Top products from r/mormonpolitics

We found 12 product mentions on r/mormonpolitics. We ranked the 12 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/mormonpolitics:

u/testudoaubreii · 4 pointsr/mormonpolitics

> Accusations must be supported by evidence

Oh you mean the sworn affidavits of several women?

Or maybe things written in Kavanaugh's own year book, and that of his friends? Or the book (Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk) one his closest friends wrote about drinking "100 kegs" by the end of their senior year of high school (a "club" to which Kavanaugh's own year book showed he belonged), having a party with a stripper, and other drunk escapades?

Or maybe you mean the part where Kavanaugh, now an adult and a married man, reminded his friends "to be very, very vigilant w/r/t confidentiality on all issues and all fronts, including with spouses" after a particularly drunken weekend where he apologized for "growing aggressive after blowing still another game of dice."

This guy's veneer of being an upright moral character is peeling off as well it should.

u/alohalarsen · 1 pointr/mormonpolitics

> I care about accuracy

Then you should care about the fact that "Muslim ban" mischaracterizes the EO.

> I care about hypocrisy. And I think it's interesting that now it appears some have discovered nuance for the first time

I don't know what this means, or what it's in reference to.

> This policy is and will be used to support that narrative.

I believe you, and I think this is worth considering, though I don't think that it's the only thing worth considering. Jihadists have waged a war against the West for decades, and so the tick up in radicalization (and whether it's really a "tick" or an "avalanche") should be carefully weighed against supposed benefits. That's a great thing to discuss.

If you're curious about the history of the modern war between radical Islam and the West, I recommend The Looming Tower. It's a fascinating, award-winning history of bin-Laden's predecessors through the 9/11 attacks.

u/cruiseplease · 1 pointr/mormonpolitics

Read the comments.

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

The relationship between ideology and donations is spurious.

Religious people tend to be conservative.

Religious people also give to charity.

So, if it looks like more conservatives give to charity, it's because they're religious, not because they're conservative.

In fact, religious liberals are similar to religious conservatives when it comes to charitable giving.

u/Metatronos · 1 pointr/mormonpolitics

First off, do you define government as an entity that acts or an organization made up individuals with competing interests who act? As for myself, I see governments as being made up of people who have interests that influence their decisions.

Nevertheless, the article states that a tier system was set up on bankers' salaries. Bankers can still accrue exorbitant amounts of profits, yet once they reach a certain threshold they will be taxed heavier. If their is a problem with Israel's banking system or a perceived social injustice, I do not think that this legislative measure will solve the problem.

If we are to have a discussion on monetary policy, whether it be for our government or that of others, I will admit outright that I affiliate my political/economic ideology with Austrianism or better know as the Austrian School of Economics. My ideas about monetary policy and banking are derived from Ludwig von Mises, namely from his work entitled The Theory of Money and Credit and from Jesus Huerta de Soto's Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles.

If a bank is practicing fractional reserve lending, I believe they should not be allowed to do so. However, since this questionable practice is legalized in our country and in others, then we must discuss why fractional reserve lending is unethical or ethical. The discussion will inevitably lead us to inflation and central banking.

u/HuberVille62 · 1 pointr/mormonpolitics

I guess that depends on how you define "the Russia thing". Trumps knows it was phony.

"on May 9, Rosenstein prepared and delivered a memorandum to Sessions relating to Comey (Sessions and Rosenstein had already begun considering whether to dismiss Comey months earlier).[46] Rosenstein's memorandum said that the "reputation and credibility" of the FBI had been damaged under Comey's tenure, and the memo presented critical quotes from several former attorneys general in previously published op-eds; Rosenstein concluded that their "nearly unanimous opinions" were that Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation was "wrong."[5] In his memo, Rosenstein asserted that the FBI must have "a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them." He ended with an argument against keeping Comey as FBI director, on the grounds that he was given an opportunity to "admit his errors" but that there is no hope that he will "implement the necessary corrective actions."[47] Rosenstein also criticized Comey on two other grounds: for usurping the prerogative of the Justice Department and the Attorney General in his July 2016 public statements announcing the closure of the investigation into Clinton's emails." --Wikipedia

If you want to know more, check out this book by Greg Jarrett: https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Hoax-Illicit-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0062872745

Like I've said before, if you only read one sided news reports, you can miss a lot.

u/jessemb · 1 pointr/mormonpolitics

>Can you name just one of Bill Cosby's accusers without Googling it?

I am delighted to say that I cannot.

>I can't think of one women who made a false rape accusation, got a book deal, and became famous. Can you?

First of all, I don't know if this is a false accusation. I make no such claim with the following, either. But it was not difficult to find books written under the name of:

Stormy Daniels.

Juanita Broaddrick.

Anita Hill.

If I cared to keep digging, I'm certain I could find more.

u/makhnos_blackflag · 2 pointsr/mormonpolitics

Here's a start:

Antifa Handbook

Militant Anti-Fascism

Combined with actually doing the things the far left calls for. Fascism doesn't come up in times of equal prosperity. It gains momentum when people are hopeless, when the system has failed them, when they feel threatened and fearful. If you want to defeat fascism you have to address the root causes - the racial ones and the economic/political ones.

u/Anon-Ymous929 · 1 pointr/mormonpolitics

>Why is it an extreme view to see "racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country"?

The "foundation" suggests that the people creating those systems were actively designing them for the express purpose of keeping whites ahead and blacks behind. "All" of the systems, all of them. Really? I think the idea behind policing is to enforce the law, and any racism that has occurred along the way is a secondary effect. I think the idea behind voting is to elect politicians, and any racist voter suppression along the way has been a secondary effect. I think the idea behind capitalism and the free market is for businesses and individuals to be able to produce for the economy and earn money to support their needs, and any racism that has occurred along the way has been a secondary effect. It sounds like the staffer believes that the founding fathers were sitting around saying "Yeah, police, capitalism, these things will keep our race ahead of everyone else!"

>What facts do you have that suggest that racism is not a major factor in how people live in our country? Where are the statistics that prove our nation is equitable?

I like the PublicFreakouts subreddit for some reason, and on there I've seen more than enough videos of white people calling black people the N word to know that there are still racists out there in the world, but to convert that into an actual worldview or a perspective about how people live in our country, we need data. A lot of discrepancies can be explained by single motherhood rates. According to this source black single mothers have a 47.7% poverty rate while white single mothers have a 33% poverty rate. Black married mothers have a 12.2% poverty rate, while white married mothers have a 5.2% poverty rate. There's still a discrepancy there between the races, which we'd need to dig deeper into the variables to decide how much of that is racism, but as you can see the vast majority of poverty is explainable by single motherhood regardless of race. And single motherhood bleeds into pretty much everything else in society, such as crime rates, drugs, continued poverty, etc. More than half of black children live with single mothers. When you find a disparate outcome in the world, look for disparate inputs before assuming that the inputs must be equal, and therefore racism.

>Why is the onus on black people to prove it anew or to justify their frustration every time we hear about something that looks like racial injustice?

Because just because something looks like a racial injustice at face value doesn't mean it is. Both legally and scientifically speaking we operate on the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. You know something I'd be very interested in seeing is what percentage of instances of a white cop arresting a black person does the black person accuse the white cop of arresting them because they are black. If that percentage is very high, then it would confirm that a lot of people feel like they are experiencing racism even when they probably aren't. And if the solution you're suggesting to historical problems is things like reparations paid for by modern whites who never owned slaves, is the onus on the whites to prove that they shouldn't have to pay reparations?

>The idea that we need to fact check every allegation of racism before we'll acknowledge it shows a fundamental mistrust of black people, and I think it's one of the things that holds us back from actually making progress.

I would hold the same standard to anyone who claims to be a victim of any sort. If you accuse someone of raping you, I can feel bad for you, but before we put the accused in prison we need proof. If a white person were to accuse a black cop of racist policing, I think we would need evidence or data to support a change in policy based on that accusation as well.

>We have the statistics to prove that race plays a major role in criminal justice involvement. Here are a bunch of examples for you:
>
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/%3foutputType=amp

I don't have time to go through the whole list right now, but I am confident that if you want to create a statistical argument that racism is taking place, just ignore important variables as I've been mentioning. For example, starting from the top:

  • In their book “Suspect Citizens,” Frank R. Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp and Kelsey Shoub reviewed 20 million traffic stops. In an interview with The Post, they shared what they found: “Blacks are almost twice as likely to be pulled over as whites — even though whites drive more on average,” “blacks are more likely to be searched following a stop,” and “just by getting in a car, a black driver has about twice the odds of being pulled over, and about four times the odds of being searched.” They found that blacks were more likely to be searched despite the fact they’re less likely to be found with contraband as a result of those searches.

    In this summary they only mention the rates at which blacks are being pulled over compared to whites in absolute terms. I don't see any mention of them attempting to control for the possibility that blacks and whites may actually drive differently, which would impact the rates at which they are pulled over. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I said "When you find a disparate outcome in the world, look for disparate inputs before assuming that the inputs must be equal, and therefore racism."

  • A 2013 Justice Department study found that black and Latino drivers are more likely to be searched once they have been pulled over. About 2 percent of white motorists were searched, vs. 6 percent of black drivers and 7 percent of Latinos.

    The last study said that blacks were four times more likely to be searched than whites, but now we see that in the case of both whites and blacks we're talking about rather small numbers. 2 percent of whites being searched and 6 percent of blacks being searched leaves 98% of whites being pulled over and not searched while 94% of blacks being pulled over and not searched. See it sounds really bad when you say "three times more" or "four times more", but in real terms the discrepancy isn't all that big. It's still possible that some of this is racism, but if 4 percent more blacks are searched than whites is your big argument for "racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country", let's just say I'm not convinced.