Vort

It's hard to stay non-partisan in a heavily polarized environment

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

You used the Zelensky phone call as further proof on top of the Ivana incident that Trump is not honorable.  So, I'm wondering if you're saying that the Ivana incident is a nothing-burger in the same manner as the Zelensky phone call being a nothing-burger.

The Ivana incident was news to me. Wouldn't have changed my vote, but, it's actually disappointing. What really happened is between him, his former wife and God. On the other hand, we're all expected to make judgment calls as voters. If POTUS was inappropriate with his soon-to-leave wife that's a character flaw far different from haggling with foreign leaders over money and investigations. 30-years ago? Sure. Over-stated? Uncertain. Ugly? Seems so. I'm not ready to use the R-word, but yeah, I don't like it. I suspect the probable Democratic nominee has some concerns as well.

I thought this four-years ago. We're going with a very broken vessel, and God does seem to be using him to delay judgement on our nation. I'm grateful for the reprieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The Ivana incident was news to me. Wouldn't have changed my vote, but, it's actually disappointing. What really happened is between him, his former wife and God. On the other hand, we're all expected to make judgment calls as voters. If POTUS was inappropriate with his soon-to-leave wife that's a character flaw far different from haggling with foreign leaders over money and investigations. 30-years ago? Sure. Over-stated? Uncertain. Ugly? Seems so. I'm not ready to use the R-word, but yeah, I don't like it. I suspect the probable Democratic nominee has some concerns as well.

I thought this four-years ago. We're going with a very broken vessel, and God does seem to be using him to delay judgement on our nation. I'm grateful for the reprieve.

Ivana's side is in the court docs.  Trump's side is in his book Art of the Comeback.  Between those 2 is the truth.

I don't have a problem skewering Trump for character flaws.  I have a problem with skewering Trump with made-up accusations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ivana's side is in the court docs.  Trump's side is in his book Art of the Comeback.  Between those 2 is the truth.

I don't have a problem skewering Trump for character flaws.  I have a problem with skewering Trump with made-up accusations.  

Ivana said he was inappropriate during the last intimacy. I haven't read the details. She now says she's proud they raised children together and has an amicable relationship with POTUS. As I said before, the president's enemies will make the worst assumptions. His supporters will dismiss accusations with varying degrees of fervor. The middle 40-60% will pause and wonder. Those of us who tilt in his favor may do so despite suspecting that that middle truth likely falls a bit closer to Ivana's side. Can't prove it. Don't care to. Won't be talking much about it during any political discussions. I'm getting older, but I doubt this is the last time I'll have to hold my nose as I vote . . .

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Ivana said he was inappropriate during the last intimacy. I haven't read the details. She now says she's proud they raised children together and has an amicable relationship with POTUS. As I said before, the president's enemies will make the worst assumptions. His supporters will dismiss accusations with varying degrees of fervor. The middle 40-60% will pause and wonder. Those of us who tilt in his favor may do so despite suspecting that that middle truth likely falls a bit closer to Ivana's side. Can't prove it. Don't care to. Won't be talking much about it during any political discussions. I'm getting older, but I doubt this is the last time I'll have to hold my nose as I vote . . .

I'm not much interested in divorce court battles.  I'm more about the Zelensky call accusation.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Didn't you ask me if I thought the accusation about how he was with Ivana was as much a nothing burger as I thought the phone call with Zelensky was?

No.  My question was - What is not honorable about the Zelensky phone call since you used it to affirm Trump's dishonorability in the case of Ivana.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I thought this four-years ago. We're going with a very broken vessel, and God does seem to be using him to delay judgement on our nation. I'm grateful for the reprieve.

Imagine what He could have done with an unbroken vessel.

Imagine what He could have done with a people who wanted an unbroken vessel.

God didn’t create us so that we could sell our allegiance to the strongman du jour in hopes for a reprieve; He created us to turn to the Son—and only the Son—and conquer, eternally.

The KJV of Isaiah is beautiful, but the NET translation is at times more clear:

Isaiah  48:17 This is what the Lord, your Protector, says,
    the Holy One of Israel: 
    “I am the Lord your God,
    who teaches you how to succeed,
    who leads you in the way you should go. 
18 If only you had obeyed my commandments,
    prosperity would have flowed to you like a river, 
    deliverance would have come to you like the waves of the sea. 
19 Your descendants would have been as numerous as sand, 
    and your children like its granules.
    Their name would not have been cut off
    and eliminated from my presence. 
20 Leave Babylon!
    Flee from the Babylonians!
    Announce it with a shout of joy!
    Make this known—
    proclaim it throughout the earth! 
    Say, ‘The Lord protects his servant Jacob. 
 21 They do not thirst as he leads them through dry regions;
    he makes water flow out of a rock for them;
    he splits open a rock and water flows out.’
 22 There will be no prosperity for the wicked,” says the Lord.

And back to the KJV, Isaiah 8:

9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; . . . gird yourselves [for war] , and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.
10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand . . . .
12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.

Moses.  Samuel.  Nathan.  Isaiah.  Jeremiah.  John the Revelator.  Joseph Smith.

How many times does the Lord need to warn His people about the dangers of trusting in the political arm of flesh, and invite us to let Him fight out battles for us; before we will take Him at His word and quit selling ourselves and our daughters to every strongman who offers us “protection”?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Israel was repeatedly warned not to look to Egypt for protection or alliance. How sad if we now look to our own governmental leadership as "Egypt." Then again, I never confused DC with Zion. :itwasntme:

And indeed, Israel was warned against crowning a king in the first place.  But they overruled God and demanded one anyways, because they found themselves alone and surrounded by enemies and feared that the status quo of divinely-appointed Mosaic judges was not up to snuff.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Imagine what He could have done with an unbroken vessel.

Imagine what He could have done with a people who wanted an unbroken vessel.

Then all you will have left of the Bible is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  There surely won't be a restoration.

And it's cute that NOW you have a broken vessel leading the GOP and NOT before.  That surely is a testament to the unchecked power of journalists.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Imagine what He could have done with an unbroken vessel.

Imagine what He could have done with a people who wanted an unbroken vessel.

Your words are eloquent and true. But who's the "unbroken vessel"? Mitt Romney? I don't think so. Rand Paul? I mean, maybe, but I wouldn't put money on it. Can you name a single prominent Democrat—one will suffice—who might reasonably fit that description?

I do not believe we had the choice of an "unbroken vessel". Given the choice we had, Trump was clearly the least of the evils that had been placed before us (and this coming from a guy who voted for Pothead Johnson—not my finest moment). In retrospect, and despite some historically jaw-dropping behavior, Trump has proven to be a formidable president. My law-school son, who views Trump much like I do, considers him to be the best president of his (my son's) lifetime. I think he's right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Vort said:

But who's the "unbroken vessel"?

Let's go even backwards... Brigham Young?  Joseph Smith?  Peter?  David?  Moses?

The broken vessel is the one that gets reshaped in the potter's hand.  We, therefore, must all be broken.

When it comes to leadership, therefore, it is not about whether the leader is broken.  They all are.  It all comes to picking and choosing which sin matters in the leadership role one is to carry.  And in that - we all have our different opinions on the matter in the same way that people choose who to work for, who to work with, who to hire, who to let their kids be friends with, etc. etc.  If you had every person's lives on public catalogue the same way Trump's life is, it would be interesting to see which of the people in the church would immediately lose their callings.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

[1]Then all you will have left of the Bible is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  There surely won't be a restoration.

[2]And it's cute that NOW you have a broken vessel leading the GOP and NOT before.  That surely is a testament to the unchecked power of journalists.

1.  But inconveniently, we did have a restoration.  And among other things it gave us D&C 98:10.  Some in the Church have clearly and sincerely wrestled with it in light of Trump; others have simply labored mightily to consign to irrelevance.

2.  Name me five women Romney was accused of sexually assaulting.

Heck, name one.

The progressive press are very good at what they do, but their power is not infinite.  They hit most effectively where a person’s own record renders them vulnerable.  

1 hour ago, Vort said:

[1] Your words are eloquent and true. But who's the "unbroken vessel"? Mitt Romney? I don't think so. Rand Paul? I mean, maybe, but I wouldn't put money on it. Can you name a single prominent Democrat—one will suffice—who might reasonably fit that description?

[2] I do not believe we had the choice of an "unbroken vessel". Given the choice we had, Trump was clearly the least of the evils that had been placed before us (and this coming from a guy who voted for Pothead Johnson—not my finest moment). In retrospect, and despite some historically jaw-dropping behavior, Trump has proven to be a formidable president. My law-school son, who views Trump much like I do, considers him to be the best president of his (my son's) lifetime. I think he's right.

1.  Indeed, it’s often a game of finding the least-broken vessel.  Trump, though, was the *most* broken amongst the GOP contenders; and a number of his supporters actually prided themselves on that fact.

As for finding a Democrat who fits that bill:  frankly, it’d have to be a Democrat who opposed elective abortion, and those are rare birds these days.  (By the way, has Trump ever made an on-the-record answer about whether he had ever paid for an abortion or had one of his lovers get an abortion?  My recollection is that as of 2016 he was refusing to answer that question.)

But note, D&C 98:10-11 doesn’t say we should vote with one of the two big parties.  Nor does it demand that we vote in a strategic way sign that the least-dishonest/unwise/evil will win.  It says we should seek out and uphold the honest/wise/good; that whatsoever is less than this is evil, and that we are to forsake the evil and cleave to the good—wherever it may be.  

Maybe, if we show God we are willing to wait for His deliverance by not allying with bad people, He will in time reveal a worthy and viable candidate.  Or perhaps there will be no short-term interim deliverance, but we will face the coming storm with an unsullied ideological commitment and singularity of purpose that will let us remain a people that will credibly light the world and that He can call His own.

In any event:  as Latter-day Saints, we know that the end game here is to make ourselves into a people Jesus Christ will be pleased to meet when He comes.  And we know that He cannot accept us as a people if we routinely tell lies of convenience for material gain, or expect our leaders to do the same.  He cannot accept us as a people if we decide that we need not honor contractual obligations or expect our leaders to do the same.  He cannot accept us as a people if we decide that sexually predatory behavior is merely a private matter, or expect our leaders to act the same.

Wicked leaders tend to change who we are, as a people.  This is especially so in a democratic republic, and more especially so when for political reasons a critical mass of that democratic republic’s citizens spend months on end trying to convince themselves and others that their chosen leader is sufficiently virtuous or lovely or of good report or praiseworthy to lead the country—even as they know, theologically, that the leader is a wicked man.  We may start grudgingly tolerating an ally’s vices, but the vicissitudes of politics make it more likely than not that at some point we wind up justifying those vices through the course of the ongoing discussion (“I don’t really care what Trump did to the wife he was about to divorce.”  “It’s not relevant if Trump sponsored the slicing, dicing, and suctioning from the womb of one of his unborn children!”  “Even if Trump shoots someone in Central Park—what other choice do we have, realistically?”).

2.  No candidate is ever the “least of all the evils placed before us” so long as the ballot has a write-in option.  As for me and my house—we’ll be writing in Russell Nelson.  (“Write in Russ!” might look good on a bumper sticker? ;) )

Personally, I don’t think Trump exceeds Reagan; either in policy, legislation actually passed, or in the general condition in which he leaves the country (not just in policy, but in matters of culture and values and political discourse).  But even Trump does—so what?  The armies of Egypt were reputedly the best that the ancient world had ever seen, right up until Carchemish where . . . they weren’t.

We aren’t fighting Democrats, or progressivism.  We are fighting Satan.  Which site of that war is Donald Trump on?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Personally, I don’t think Trump exceeds Reagan; either in policy, legislation actually passed, or in the general condition in which he leaves the country (not just in policy, but in matters of culture and values and political discourse).

Please note that the son under discussion was born during the Clinton Administration's first term. His older brother managed to be born at the end of the Bush Sr. years. To them, Reagan is ancient history, like Eisenhower to me or Carter (or perhaps Ford) to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vort said:

like Eisenhower to me or Carter (or perhaps Ford) to you.

With the number of children you have, you must be at least in your mid-30s. But unless you're particularly young-looking, you can't be 40 yet. So that would put you as a Reagan-first-term baby. Yes? So Carter it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But I began seeing that Trump's selfish, narcissistic, secular, worldly, unrighteous motivations were getting conservative actions done.  The work on the judiciary alone has brought us back to religious principle counseled by the Founders.  Religious freedom is winning again. 

This is something that I DO not understand that people say.  We lost two conservative judges on the Supreme Court.  In this, it was lucky that Trump was President and felt so inclined to nominate two conservative judges to replace them (and, Trump used to be a Democrat, lest we forget).  All this did was to keep the status quo.  It didn't suddenly change the rest of the court composition.

Unless a liberal judge retires or dies soon, Trump will not actually upset the balance of the court as it has been the past few years in any way during this term of his presidency.

He has brought some other Conservative judges in Federal positions, but overall, the standings are the same.  Not much in the landscape has changed towards a conservative slant that I can see.  Gay Marriage is still the law in the land, Transgendered individuals are still using any bathroom they feel like, and many of the rights of religion in regards to LGBT rights were still lost.  At least looking at it from what I would say is a conservative viewpoint.

From a more liberal viewpoint, I can see that there were a few cases that may have gone against the liberal ideology (bakers and similar minor items), but overall, the landscape is still the same. 

I haven't seen any real landmark decisions come down in regards to liberal or conservative ideology that would have been drastically different in it's decisions five years ago vs. during Trumps term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

What exactly do you think is not honorable about the phone call with Zelensky?

We actually agree on this.  I found the reasoning RIDICULOUS and a witch hunt.  It was absolutely NOT the HILL TO DIE ON for Democrats.  It was stupid and took attention off of much heavier matters that needed looking into.

For example, the protesters in Hong Kong.

Or, perhaps if they had diverted their attention for just five minutes they would have noticed a concerning (not serious yet at the early stage when it was just starting out with the first cases that were noted) situation starting to rise up in China and prepared better for this virus which has now enveloped the United States in fear and in some cases despair.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

By the way, has Trump ever made an on-the-record answer about whether he had ever paid for an abortion or had one of his lovers get an abortion?  My recollection is that as of 2016 he was refusing to answer that question.)

Just curious, do you have any evidence for that happening? For Trump actually paying for an abortion for a woman he got pregnant? Again, curious. Nothing more. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

Your words are eloquent and true. But who's the "unbroken vessel"? Mitt Romney? I don't think so. Rand Paul? I mean, maybe, but I wouldn't put money on it. Can you name a single prominent Democrat—one will suffice—who might reasonably fit that description?

I do not believe we had the choice of an "unbroken vessel". Given the choice we had, Trump was clearly the least of the evils that had been placed before us (and this coming from a guy who voted for Pothead Johnson—not my finest moment). In retrospect, and despite some historically jaw-dropping behavior, Trump has proven to be a formidable president. My law-school son, who views Trump much like I do, considers him to be the best president of his (my son's) lifetime. I think he's right.

He's dead now...but James E. Faust?

Of course, if we are talking about Dead Democrats we could probably take a whole litany of them prior to the 1960s from the Church Leadership.

It started shifting then with more being Republicans then Democrats.  A Majority are Republican these days.

If we look at liberals in general...it opens up options.  In relation to US conservative vs. liberal (as opposed to what counts as liberal or conservative in other nations, for example a FAR right individual in Germany may actually be a more centrist Democrat in the US)...Deiter F. Ucthdorf (though he has registered to vote in the elections previously as a Republican)?  A few of them are unaffiliated...so not Democrat but also not Republican...do they count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Just curious, do you have any evidence for that happening? For Trump actually paying for an abortion for a woman he got pregnant? Again, curious. Nothing more. 

No.  There were rumors that were persistent enough that he was asked about it directly in 2016; AFAIK he declined to answer and the issue was never broached with him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Did you ever pay for an abortion for a woman you got pregnant? Prove you didn't.

That's not the point. No one is asking to prove a negative. JAG's point is that, according to him (JAG), Trump was asked the question and refused to answer it. That's much different from being asked to prove a negative.

For the record, it cannot reasonably be inferred that Trump DID pay for a lover's abortion. I have dirty laundry that I don't want to air, and as a result I might refuse to answer questions that might sound very bad indeed. it's too easy to follow a "Well, have you ever..." path. Consider the following possible Q&A:

  • Have you ever committed adultery? No.
  • Well, have you ever fornicated? No.
  • Well, have you ever, you know, felt someone up who you weren't married to? No.
  • Well, have you ever led someone on falsely and broken her heart? No. That is, I don't think so. That's none of your business anyway.
  • Well, have you ever kissed someone that you had no intention of getting serious with? Look, I think these questions have gone on long enough.
  • AHA! So you HAVE! You faithless lech! How can we vote for a scumbag like YOU, someone who has intentionally broken the hearts of trusting young women? Wait a minute. I didn't say that. And what's with the plural?

Probably a lot easier to just decide from the start that you aren't going to answer any such prying questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Did you ever pay for an abortion for a woman you got pregnant? 

What @Vort said.  But, also:

No.  (Unless you count two post-miscarriage D&Cs, which I don’t.)

See?  That was easy! ;) 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's not the point

Ok. It sort of is. But okay. 

Look, it should be obvious that I am not a Trumper. If it isn't obvious, than, well, I'm not a Trumper. I didn't vote for him in 2016. I do try to be fair though.  We don't have to insinuate anything to attack him. He's done more than enough. 

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What @Vort said.  But, also:

No.

See?  That was easy! ;) 

I know I've said this to you before Jag-but even if an accusation isn't true, if I keep throwing it at you, it'll stick. Guarantee it. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MormonGator said:

I know I've said this to you before Jag-but even if an accusation isn't true, if I keep throwing it at you, it'll stick. Guarantee it. 

Knock yourself out.  :D 

But the one thing you can’t honestly say, is that I refused to answer the question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now