What's the Christ-like thing to do this election?

[yjacket]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's why we never got along. You are way too Pollyanna-like for me. Snap out it, man! 
(Again everyone, totally joking) 

I know right!  I just need to sprinkle fairy dust and click my magic slippers together and we'll all be singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"!

[Guest]

9 hours ago, yjacket said:

Negativo my friend.  Please don't be mislead by the pied pipers within the Republican Party who are a part of the modern day Gadianton Robbers, who will stop at nothing to keep their power.  And I do mean that literally. McMullin is part of 'em. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_McMullin

Right on his wiki page, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and former CIA officer for 10 years and then worked in investment banking.  He is part of the Gadianton Robbers. Nope, no thank you; sorry my fellow mormons- you are being trolled with him. 

Do you actually have any proof for any claims you make?  Or are you just repeating something you saw on the internet?

[anatess2]

On 10/13/2016 at 1:30 AM, Larry Cotrell said:

I don't know if you live in Utah, but those of us that do should vote for McMullin, because if he wins Utah, it could force both candidates to fall short of 270. In this case, it goes to the senate. If it ties in the senate, the house of representatives gets to pick the president. If they really hate Trump, which they do, they'll pick McMullin.

It's a long shot and it is definitely wishful thinking, but at this point, it's the only hope we have.

Wow.  I didn't know Mormons are THAT desperate.

There is a reason Romney lost in 2012.  THAT WAS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.  Obama did not cheat him out of that election.

There is a reason Romney did not run in 2016 even as he really wanted to.  He KNEW he couldn't win.

Romney praised Trump in 2012.  Bigly.  Effusively.

Romney saw his opportunity with Trump running in 2012.  I can point to you that he had no intention of supporting Cruz nor Kasich at the primaries.  He was simply trying to make all of them lose so he has a chance of a power grab at the RNC.

This time, he is doing Gadiantor-robber tactics (just like you outlined right there) to once again muddy the election process so he can BYPASS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and put him in a power position to control the executive chair.  And he is using the Church Membership to help him there. McMullin is a Romney puppet.  It is no accident that he is a Mormon.  McMullin never wanted to run for President.  Romney propped him up to it.  Romney thinks Ryan is his puppet - quid pro quo abounds in that relationship.

If you think ROMNEY SHOULD STEAL this election from the WILL OF THE PEOPLE... you're welcome to destroy your own country.

At this point, Harry Reid and Mitt Romney are both mud in my book.  That extends to McMullin as Romney's puppet.

By the way, do you know how Mitt Romney wiped Newt Gingrich out of the primaries in 2012?  Yes... the dirty negative campaign of adultery allegations.  The Romney campaign are experts at running negative campaigns.  Did the same with Herman Cain.  The negative campaign of sexual controversy is always easy to pull because Republicans ALWAYS fall for it.

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 10/1/2016 at 9:50 PM, prisonchaplain said:

As the election draws closer, polls are showing that nearly 60% will vote against a candidate they hate, rather than for one they support. The apostle Paul, commanded Christians to pray for Caesar. Yikes! Roman leaders were immoral, anti-Christian despots. Don't trust government leaders? Think them unwise? Pray even harder!

Prayer for our leaders is a necessity regardless of whether it's election season or not.

In the Catholic Mass, the Prayers of the Faithful section always includes secular leadership.  So there is always this section in the Prayer - "For our nation and the local community, and for all who serve in our government, let us pray to the Lord...".  Sometimes, the actual leadership is named - like the Governor and Mayor or some presiding officer of a community organization like the Knights of Columbus, etc.

 

Just as an add-on to the 60% will vote against the candidate they hate... this really bugs me.  It bugs me because it shows a shallow electorate.  We choose the President by what lasting good/damage he can potentially do to a country.  A Legacy as they say.  More important than the character of the candidate is the character of the overall governance.  So, to me, it is more important to vote for a person who will protect morality than for that person to be moral him/herself.  I can give you a perfect example - President Obama is a man of moral character.  If he was Republican with a Republican platform, Republicans would enthusiastically vote for him.  Yet that moral man presided over a nation of increasing cultural rot with the government policies his government allowed.  Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich both had sexual controversies - Clinton more so than Gingrich.  Yet both men presided over government policies with relatively steady moral compass than Obama.

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[prisonchaplain]

@anatess2  I agreed with and "liked" what you said. It could be that the hatred many of us are voting against (as opposed to for someone we really support) is likely as much for their policies as for their personal character.  Frankly, Mr. Trump is growing on me personally.  His personal choices continue to bother me, but I kinda like the gruff, straightforward, humorous way he handles his much smoother opponents.  Why I am voting against Mrs. Clinton is that I hate her extremist pro-abortion position, I hate her anti-faith-community stance (we suffer from implicit bias and must change our doctrines), I hate her anti-police cave-in, etc.  Me thinks many Trump supporters are more "in hate" with HRC's politics than they are her, personally.  We really don't think about her much.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Wow.  I didn't know Mormons are THAT desperate.

Not desperation, because what Larry wrote is incorrect.  Utahans are trying to find a way to have their voices heard and avoid having to vote for either candidate that they find morally offensive.

But the second part about the House is not correct.  While they will choose the new President, the way it is done is that each state only has one vote.  I have only done a cursory analysis, but on the surface, I believe that the way the representatives are split up, Hillary would win with such a House vote.  So, even if every republican voted for McMullin and none voted for Trump, Hillary would win.

Any way you slice it, Hillary is going to win this election.  It's already been decreed by the PTB.  I don't get why Trumpkins believe that they can blame it all on never Trumpers.  It wouldn't matter if we all got on the bandwagon.  Trump simply will not win.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Guest

[yjacket]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Do you actually have any proof for any claims you make?  Or are you just repeating something you saw on the internet?

Where he has been and what he has done is on the wikipedia page.  My statement about him being connected to the insiders/Establishment/Gadianton Robbers is based upon what I know about the CFR and investment banks and the CIA.  This guy worked for 10 years in the CIA, then in investment banking and now he's a Presidential candidate?

Sorry, no dice. You don't work for 10 years in the CIA as a covert officer switch to investment banking, and on August 8th of this year declare your candidacy for President.  

The guy was an OPs officer with them in the middle east; people obviously don't understand that mentality.  There are a lot of good people who work for the Agency, but working for the NCS . . .let's just say it's very, very hard to maintain a marriage.  He spent 10 years of his life pretending to be someone (or multiple someone's he his not).  The training they put you through is very, very good.  We are talking you are a businessman one day, a state employee the next, one day you do this, the next day you do y. After you have been trained in the manipulative ways of how to turn people to betray their country, it is very, very hard to turn it off.

I know from personal experience, I wouldn't trust anyone who spent 10 years as an NCS officer to run for President.

And you certainly don't go from NCS officer (b/c those guys life are extremely private) to investment banking then become senior advisor on  the House Committee on Foreign Affairs without knowing the right political connections and I can guarantee the "right" political connections at those levels are the Elite/Robbers. 

3 months of vetting? That's it, and 25% of Utah is going to vote for him?  Lol, wow talk about not smart.  

You are being trolled, big time.  

Edited October 14, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

14 hours ago, yjacket said:

I know right!  I just need to sprinkle fairy dust and click my magic slippers together and we'll all be singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"!

Thanks for getting the joke, and I say that seriously! 

[anatess2]

28 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not desperation, because what Larry wrote is incorrect.  Utahans are trying to find a way to have their voices heard and avoid having to vote for either candidate that they find morally offensive.

But the second part about the House is not correct.  While they will choose the new President, the way it is done is that each state only has one vote.  I have only done a cursory analysis, but on the surface, I believe that the way the representatives are split up, Hillary would win with such a House vote.  So, even if every republican voted for McMullin and none voted for Trump, Hillary would win.

Any way you slice it, Hillary is going to win this election.  It's already been decreed by the PTB.  I don't get why Trumpkins believe that they can blame it all on never Trumpers.  It wouldn't matter if we all got on the bandwagon.  Trump simply will not win.

No, Carb.  The way the states are split up, 28 are going to be Republican or Republican-leaning, only 14 are Democrat or Democrat-leaning, most of them bunched up on the Northeast and the coastal West.  8 States are either-or - so even if the Dems pull all 8 States, they still won't win the House pick.  So, the Republicans will win a Congressional Presidential vote - if they pick the Republican nominee.  BUT, Romney has a big pull over the e-GOP.  Donor class and all that junk that Trump and Carson are strongly fighting against.  This is plain establishment politics that is Romney's playground.  Romney WILL pull votes out of the red states - even if the people did not choose McMullin there - to bring the Republican-nominee's count under 26 - with Utah going first.  That brings the decision to Paul Ryan and Paul Ryan alone.

Hillary only wins because Democrats are a cohesive force even as they backstab each other whereas Republicans are a splintered mess that can't even define who they are let alone who is the best person to champion their platform to meaningful governance.  The e-GOP needs to get thrown out otherwise it will be a century of Romney-like losses for the foreseeable future.  Then conservatives only has to fight Democrats instead of getting lynched by their own people on top of Dems (remember what e-GOP did to the TEA Party?).

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[yjacket]

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not desperation, because what Larry wrote is incorrect.  Utahans are trying to find a way to have their voices heard and avoid having to vote for either candidate that they find morally offensive.

If you want to have your voice hear then vote for the Constitutional Party of the Libertarian Party. Both parties who align well with LDS values (Johnson not as well, but the Party itself lines up closer to the LDS root values of leave us alone to practice our religion).  

Don't follow the pied piper Romney who simply says, hey vote for McMullin with 3 months of vetting . . .that just shows a lemming quality rather a principle quality.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, yjacket said:

If you want to have your voice hear then vote for the Constitutional Party of the Libertarian Party. Both parties who align well with LDS values (Johnson not as well, but the Party itself lines up closer to the LDS root values of leave us alone to practice our religion).  

Don't follow the pied piper Romney who simply says, hey vote for McMullin with 3 months of vetting . . .that just shows a lemming quality rather a principle quality.

Well... the Church went out and encouraged members to vote against legalization of marijuana...  there goes Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party.

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[yjacket]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well... the Church went out and encouraged members to vote against legalization of marijuana...  there goes Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party.

I understand why the Church did that, they explicitly came out against recreational marijuana but they didn't comment on medical marijuana.  

I align myself very closely with official Church stuff, unfortunately they are wrong on prohibition of marijuana like they were wrong on prohibition of alcohol; but that is okay. IMO the Church is wrong on very, very few things, so it's not a big deal to me.  

I completely 100% agree marijuana and alcohol in recreational sense are not good, against the WoW and shouldn't be use.  The actuality of the laws (i.e. when should we through someone in jail for it) is a different matter however.

Edited October 14, 2016 by yjacket

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I understand why the Church did that, they explicitly came out against recreational marijuana but they didn't comment on medical marijuana.  

I align myself very closely with official Church stuff, unfortunately they are wrong on prohibition of marijuana like they were wrong on prohibition of alcohol; but that is okay. IMO the Church is wrong on very, very few things, so it's not a big deal to me.

That doesn't matter.  Remember, we have Mormons who are voting for McMullin because he's a Mormon... or Romney said so.  I mean - you can argue with Mormons on immigration and refugees, it's a hard sell because they think their Prophet told them to support open borders.  Same with marijuana.

P.S. The Libertarian Party holistic principle is to abolish the DEA (or drastically reduce it).  So this is not just about marijuana.  But this is not why I'm not a fan of the LP.  I mainly disagree with their foreign policy stance.

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[yjacket]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

P.S. The Libertarian Party holistic principle is to abolish the DEA (or drastically reduce it).  So this is not just about marijuana.  But this is not why I'm not a fan of the LP.  I mainly disagree with their foreign policy stance.

Correct. Their non-intervention stance?

Unless a country directly attacks us, we should not be involved militarily, period end of story.

Unfortunately, the mantra of "look at WWI" gets trotted out every time, when the truth of the matter is WWII would never had happened if the US had minded it's own business, Hitler would have never come to power.  But we get to live with that mantra for the next 30+ years until it is finally dead and gone.

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Correct. Their non-intervention stance?

Unless a country directly attacks us, we should not be involved militarily, period end of story.

See there.  That's what I disagree with.

And no, I don't agree with the Bush stance either.

It's fine for Americans to think non-interventionist is good.  Well, try being a Filipino.

Good thing, America First does not mean Philippines Forgotten.

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No, Carb.  The way the states are split up...

I've just done a state by state analysis.  And I was incorrect.  While your conclusion is correct, your numbers are off a bit.

15 are Democrat

31 are Republican

4 states are toss up.

Of those, three Republican and two Democrat states are just barely so.

As for the remainder of your posts --  I disagree.

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I've just done a state by state analysis.  And I was incorrect.  While your conclusion is correct, your numbers are off a bit.

15 are Democrat

31 are Republican

4 states are toss up.

Of those, three Republican and two Democrat states are just barely so.

As for the remainder of your posts --  I disagree.

Which one is your 15th?  NJ?

These states are a toss up in this go-round:  ME NH NJ MI WI IA NV CO.  Remember, we're not talking about people votes.  We're talking about Congressmen.  NJ, for example, has 6 Rs and 6 Ds in their Congressional Representation.

You disagree that Romney can peel at least 3 of the red states to go McMullin?

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Which one is your 15th?  NJ?

I listed New Jersey as a toss up.  I believe I counted 6 and 6 for a total of 12 -- unless I miscounted.

The ones where the House of Reps listed more D than R, I got the following for Dems: CA, CT, DE, HA, IL, IA, MD, MS, MN, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA.

Toss-ups were ME, NH, NJ, OH.

The remainder were Rep.  Now, I'm going to get rid of the spreadsheet.  So, if you have any further questions, tough.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Guest

[yjacket]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

See there.  That's what I disagree with.

And no, I don't agree with the Bush stance either.

It's fine for Americans to think non-interventionist is good.  Well, try being a Filipino.

Good thing, America First does not mean Philippines Forgotten.

I understand, I don't hold any ill-will towards those who want US protection, I just happen to think it has caused more problems than it as solved, just like the Drug War has caused more problems than it has solved.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I understand, I don't hold any ill-will towards those who want US protection, I just happen to think it has caused more problems than it as solved, just like the Drug War has caused more problems than it has solved.

Sure.  The solution is not to withdraw from the fight.  The solution is to try something else.

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I listed New Jersey as a toss up.  I believe I counted 6 and 6 for a total of 12 -- unless I miscounted.

The ones where the House of Reps listed more D than R, I got the following for Dems: CA, CT, DE, HA, IL, IA, MD, MS, MN, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA.

Toss-ups were ME, NH, NJ, OH.

The remainder were Rep.  Now, I'm going to get rid of the spreadsheet.  So, if you have any further questions, tough.

Okay.  The details is irrelevant.  The position remains... Romney is e-GOP enough as to make it easier for him to grab power through the Congressional McMullin-conduit than it is for him to actually let the Will of the People choose him.  That is - it is easier for him to play the quid-pro-quo game of the political class to cause  at least enough red state congressmen to turn Trump votes to McMullin votes in Congress to bar a majority.  With Paul Ryan already well positioned to deflect blowback if he picks McMullin over Trump.

Game of Thrones, man.  Ryan playing the defensive game of simultaneously attacking and endorsing Trump is no reactionary play.  It's a plan.  Trump going on a tirade on Ryan - even going as far as to try to unseat him through Nehlen - is also not plain reactionary.  The only thing holding Trump back against Ryan is Gingrich.  I've said it here before - Ryan is an important piece in fixing a broken Congress.

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

So yeah, @prisonchaplain.  What is really tough for me this go-round is trying to talk to people about what this election is all about.  I mean, I have a lot of respect for a lot of these people that used to work with me in the Romney campaign.  Those days, we were talking mainly healthcare and the economy and hammering those issues down.  This time, I'm talking SCOTUS, immigration, economy, religious liberty, fixing a broken Congress... and they're talking racist, sexist, potty mouth, sexual predator.

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

... it is easier for him to play the quid-pro-quo game of the political class to cause  ...

There you go, Anatess, bringing class into it again.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There you go, Anatess, bringing class into it again.

Why not?  Congress is the political class.  That's who we are talking about.  If you haven't noticed, Congress - both left and right - has not listened to the people in at least 16 years now.

Edited October 14, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Why not?  Congress is the political class.  That's who we are talking about.  If you haven't noticed, Congress has not listened to the people in at least 16 years now.

Why, I had no idea.  I must just be completely ignorant of current events for the past 16 years.