Just got home from the temple and did something I rarely do...

[Vort]

...checked the news headlines. Two comments:

1. The American electorate is a bunch of fools. I say that in the most condemnatory manner possible. No matter if they elect the buffoonish Trump, the vomitous Sanders, or the nightmarish Clinton, they will get what they deserve. Too bad I and my family have to suffer with them.
2. The good news: I finally get to vote for Dallin H. Oaks for US President.

[David13]

I got home today from the San Diego Temple and I didn't check the news headlines. 

I feel fine.

dc

[Jane_Doe]

I put in to get my temple recommend and endowments

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Vort, don't mince words, go ahead and tell us how you really feel.

Jane_Doe, that's wonderful!  Congratulations!

[tesuji]

Trump’s impending nomination means it’s time for a third candidate - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-impending-nomination-means-its-time-for-a-third-candidate/2016/05/03/762186a4-108b-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html

Edited May 4, 2016 by tesuji

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

...checked the news headlines. Two comments:

1. The American electorate is a bunch of fools. I say that in the most condemnatory manner possible. No matter if they elect the buffoonish Trump, the vomitous Sanders, or the nightmarish Clinton, they will get what they deserve. Too bad I and my family have to suffer with them.
2. The good news: I finally get to vote for Dallin H. Oaks for US President.

So.... let me see...

1.)  Ben Carson, Jeff Sessions (Tea Party bulwark in the Senate), Jeff Miller (House Veterans Affairs Committee), Jam Brewer (governor known for her fight for border security), and while we're on border security, let's mention the National Border Patrol Council, Virgil Goode (interestingly the 2012 Presidential Nominee of the Constitutional Party), Saba Ahmed (President of the Republican Muslim Coalition), Paul Vallely (highly decorated retired US Army Major General and author of The Blueprint for Victory on the War of Terror), Mark Burns (pastor and President of the NOW network), Jerry Falwell Jr. (pastor and president of religious Liberty University), Mike Huckabee, the National Black Republican Association, and Willie Robertson (the Duck Commander).... are a bunch of fools.

2.)  Funny that you say that... Robert C. Oaks, first cousin of Dallin H. Oaks and a retired US Air Force General and General Authority of the LDS Church from 2000-2009... endorsed Trump.

 

So, here we are with the same question... are you open to the possibility that you are wrong about the American electorate?

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

2.)  Funny that you say that... Robert C. Oaks, first cousin of Dallin H. Oaks and a retired US Air Force General and General Authority of the LDS Church from 2000-2009... endorsed Trump.

Anatess, I'm quite sure you didn't mean to suggest that Trump, who is the first presidential candidate in I-don't-know-how-long to have a statement of his be publicly refuted by the Church, actually enjoys institutional support from the Church.

Which, kind of begs the question of what you did mean to suggest.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Anatess, I'm quite sure you didn't mean to suggest that Trump, who is the first presidential candidate in I-don't-know-how-long to have a statement of his be publicly refuted by the Church, actually enjoys institutional support from the Church.

Which, kind of begs the question of what you did mean to suggest.

Now, JAG, that isn't fair.  You know that wasn't what she meant.  She was simply giving examples of multiple individuals and organizations that did support Trump and challenged Vort to say that all of them were fools.  

@anatess2, that isn't fair either.  You know that Vort was not saying that EVERY individual is a fool simply because of this ONE trait.  Actually, maybe he was... You never can tell with bees, er... Vort.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

Given that Anatess' second point appears to be a response to Vort's second point . . . I'm afraid I don't know that, Carbs.  Not yet, anyways.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Given that Anatess' second point appears to be a response to Vort's second point . . . I'm afraid I don't know that, Carbs.  Not yet, anyways.

The second point is simply a connection to Dallin H. Oaks that I found interesting that ties into my first point that challenges Vort's thinking of the American electorate as being fools.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Anatess, I'm quite sure you didn't mean to suggest that Trump, who is the first presidential candidate in I-don't-know-how-long to have a statement of his be publicly refuted by the Church, actually enjoys institutional support from the Church.

Which, kind of begs the question of what you did mean to suggest.

Now that's funny that you think that THAT Church statement refutes Trump's position on a Muslim ban until properly vetted instead of a statement issued to tame the public's reaction to Trump's statements.  Because... Ted Cruz not only holds the same position but even proposed a bill to the senate to that effect for immigration requirements from countries with ISIS presence yet gets the majority of the Mormon vote.

And I also find it interesting that the same Ted Cruz-supporting Mormons support the ban of transgenders in bathrooms because of the threat of child molestation yet has no problem with refugees that has been officially declared poses a threat of terrorist infiltration by members of the federal government.... so much so that this guy who has been going to the woman's restroom for over 30 years without having molested anyone can now be sued in court for doing so in certain states:

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by anatess2

[carlimac]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The second point is simply a connection to Dallin H. Oaks that I found interesting that ties into my first point that challenges Vort's thinking of the American electorate as being fools.

We all have a foolish cousin or two.  And yes, all those in point 1. are foolishly misguided in their judgement. 

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Now that's funny that you think that THAT Church statement refutes Trump's position on a Muslim ban until properly vetted instead of a statement issued to tame the public's reaction to Trump's statements.  Because... Ted Cruz not only holds the same position but even proposed a bill to the senate to that effect for immigration requirements from countries with ISIS presence yet gets the majority of the Mormon vote.

Cruz supported immigration restrictions based on nation of origin (targeted towards ISIS or Al Quaida-held territory), not religion; and that's a significant difference for the Church.  Moreover, Cruz never supported registering Muslims or (unless I'm missing something) shutting down mosques.

Quote

And I also find it interesting that the same Ted Cruz-supporting Mormons support the ban of transgenders in bathrooms because of the threat of child molestation yet has no problem with refugees that has been officially declared poses a threat of terrorist infiltration by members of the federal government....

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here.  First you say Cruz wants to limit immigration, then you revive the smear machine by suggesting that he's fine letting terrorists into the country.

Quote

. . . so much so that this guy who has been going to the woman's restroom for over 30 years without having molested anyone can now be sued in court for doing so in certain states:

So, this is how Trumpkins try to rally conservatives for the general?  By telling us that we should be OK with all men--not just the truly transgender ones, but anyone who feels a passing inclination to "self-identify" that way--should be allowed to share bathrooms with little girls? 

What a laughable proposition.

Have fun in the general.  When the dust settles, maybe your boy can get a gig as Madame President's press secretary.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Cruz supported immigration restrictions based on nation of origin (targeted towards ISIS or Al Quaida-held territory), not religion; and that's a significant difference for the Church.  Moreover, Cruz never supported registering Muslims or (unless I'm missing something) shutting down mosques.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here.  First you say Cruz wants to limit immigration, then you revive the smear machine by suggesting that he's fine letting terrorists into the country.

So, this is how Trumpkins try to rally conservatives for the general?  By telling us that we should be OK with all men--not just the truly transgender ones, but anyone who feels a passing inclination to "self-identify" that way--should be allowed to share bathrooms with little girls? 

What a laughable proposition.

Have fun in the general.  When the dust settles, maybe your boy can get a gig as Madame President's press secretary.

Cruz IS supporting registering Muslims among everybody else in the Federal government... You HAVE TO register your religious affiliation on an Immigration application form.  A recent change adds your sexual orientation under the Gender section.  My religious affiliation of Catholic, for example, is registered in the FBI databanks.  And that was waaaaay back in the 90's when I applied for entry.  And Cruz did support Trump's statement to shut down mosques that harbor radical Islamic terrorists.

No Cruz is NOT fine with letting terrorists into the country.  That's the interesting part.  Trump and Cruz actually agree on this issue.  It's Mormon supporters of Cruz who think, for some reason, it's fine if Cruz says it but not fine if Trump says it.  But then, from what you're saying, it seems like you believe that Cruz and Trump are diametrically opposed on this.  Maybe that is why Cruz got the support that he got in Utah.  He just has a better way of expressing the same sentiment.

Transgenders:  No, this is simply me pointing out to you the contradiction in 2 issues that Mormon conservatives support.  Trumpkins applaud the bathroom legislation in the same manner that they support the temporary ban on Muslims until such a time when a proper vetting process is put into place.   In that manner they are consistent.  That is why Trump had to walk back his comments about the bathroom.  I was pointing out the inconsistency of Mormon conservatives who are fine with the bathroom but not fine with the temporary Muslim ban.

On a personal note, there is nothing conservative about a government that legislates bathroom usage.  And no, you don't have to have legislation to reject "passing inclination of self-identity" from bathrooms.  It is working just fine in every other State that has no legislation about it.  But that's my personal opinion and not attributable to Trumpkins.

[Just_A_Guy]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Cruz IS supporting registering Muslims among everybody else in the Federal government... You HAVE TO register your religious affiliation on an Immigration application form.  A recent change adds your sexual orientation under the Gender section.  My religious affiliation of Catholic, for example, is registered in the FBI databanks.  And that was waaaaay back in the 90's when I applied for entry.  And Cruz did support Trump's statement to shut down mosques that harbor radical Islamic terrorists.

So, when Trump supported registering Muslims, he was just saying we ought to maintain the immigration status quo?

Come now, Anatess.  Trump's proposal, and Cruz's support for the status quo, are two very different things.  If you didn't think so, you wouldn't have been so lovestruck by Trump's proposal.

And, my recollection--in conjunction with everything I can find online--is that Cruz said we should monitor such mosques, but not shut them down.

Quote

No Cruz is NOT fine with letting terrorists into the country.  That's the interesting part.  Trump and Cruz actually agree on this issue.  It's Mormon supporters of Cruz who think, for some reason, it's fine if Cruz says it but not fine if Trump says it.  But then, from what you're saying, it seems like you believe that Cruz and Trump are diametrically opposed on this.  Maybe that is why Cruz got the support that he got in Utah.  He just has a better way of expressing the same sentiment.

Cruz's approach is more nuanced than Trump's is.  And if you were suggesting that it's Cruz-supporting Mormons, not Cruz himself, who "ha[ve] no problem with refugees that ha[ve] been officially declared poses a threat of terrorist infiltration by members of the federal government"--

--That's just plain wrong. 

No one, in the Church or in the former Cruz camp, is on board with letting bona fide terrorist threats into this country.  I am utterly confounded by whatever line of reasoning or thought processes led you to that conclusion, and absolutely flabbergasted that you would allow your (screen) name to be connected to such a thoroughly revolting accusation.

Quote

Transgenders:  No, this is simply me pointing out to you the contradiction in 2 issues that Mormon conservatives support.  Trumpkins applaud the bathroom legislation in the same manner that they support the temporary ban on Muslims until such a time when a proper vetting process is put into place.   In that manner they are consistent.  That is why Trump had to walk back his comments about the bathroom.  I was pointing out the inconsistency of Mormon conservatives who are fine with the bathroom but not fine with the temporary Muslim ban.

On a personal note, there is nothing conservative about a government that legislates bathroom usage.  And no, you don't have to have legislation to reject "passing inclination of self-identity" from bathrooms.  It is working just fine in every other State that has no legislation about it.  But that's my personal opinion and not attributable to Trumpkins.

No inconsistency.  The bathroom ban isn't directed at transgenders; it's directed at pedophiles who pass themselves off as transgender in order to gain access to their preferred class of victims.

Regarding governments regulating bathroom usage--I agree with you generally.  The problem was that the city of Charlotte first passed an ordinance requiring private businesses to allow anyone into any bathroom, regardless of actual gender.  Municipal governments are creatures of the state, and even under conservative principles it is certainly the prerogative of state legislatures to nullify boneheaded and potentially dangerous municipal actions--which is what North Carolina did.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[thoughts]

Those of us who remember the same kind of brouhaha when Jesse Ventura (a WWE wrestler ran for MN governor, see this as more of the same.   People are voting for Trump for the same reason they didn't want "any of the above" political people then.   And the sky didn't fall during his governorship, any more than it will during Trump's presidency.

It is a shame that so many people feel like Trump is necessary to get the political classes attention on things that matter to the people, and to figuring out solutions that will work for all (though Trump fans do not appreciate that some of the dysfunction is not political class trying to stay in power, but very divergent views of what is good for American and Americans, which cannot be resolved by the extremes of positions).

[anatess2]

On 5/5/2016 at 3:59 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

So, when Trump supported registering Muslims, he was just saying we ought to maintain the immigration status quo?

Come now, Anatess.  Trump's proposal, and Cruz's support for the status quo, are two very different things.  If you didn't think so, you wouldn't have been so lovestruck by Trump's proposal.

Trump's AND CRUZ's proposal is to USE the CURRENT REGISTRATION of religious affiliation of entry applicants in the VETTING PROCESS.  This is not currently done.  C'mon now JAG, lovestruck by Trump's proposal?  REALLY?  I stand BRAVO on his foreign policy position.  NOBODY in America - LEFT or RIGHT has ever held this position.  And it closely reflects mine.  Remember, I'm Filipino.  Foreign policy and Trade is how the Philippines get helped or hurt by American elections.  And for the past decades, all your candidates - left and right - has stood on bad policies both on foreign policy and trade.

 

Note:  caps not meant to yell but to emphasize.  I'm not sure what to use, caps or bold or whatever.  So, caps is easier to use on the keyboard so I'm going to use it and just put a qualifier that it is used to emphasize not to yell.

 

On 5/5/2016 at 3:59 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Cruz's approach is more nuanced than Trump's is.  And if you were suggesting that it's Cruz-supporting Mormons, not Cruz himself, who "ha[ve] no problem with refugees that ha[ve] been officially declared poses a threat of terrorist infiltration by members of the federal government"--

--That's just plain wrong. 

No one, in the Church or in the former Cruz camp, is on board with letting bona fide terrorist threats into this country.  I am utterly confounded by whatever line of reasoning or thought processes led you to that conclusion, and absolutely flabbergasted that you would allow your (screen) name to be connected to such a thoroughly revolting accusation.

 

I am just very perplexed at YOUR inability to understand me here.  I will conclude that your usually lawyerly flawless ability to understand is being clouded by your hatred for Trump.  "have no problem with refugees...".  I am suggesting no such thing.

Here is what I said once again:  Trump AND CRUZ have the same position on Muslim Refugees and Immigration.  Therefore, Cruz-supporting Mormons shouldn't have a problem with Trump's position on Muslim Refugees and Immigration.  But they do.  Therefore, the only conclusion is that 1.)  Cruz-supporting Mormons do not know what Cruz's position is, 2.) Cruz-supporting Mormons do not know what Trump's position is, 3.) They don't know what both candidate's position is or they do know what both of their position is... they just go by who can express the same position better.

 

 

On 5/5/2016 at 3:59 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

No inconsistency.  The bathroom ban isn't directed at transgenders; it's directed at pedophiles who pass themselves off as transgender in order to gain access to their preferred class of victims.

Regarding governments regulating bathroom usage--I agree with you generally.  The problem was that the city of Charlotte first passed an ordinance requiring private businesses to allow anyone into any bathroom, regardless of actual gender.  Municipal governments are creatures of the state, and even under conservative principles it is certainly the prerogative of state legislatures to nullify boneheaded and potentially dangerous municipal actions--which is what North Carolina did.

Inconsistent.  Completely.  Doesn't matter who the law is for.  The fact of the matter is the ban impacts innocent real-deal transgenders in the same manner that the Muslim ban impacts innocent real-deal muslims and the supporters are okay with the impact on the innocent to protect the populace.

 

And on regulation:  Insitituting a BAD regulation to correct another BAD regulation is no defense for stupidity.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Trump's AND CRUZ's proposal is to USE the CURRENT REGISTRATION of religious affiliation of entry applicants in the VETTING PROCESS.  This is not currently done. 

Anatess, it was you who said described "Trump's position on a Muslim ban until properly vetted" and then went on to claim that "Ted Cruz . . . holds the same position".

He doesn't. 

Whatever Trump may claim that his plan is now, the fact is that he did propose an outright ban on Muslim immigrants, he did entertain talk of a new dedicated database, and he did propose the shuttering of certain mosques.  Cruz did no such thing.  His proposed bill included restrictions based on geography, not religion; and to my knowledge the only way religion figured into his immigration plan was that he proposed prioritizing persecuted religious minorities. 

Quote

I am just very perplexed at YOUR inability to understand me here.  I will conclude that your usually lawyerly flawless ability to understand is being clouded by your hatred for Trump.  "have no problem with refugees...".  I am suggesting no such thing.

With regard to this particular issue . . . no, it was my utter bewilderment at why on earth you would try to suggest that either Cruz, or Mormons who support Cruz (your target was a little ambiguous, though I presume you meant the latter), "has no problem with refugees that has been officially declared poses a threat of terrorist infiltration by members of the federal government...." 

Now, as I see it, you meant one of two things here: 

1. You meant precisely what you wrote--that Mormons/Cruz are okay with demonstrably dangerous terrorists entering the country.  If so, you can either own what you said or you can recant it--but let's not insult our readers' intelligence by pretending the accusation was never made.
2. Alternatively, you meant to write that Mormons/Cruz "has no problem with refugees that have been officially declared [to] pose no threat of terrorist infiltration".  That exonerates you on 1) above, but now you've got a logical problem.  Because your whole argument is that Trump's and Cruz's positions are identical; but you've also just conceded that Cruz/Mormons are okay with harmless Muslims entering the country at present; whereas Trump wants a moratorium. 

Quote

Inconsistent.  Completely.  Doesn't matter who the law is for.  The fact of the matter is the ban impacts innocent real-deal transgenders in the same manner that the Muslim ban impacts innocent real-deal muslims and the supporters are okay with the impact on the innocent to protect the populace.

OK, I think I understand your argument a bit better; but what you seem to be saying is that once we make one law that catches the innocent in its net, we must be willing to make all laws without further regard as to what other innocents may be caught in their net or inquiring as to whether we can achieve the same ends through a more narrowly tailored, less sweeping solution.

I mean, really?  "We have to freeze immigration, because we don't let grown heterosexual men share bathrooms with little girls"?  That's your argument?

Quote

And on regulation:  Insitituting a BAD regulation to correct another BAD regulation is no defense for stupidity.

Hey, if you've got a more narrowly tailored solution about how a property owner (in this case, the State of North Carolina) can keep men out of the women's bathroom without--well--telling men to stay out of the women's bathroom, I'm all ears.   But given that HB 2 only applies to state-owned bathrooms, allows for the possibility of gender-neutral single-use bathrooms, and exempts privately-owned businesses from whatever cockamamie PC schemes muni governments try to impose . . . in what way is HB 2 "stupidity"? 

Please be specific, and as you're trying to tear down a statute that is at worst inartfully drafted, perhaps you'll marvel again at how Donald Trump has you--you, Anatess, formerly one of LDS.net's most solid conservatives!--rehashing talking points for the Human Rights Campaign.

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 8:34 PM, Vort said:

...checked the news headlines. Two comments:

1. The American electorate is a bunch of fools. I say that in the most condemnatory manner possible. No matter if they elect the buffoonish Trump, the vomitous Sanders, or the nightmarish Clinton, they will get what they deserve. Too bad I and my family have to suffer with them.
2. The good news: I finally get to vote for Dallin H. Oaks for US President.

I am profoundly disappointed with the Republican side. It appears that Trump has succeeded in a hostile take over. On the Democrat side, what to say? Most thought there were no serious contenders against HRC. She's got the resume, she's a she...and so Sanders, the Socialist, gave it one last effort.  People--especially younger ones--wanted an alternative, so it's turned into a bit of a race on that side.

Democracy still works. This year, perhaps not as well as other years. The electorate may be behaving/voting foolishly, but I still bank on the overall genius of relying on the will of the governed vs. monarchy, oligarchy, or the phony "workers'" rule of Communism/Socialism.

SAFEST BET FOR INDIVIDUAL FUTURES:  Invest heavily in aspirin/Tylenol/Ibuprofen companies!

[tesuji]

Democracy doesn't work if citizens are ignorant, foolish, wicked, or silly. 

Like you, I still believe in the American people as a whole. I hope they don't prove me wrong.

Edited May 10, 2016 by tesuji

[LeSellers]

13 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Democracy still works.

4 hours ago, tesuji said:

Democracy doesn't work if citizens are ignorant, foolish, wicked, or silly. 

This is exactly why we don't have a democracy, and why God inspired our Founders to establish a republic, and why the concept of voting is not a constitutional requirement for our government. Democracy, after all, means "mob rule". The closest hint is in Art I, section 2: "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." But an election does not require voting, since "election" means choosing, not voting.

A democracy can last only as long as the people are ignorant of the fact that they can enrich themselves by using the lethal power of the state to take what others have produced at the point of a gun.

The more "democracy" we have, the less freedom we will enjoy.

Lehi

Edited May 10, 2016 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

Okay...if we are going to fine-tooth-comb this, we have a democratic republic, tempered by a court system, with built-in inefficiencies, to further subdue the darker side of ":democracy."  Our mish-mash works much better than systems built on elitism (I include Socialism/Communism in that umbrella category) on the one hand, and unfettered populism/'democracy' on the other.

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Okay...if we are going to fine-tooth-comb this, we have a democratic republic, tempered by a court system, with built-in inefficiencies, to further subdue the darker side of ":democracy."  Our mish-mash works much better than systems built on elitism (I include Socialism/Communism in that umbrella category) on the one hand, and unfettered populism/'democracy' on the other.

There are times when we must "fine-tooth-comb" different concepts. Rush Limbaugh is famous for saying it, but he was far from the first: words mean things.

The use of democracy to describe our system of governance demeans the Framers, and it does a disservice to listeners who imagine they understand what's going on.

Further, it was one of a myriad of means by which the communists tried to make our transition to their satanic system easier. Using democracy to describe both us and them made it seem like there was little difference between us. The difference is huge (as someone likes to say).

Lehi

Edited May 10, 2016 by LeSellers

[zil]

58 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

words mean things

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their correct (or right, or proper) name." --Chinese proverb, sometimes attributed to Confucius.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, zil said:

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their correct (or right, or proper) name." --Chinese proverb, sometimes attributed to Confucius.

Now, hang on.  I thought

Quote

The beginning of wisdom is "I don't know" -- Data (ST: TNG)

Oh wait!

Quote

Wonder is the beginning of all wisdom.  -- Socrates

Nope.  Sorry.

Quote

Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.  -- Aristotle

Not quite.

Quote

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom -- Proverbs 9:10

What the heck, man...  Make up your minds already!

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Guest