3 ms·

>I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank. I've known other field intel officer

>I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank. I've known other field intel officers in real life, and while I enjoy their friendship and admire them for many things, there's no doubt that they're a little different than everyone else. That's not usually a problem in the course of everyday life, but setting oneself up as a political candidate for high office is not everyday life anymore. While you need to be both intelligent and highly skilled to work for intel agencies, you also need to have, at best, a fluid view of personal integrity and authenticity. I don't see how this is based on "Hollywood stereotypes", since movies usually portray spies as superheroes. >If you want to talk stereotypes, I'd say Evan exemplifies the positive stereotypes often associated with the LDS community -- kind, dependable, patient, hard-working, etc. As a member of the LDS community you reference, he sets off my bullshit detector. He's baiting Mormons hard by using specific inside-baseball phrases. He's exploiting the opportunity created by the heavy LDS distaste for both candidates. He'll only rank significantly in states with high LDS populations (evangelicals are generally suspicious of Mormons, and more likely to be comfortable with Trump). I'm sensitive to this kind of thing. I actually think were McMullin not Mormon, no one in Utah would be paying attention. And I don't think that's the right way to vote. >I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton. Ah, but if he's as smart as you say, he knows that there is no alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton at this point. That ship has sailed. So what's his real motive?

selimthegrim 10y ago
Is there not some "white horse prophecy" where a Mormon will save the Constitution in its moment of danger?
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Not really. While this is widely believed, it's apocryphal. [0] If we do believe the apocryphal account, there are still a couple of issues. First, it doesn't imbue a duty to vote for a Mormon guy. If the Constitution really were in maximum danger, it'd be dubious that voting in a normal election would be the mechanism used to save it. Second, it doesn't say that a Mormon will save the Constitution by becoming president or anything like that. It says the Elders of Israel (that is, the men of the Church) will save it. That means more than voting for one guy. It probably means something more like being instrumental in a major cultural adjustment that would cause the principles in the Constitution to be valued again. This is harder than voting, so people don't prefer this interpretation. It may not even be literal -- the Constitution could be suspended/ineffective in what we now know as the U.S., but "saved" by Mormon elders who set up a separate government that substantially respects its principles. Whether one accepts this apocryphal prophecy or not, it does not mean Mormon candidates should be favored, and IMO, it shouldn't be a significant factor for Mormon voters. [0] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/church-statement-on-white-horse-prophecy-and-political-neutrality http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/church-statement-on-white...
- mdturnerphys 10y ago
  https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/05/dear-mormon-voters-of-the-american-west-maybe-youre-the-white-horse-weve-been-waiting-for/ https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/05/dear-mormon-voters-of...
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    I abandoned the LDS blogosphere (the "bloggernacle", if they still call it that) many years ago. This article would be salient and useful if it stuck to its initial point rather than going on to advocate explicitly for HRC. That should've been a separate article. I'd love it if Mormons got a more realistic/normal perspective on the White Horse "Prophecy", as the author advocates at the beginning of the article, but I don't think saying that we have to vote for a specific candidate to invoke it (just not the candidate you would expect) really helps anything.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
  Even if there is why fixate on this moment?
nobleach 10y ago
As a Utah resident, I'm hearing a lukewarm responses from my Davis county friends. Oddly, many of my Evangelical friends in Florida are on fire to vote for this guy. Perhaps it's because, as you say, he's using key Mormon phrases and they're just not picking up on those. (Mormons and Evangelicals often use the same words, with different meanings)
mdturnerphys 10y ago
"I actually think were McMullin not Mormon, no one in Utah would be paying attention. And I don't think that's the right way to vote." . . . and if Romney were not Mormon, he'd be running as incumbent this year.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I don't think that's true. It's very difficult to unseat an incumbent and generally only occurs under anomalous conditions. As much as evangelicals may not like the idea of a Mormon candidate (which is why McCain beat Romney in '08, btw), I think they were a lot more comfortable with a Mormon like Romney than a secularist like Trump.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> Ah, but if he's as smart as you say, he knows that there is no alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton at this point. That ship has sailed. Not necessarily. Not if neither Trump nor Clinton win a majority of the electoral votes. Now, at the moment, that looks unlikely. Trump is self-destructing so badly that Clinton will probably win a majority, with or without Utah. But if McMullin wins Utah, and Johnson wins New Mexico and maybe another state, it might be possible. Then we'd need Congress to not just vote for Trump and Clinton. That would take more statesmanship and less partisanship than I've seen from Congress in a while. So realistically, there's not much hope. But there's still a chance...
leroy_masochist 10y ago
> Ah, but if he's as smart as you say, he knows that there is no alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton at this point. That ship has sailed. So what's his real motive? As its title implies, the OP article describes how there is a small, but nonetheless real possibility that Evan could send the vote to the House. And as such, I'd reject the basic premises of this question.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  But if it gets sent to the House, he won't be elected there. So the end goal is to send the vote to the House? What's the point of that? The sentiment that the American people were robbed was palpable in Bush v. Gore. How much worse will it be, whatever the outcome is, if the election goes to the House? The House putting in McMullin is so unlikely that I want to say it's impossible; even if most Reps wanted to, they'd be making their constituents extremely angry (except for those reps from Utah) and wouldn't survive re-election, if they even made it that far. It would be a crisis for our democracy and my belief is that there would be at least small amounts of bloodshed. We're going to give Evan the benefit of the doubt and assume that throwing American democracy into legitimate chaos (not just a sideshow, like it's already become) is not his motive. So what is his motive?
  - leroy_masochist 10y ago
    The article explains how a Republican House, many of whose members despise Trump but don't want to piss off pro-Trump voters in their districts in a pre-election context, might switch their allegiance to Evan in a post-election context.

selimthegrim 10y ago

Is there not some "white horse prophecy" where a Mormon will save the Constitution in its moment of danger?

cookiecaper 10y ago
Not really. While this is widely believed, it's apocryphal. [0] If we do believe the apocryphal account, there are still a couple of issues. First, it doesn't imbue a duty to vote for a Mormon guy. If the Constitution really were in maximum danger, it'd be dubious that voting in a normal election would be the mechanism used to save it. Second, it doesn't say that a Mormon will save the Constitution by becoming president or anything like that. It says the Elders of Israel (that is, the men of the Church) will save it. That means more than voting for one guy. It probably means something more like being instrumental in a major cultural adjustment that would cause the principles in the Constitution to be valued again. This is harder than voting, so people don't prefer this interpretation. It may not even be literal -- the Constitution could be suspended/ineffective in what we now know as the U.S., but "saved" by Mormon elders who set up a separate government that substantially respects its principles. Whether one accepts this apocryphal prophecy or not, it does not mean Mormon candidates should be favored, and IMO, it shouldn't be a significant factor for Mormon voters. [0] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/church-statement-on-white-horse-prophecy-and-political-neutrality http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/church-statement-on-white...
mdturnerphys 10y ago
https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/05/dear-mormon-voters-of-the-american-west-maybe-youre-the-white-horse-weve-been-waiting-for/ https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/05/dear-mormon-voters-of...
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I abandoned the LDS blogosphere (the "bloggernacle", if they still call it that) many years ago. This article would be salient and useful if it stuck to its initial point rather than going on to advocate explicitly for HRC. That should've been a separate article. I'd love it if Mormons got a more realistic/normal perspective on the White Horse "Prophecy", as the author advocates at the beginning of the article, but I don't think saying that we have to vote for a specific candidate to invoke it (just not the candidate you would expect) really helps anything.
0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
Even if there is why fixate on this moment?

nobleach 10y ago

As a Utah resident, I'm hearing a lukewarm responses from my Davis county friends. Oddly, many of my Evangelical friends in Florida are on fire to vote for this guy. Perhaps it's because, as you say, he's using key Mormon phrases and they're just not picking up on those. (Mormons and Evangelicals often use the same words, with different meanings)

mdturnerphys 10y ago

"I actually think were McMullin not Mormon, no one in Utah would be paying attention. And I don't think that's the right way to vote." . . . and if Romney were not Mormon, he'd be running as incumbent this year.

cookiecaper 10y ago
I don't think that's true. It's very difficult to unseat an incumbent and generally only occurs under anomalous conditions. As much as evangelicals may not like the idea of a Mormon candidate (which is why McCain beat Romney in '08, btw), I think they were a lot more comfortable with a Mormon like Romney than a secularist like Trump.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> Ah, but if he's as smart as you say, he knows that there is no alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton at this point. That ship has sailed. Not necessarily. Not if neither Trump nor Clinton win a majority of the electoral votes. Now, at the moment, that looks unlikely. Trump is self-destructing so badly that Clinton will probably win a majority, with or without Utah. But if McMullin wins Utah, and Johnson wins New Mexico and maybe another state, it might be possible. Then we'd need Congress to not just vote for Trump and Clinton. That would take more statesmanship and less partisanship than I've seen from Congress in a while. So realistically, there's not much hope. But there's still a chance...

leroy_masochist 10y ago

> Ah, but if he's as smart as you say, he knows that there is no alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton at this point. That ship has sailed. So what's his real motive? As its title implies, the OP article describes how there is a small, but nonetheless real possibility that Evan could send the vote to the House. And as such, I'd reject the basic premises of this question.

cookiecaper 10y ago
But if it gets sent to the House, he won't be elected there. So the end goal is to send the vote to the House? What's the point of that? The sentiment that the American people were robbed was palpable in Bush v. Gore. How much worse will it be, whatever the outcome is, if the election goes to the House? The House putting in McMullin is so unlikely that I want to say it's impossible; even if most Reps wanted to, they'd be making their constituents extremely angry (except for those reps from Utah) and wouldn't survive re-election, if they even made it that far. It would be a crisis for our democracy and my belief is that there would be at least small amounts of bloodshed. We're going to give Evan the benefit of the doubt and assume that throwing American democracy into legitimate chaos (not just a sideshow, like it's already become) is not his motive. So what is his motive?
- leroy_masochist 10y ago
  The article explains how a Republican House, many of whose members despise Trump but don't want to piss off pro-Trump voters in their districts in a pre-election context, might switch their allegiance to Evan in a post-election context.