Your Political Views Reflects Your Moral Views

[Guest MormonGator]

Simple answer: no, it wouldn't sway my vote. 

That speaks very highly of you. I know a lot of people who couldn't do it. I'd vote for an atheist as long as they shared my values. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[yjacket]

Good luck with your third party.   You have to convince about 59 million voters to vote your way. I have volunteered for various campaigns since I was 18 and am in my mid 30's now. I know a bit about how politics works. If you really want to get things done, work to reform one of the parties. 

Lit was right-this isn't religion, it's politics. If you want to vote third party, go for it. It's your right. Will it do anything legit in politics? No. Will it make you feel more noble than the people who dirty their hands choosing for the lesser of two evils? Yup. 

It's not so much that people wouldn't vote 3rd party (other countries show that minority parties can hold a lot of sway), it's just that while the system set-up inside the US 3rd parties can't win.  I've done my share of work inside local parties and it is full of some of the most corrupt, dishonest, slimball people I've ever associated with.

 

If you really want to make a difference, run for office-even then be prepared. If you buck the wrong person, you will quickly find yourself on a one-way ticket run out of town through some bit of smear campaign.  People really do not understand how insidious politics is.

 

The actual Party structure exists for one reason only, and that is to get more people of the same Party elected (R or D). The actual philosophical stance of a candidate doesn't matter one bit; all that matters is if they are an R and it is the R Party then by George, all must be done to get person x elected. They could have been a D 2 years ago, they could be a socialist, they could be for xyz-it doesn't matter; they are an R so the Party must get them into office.

 

The system is corrupt, it is a den full of vipers and thieves; there are very, very few who get elected who do not become corrupted.

 

And no, your vote honestly doesn't matter-it simply doesn't; when one is up against such corrupt machinery it really doesn't. I honestly hold very little hope for this country-and it goes back to this; people always get the government they deserve. An immoral, corrupt people will get an immoral corrupt government. The morals in this country are bankrupt and until that comes back there is not hope for the government to be moral. Secondly, back to schooling; a populace can be educated in math and science, etc. but if from K-12 they have been taught in social welfare then they will end up voting for social welfare. Ultimately, voting is the end result and reflection of the morality of the country.

 

People don't like to admit it because it is an indictment on them-but we are morally bankrupt and until that is fixed we will continually slide further down the tubes.

[Guest MormonGator]

  I've done my share of work inside local parties and it is full of some of the most corrupt, dishonest, slimball people I've ever associated with.

 

I

The system is corrupt, it is a den full of vipers and thieves; there are very, very few who get elected who do not become corrupted.

 

 

 We totally agree on that. Politics isn't just dirty, it's actually disgusting. 

 

[JojoBag]

 We totally agree on that. Politics isn't just dirty, it's actually disgusting. 

 

 

To understand politics, you need to go back to the root words of politic.

 

Poly means many

 

Ticks are blood suckers

[JojoBag]

Context matters.  

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

 

 

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.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. 

 

However, I will bet any amount of jujubes you want to name, that both are liberals.  Just as Elder Andersen said that a person's political beliefs reflect their moral beliefs, I'm also willing to bet that anyone who believes in a "liberal" religion of the type Elder Widtsoe was talking about undoubtedly will have liberal political views, also.

[paracaidista508]

Generally people side with Democrats or Rebublicans. Sure there are other parties, but for the purpose of this exercise read the Party platform I linked to for the two parties and see if you can find anything in either platform  which is against the LDS religion.

The party platform for each party is published approx every 4 yrs and lays out a plan and direction for the party. One can generally safely assume their candidate will generally follow and support that platform....usually.

Anyway have fun.

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

I found a few in the dem party platform: Bolded text is my emphasis

 

 

1-  The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

 

2-  We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples

 

 

[Guest]

I mispoke about the Republicans regarding Syria. I still don't like their stance of not wanting to let Syrians in, but I concede they are trying to help in their own way.

However, one error does not sum up who I am politically. Case in point - I was watching the Republican debate....I really want to like...one of those guys that I'm not allowed to name...so I've been paying close attention to him. I'm also watching the Democratic debate, I'm very interested in one of them.

I haven't checked out the third party candidates yet, but I will for sure.

The Syrian issue is close to my heart. Thus my knee jerk reaction about that.

Most importantly I was trying to make a point that there are pros and cons to either party. There is one true church, but there is not one true political party.

 

I didn't sum up who you are politically.  I simply pointed out that your depiction of Republicans and refugees is political football.  I don't know what your stances are on other things.  If something is close to your heart, the more you should not play football with it.

 

I don't do Repub vs Dem.  I do individual research.  

Edited January 19, 2016 by pam

[pam]

Just another reminder.  We can't have comments that in any way reference current political candidates. By name or otherwise.

[yjacket]

The party platform for each party is published approx every 4 yrs and lays out a plan and direction for the party. One can generally safely assume their candidate will generally follow and support that platform....usually.

I theory that is correct, in practice not so much. At each convention R or D, where the parties nominee is elected (by the way the delegates have complete control at the convention on the nominee-technically it doesn't matter if 95% of the population voted for candidate x in the primaries. If the actual 2000 something delegates at the convention decide otherwise they can throw out all the rules and nominate somebody else-that has very rarely happened (and not in modern history) but it is possible.

 

There is a committee at the national convention called the Rules Committee where the National party rules and National platform is written. In theory, the actual delegates at the national convention draft, approve and ratify the platform. In practice what really happens is that whoever the current nominee is sends a bunch of lawyers to the convention, they draft the platform and hand it off to the delegates who then simply ratify it.

 

It's actually quite fascinating how much real power and I do mean real power the national delegates have; unfortunately we don't have much of an independent spirit in this country anymore-so most of the people elected to be national delegates are simply yesmen and bossmen with no backbone or guts.  They simply ratify/vote/etc. whatever the "leader" tells them to do. Unfortunately most delegates have no clue about their rights, responsibilities and the power that they actually hold.

 

I've been involved in a few raucous conventions and man oh man if there is at least 1/3+ of the delegates willing to fight it can get wild and wolly! If it is close to a 50/50 split-lookout-the convention might be going 'till midnight! 

[Blackmarch]

On 1/16/2016 at 3:48 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

Just how can we be accountable for their actions when they LIE?  You vote for a candidate because of things he says on the campaign, but he gets in office and is totally different.  Politicians lie all the time.  I don't believe the Lord will hold us accountable for that.  

 

That said, I am praying about whom to vote for...and it will most likely NOT be a Republican candidate.  

You are not accountable for their actions, however you are accountable for yours, or the lack thereof.- This includes voting, letters to leaders, possibly even getting petittions signed or not signed depending on your situation. things of that nature- basically in areas where you do have influence you do have accountability.
perhaps we as a people need to be more active in things that can influence the politics and politicians, or do more in showing where and how we can be more influential.
unfortunately i'm not very active politically so i don't have too many ideas of what has the best influence on politicians.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 1/16/2016 at 0:23 PM, Eowyn said:

Otherwise, wouldn't we be told, or at least know pretty clearly, which way is the right way to vote? On the contrary, we are frequently reminded that the Church doesn't endorse any party or candidate. 

I know this is a late response to an early one...and it may have been addressed...but...was just looking over the first page...

We are too told the right way to vote. That's a different thing than being told who to vote for.

Edited February 12, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

58 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

You are not accountable for their actions, however you are accountable for yours, or the lack thereof.- This includes voting, letters to leaders, possibly even getting petittions signed or not signed depending on your situation. things of that nature- basically in areas where you do have influence you do have accountability.
perhaps we as a people need to be more active in things that can influence the politics and politicians, or do more in showing where and how we can be more influential.
unfortunately i'm not very active politically so i don't have too many ideas of what has the best influence on politicians.

Good points. I agree with you.

[Guest]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 2:15 PM, MormonGator said:

   2012 Elections results (all approximate):

 

Democrats 65 million votes

Republicans 60 million votes

Libertarian 1.2 million

Green 470,000

Good luck with your third party.   You have to convince about 59 million voters to vote your way. I have volunteered for various campaigns since I was 18 and am in my mid 30's now. I know a bit about how politics works. If you really want to get things done, work to reform one of the parties.

Lit was right-this isn't religion, it's politics. If you want to vote third party, go for it. It's your right. Will it do anything legit in politics? No. Will it make you feel more noble than the people who dirty their hands choosing for the lesser of two evils? Yup.

 

 

Okay, we now have a clear indication that the most popular candidate in both the Dems and the Repubs are neither Dems nor Repubs... So, I am right about this.  Those 2 guys can extricate themselves out of the Dems and Repubs as they have no party loyalties and they'd take all those people with them.  Guaranteed.

 

[Jojo Bags]

7 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

You are not accountable for their actions, however you are accountable for yours, or the lack thereof.- This includes voting, letters to leaders, possibly even getting petittions signed or not signed depending on your situation. things of that nature- basically in areas where you do have influence you do have accountability.
perhaps we as a people need to be more active in things that can influence the politics and politicians, or do more in showing where and how we can be more influential.
unfortunately i'm not very active politically so i don't have too many ideas of what has the best influence on politicians.

This is why we have the gift of discernment.  In fact, we will be held accountable for allowing ourselves to be deceived and for our choices in whom we vote for.  Elder Andersen was very clear on that subject.

 

Quote

Even though it may not be generally recognized, men are as morally accountable for the acts they commit through organizations as for those they commit as individuals. While salvation is an individual matter based strictly on individual decisions, there are few, if any decisions more important to our eternal welfare than those we make concerning the organizations we join and the organizational purposes we support or oppose.

Our personal accountability to God for our actions relating to family and Church is generally recognized by those who believe the scriptures. But there seems to be widespread doubt, and even disbelief, regarding a similar responsibility to our Creator for our actions and desires regarding government. The scriptures assert:

We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them… (D&C 134:1)

In spite of this declaration of belief, few people seem to worry about what the Lord might think of their political philosophy. It seems probable that this indifference and disbelief arise from a lack of knowledge of what the scriptures teach and also from a failure to understand the moral or immoral nature of government action.

You will be held accountable for unrighteous laws enacted by the people you vote for unless you do everything you can to oppose them.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 hours ago, anatess said:

 

Okay, we now have a clear indication that the most popular candidate in both the Dems and the Repubs are neither Dems nor Repubs... So, I am right about this.  Those 2 guys can extricate themselves out of the Dems and Repubs as they have no party loyalties and they'd take all those people with them.  Guaranteed.

 

It's a truth that people can accept or deny. You can stomp your feet, cry, call people names, jump up and down, whine etc. -but third parties do nothing in modern America. 125 Million voted for the Republicans or Democrats. Maybe as much as 4 million voted for the third parties. 

Edited February 13, 2016 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

I wonder if the same sort of debates went on in the war in heaven.

[Guest]

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 10:55 PM, MormonGator said:

It's a truth that people can accept or deny. You can stomp your feet, cry, call people names, jump up and down, whine etc. -but third parties do nothing in modern America. 125 Million voted for the Republicans or Democrats. Maybe as much as 4 million voted for the third parties.

 

You're not understanding what I'm saying.  You can't go by past history to refute what's happening NOW.  My position is that the political landscape NOW is ripe for the Dems and Repubs to be successfully challenged.  If the superdelegates nullify the people's choice in the Dems, the people's choice can run 3rd party and take the entire voting support with him and win against the Dem nominee.  It is very possible.  At the same time, if the Repubs push their establishment choice over a brokered convention, the funny-haired fella can run 3rd party ad take his voters with him and give the Repubs a run for their money.  That's how fed up people are with both parties.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, anatess said:

 

You're not understanding what I'm saying.  You can't go by past history to refute what's happening NOW.  My position is that the political landscape NOW is ripe for the Dems and Repubs to be successfully challenged.  If the superdelegates nullify the people's choice in the Dems, the people's choice can run 3rd party and take the entire voting support with him and win against the Dem nominee.  It is very possible.  At the same time, if the Repubs push their establishment choice over a brokered convention, the funny-haired fella can run 3rd party ad take his voters with him and give the Repubs a run for their money.  That's how fed up people are with both parties.

I'm fully understanding-the only thing I'm saying is that it's a very uphill battle, and the third party movement isn't new. Happened in 1980 when John Anderson got a shellacked  and in 92 when Perot did slightly better. In the end it didn't matter-both men lost. Every election is marketed as the one where "the people are most angry" and "the one that changes everything" and "this is where we want an outsider". Nothing new under the sun here. Is it possible? Yup. Likely? No. 

I know a guy who has been claiming that there would be "non stop rioting in the street" and "mass social anarchy forever"  and "millions attacking the government" during every election since 2000. So far, it hasn't happened. 

Edited February 15, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

Another duplicate post issue for me! Ug! 

Edited February 15, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm fully understanding-the only thing I'm saying is that it's a very uphill battle, and the third party movement isn't new. Happened in 1980 when John Anderson got a shellacked  and in 92 when Perot did slightly better. In the end it didn't matter-both men lost. Every elections is marketed as the one where "the people are most angry" and "the one that changes everything" and "this is where we want an outsider". Nothing new under the sun.

 

Except that this time... they have the votes to prove it.  Anderson was handily given his kiddie lunchbox in the primaries by the great Ronaldus Magnus and Perot was a flake.  Anderson was kept afloat only by the anti-Carter independents.  He had no support anywhere else.

This time, as the NH primaries proved - people from all walks of life from any demographic and ideology are giving insiders the raspberry.  It's amazing how an avowed Socialist and a Reality TV star are this year's superstars - and this is not just noise - votes have been counted!  They're not anti-Obama or anti-McConnell/Reid or anti-Pelosi/Ryan... they're anti establishment Republican/Democrat!  They are going against the party!

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by anatess

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, anatess said:

 

Except that this time... they have the votes to prove it.  Anderson was handily given his kiddie lunchbox in the primaries by the great Ronaldus Magnus and Perot was a flake.  Anderson was kept afloat only by the anti-Carter independents.  He had no support anywhere else.

This time, as the NH primaries proved - people from all walks of life from any demographic and ideology are giving insiders the raspberry.  It's amazing how an avowed Socialist and a Reality TV star are this year's superstars - and this is not just noise - votes have been counted!  They're not anti-Obama or anti-McConnell/Reid or anti-Pelosi/Ryan... they're anti establishment Republican/Democrat!  They are going against the party!

 

Doesn't that just prove my point? They are anti establishment-but still in the organized parties.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Doesn't that just prove my point? They are anti establishment-but still in the organized parties.

They're in organized parties because that's the "conventional wisdom" from what your history shows... What's happening right now proves conventional wisdom is out the window.

[zil]

26 minutes ago, anatess said:

 What's happening right now proves conventional wisdom is out the window.

I think you could safely remove "conventional" from that statement...

[Guest Godless]

37 minutes ago, anatess said:

They're in organized parties because that's the "conventional wisdom" from what your history shows... What's happening right now proves conventional wisdom is out the window.

 

Yes and no. We're seeing a drift from the "party establishment" on both sides, but I don't take that as a sign that we are ready for a viable third party candidate. Obama won twice largely because he was an anti-establishment Democrat running against establishment Republicans. I don't think he could have won on a third party ticket. I also believe that his chances of winning would have been far slimmer if the Republicans had put forward their own "renegade" candidate. As much as the thought terrifies me, I think Palin had a much better chance at winning the presidency than John McCain.

Long story short, people still want to vote on their party lines. Maybe someday that will change if enough politicians are willing to part ways with their parties. I just don't think we're quite there yet.

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

Yes and no. We're seeing a drift from the "party establishment" on both sides, but I don't take that as a sign that we are ready for a viable third party candidate. Obama won twice largely because he was an anti-establishment Democrat running against establishment Republicans. I don't think he could have won on a third party ticket. I also believe that his chances of winning would have been far slimmer if the Republicans had put forward their own "renegade" candidate. As much as the thought terrifies me, I think Palin had a much better chance at winning the presidency than John McCain.

Long story short, people still want to vote on their party lines. Maybe someday that will change if enough politicians are willing to part ways with their parties. I just don't think we're quite there yet.

Well said. Both you and Anatess make some great points