Political Conservativism (republicans) are Overrated

[Traveler]

This off year election has demonstrated that Republicans over rate themselves – either that or they have not learned to count ballots yet.

There is no way the front runner Republican will win the president election next year.  At best the front runner only draws less than 60% of the republican voters and I doubt that they could draw 5% of non-republican voters.  With all the problems in the Democratic party this gives them control of the federal government.  Obviously, the pendulum is not yet swinging.

Is this a sign of the times?  As members of the Church – are you going to sustain your elected officials?

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

This off year election has demonstrated that Republicans over rate themselves – either that or they have not learned to count ballots yet.

There is no way the front runner Republican will win the president election next year.  At best the front runner only draws less than 60% of the republican voters and I doubt that they could draw 5% of non-republican voters.  With all the problems in the Democratic party this gives them control of the federal government.  Obviously, the pendulum is not yet swinging.

Is this a sign of the times?  As members of the Church – are you going to sustain your elected officials?

 

The Traveler

In one respect, the primary source of the GOP’s woes right now is the Trump personality cult.  Trump himself can’t win mainstream Americans (who, one hopes, are finally starting to see the results of the sort of intersectional politics that the Dems are beholden to, and would probably be open to a not-insane Republican).  If any other GOP candidate gets the nomination, the Trump rump won’t turn out for the nominee and (s)he’ll likely lose.

Trump’s legacy will be GOP party losses (and a stalemate/muted victory or two) in what should have been the very winnable years of 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024.

But in another respect:  The Ohio abortion vote yesterday reminds us that we live in a country that has overwhelmingly embraced sex-without-consequences—and is willing to kill for it.  Latter-day Saints can never be truly at home in such a nation.

As for your last paragraph—I don’t know what “sustain your elected officials” even means.  I’m certainly not plotting rebellion; but I don’t owe my elected officials the sorts of deference or support that the word “sustaining” typically connotes among Latter-day Saints.  

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Latter-day Saints can never be truly at home in such a nation.

Which is odd, given that Mormonism is (arguably) the most American faith. 

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

f any other GOP candidate gets the nomination, the Trump rump won’t turn out for the nominee and (s)he’ll likely lose.

There were republicans who warned everyone about this way back in 2016. No one listened. 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In one respect, the primary source of the GOP’s woes right now is the Trump personality cult.  Trump himself can’t win mainstream Americans (who, one hopes, are finally starting to see the results of the sort of intersectional politics that the Dems are beholden to, and would probably be open to a not-insane Republican).  If any other GOP candidate gets the nomination, the Trump rump won’t turn out for the nominee and (s)he’ll likely lose.

Trump’s legacy will be GOP party losses (and a stalemate/muted victory or two) in what should have been the very winnable years of 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024.

But in another respect:  The Ohio abortion vote yesterday reminds us that we live in a country that has overwhelmingly embraced sex-without-consequences—and is willing to kill for it.  Latter-day Saints can never be truly at home in such a nation.

As for your last paragraph—I don’t know what “sustain your elected officials” even means.  I’m certainly not plotting rebellion; but I don’t owe my elected officials the sorts of deference or support that the word “sustaining” typically connotes among Latter-day Saints.  

Thank you for your response

A bit explaining the last paragraph -- 12th Article of faith - explained more in D&C 134 (more specificially verse 5:

Quote

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Latter-day Saints can never be truly at home in such a nation.

All Saints, latter-day and otherwise, view this life as a sojourn—a place we visit, where we do not belong but are passing through. Jesus had family and friends who, we may assume, loved and accepted him, imperfectly perhaps, but still honest love. The world did not love Jesus. "The world" included not just the Roman Empire, which frankly paid Jesus little mind, but also the established religious authorities. Heretical or even apostate though they may have been, they were those who proclaimed God's name and claimed inheritance therein. And they rejected Jesus.

I don't believe the Restored Church of Christ will ever wholesale turn their backs on the suffering Saints, or the suffering anyone else. I don't believe the highest leadership of our Church is corrupt; quite the opposite. I'm not saying anything of the sort. Rather, what I'm saying is that, if we are living right and worshipping God as he would have us do, we have no part in the world. They will reject us just as surely as they rejected him. We try to make common cause with various religious groups, who view us suspiciously through narrowed eyes and proclaim us a cult. We try to make common cause with societal conservatives who seem to recognize the blessings we have been given and that can easily be lost if we don't work to preserve them. yet they view us with contempt. We are most at home with our fellow homeless people, whom the world also despises and rejects. This is the lot of a follower of Christ: You will never be championed by the powerful and beautiful.

If you intend to be a faithful follower of Christ, my considered advice is: Get used to rejection. True Christians have never, in the history of the world, been popular with the masses. Never. Has never happened before and will never happen in the future. That is not the nature of Christianity.

[prisonchaplain]

The headline is half right. Republicans tend to overrate themselves. Further, the former U.S. president grossly overrates himself. On the other hand, conservatism is underrated. Perhaps the former president's greatest intellectual flaw is just how much he underrates conservatism. 

[LDSGator]

23 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Republicans tend to overrate themselves

They made a huge mistake by overturning RvW and making it go “back to the states.” They energized the democrats better than Barack Obama did in 2008. 
 

Republicans found out that poking a bear with a stick isn’t the smartest thing to do. The bear has been mauling them lately. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by LDSGator

[prisonchaplain]

13 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

They made a huge mistake by overturning RvW and making it go “back to the states.” They energized the democrats better than Barack Obama did in 2008. 
 

Republicans found out that poking a bear with a stick isn’t the smartest thing to do. The bear has been mauling them lately. 

I'm torn on this one. It's true that many Democrats--and yes, many independents--are pro-abortion. However, many social conservatives engage in politics primarily to slow down or stop abortion. They generally think politics are dirty, but are willing to fight to save the lives of the unborn. Many other Republicans see this issue as a loser and just want it to go away. I enjoy the Wall Street Journal, but this newspaper is an example. It's not exactly prochoice, but it sees the issue as a loser for conservatives. 

I partially agree that it's a tough issue to sell. On the other hand, if I have to die on a hill saving baby's lives is worth fighting and even losing for. 

[LDSGator]

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

I partially agree that it's a tough issue to sell. On the other hand, if I have to die on a hill saving baby's lives is worth fighting and even losing for. 

If that’s your hill I understand totally. The only word of caution I would offer is that your cause goes nowhere if you continue to lose. I’m with the WSJ 100% on this. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

If that’s your hill I understand totally. The only word of caution I would offer is that your cause goes nowhere if you continue to lose. I’m with the WSJ 100% on this. 

I think, though, that the country was founded on the principle that some things are so morally repugnant that fighting against them—even when we know it’s a losing fight—is an ethical imperative.

If Jew-lynching were legal and religious conservatives were trying to stop it, would libertarians and corporate conservatives be justified in trying to dissuade them for political reasons?

[Vort]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

They made a huge mistake by overturning RvW and making it go “back to the states.” They energized the democrats better than Barack Obama did in 2008.

Republicans didn't do that. The Supreme Court did, in a correct yet stunningly courageous decision, giving the victory to honor, common sense, and Constitutional review. The liar Democrats made hay, of course. Dogs vomit, cows piss, and Democrats politicize events to their advantage. (Republicans do as well, of course. But Republicans are not the main threat to Constitutional government.)

[prisonchaplain]

55 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If Jew-lynching were legal and religious conservatives were trying to stop it, would libertarians and corporate conservatives be justified in trying to dissuade them for political reasons?

This would have been a wild-eyed "never could happen here" example, what a month ago? Now? 🤷‍♂️

[prisonchaplain]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

Republicans didn't do that. The Supreme Court did, in a correct yet stunningly courageous decision, giving the victory to honor, common sense, and Constitutional review. 

Some of us chose the former president because we hoped he'd pick SCOTUS judges to make correct yet stunning, courageous decisions. So, I'd argue that Republicans--some anyway--had a hand in bringing this decision about.

[JohnsonJones]

Did something happen recently?

The last news I heard, Trump was 5 points ahead in the polls recently (and I am NOT a Trump fan, as I think most of you would know by now, so me saying this is not trying to falsely prop him up either). 

That does not indicate to me that he is necessarily going to lose the election or is in dire threat of losing it currently.  In fact, it could be the opposite of that (which is NOT something I actually want to hear).

If something else has happened that goes counter to what I have heard recently, it would be interesting to hear about it.

[LDSGator]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Republicans didn't do that. The Supreme Court did

Nope. The justices that did overturn it were nominated by….republicans. Republicans wanted it decided by the states for years. There was a ton of people who voted for Trump strictly over the supreme court. They weren’t democrats. Republicans got exactly what they wanted. 

 

10 hours ago, Vort said:

. Dogs vomit, cows piss,

 Charming. If someone said that about the right you’d play the victim in five seconds and talk about how vulgar it was. But you won’t admit it. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Did something happen recently?

Ohio voters endorsed abortion rights. 

 

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The last news I heard, Trump was 5 points ahead in the polls recently

Latest election poll data:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

[LDSGator]

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think, though, that the country was founded on the principle that some things are so morally repugnant that fighting against them—even when we know it’s a losing fight—is an ethical imperative.

If Jew-lynching were legal and religious conservatives were trying to stop it, would libertarians and corporate conservatives be justified in trying to dissuade them for political reasons?

You know me @Just_A_Guy, I don’t speak for all libertarians. But your question is dangerous one for religious people to ask. I’d be stunned if any libertarian endorsed murder. However, and since you brought it up, I’ll go there. 
 

Given that some churches WERE complicit in the holocaust or at the very least knew about it and did nothing (Google Pope Pious XII holocaust letter) I’d be far more likely to trust libertarians than churches with the life of Jews. 
 

Now, having said that, I have never seen an anti Semitic LDS person in my life. So I exclude the LDS church in what I just said. And yes, the majority of  Christians are not anti Jewish. 
 

But if you ask me who I trust more with the safety of the jews-your average mainstream Christian church or Russell Nelson, it would be our prophet 100% of the time. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by LDSGator

[Backroads]

@Just_A_Guy's hypothetical is extreme, but there's a point to be made, and I'm interpreting my own things. Are we getting so politically divided that some might reconsider a moral/ethical situation just to snub the opposite party?

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Are we getting so politically divided that some might reconsider a moral/ethical situation just to snub the opposite party?

I’m still not sure we’re bitterly divided. When I go out to Gators games, Disney and just around town I see people of all political stripes and ethnicities doing mutually enjoyable activities with one another. If we were truly divided that wouldn’t happen. 
 

Like all of us I’m a social media user big time but the world is nowhere near as divided as we see it. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by LDSGator

[Backroads]

26 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m still not sure we’re bitterly divided. When I go out to Gators games, Disney and just around town I see people of all political stripes and ethnicities doing mutually enjoyable activities with one another. If we were truly divided that wouldn’t happen. 
 

Like all of us I’m a social media user big time but the world is nowhere near as divided as we see it. 

I tend to agree with this for the most part. Generally I think people are more alike than not.

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I tend to agree with this for the most part. Generally I think people are more alike than not.

I totally agree. Generally speaking you’ll see in others what you struggle with. If you struggle with lust, you think everyone does. If your heart is full of anger and hate, you’ll see that in everyone too. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

You know me @Just_A_Guy, I don’t speak for all libertarians. But your question is dangerous one for religious people to ask. I’d be stunned if any libertarian endorsed murder. However, and since you brought it up, I’ll go there. 
 

Given that some churches WERE complicit in the holocaust or at the very least knew about it and did nothing (Google Pope Pious XII holocaust letter) I’d be far more likely to trust libertarians than churches with the life of Jews. 
 

Now, having said that, I have never seen an anti Semitic LDS person in my life. So I exclude the LDS church in what I just said. And yes, the majority of  Christians are not anti Jewish. 
 

But if you ask me who I trust more with the safety of the jews-your average mainstream Christian church or Russell Nelson, it would be our prophet 100% of the time. 

This seems kind of close to an et tu argument.  And isn’t it coming perilously close to saying that “since Catholic A (who was a de facto hostage of Mussolini, and then Hitler) didn’t take more aggressive action when Catholic B (who was secretly but actively fighting Hitler) informed Catholic A of the Holocaust, Christians generally must assent to a repeat Holocaust whenever, wherever, and against whomever the leftist libertines and secularist sex fiends may hereafter demand”?

(By the way, I’d encourage you to watch “The Scarlet and the Black” with Christopher Plummer and Gregory Peck at some point.  It’s a nice little movie, and very thought-provoking.)

At any rate, @Backroadsaccurately gets the gist of the reason for my hypothetical.  Provided that the state of your democratic republic is still somewhat functional*, there are worse things than an electoral defeat.

 

*Which, I grant, is arguably an increasingly tenuous assertion to make in this day and age . . . 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This seems kind of close to an et tu argumen

It might be, but rhetoric means nothing to the Jewish people that died. You sort of insinuated libertarians would be down with doing nothing while history showed that it was a Christian church that did exactly that.
 

I know it’s a bitter pill to swallow. And yes, not every Catholic would have done the same thing. But you can’t change history. 

[Just_A_Guy]

16 hours ago, LDSGator said:

There were republicans who warned everyone about this way back in 2016. No one listened. 

I think that Cruz or Kasich could have pulled most of the party together in 2016 if they’d gotten the nomination—there was certainly a “burn it all down” component to the GOP, but I think it was manageable back then.  Nowadays . . . not so much.