LDS Freedom Forum

David13 wrote:Rewcox
Do you believe that parents should take a secondary role in the raising of their own children? Why?
You do realize that is the belief of the beast, don't you?
The beast believes that ... government? ... should take the primary role in raising children. Why?
Actually, the government should have at best the tertiary role in raising children, or better yet, no role at all. Why?
dc

Wow, David, if I didn't know better I'd say you sound almost Libertarian in your approach to govt ;)

is Trump a libertarian?
dc

I believe in a very limited federal government, which I believe to be a republican idea.
Well, once upon a time it was, I guess.

David13 wrote:is Trump a libertarian?
dc

I believe in a very limited federal government, which I believe to be a republican idea.
Well, once upon a time it was, I guess.

Great question! Let's see where he's stood on social issues...

Legalize Drugs:

``We`re losing badly the war on drugs,`` Trump told 700 people at a luncheon Friday. ``You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.``

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990 ... nt-efforts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gay Marriage:

Donald Trump’s position on gay marriage is “evolving,” the real-estate mogul told openly gay MSNBC host Thomas Roberts in an interview on Saturday.

“We have a lot of gay people who work at Miss Universe, and we said, ‘What do you think?’ And they said, ‘We want to go. We want to show our stuff.’”

http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/tho ... -interview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Transgender Bathrooms:

Transgender people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want, Donald Trump said Thursday.

"Oh, I had a feeling that question was going to come up, I will tell you. North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they're paying a big price. There's a lot of problems," the Republican presidential candidate said during a town hall event on NBC's "Today."

Referring to comments from an unnamed commentator who on Wednesday said North Carolina should "leave it the way it is right now," Trump said he agreed.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop- ... oms-222257" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abortion:

"The Republican platform every four years has a provision that states that the right of the unborn child should not be infringed," Guthrie said. "And it makes no exceptions for rape, for incest, for the life of the mother. Would you want to change the Republican platform to include the (abortion) exceptions that you have?"
"Yes, I would. Yes, I would. Absolutely," Trump said. "For the three exceptions, I would."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And BTW the Republicans aren't as big on that limited government thing any more. That was so 1980's.

Some people are forcing this.

Trump pro's
Outsider, never been in government
successful businessman
Seems to support American ideals
released his list of supreme court candidates
His employees seem to love him and for the most part, it seems like he treats them well.
pro second amendment

Trump cons
Boorish
misogynist
Probable fraud with Trump university
Divorced and remarried multiple times
no guarantee he will do what he promises
Probably something fishy in his taxes
Casino magnate

Hillary pros
Could potentially call on the experience of her husband but not sure that is a good thing
Grandmother
I'm really trying here if you can't tell.

Hillary cons
A huge long list of scandals, spanning her entire career
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... zi/396182/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Her experience in the senate seems to be limited to a few bills naming post offices. She cosponsored bills, and voted on others but as stated in the article below. "the number of sponsored or co-sponsored bills signed into law isn’t a thorough measure of effectiveness or productivity for a member of the Senate."
http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... ree-laws-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Her tampering, and meddling in the middle east destabilised the region leading to the rise of ISIS.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... mic-state/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
She potentially funded ISIS
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7960/wiki ... es-barrett" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
She botched the response to Benghazi leading to the death of a ambassador
She tried to cover it up telling multiple lies, and breaking several laws in the process
She put the lives of US personnel at risk through her gross negligence.
There was some shady stuff going on with her husband meeting Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac
There is definitely some shady stuff going on with the Clinton foundation.
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/07/ ... ity-fraud/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
She funneled money intended to go to Haitians after their deadly earthquake into her own pockets
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... foundation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Her husband is a creepy serial sexual predator and she has protected and enabled him their entire marriage. Sometimes attacking his victims
https://www.rt.com/usa/343048-clinton-e ... a-express/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
She has a long history of abusing those who serve under her
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... monica-le/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Will likely nominate activist judges to the supreme court
Will likely bypass the bill of rights to enact gun control via executive order
insider, spent her entire career in government

Sorry but Trump wins. I just don't see how anyone can get there with Hillary Clinton.

Like I said, I don't love Trump, and I am not happy about him being the best choice, but it is what it is.

Hillary Clinton is an awful, awful person. I honestly don't get how anyone can support her.

David13 wrote:is Trump a libertarian?
dc

I believe in a very limited federal government, which I believe to be a republican idea.
Well, once upon a time it was, I guess.

Then again, maybe not so much:

Shuttering Muslim Mosques:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said in an interview Wednesday that he would consider shuttering some U.S. mosques in order to counter extremism.

Trump’s remarks came during an interview on Fox Business with Stuart Varney. When asked if he would follow new British proposals for countering extremism that include revoking the passports of people who travel to fight with ISIS and shuttering mosques that support extremism, Trump responded: “I would do that, absolutely, I think it’s great.”

http://time.com/4082627/trump-mosques-minimum-wage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Foreign Intervention:

The Republican presidential nominee told Fox Business host Stuart Varney that the U.S. has "no choice but to bomb" ISIS forces in Libya, adding that he would do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorist group if elected president.

"We have no choice but to bomb them. They have taken over Libya. That was another one of Hillary Clinton's duties — they have taken over Libya. No good. We have to bomb them," he said, referring to the Democratic presidential nominee and former secretary of State.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... paign=3317" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and

"We're going to declare war against ISIS. We have to wipe out ISIS," Trump said in the interview with CBS' Lesley Stahl, which aired on "60 Minutes" Sunday night.
"I am going to have very few troops on the ground. We're going to have unbelievable intelligence, which we need; which, right now, we don't have. We don't have the people over there," he said.
Trump added: "We're going to have surrounding states and, very importantly, get NATO involved because we support NATO far more than we should, frankly, because you have a lot of countries that aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing. We have to wipe out ISIS."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... paign=3317" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Freedom of the Press:

Trump writes on his Facebook page that, "Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post."

In a statement, Post editor Martin Baron says, "Donald Trump's decision to revoke The Washington Post's press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn't correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished. The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along - honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly. We're proud of our coverage, and we're going to keep at it."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3c7e193b ... redentials" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Human Decency:

Although attendees reported being asked if they were Trump supporters before they were permitted to enter the auditorium, several protesters slipped through this screening process. Trump said of one protester as he was escorted out, “Don't give him his coat! Keep his coat. Confiscate his coat. You know it's about 10 degrees below zero outside. ... Keep his coat. Tell him we'll send it to him in a couple weeks.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-t ... ats-2016-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ethics:

In September 2013, a political group backing Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s re-election received a $25,000 donation from a Trump family foundation. Bondi was investigating claims filed by former Trump University students who argued that Trump failed to deliver the courses and services they purchased. “After the check came in, Bondi's office nixed suing Trump, citing insufficient grounds to proceed,” according to the Associated Press. Bondi declined to comment on the donation and the Trump University case.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e16a8223 ... fraud-case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Search and Seizure:

Donald Trump called for a boycott of Apple on February 19, 2016, to put pressure on the company to cooperate with the government, which wants Apple's help to hack into the the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters. "Boycott Apple until such time as they give that information," Trump said at a campaign event in South Carolina. "Apple ought to give the security for that phone, OK. What I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such a time as they give that security number. How do you like that? I just thought of it. Boycott Apple," Trump said. Apple argued against cooperating with the government in a February 16, 2016, open letter citing concerns that the move would render all iPhones vulnerable by creating a master key that would be able to open other phones.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

eh.... I could go on.

markharr wrote:
Like I said, I don't love Trump, and I am not happy about him being the best choice, but it is what it is.

....which is why there's a third choice, which to many is the better choice.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

iWriteStuff wrote:

markharr wrote:
Like I said, I don't love Trump, and I am not happy about him being the best choice, but it is what it is.

....which is why there's a third choice, which to many is the better choice.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't do it. Supreme court is at stake. There may be as many as three justices over the next four years.

iWriteStuff wrote:

markharr wrote:
Like I said, I don't love Trump, and I am not happy about him being the best choice, but it is what it is.

....which is why there's a third choice, which to many is the better choice.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You really hate Trump a lot iwritestuff, shall we infer a Freudian thing? I mean I do not like Hillary but I am not obsessed about her but rather her positions on the issues.

markharr wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:

markharr wrote:
Like I said, I don't love Trump, and I am not happy about him being the best choice, but it is what it is.

....which is why there's a third choice, which to many is the better choice.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't do it. Supreme court is at stake. There may be as many as three justices over the next four years.

All appointed by Clinton. I am going to enjoy watching self-righteous Mormons and Cruz-cultists squirm. Hey, gotta find something to brighten up the day, right?

Fiannan wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:

markharr wrote:
Like I said, I don't love Trump, and I am not happy about him being the best choice, but it is what it is.

....which is why there's a third choice, which to many is the better choice.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You really hate Trump a lot iwritestuff, shall we infer a Freudian thing? I mean I do not like Hillary but I am not obsessed about her but rather her positions on the issues.

It's a principled stand, Fiannan. You notice I haven't used anything other than his own words? I juxtapose those against the actual Constitution and the positions of the church and you call that Freudian? Ok, buddy.

I haven't even approached his morality or integrity yet. What I have quoted are statements by Trump about himself and his candidacy/policy/positions and opinions. If you want to defend them, it's your prerogative. However, some of his positions are quite indefensible.

It's a principled stand, Fiannan. You notice I haven't used anything other than his own words? I juxtapose those against the actual Constitution and the positions of the church and you call that Freudian? Ok, buddy.

Freud may ask why so defensive. ;)

Speaking of the "actual constitution" which I notice people of a strict constructionist view, you know, people in the past like David O. Mckay and Ezra Taft Benson, often quote the constitution and the men who wrote it while loose constructionists often quote the supreme court and the media. Just asking, which view do you stand behind?

Fiannan wrote:

It's a principled stand, Fiannan. You notice I haven't used anything other than his own words? I juxtapose those against the actual Constitution and the positions of the church and you call that Freudian? Ok, buddy.

Freud may ask why so defensive. ;)

Speaking of the "actual constitution" which I notice people of a strict constructionist view, you know, people in the past like David O. Mckay and Ezra Taft Benson, often quote the constitution and the men who wrote it while loose constructionists often quote the supreme court and the media. Just asking, which view do you stand behind?

Honestly, Fiannan, I don't feel the slightest bit defensive. I've said nothing that needs defending. You've got the candidate saying rabid inflammatory things vs a candidate who says reasonable measured things. Which one needs defending?

As per your question, I don't feel they are always mutually exclusive. There are modern scholars who can practice/preach constitutional original intent just as there are those who can subvert and obfuscate the meaning of the Constitution. The differences are often due to the highly subjective nature of interpretation and personal experience.

But if you want a nuanced discussion as to original intent vs modern interpretation, that might be better left to a different thread. (sorry for getting off topic, rewcox) :ymblushing:

iWriteStuff wrote:

Fiannan wrote:

It's a principled stand, Fiannan. You notice I haven't used anything other than his own words? I juxtapose those against the actual Constitution and the positions of the church and you call that Freudian? Ok, buddy.

Freud may ask why so defensive. ;)

Speaking of the "actual constitution" which I notice people of a strict constructionist view, you know, people in the past like David O. Mckay and Ezra Taft Benson, often quote the constitution and the men who wrote it while loose constructionists often quote the supreme court and the media. Just asking, which view do you stand behind?

Honestly, Fiannan, I don't feel the slightest bit defensive. I've said nothing that needs defending. You've got the candidate saying rabid inflammatory things vs a candidate who says reasonable measured things. Which one needs defending?

As per your question, I don't feel they are always mutually exclusive. There are modern scholars who can practice/preach constitutional original intent just as there are those who can subvert and obfuscate the meaning of the Constitution. The differences are often due to the highly subjective nature of interpretation and personal experience.

But if you want a nuanced discussion as to original intent vs modern interpretation, that might be better left to a different thread. (sorry for getting off topic, rewcox) :ymblushing:

Ah, so you are both a strict constructionist and a loose constructionist. So what the constitution says really depends on what you think is sounds good? A Hillary presidency will insure those sorts of judges.

David13 wrote:is Trump a libertarian?

I think Trump is a liberal democrat. Can't stand the guy but not enough to prefer Hillary.

Fiannan wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:

Fiannan wrote:

It's a principled stand, Fiannan. You notice I haven't used anything other than his own words? I juxtapose those against the actual Constitution and the positions of the church and you call that Freudian? Ok, buddy.

Freud may ask why so defensive. ;)

Speaking of the "actual constitution" which I notice people of a strict constructionist view, you know, people in the past like David O. Mckay and Ezra Taft Benson, often quote the constitution and the men who wrote it while loose constructionists often quote the supreme court and the media. Just asking, which view do you stand behind?

Honestly, Fiannan, I don't feel the slightest bit defensive. I've said nothing that needs defending. You've got the candidate saying rabid inflammatory things vs a candidate who says reasonable measured things. Which one needs defending?

As per your question, I don't feel they are always mutually exclusive. There are modern scholars who can practice/preach constitutional original intent just as there are those who can subvert and obfuscate the meaning of the Constitution. The differences are often due to the highly subjective nature of interpretation and personal experience.

But if you want a nuanced discussion as to original intent vs modern interpretation, that might be better left to a different thread. (sorry for getting off topic, rewcox) :ymblushing:

Ah, so you are both a strict constructionist and a loose constructionist. So what the constitution says really depends on what you think is sounds good? A Hillary presidency will insure those sorts of judges.

God has asked us to be strick constitutionalist d&c 98 4-7

Verse 7

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

The (this) in verse 7 is the constitution that God made. Ammendments 1-10. The one he endorsed in D&c 101.

Our prophets have said the constitution is scripture. And I would ask can we change scripture?

Yes we can only with gods guidance to do so as Joseph smith did.

I would dare say the majority of changes to the constitution were not done in that mannor, and evil has come from it.

The easiest example of this would be going away from the gold standard and going away from coining our own money and instead giving that power to the federal reserve which is privately owned and not regulated by the government. The USA has felt the effect of every amendment past the 10th other then maybe the 12th negitively.

Which should suprise no one if they read their scriptures. Only evil will come from not being constitutional.

The only candidate I have found to be constitutional is Darrel castle.

Not trump
Deffently not Hillary
Not Gary Johnson as much as Darrel castle.

And if we don't uphold constitutional men as D&c 98 also points out will only cometh evil.

iWriteStuff wrote:

David13 wrote:is Trump a libertarian?
dc

I believe in a very limited federal government, which I believe to be a republican idea.
Well, once upon a time it was, I guess.

Great question! Let's see where he's stood on social issues...

Legalize Drugs:

``We`re losing badly the war on drugs,`` Trump told 700 people at a luncheon Friday. ``You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.``

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990 ... nt-efforts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gay Marriage:

Donald Trump’s position on gay marriage is “evolving,” the real-estate mogul told openly gay MSNBC host Thomas Roberts in an interview on Saturday.

“We have a lot of gay people who work at Miss Universe, and we said, ‘What do you think?’ And they said, ‘We want to go. We want to show our stuff.’”

http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/tho ... -interview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Transgender Bathrooms:

Transgender people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want, Donald Trump said Thursday.

"Oh, I had a feeling that question was going to come up, I will tell you. North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they're paying a big price. There's a lot of problems," the Republican presidential candidate said during a town hall event on NBC's "Today."

Referring to comments from an unnamed commentator who on Wednesday said North Carolina should "leave it the way it is right now," Trump said he agreed.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop- ... oms-222257" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abortion:

"The Republican platform every four years has a provision that states that the right of the unborn child should not be infringed," Guthrie said. "And it makes no exceptions for rape, for incest, for the life of the mother. Would you want to change the Republican platform to include the (abortion) exceptions that you have?"
"Yes, I would. Yes, I would. Absolutely," Trump said. "For the three exceptions, I would."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And BTW the Republicans aren't as big on that limited government thing any more. That was so 1980's.

And that was why I said "once upon a time".
Now as to the positions, compare those to the Beast. Better? Or worse?
dc

iWriteStuff wrote:

markharr wrote:
Like I said, I don't love Trump, and I am not happy about him being the best choice, but it is what it is.

....which is why there's a third choice, which to many is the better choice.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, there is no third choice.
The so called third choice, be it a candidate, or the lamppost in front of your house is a guarantee that the beast will be elected. You have to vote against the beast to avoid the most evil, not just throw your vote away with someone or something without a Chinaman's chance of winning.
dc

shadow wrote:

David13 wrote:is Trump a libertarian?

I think Trump is a liberal democrat. Can't stand the guy but not enough to prefer Hillary.

I think that may be a false attribution. I don't think it was I what asked that question.
dc

David13 wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:

markharr wrote:
Like I said, I don't love Trump, and I am not happy about him being the best choice, but it is what it is.

....which is why there's a third choice, which to many is the better choice.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, there is no third choice.
The so called third choice, be it a candidate, or the lamppost in front of your house is a guarantee that the beast will be elected. You have to vote against the beast to avoid the most evil, not just throw your vote away with someone or something without a Chinaman's chance of winning.
dc

Joseph smith disagrees


Joseph Smith Jr.: "We shall have the satisfaction of knowing we have acted conscienciously and have used our best judgement, and if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us!" (Comprehensive History of the Church 2:208-209)

Ezra wrote:

David13 wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:

markharr wrote:
Like I said, I don't love Trump, and I am not happy about him being the best choice, but it is what it is.

....which is why there's a third choice, which to many is the better choice.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, there is no third choice.
The so called third choice, be it a candidate, or the lamppost in front of your house is a guarantee that the beast will be elected. You have to vote against the beast to avoid the most evil, not just throw your vote away with someone or something without a Chinaman's chance of winning.
dc

Joseph smith disagrees


Joseph Smith Jr.: "We shall have the satisfaction of knowing we have acted conscienciously and have used our best judgement, and if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us!" (Comprehensive History of the Church 2:208-209)

Well, Ezra, I am going to disagree with you on whether or not Joseph Smith disagrees with me.

What he is saying is don't throw your vote away on an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his (OR HER) hand to destroy us.
That means her, the beast. She is clearly the one who intends to destroy us. With dictatorial powers, with the banning and seizure of any and all guns, except those in the hands of criminals, and bring about a world government, where we have no say in any of our affairs.
So, I think actually, Joseph Smith was warning us against this beast.
After all, he was a prophet of God, not politics, and I do not believe God would want us ruled by a tyrannical beast. And world government.
dc

You know, Rewcox, you post about the unbearable stench of Trump's alleged "BS"
But is that true? Can you really not bear it? Or are you fascinated and obsessed by it?
dc

Speaking in Wisconsin, Trump finally got back on point. The media covered about the first 30 minutes. Maybe Mountain Man will have the full speech.

The Trumponauts will be happy. Trump was reading it, so he definitely is not used to speaking republicanese.

Will this be enough bring his numbers back up?

David13 wrote:

Ezra wrote:

David13 wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:
....which is why there's a third choice, which to many is the better choice.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, there is no third choice.
The so called third choice, be it a candidate, or the lamppost in front of your house is a guarantee that the beast will be elected. You have to vote against the beast to avoid the most evil, not just throw your vote away with someone or something without a Chinaman's chance of winning.
dc

Joseph smith disagrees


Joseph Smith Jr.: "We shall have the satisfaction of knowing we have acted conscienciously and have used our best judgement, and if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us!" (Comprehensive History of the Church 2:208-209)

Well, Ezra, I am going to disagree with you on whether or not Joseph Smith disagrees with me.

What he is saying is don't throw your vote away on an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his (OR HER) hand to destroy us.
That means her, the beast. She is clearly the one who intends to destroy us. With dictatorial powers, with the banning and seizure of any and all guns, except those in the hands of criminals, and bring about a world government, where we have no say in any of our affairs.
So, I think actually, Joseph Smith was warning us against this beast.
After all, he was a prophet of God, not politics, and I do not believe God would want us ruled by a tyrannical beast. And world government.
dc

Any degrade of freedoms is a weapon used aginst us.

Is trump constitutional? No. He is more then Hillary. But that doesn't matter. He will still degrade our freedoms because he doesn't know and understand the constutution.

So to vote for either of those 2 candidates will only further to destroy us.

We have been told that voting for evil is sin. We have been told that anything less or more then a constitutional candidate will only bring evil.

So it's throwing away your vote to vote for evil or the lesser.


If Jesus was running for office and was poled to loose by a land slide. But you could vote for one of Satans minions to keep Satan out who would you vote for?

It's as simple as that for me. Vote for the best person who is on the ballet. Not voting for evil to keep the greater evil out.

That's what Joseph smith is saying. Don't put a weapon in the hands of an enemy. Vote for someone who is worthy. There are more worthy canidates then the medias chosen front runners.

Ezra wrote:

David13 wrote:

Ezra wrote:

David13 wrote:

No, there is no third choice.
The so called third choice, be it a candidate, or the lamppost in front of your house is a guarantee that the beast will be elected. You have to vote against the beast to avoid the most evil, not just throw your vote away with someone or something without a Chinaman's chance of winning.
dc

Joseph smith disagrees


Joseph Smith Jr.: "We shall have the satisfaction of knowing we have acted conscienciously and have used our best judgement, and if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us!" (Comprehensive History of the Church 2:208-209)

Well, Ezra, I am going to disagree with you on whether or not Joseph Smith disagrees with me.

What he is saying is don't throw your vote away on an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his (OR HER) hand to destroy us.
That means her, the beast. She is clearly the one who intends to destroy us. With dictatorial powers, with the banning and seizure of any and all guns, except those in the hands of criminals, and bring about a world government, where we have no say in any of our affairs.
So, I think actually, Joseph Smith was warning us against this beast.
After all, he was a prophet of God, not politics, and I do not believe God would want us ruled by a tyrannical beast. And world government.
dc

Any degrade of freedoms is a weapon used aginst us.

Is trump constitutional? No. He is more then Hillary. But that doesn't matter. He will still degrade our freedoms because he doesn't know and understand the constutution.

So to vote for either of those 2 candidates will only further to destroy us.

We have been told that voting for evil is sin. We have been told that anything less or more then a constitutional candidate will only bring evil.

So it's throwing away your vote to vote for evil or the lesser.


If Jesus was running for office and was poled to loose by a land slide. But you could vote for one of Satans minions to keep Satan out who would you vote for?

It's as simple as that for me. Vote for the best person who is on the ballet. Not voting for evil to keep the greater evil out.

That's what Joseph smith is saying. Don't put a weapon in the hands of an enemy. Vote for someone who is worthy. There are more worthy canidates then the medias chosen front runners.

Trump is not evil. Trump is not dangerous. Yes, he is sometimes crude, not "politically correct" speaks his mind, and has new, novel and unusual ideas compared to the mush candidates we have seen in recent years. I like that.
Trump will not destroy us.
Trump will follow good advice.
dc

David13 wrote:You know, Rewcox, you post about the unbearable stench of Trump's alleged "BS"
But is that true? Can you really not bear it? Or are you fascinated and obsessed by it?
dc

As I said, Freud. Maybe Trump reminds a few people of their father, or mother as the case may be. Freud actually deals with this in the political context of transference in "Civilization and its Discontents." B-)