All minority groups have a part of their culture they use to keep them safe. Mormons have nice. I mean so nice there is a temple in China, the middle east, and one that was put into Soviet Germany. They follow the rules and show they are nice, and the enemy eventually defeats itself.
When you talk to Mormons about Romney, they mention he is nice. That's a really big thing, so it has to be noted.
The way many lefties use this is to say it wouldn't be nice to mistreat gays, or any LGBTQBBking member. Salt lake city has a ton of crime, and then the upper middle class areas like the mall near the temple or anything uphill. It's hard to register that something needs to be done meanly.
The same thing was used the end prohibition in the US. Utah had the highest percent who voted to end it than any other state. The leaders told them not to, but they believed this was the nice thing to do.
The church itself is slowly leaving Utah. They are building a city in Florida and have more members in South America than the US.
The problem is, Utah culture is all about being the center of Mormon culture. BYU is Ivy League. If it's a thing in Utah, like dressing as if the 80's never ended, then they think all Mormons are like that. So, if Salt Lake is doing this, then everyone should be doing it. They also don't recognize things like when the church shows compliance to demands from governments. "we need to get the shot because the prophet said so" is a common argument.
There's also a common story of going through a hard time, and coming out successful. So they will depict the people who came to Utah in the hardest possible way, and show how God blessed them as they pushed carts across what would be Wyoming. Then they will talk about how this faith founded Utah, and people need to be more like that. It should be pointed out, the people pushing carts were told to not come, and that it would be better in Winter Quarters than doing what they did. Literally all the supply stations closed up because only a fool would come at this time.
If someone goes through a hard time, this comparison will come up, especially when it comes to people dealing with anti Mormon stuff. Magazines and others make a lot of money by making Mormons as foreign and weird. So, when Romney ran, every article was how he was part of the weird Mormons. Saying he paid tything showed he was strange and weird. No one differentiated the man from his religion. It just made people in Utah think he was going through adversity, and should be praised for it.
If you want to argue he is bad, you have to argue he is going against church doctrine, or that the church has helped him, but he isn't as good as you want.
Finally, there is a belief that the world gets what it wants. Mormons have helped create videogames Atari, to Doom and then to the Sims. Sierra was founded be Mormons in California. Videogame historians are amazed at how often Mormons and Jews show up in those histories. Want to use Flash? The headquarters are in Utah. The building is ironically very modern and has no real Adobe looks to it. If people want to drink at the Olympics, then Mormons will let bars be around, even if it makes no sense to them. If the CIA hires a Mormon to do clandestine operations, then it will be done even if it seems evil. Bad business operations? If that is the norm for the area, then fine. The mafia runs this area? Pay them to not hurt you. Most Mormons are not like this, but when they do it, this is the reasoning.
When arguing about Romney, you have to prove he wasn't doing exactly what any other businessman would do. If he gets profits and success where others don't, you have to prove there was a better method. If you just show it wasn't nice, he will argue there wasn't a good option and the world gets what it wants. This is fully accepting that this was a bad move, but ultimately the people involved will defeat themselves and Romney will act nicer. You have to argue he acted against profit and better methods for his own bank account than being nice.
When Romney argued against Trump, he said Trump 1) wasn't nice, 2) was unsuccessful and 3) was part of the world and would ultimately defeat himself and those who followed him.
There is also a nativity to things. When the homeless are taken care of so we'll many of them are rich it's hard to understand what poverty looks like. Even if they saw it on their mission, there is a sort of push to treat it as the world defeating itself. The church is also very well organized. In the Pacific any disaster relief arrives in this order, Mormons, US military, Red Cross, government aid. Mormons already have the equipment and relief supplies in the area so they can quickly respond. To them, it just takes a bit of work and people will be better. Universities were started in poor places like North Shore Oahu, and New Zealand. Programs for education like online schooling, and grants have helped many rise above their difficulties. So, it becomes a problem to recognize all the things happening when the programs are helping and the church has helped so much. It's a very upper middle class point of view, but it is prominent. Even when shown pictures meeting people from a culture where fishing is actually a part of survival, or Favelas are real, they can't imagine that life. If they can't send help quickly then it's not real.
Romney often uses that nativity to his advantage. That would be the hardest to argue against because it would hit someone very personally. It would mean that person is not actually helping and that the culture they grew up with has no answers. That is being used everywhere though, and is very effective. To combat the message, this is where the deepest wound will be made.
So glad that I didn't vote for Romney in 2012.
I thought both options were corrupt shit.
Romney is a corporate warmongering scumbag always using the guise of bipartisanship to further his corruption.
Fuck him and the clowns in Utah who voted for him.
Why are Mormon politicians like Romney, Cox and McMullin so exceptionally corrupt and also fucking spineless?
They are politicians, they'll do anything and say anything to get and stay elected. They are roaches, they need to meet political Raid.
Thank you for the very detailed explanation!
This offers a lot of valuable insight.
I'll throw my two cents in as well.
All minority groups have a part of their culture they use to keep them safe. Mormons have nice. I mean so nice there is a temple in China, the middle east, and one that was put into Soviet Germany. They follow the rules and show they are nice, and the enemy eventually defeats itself.
When you talk to Mormons about Romney, they mention he is nice. That's a really big thing, so it has to be noted.
The way many lefties use this is to say it wouldn't be nice to mistreat gays, or any LGBTQBBking member. Salt lake city has a ton of crime, and then the upper middle class areas like the mall near the temple or anything uphill. It's hard to register that something needs to be done meanly.
The same thing was used the end prohibition in the US. Utah had the highest percent who voted to end it than any other state. The leaders told them not to, but they believed this was the nice thing to do.
The church itself is slowly leaving Utah. They are building a city in Florida and have more members in South America than the US.
The problem is, Utah culture is all about being the center of Mormon culture. BYU is Ivy League. If it's a thing in Utah, like dressing as if the 80's never ended, then they think all Mormons are like that. So, if Salt Lake is doing this, then everyone should be doing it. They also don't recognize things like when the church shows compliance to demands from governments. "we need to get the shot because the prophet said so" is a common argument.
There's also a common story of going through a hard time, and coming out successful. So they will depict the people who came to Utah in the hardest possible way, and show how God blessed them as they pushed carts across what would be Wyoming. Then they will talk about how this faith founded Utah, and people need to be more like that. It should be pointed out, the people pushing carts were told to not come, and that it would be better in Winter Quarters than doing what they did. Literally all the supply stations closed up because only a fool would come at this time.
If someone goes through a hard time, this comparison will come up, especially when it comes to people dealing with anti Mormon stuff. Magazines and others make a lot of money by making Mormons as foreign and weird. So, when Romney ran, every article was how he was part of the weird Mormons. Saying he paid tything showed he was strange and weird. No one differentiated the man from his religion. It just made people in Utah think he was going through adversity, and should be praised for it.
If you want to argue he is bad, you have to argue he is going against church doctrine, or that the church has helped him, but he isn't as good as you want.
Finally, there is a belief that the world gets what it wants. Mormons have helped create videogames Atari, to Doom and then to the Sims. Sierra was founded be Mormons in California. Videogame historians are amazed at how often Mormons and Jews show up in those histories. Want to use Flash? The headquarters are in Utah. The building is ironically very modern and has no real Adobe looks to it. If people want to drink at the Olympics, then Mormons will let bars be around, even if it makes no sense to them. If the CIA hires a Mormon to do clandestine operations, then it will be done even if it seems evil. Bad business operations? If that is the norm for the area, then fine. The mafia runs this area? Pay them to not hurt you. Most Mormons are not like this, but when they do it, this is the reasoning.
When arguing about Romney, you have to prove he wasn't doing exactly what any other businessman would do. If he gets profits and success where others don't, you have to prove there was a better method. If you just show it wasn't nice, he will argue there wasn't a good option and the world gets what it wants. This is fully accepting that this was a bad move, but ultimately the people involved will defeat themselves and Romney will act nicer. You have to argue he acted against profit and better methods for his own bank account than being nice.
When Romney argued against Trump, he said Trump 1) wasn't nice, 2) was unsuccessful and 3) was part of the world and would ultimately defeat himself and those who followed him.
There is also a nativity to things. When the homeless are taken care of so we'll many of them are rich it's hard to understand what poverty looks like. Even if they saw it on their mission, there is a sort of push to treat it as the world defeating itself. The church is also very well organized. In the Pacific any disaster relief arrives in this order, Mormons, US military, Red Cross, government aid. Mormons already have the equipment and relief supplies in the area so they can quickly respond. To them, it just takes a bit of work and people will be better. Universities were started in poor places like North Shore Oahu, and New Zealand. Programs for education like online schooling, and grants have helped many rise above their difficulties. So, it becomes a problem to recognize all the things happening when the programs are helping and the church has helped so much. It's a very upper middle class point of view, but it is prominent. Even when shown pictures meeting people from a culture where fishing is actually a part of survival, or Favelas are real, they can't imagine that life. If they can't send help quickly then it's not real.
Romney often uses that nativity to his advantage. That would be the hardest to argue against because it would hit someone very personally. It would mean that person is not actually helping and that the culture they grew up with has no answers. That is being used everywhere though, and is very effective. To combat the message, this is where the deepest wound will be made.
Romney has just accused a ranked member of the military of treason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard#Military_service
That's a red line.
As I said, he is teasonous himself.
The Independent should not exist, but since it does every article it publishes should be titled "KGB agent Alexander Lebedev wants you to believe..."
Pro war bipartisan McCarhyism and red baiting are back, baby!
They’re both actors. May they all swing from ropes.
Hahahaha “shifted far to the right” fucking lol