFK was assassinated after pledging to dismantle the Federal Reserve and after he made his historical speech about how he would reveal secret societies and rid the US of them. Not long after he ended up being assassinated? 

 

Furthermore considering that the Global elite have been so successful in implementing the 45 goals of the communist party in the US (unfortunately by using some of those compassionate Democrats) and into most Western countries, this along with the Global collapse (which JS said would cause a civil war in the US) will probably happen by the end of this year? As a result the elite may not be to fussed on who wins the election?

[JojoBag]

One of the many problems with liberalism is that it espouses stealing as a means to an end. Government takes money from people by force - at the barrel of a gun, then doles it out to people who did not earn it. If I were to do that I'd be charged with extortion.

[zil]

Amen to that. 

Zil, do you want to sit at the wives table or the cool kids table?

 

Cool kids, of course!  Do we get to play with Legos?

[Guest MormonGator]

Cool kids, of course!  Do we get to play with Legos?

 LOL! That's awesome

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Please note that we did not say that Democrats were evil, but that the Democrat party was evil. It is a distinction with a serious difference. Individual Democrats run the gamut, just as people in any other group.

And, as I said, the GOP is no less evil, and Republicans are on the same spectrum.

 

 

Just for clarification, I wasn't offended.  I've heard it before.  I thought the point was if you vote for a Democrat (an evil party) then you are casting a vote for evil.

 

That is what I am disagreeing with.  I don't think either party is evil, I just disagree more with Conservatives than Liberals. 

 

I disagree that the GOP's and Republicans' are handling the "race problem" or the "climate problem" badly. 

 

I understand.  And I disagree with you, and round and round we go, LOL. 

 

I have voted so rarely for the GOP (and never for the Democrat party) since 1976 that it would be simple to count them, if I could remember those instances, and I do not.

 

 

 

So we agree that a third party vote is not wasted.  :)

 

Amen to that. 

Zil, do you want to sit at the wives table or the cool kids table? 

 

 

LOL, you are killing me today!

[LeSellers]

So we agree that a third party vote is not wasted.   :)

I've nearly always voted Libertarian (at least for the past 40 years). Since my vote is unlikely to change the result no matter who I vote for, that vote is no more wasted than a vote for O'bama was in 2008.

I have specific reasons for voting the Libertarian Party rather than, say, the Constitution Party. (Mostly because, as far as I can tell, the Constitution Party doesn't like the Constitution very much. They like what they believe it says, but not what it really says.)

My PoV is that the Constitution starts from the premise that government has no rights, and only those powers explicitly granted to it by the states, and the states have only those rights granted by the people. So there are a lot of rights "included" in the Constitution in the "negative space", that is, unless the Document expressly says the people do not have that right, they do, no matter what that right may be.

Welfare is not granted to the government, schools are not granted by the government, with about a dozen exceptions, nothing is granted to the government. And those 12 or so powers are limited even so.

Freedom is the greatest political good.

Lehi

Edited January 18, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

I usually don't vote third party just for reasons of pragmatism. It isn't evil though.

Edited January 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

No, but if you compare anyone in American elections from 1952-onwards to Stalin or Hitler, you don't know much about history, or you are blind with hate (not you meaning FP).

Stalin and Hitler killed millions of people. Say what you want about Al Gore but he didn't set up Gulags. Nothing against Gore, just the first person I thought of.

Huge difference between Hitler/Stalin and who we have in America.

The question of Stalin or Hitler may be off a bit from the question of Trump or Hillary...but the general principle remains.

[Guest MormonGator]

Deleted post since it mentions current political candidates.

Only if you don't understand history. It's not even close. The difference is like comparing my band to The Beatles. 

In fact, just implying it is insulting to the real victims of Stalin and Hitler. People died under Hitler and Stalin. Even if you don't like Hillary or Trump (I can't stand either) making that comparison is silly. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[JojoBag]

Only if you don't understand history. It's not even close. The difference is like comparing my band to The Beatles. 

In fact, just implying it is insulting to the real victims of Stalin and Hitler. People died under Hitler and Stalin. Even if you don't like Hillary or Trump (I can't stand either) making that comparison is silly. 

 

The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Hillary is responsible for the death of an ambassador.

[Guest MormonGator]

The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Hillary is responsible for the death of an ambassador.

 Ok. But if you can compare Hillary and Trump to Stalin or Hitler (Very basic-millions killed under Stalin and Hitler, no millions killed under Hilary and Trump) than good luck to you. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

Only if you don't understand history. It's not even close. The difference is like comparing my band to The Beatles. 

In fact, just implying it is insulting to the real victims of Stalin and Hitler. People died under Hitler and Stalin. Even if you don't like Hillary or Trump (I can't stand either) making that comparison is silly. 

 

Are you incapable of understanding the principle I'm discussing or are you just stubborn?

[The Folk Prophet]

You know, I realized that the point I was getting after had already been conceded. I don't really need to debate this further. Somehow Gator's determined that I'm trying to say our candidates are as bad as Stalin and Hitler. Not my point at all. Not even close man.

 

Here's the recap of my point.

 

 Opting out is the far, far greater evil. 

 

If you had the choice of voting for Stalin or Hitler you'd consider opting out a greater evil?

 

No

[Capitalist_Oinker]

The prefered response would be to argue until one of you dies? 

 

The appropriate response would have been to acknowledge his hypocrisy and in light of THAT, reevaluate his ideology. Instead he chose to run and hide.

The dishonesty and dissembling from "liberal" Mormons wearies me. While failing to recognize the hypocrisy and contradictions in your ideology may be no sin, willfully ignoring them should be.

[JojoBag]

 

The appropriate response would have been to acknowledge his hypocrisy and in light of THAT, reevaluate his ideology. Instead he chose to run and hide.

The dishonesty and dissembling from "liberal" Mormons wearies me. While failing to recognize the hypocrisy and contradictions in your ideology may be no sin, willfully ignoring them should be.

 

 

The fact is that liberalism = socialism/communism, which is absolutely contrary to the Gospel.  This is why I agree with Pres. Lee's statement that a liberal in the church "reads by the lamp of their own conceit" and "doesn't have a testimony."  Quite simply, they are deceived.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Are you incapable of understanding the principle I'm discussing or are you just stubborn?

 

Gator? Stubborn?  Or incapable?  Are you kidding?  Get serious.  He is hands down the most reasonable of all of us here at LDS.net.    

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

The fact is that liberalism = socialism/communism, which is absolutely contrary to the Gospel.  This is why I agree with Pres. Lee's statement that a liberal in the church "reads by the lamp of their own conceit" and "doesn't have a testimony."  Quite simply, they are deceived.

 

Context matters.  

If you read the whole quote, you will see that he is not talking about politics . . .  

 

Unfortunately, some are among us who claim to be Church members but are somewhat like the scoffers in Lehi’s vision—standing aloof and seemingly inclined to hold in derision the faithful who choose to accept Church authorities as God’s special witnesses of the gospel and his agents in directing the affairs of the Church.

There are those in the Church who speak of themselves as liberals who, as one of our former presidents has said, “read by the lamp of their own conceit.” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine [Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 373.) One time I asked one of our Church educational leaders how he would define a liberal in the Church. He answered in one sentence: “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.”

Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve and an eminent educator, made a statement relative to this word liberal as it applied to those in the Church. This is what he said:

“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. …

“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/06/the-iron-rod?lang=eng

 

 

Pres. Lee was clearly not talking about people on the left side of the political spectrum, he was talking about people like John Dehlin or Kate Kelly- both of whom found themselves ex-communicated.  Voting for a Democrat is not going to get someone ex-communicated, and it doesn't mean they don't have a testimony.

Edited January 18, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest MormonGator]

Gator? Stubborn?  Or incapable?  Are you kidding?  Get serious.  He is hands down the most reasonable of all of us here at LDS.net.    

 I appreciate the kind words Lit! Thank you so much! So sweet of you to say. You made my day! 

Edited January 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

Gator? Stubborn?  Or incapable?  Are you kidding?  Get serious.  He is hands down the most reasonable of all of us here at LDS.net.    

 

Not in this case. He seems to be under the impression that I'm trying to compare Hilary and Trump to Stalin and Hitler as to their levels of evil. Missing...the...point.....

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Missing...the...point.....

 

And I think you are missing mine.  Written communication can cause a lot of misunderstanding.  You know that. 

[bytor2112]

 I'm sure there are even some who support [openly-Socialist-candidate-for-US-president-who-never-would-have-been-given-the-time-of-day-by-any-rational-American-even-a-generation-ago-but-is-widely-supported-today].

 

 

Or a woman that has been an abject failure at everything she has been involved with and that is under investigation by the FBI. Though, it does seem to be a pattern by the democrat voters to overlook things like associations with known terrorists etc like our current dear leader.

[Guest]

The church has encouraged us to support and help the refugees. All of the Republican candidates are against letting any refugees come here...so by your logic voting for a Republican candidate reflects your moral views and in this case not in a good way.

 

This really really really BUGS ME.

 

Okay, LP.  There's a poor person 2 blocks away from you  Are you really gonna say that to comply with the Church's teaching on compassion you have to let them live in your house?  If you'd rather fix up his house and give him a fishing pole...  that doesn't comply with the Church's teaching on compassion?  REALLY?

 

Yes, if I was American, I'd rather vote Republican in the case of immigration.  REALLY.  Any Republican running right now even a gang of 8 Republican or a funny-haired Republican.  My reasons on why and how this is more compatible with Church teachings can fill a book.  And yes, even when I have to face Vort on the other side of the debate podium.

Edited January 18, 2016 by anatess

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

 

Okay, LP.  There's a poor person 2 blocks away from you  Are you really gonna say that to comply with the Church's teaching on compassion you have to let them live in your house?  If you'd rather fix up his house and give him a fishing pole...  that doesn't comply with the Church's teaching on compassion?  REALLY?

 

That's not what I said.  I don't have a problem with the fishing pole idea.  

 

 

I'm not saying we should just open the doors and allow refugees or immigrants to flood in....I do believe in carefully monitoring the process, but I don't like the idea of doing nothing out of fear.