Mormon vs Trump

[anatess2]

I'm going to challenge your ideological positions, ok?  You can just say "I don't want to debate this" if you didn't intend for it to be a topic of discussion.

 

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

1)  Small Military

A military is useless when it is limited by non-combat rules.  The size of a military is a non-combat consideration.  A military should be the size it needs to be to defend one's country from enemies both foreign and domestic.  If it needs a big military to do so, then you need a big military.  If you can effectively defend one's country with a small military then that's what you need.  This is one of only 3 reasons the Feds exist.

 

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

2)  Small Government

4)  For basic universal health care.  

These are mutually exclusive.  "Basic" is a moving target.  You can't run a Small Government that controls 1/3 of your economy.

 

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

2)  Small Government

6)  Education.  Subsidized higher education for all.  Basically a set amount for tuition which can be used at any accredited college or vocational school.  Smaller class size, more teachers, year round school with two different month long breaks.

Another conflict.  "Higher education" is unnecessary.  Grammar school is necessary.  High School is a luxury.  Making "higher education" a function of government puts your government directly in control of it's citizen's labor qualifications which is not much different from the Chinese government having the authority to dictate to its citizenry where they are assigned for labor.  In addition, a vocation requires conviction.  If you don't put your own resources into your vocation, you allow people who have no such convictions to go into such vocation just because they can to which they graduate with money spent on some skill they have no wish to use.

 

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Let me guess, Harry Reid is of the devil and Obama is the anti-christ.

No. Harry Reid is a succubus and Obama is a vampire.

??????

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Not necessarily.  The Economy is a common issue across political party candidates so you can leach opposing party votes if your solution is proven to have worked.  The Economy becomes just ONE of common issues within the Republican Party.  Therefore, when you have 2 or more party candidates who have the same solution to the Economy, other differences becomes the focal point - like... Immigration, Trade, and Foreign Policy, and even what is deemed "Presidential" - all issues that the Republican Party is not united on.

Yes, on paper that is correct.  In practice, it would never happen.  The economy is king.  Trump could sacrifice a baby on the white house lawn and if the economy is booming, he will be reelected.  People for the most part don't really care who is president so long as they have money coming into their coffers.  Look at Richard Nixon....  Bill Clinton...   Both horrible people.  Both reelected  mostly because the economy was good.  The only real other predictor is war.  If we are in a popular war, the sitting president is a shoe in.

Please let me know who in history has made a successful challenge in a primary to the sitting president.  Let me give you a hint....  Franklin Pierce, a southern democrat from a long long time ago.  He really upset his party.  Trump has not done that.  There is little chance anyone could trump the Trump.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

The economy is king.  Trump could sacrifice a baby on the white house lawn and if the economy is booming, he will be reelected. 

Strange how the Repubs lost the House here then.

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Yes, on paper that is correct.  In practice, it would never happen.  The economy is king.  Trump could sacrifice a baby on the white house lawn and if the economy is booming, he will be reelected.  People for the most part don't really care who is president so long as they have money coming into their coffers.  Look at Richard Nixon....  Bill Clinton...   Both horrible people.  Both reelected  mostly because the economy was good.  The only real other predictor is war.  If we are in a popular war, the sitting president is a shoe in.

Please let me know who in history has made a successful challenge in a primary to the sitting president.  Let me give you a hint....  Franklin Pierce, a southern democrat from a long long time ago.  He really upset his party.  Trump has not done that.  There is little chance anyone could trump the Trump.

 

Let me put it this way... when you got the Bush's, Romney, Ryan and McCain, the leading Republicans from less than a decade ago in such opposition to Trump so much so that I find myself frustratingly in opposition to @Just_A_Guy even as majority of our ideological positions are in common, you can't just rely on an economy to keep a sitting President.  And especially with the media happily suppressing economic achievements such that you got people who believe the Obama economy was a great economy...  Neither Nixon nor Clinton nor any President since the founding of the Republican Party has such opposition within their own parties.

Edited November 27, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Let me put it this way... when you got the Bush's, Romney, Ryan and McCain, the leading Republicans from less than a decade ago in such opposition to Trump so much so that I find myself frustratingly in opposition to @Just_A_Guy even as majority of our ideological positions are in common, you can't just rely on an economy to keep a sitting President.  And especially with the media happily suppressing economic achievements such that you got people who believe the Obama economy was a great economy...  Neither Nixon nor Clinton nor any President since the founding of the Republican Party has such opposition within their own parties.

We disagree yet again!  I think that the GOP opposition to Trump has pretty much been neutered at this point—sure, a (relative) few people within the party publicly disagree with him on this issue or that, but I don’t see any of them as being a political threat.  And Kasich is delusional if he thinks he can successfully primary Trump—the inevitable antics of the Dem-led House will force the GOP to hang together, and Kasich will only further marginalize himself. 

Huntsman is a nice guy—I’ve met him and found him to be a class act—but let’s face it, as far as party politics goes he’s got one foot out the door already. 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We disagree yet again!  I think that the GOP opposition to Trump has pretty much been neutered at this point—sure, a (relative) few people within the party publicly disagree with him on this issue or that, but I don’t see any of them as being a political threat.  And Kasich is delusional if he thinks he can successfully primary Trump—the inevitable antics of the Dem-led House will force the GOP to hang together, and Kasich will only further marginalize himself. 

Huntsman is a nice guy—I’ve met him and found him to be a class act—but let’s face it, as far as party politics goes he’s got one foot out the door already. 

I can agree with this.. but still, he's gonna win not because of the Economy.  He's gonna win because... well, if he can win against 11 very strong, experienced candidates, including Kasich, on an all-out brawl with zero political experience under his belt, he's gonna mow down anybody else trying to get him in another Primary before the Primary even starts if there is any viable opposition.  I mean, he pretty much neutered Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Cory Booker and we haven't even started campaigns for Primaries, let alone the general.  So, in my opinion, Trump is going to win 2020 primaries because he's Trump and he has 3 years worth of achievements hanging on his belt and not just because... economy.  The economy can tank (most likely the corporate debt bubble if it is going to tank... or we get another 9/11) and he could still win if the Republicans coalesce against the Democrats as you have stated.  Or the economy can stay on its current projections and he's going to lose because... he's Trump and the Republicans just get tired of the constant political war plaguing the nation and decide to put decorum ahead of anything else - which would be a mistake because the Democrats are not all of a sudden gonna play nice just because it's another Republican on the helm, so the only decorum that can be had is to let the Democrats run unopposed.

[The Folk Prophet]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

and he has 3 years worth of achievements hanging on his belt and not just because... economy.

To be fair, the economy is an "achievement" that holds an awful lot of weight.

[Tyme]

43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I can agree with this.. but still, he's gonna win not because of the Economy.  He's gonna win because... well, if he can win against 11 very strong, experienced candidates, including Kasich, on an all-out brawl with zero political experience under his belt, he's gonna mow down anybody else trying to get him in another Primary before the Primary even starts if there is any viable opposition.  I mean, he pretty much neutered Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Cory Booker and we haven't even started campaigns for Primaries, let alone the general.  So, in my opinion, Trump is going to win 2020 primaries because he's Trump and he has 3 years worth of achievements hanging on his belt and not just because... economy.  The economy can tank (most likely the corporate debt bubble if it is going to tank... or we get another 9/11) and he could still win if the Republicans coalesce against the Democrats as you have stated.  Or the economy can stay on its current projections and he's going to lose because... he's Trump and the Republicans just get tired of the constant political war plaguing the nation and decide to put decorum ahead of anything else - which would be a mistake because the Democrats are not all of a sudden gonna play nice just because it's another Republican on the helm, so the only decorum that can be had is to let the Democrats run unopposed.

The interesting thing about the 2016 primaries is that Trump never had 50% of the vote until the end. That means if the other candidates would have coalesced around one candidate the odds would have been better. It could even be argued that the one against Trump would have easily won. That leaves an opening for one candidate to enter in 2020 and be the anti-trump candidate.  With that said, I believe Trump has coalesced voters around him this time around. That would make it harder for the anti-trump to win. I just wouldn't count out the person who goes against Trump just yet.

As far as the economy, it is going to be a strong factor in 2020 and should have been this year. If Trump would have stuck to the economy I think the primaries would have turned out a lot different. Instead he insisted on demonizing migrants. That caused the Latino community to come out in droves. With that said, I don't think the economy necessarily means Trump is going to automatically win. You can look at 2012 as an example of that. There was something floating around that said a President has never been re-elected with the unemployment as high as it was in 2016. Well, we all know how that turned out -- Obama won a second term(Christ Christie). There are always firsts for everything.

The interesting aspect of 2020 is going to be the rise of Progressives. If Bernie Sanders wins the primary Trump doesn't stand a chance. Most people agree with what Bernie is saying. That's according to polls at least. I must say that I think polls are full of crap most of the time. The reason I'm so confident that Bernie is going to win the Democratic primary is because he is going to do it the same way Trump did. There will be like 10 candidates in the primary most with just left of center views. That means they will split the vote and Bernie will always carry about 35% of the vote. Now there is always that chance a charismatic rock star separates from the pact. If I had to choose that would be Cory Booker.

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Tyme

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Oh yes it is.

No it isn't.  That's monster painting.  If the US representative government votes to put the LDS Church in charge of Social Welfare it will not make the LDS Church Satanic.  Desiring for government to manage social welfare is simply another proposed solution to the issue of reducing poverty wherein their supporters believe that the US government, even with its authoritarian risks, can be entrusted with such a task not much different than the LDS members trust that the LDS Church, as a governing body, can be trusted with their tithes and fast offerings.

Monster painting the left wing solutions as Satanic is the same as monster painting the right wing as devoid of compassion because they want to deport illegal immigrants.

Edited November 27, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

55 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

.The economy can tank (most likely the corporate debt bubble if it is going to tank... or we get another 9/11) and he could still win if the Republicans coalesce against the Democrats as you have stated.  

I've been reading into this a bit lately and it seems to be looming awfully large, especially in light of plummeting gas prices, which was one of the symptoms of the 2008 recession. If Trump loses the economy, the never-Trump wing of the GOP will come back with a vengeance. The economy is currently the only thing keeping them quiet.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Godless

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

I've been reading into this a bit lately and it seems to be looming awfully large, especially in light of plummeting gas prices, which was one of the symptoms of the 2008 recession.

Some key things to remember about recessions:

1) They only happen because people I disagree with politically did something to start it. 

2) Everyone can see signs that a recession is coming, but if I wake up every day and say "Today is the day I'm going to die." Eventually I'll be correct. Same thing. 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Tyme said:

The interesting thing about the 2016 primaries is that Trump never had 50% of the vote until the end. That means if the other candidates would have coalesced around one candidate the odds would have been better. It could even be argued that the one against Trump would have easily won. That leaves an opening for one candidate to enter in 2020 and be the anti-trump candidate.  With that said, I believe Trump has coalesced voters around him this time around. That would make it harder for the anti-trump to win. I just wouldn't count out the person who goes against Trump just yet.

As far as the economy, it is going to be a strong factor in 2020 and should have been this year. If Trump would have stuck to the economy I think the primaries would have turned out a lot different. Instead he insisted on demonizing migrants. That caused the Latino community to come out in droves. With that said, I don't think the economy necessarily means Trump is going to automatically win. You can look at 2012 as an example of that. There was something floating around that said a President has never been re-elected with the unemployment as high as it was in 2016. Well, we all know how that turned out -- Obama won a second term(Christ Christie). There are always firsts for everything.

 

The bolded above is incorrect.  The Latino community did not "come out in droves" to oppose Trump on immigration.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  Trump got higher support from the Latino community in 2016 of 28% compared to his Republican predecessors (even before he made any achievements on Latino employment) due to his stance on immigration.

 

8 minutes ago, Tyme said:

The interesting aspect of 2020 is going to be the rise of Progressives. If Bernie Sanders wins the primary Trump doesn't stand a chance. Most people agree with what Bernie is saying. That's according to polls at least. I must say that I think polls are full of crap most of the time. The reason I'm so confident that Bernie is going to win the Democratic primary is because he is going to do it the same way Trump did. There will be like 10 candidates in the primary most with just left of center views. That means they will split the vote and Bernie will always carry about 35% of the vote. Now there is always that chance a charismatic rock star separates from the pact. If I had to choose that would be Cory Booker.

 

On the contrary, Bernie Sanders is toast.  He is not going to be easily forgiven by his supporters when he bent the knee to Hillary - their ideological enemy.  At the same time, his age is going to be primary fodder when the whiz-bangs of the Democratic Socialists is 29-year-old Alexandria and the barely-legal-aged Parkland kids.  So, I doubt he can even keep the Democratic Socialists happy.  Now, it's going to be a test of mettle to see if the old guard of the Democratic Party can keep their coalition from spinning out of control to the radical left.

Cory Booker is toast under 4th wave feminism.  It's not even gonna need Trump to take him out.  His primary opponents can easily Kavanaugh him.

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Godless said:

I've been reading into this a bit lately and it seems to be looming awfully large, especially in light of plummeting gas prices, which was one of the symptoms of the 2008 recession. If Trump loses the economy, the never-Trump wing of the GOP will come back with a vengeance. The economy is currently the only thing keeping them quiet.

It is not the gas price itself that is an indicator for a recession.  Rather, it is the demand for energy.   Today's low gas prices is not a result of plummeting  demand as it was in 2008.  Rather, today's low gas prices is a result of increased supply and favorable trade.

The economy is not the only thing keeping them quiet.  More important than that is Ginsberg fracturing her ribs.

[The Folk Prophet]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's monster painting.

You keep using that made-up term as if it actually has any meaning. Note: It does not. It's rhetoric you're using to "paint" something you disagree with. You're monster painting my monster painting.

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If the US representative government votes to put the LDS Church in charge of Social Welfare it will not make the LDS Church Satanic.

True. Nor is the government Satanic if it votes to put itself in charge of welfare. But we're talking about ideologies here. And the ideology of the welfare state is, at it's core, about the removal of freedom and stealing. Satanic ideals indeed.

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Desiring for government to manage social welfare is simply another proposed solution to the issue of reducing poverty wherein their supporters believe that the US government, even with its authoritarian risks, can be entrusted with such a task not much different than the LDS members trust that the LDS Church, as a governing body, can be trusted with their tithes and fast offerings.

When the church literally throws me in jail at gun point for not paying tithing then you'll have me convinced.

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Monster painting the left wing solutions as Satanic is the same as monster painting the right wing as devoid of compassion because they want to deport illegal immigrants.

Not the same. Let me simplify what you said so you can see how it's different:

"Calling solutions evil is the same as calling people evil".

Nope.

[Tyme]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The bolded above is incorrect.  The Latino community did not "come out in droves" to oppose Trump on immigration.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  Trump got higher support from the Latino community in 2016 of 28% compared to his Republican predecessors (even before he made any achievements on Latino employment) due to his stance on immigration.

 

On the contrary, Bernie Sanders is toast.  He is not going to be easily forgiven by his supporters when he bent the knee to Hillary - their ideological enemy.  At the same time, his age is going to be primary fodder when the whiz-bangs of the Democratic Socialists is 29-year-old Alexandria and the barely-legal-aged Parkland kids.  So, I doubt he can even keep the Democratic Socialists happy.  Now, it's going to be a test of mettle to see if the old guard of the Democratic Party can keep their coalition from spinning out of control to the radical left.

Cory Booker is toast under 4th wave feminism.  It's not even gonna need Trump to take him out.  His primary opponents can easily Kavanaugh him.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/09/how-latinos-voted-in-2018-midterms/

Statistics on Latinos voting in 2018. ^^^

The only hint of truth in your second and third paragraphs is about the old guard. They are going to fight like heck. I just don't think they will crown a candidate like they did with Clinton. That means there will be a lot of candidates in the primary. There only hope is to all pick one. I don't see that happening. That leaves a straight shot for Bernie to get to the general.

I don't understand what you mean by "Kavanaugh him." Booker voted against Kavanaugh to become a Supreme Court Justice.

[Guest Godless]

27 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Some key things to remember about recessions:

1) They only happen because people I disagree with politically did something to start it. 

2) Everyone can see signs that a recession is coming, but if I wake up every day and say "Today is the day I'm going to die." Eventually I'll be correct. Same thing. 

1) They happen because we allow our financial institutions to act recklessly with other peoples' money. We allow it because regulations of any sort are the antithesis of a free market and therefore the construct of demonic communists or something, and that's a bipartisan attitude for the most part. 

2) There were people who saw the housing bubble long before it burst. It's hard to say precisely when the economy is going to go south, but there seem to be clear indicators that at some point it will, and badly.

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

On the contrary, Bernie Sanders is toast.  He is not going to be easily forgiven by his supporters when he bent the knee to Hillary - their ideological enemy.  At the same time, his age is going to be primary fodder when the whiz-bangs of the Democratic Socialists is 29-year-old Alexandria and the barely-legal-aged Parkland kids.  So, I doubt he can even keep the Democratic Socialists happy.  Now, it's going to be a test of mettle to see if the old guard of the Democratic Party can keep their coalition from spinning out of control to the radical left.

Cory Booker is toast under 4th wave feminism.  It's not even gonna need Trump to take him out.  His primary opponents can easily Kavanaugh him.

I've got my money on Beto or Kamala Harris.

[Lost Boy]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm going to challenge your ideological positions, ok?  You can just say "I don't want to debate this" if you didn't intend for it to be a topic of discussion.

 

A military is useless when it is limited by non-combat rules.  The size of a military is a non-combat consideration.  A military should be the size it needs to be to defend one's country from enemies both foreign and domestic.  If it needs a big military to do so, then you need a big military.  If you can effectively defend one's country with a small military then that's what you need.  This is one of only 3 reasons the Feds exist.

 

These are mutually exclusive.  "Basic" is a moving target.  You can't run a Small Government that controls 1/3 of your economy.

 

Another conflict.  "Higher education" is unnecessary.  Grammar school is necessary.  High School is a luxury.  Making "higher education" a function of government puts your government directly in control of it's citizen's labor qualifications which is not much different from the Chinese government having the authority to dictate to its citizenry where they are assigned for labor.  In addition, a vocation requires conviction.  If you don't put your own resources into your vocation, you allow people who have no such convictions to go into such vocation just because they can to which they graduate with money spent on some skill they have no wish to use.

 

 

 

Quote

A military is useless when it is limited by non-combat rules.  The size of a military is a non-combat consideration.  A military should be the size it needs to be to defend one's country from enemies both foreign and domestic.  If it needs a big military to do so, then you need a big military.  If you can effectively defend one's country with a small military then that's what you need.  This is one of only 3 reasons the Feds exist.

I agree.  That said I certainly think it is way bigger than it needs to be and we waste more money on it that we need to.  

Quote

These are mutually exclusive.  "Basic" is a moving target.  You can't run a Small Government that controls 1/3 of your economy.

Universal basic health care does not have to be a huge entity.  Yes, there would be a lot of money that flows through it, but that money goes straight to the private sector and provides a service that benefits all.  I am no bleeding heart.  I really don't care about the sick.  What I care about is the affect the sick have on me.  A healthier population is better for all.  

The Republicans had the chance to define what universal health care would be.  They squandered that chance and the next time Democrats have a shot at it, they will define it in a way we won't like.

Quote

Another conflict.  "Higher education" is unnecessary.  Grammar school is necessary.  High School is a luxury.  Making "higher education" a function of government puts your government directly in control of it's citizen's labor qualifications which is not much different from the Chinese government having the authority to dictate to its citizenry where they are assigned for labor.  In addition, a vocation requires conviction.  If you don't put your own resources into your vocation, you allow people who have no such convictions to go into such vocation just because they can to which they graduate with money spent on some skill they have no wish to use.

First, High school is really a must.  Can you make due without?  yeah, but generally not very well.  

Please explain how government subsidized tuition is government dictating its labor force.  As for vocation, the amount may be adjusted so that you are still responsible for a certain portion.  For University, I would not have it so college is completely covered.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Godless said:

1) They happen because we allow our financial institutions to act recklessly with other peoples' money. We allow it because regulations of any sort are the antithesis of a free market and therefore the construct of demonic communists or something, and that's a bipartisan attitude for the most part. 

2) There were people who saw the housing bubble long before it burst. It's hard to say precisely when the economy is going to go south, but there seem to be clear indicators that at some point it will, and badly.

 

I was kidding. 

Recessions are incredibly complex. The truth is that there are many reasons as to why they happen. Just saying that "regulations" are the cure doesn't address the problem. The economy isn't run by the government. It's run by millions and millions of people making transactions every single second of every single day. All the government can do is make things worse. 

The housing bubble was also made much worse because of government mandated loans. 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You keep using that made-up term as if it actually has any meaning. Note: It does not. It's rhetoric you're using to "paint" something you disagree with. You're monster painting my monster painting.

Just because you can't find it in the Urban Dictionary doesn't mean it has no meaning.  

By the way, I didn't make up the term.  Jordan B. Peterson did on one of his analysis of the Cathy Newman interview.

 

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

True. Nor is the government Satanic if it votes to put itself in charge of welfare. But we're talking about ideologies here. And the ideology of the welfare state is, at it's core, about the removal of freedom and stealing. Satanic ideals indeed.

Unless you're going to say that any ideology contrary to yours that passes a democratic vote is a removal of freedom and stealing.  E.g. you don't want your property taxes to go to the local school, but it does... so they stole it from you.  You want the cops to come to your house when you dial 911 so they didn't steal that particular tax money from you.  

That's not how democratic principles work.  Rather, you vote on how to manage social services FOR ALL such as firefighters, law enforcers, infrastructures, defense, education, poverty reduction... each side proposes a solution - or no solution - and then assign an agency to manage the solution chosen by democratic representation, i.e. the government.

How this becomes a Satanic ideal is when the solution is in itself Satanic - that is, social welfare as a means to reduce crime and poverty being Satanic.

 

 

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

When the church literally throws me in jail at gun point for not paying tithing then you'll have me convinced.

You're mixing Cesar with God's.  Here's a more accurate comparison:  When the Church gives you a temple recommend for not paying tithing you may have a point.

 

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not the same. Let me simplify what you said so you can see how it's different:

"Calling solutions evil is the same as calling people evil".

Nope.

LePeel did not talk about solutions.  He talked about Leftists.  That said, my statement should have said:  "Monster painting the left wing solutions as Satanic is the same as monster painting right wing solutions as devoid of compassion because they want to deport illegal immigrants."

 

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

How this becomes a Satanic ideal is when the solution is in itself Satanic

yep

[The Folk Prophet]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You're mixing Cesar with God's.  Here's a more accurate comparison:  When the Church gives you a temple recommend for not paying tithing you may have a point.

Do you really not understand the difference between:

A) If you do "this" then I'll reward you (freedom)

and

B) If you don't do "this" then I'll punish you (bondage)

This is a large part of the liberal agenda that's so screwed up in ideology these days. People seem to think that not being rewarded for doing nothing is the same as being punished for doing nothing. I'll grant there are semantic similarities, and common sense needs to be applied (obviously). But...

A free man chooses to work for reward. A slave has to work to escape punishment.

Having to pay taxes or you go to jail is bondage. It's not "if you pay your taxes we'll reward you with this road and police protection, but if you don't then you just can't use the road and get no protection". It's "we'll give you a road and protection whether you want it or not and if you don't pony up we'll kill you".

Choosing to pay tithing (among other things) for the reward of the related blessings is straight up freedom.

Do you REALLY not understand the difference here anatess? I know you do. I feel like you're being dishonest with me because I've seen your reasoning and intelligence and this feels an awful lot like you're just playing devil's advocate.

Edited November 27, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

39 minutes ago, Tyme said:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/09/how-latinos-voted-in-2018-midterms/

Statistics on Latinos voting in 2018. ^^^

I don't see anything in the statistics that correlate the voter turnout to Trump's immigration stance.

Latinos (just like Blacks) have historically leaned majority Democrat.  That's why the Democrats playbook has Identity Politics front and center.

Hillary and Kerry has recently stated opposition to the unchecked European migration.  This is a surprise.  This signals to me that they are losing that rhetoric and are planning to go back to their tried and true immigration stance of strong borders of the 90's (when Republicans were the ones who wanted loose borders to get cheap workers).

 

39 minutes ago, Tyme said:

The only hint of truth in your second and third paragraphs is about the old guard. They are going to fight like heck. I just don't think they will crown a candidate like they did with Clinton. That means there will be a lot of candidates in the primary. There only hope is to all pick one. I don't see that happening. That leaves a straight shot for Bernie to get to the general.

This is not what I see.  Bernie's support has dwindled after he bowed down to Hillary, especially praising her platform which is diametrically opposed to the Democratic Socialist agenda.  Bernie's Democratic Socialist agenda is not going to win much outside of the millennial crowd.  So... he's toast to somebody like Joe Biden or Michelle Obama who has much broader appeal partywide.

 

39 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I don't understand what you mean by "Kavanaugh him." Booker voted against Kavanaugh to become a Supreme Court Justice.

Booker admittedly groped a woman in high school.  In the heat of the primaries, the Democrats are not going to pull punches and not make this an issue.  He may even get additional "Ford's" to lob sexual assault allegations at him to get him off the running.  That is completely within the Democratic playbook.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That said, my statement should have said:  "Monster painting the left wing solutions as Satanic is the same as monster painting right wing solutions as devoid of compassion because they want to deport illegal immigrants."

Right wing solutions ARE, typically, devoid of compassion. That's not monster painting. I'm not so adamant as some that the left's philosophies are ALL evil. But there's no denying the overall correlation. Destroy morality. Destroy freedom. Destroy accountability.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you really not understand the difference between:

A) If you do "this" then I'll reward you (freedom)

and

B) If you don't do "this" then I'll punish you (bondage)

This is a large part of the liberal agenda that's so screwed up in ideology these days. People seem to think that not being rewarded for doing nothing is the same as being punished for doing nothing. I'll grant there are semantic similarities, and common sense needs to be applied (obviously). But...

A free man chooses to work for reward. A slave has to work to escape punishment.

Having to pay taxes or you go to jail is bondage. It's not "if you pay your taxes we'll reward you with this road and police protection, but if you don't then you just can't use the road and get no protection". It's "we'll give you a road and protection whether you want it or not and if you don't pony up we'll kill you".

Choosing to pay tithing (among other things) for the reward of the related blessings is straight up freedom.

Do you REALLY not understand the difference here anatess? I know you do. I feel like you're being dishonest with me because I've seen your reasoning and intelligence and this feels an awful lot like you're just playing devil's advocate.

Of course I know the difference!  Governments vs Churches are 2 completely different structures but they do have similarities.  Government rewards is through tax exemptions - so, another solution on the table (and already implemented for ages) for the issue of reduction of poverty is for your charitable contributions (social welfare) being rewarded through tax exemptions!  Going to jail after the society agreed this is how the society is going to be structured is not much different than going to hell for not keeping your covenants.  Yes, covenants are not made by societal vote.  But the laws are not made by societal vote either.  It's a different structure.  

This is not about playing Devil's Advocate.  This is about WRONG.  Under the principles of Democracy, the people vote and the majority agreement sets the law and the consequences for violating such law.  Stating that the results of such Democratic vote is STEALING just because your vote lost spits on the face of the principles of Democracy by which your country is founded on!