Can't be a Jedi if you support Trump...?

More
04 Dec 2019 17:33 #346735 by Omhu Cuspor
The title of this thread - "Can't be a Jedi if you support Trump?" seems to potentially convey two meanings, due to an observation someone once made about the word "you": "When I say 'you', I mean either you, me, or everybody." So, if the intent is to convey "everybody", as in "Could anybody be considered a Jedi if s/he supports Trump?" I am going to sidestep the question. There are people here who clearly think the answer is yes, and perhaps that is correct; I don't see anyone in this thread whom I think is malicious (other than Malicious, heh), Absent any bad intent, I don't wish to start proposing rules about who and who does not belong here.

But, if "you" actually means "you" in this case, so the question is "Do you yourself find being a Jedi compatible with a choice to be a Trump supporter?", a response is more clear.

Dominant in my mind is the prominent statement on the opening page of the Temple: "Jedi believe in the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it." With that in mind, I consider various impacts of the political policies of the current U.S. administration:

* Dramatically reversing America's commitment to climate change, placing ever-greater restrictions on the use of scientific evidence
at the EPA and making America one of only two nations on Earth to repudiate the Paris Climate Accord. This denies the inherent
worth of today's young people, future generations, and non-human forms of life.
* Equating asylum seekers with illegal aliens, imprisoning them under harsh conditions, and kidnapping children from their parents. This
denies the inherent worth of non-Americans.
* Making implied threats of a first-strike nuclear war on two occasions (against North Korea and Iran). This arguably denies the inherent
worth of virtually everyone.
* Implementing a tax cut mostly benefitting the very rich while over half of Americans can't afford a $400 emergency. This negates
the inherent worth of the middle class and poor.
* With some justification, withdrawing the American military from Syria - but in a manner that left our Kurdish allies exposed to danger.
This denies the inherent worth of the Kurds - and, as a sideline, has driven them into a tentative alliance with Russia.
* Trying to implement an across-the-board ban on Muslims entering the U.S. This abrogates the inherent worth of Muslims.
* In an admitted extension of longstanding U.S. policy, has participated in the instigation of disorder and violence in Venezuela and Brazil.
This denies the inherent worth of our Latin American neighbors.
* With the help of Congress, has taken no action to secure America's easily hackable election system. This denies the inherent worth
of voters, or at least their desires.

So - could I personally in good conscience be a Jedi if I supported Trump? Easy squeazy lemon peasy -

No.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Dec 2019 17:52 - 04 Dec 2019 17:58 #346736 by ZealotX

Malicious wrote: Zealotx yes we can agree on certain matters but what I disagree with you on is about the border and how people and children are treated . Yes I know what goes on at the southern border and actually it isn't as bad as what the far left is saying , most of what you said is actually far left propaganda . But a little bit is actually true , I will admit that . An accurate UN report which most news networks didn't show because it would invalidate most of the far left propaganda is that child separation and detainment at the southern border was much higher under Obama than Trump and most of this so called " atrocities " you hear about is actually from Obama era footage and media not from the Trump era . Yes I will admit that they still separate children from parents but my counter statement is this : if a legal American adult that has children done a crime than that adult would be imprisoned and if there was no family members able to take those children then they too would be taken into the custody of government . We just can't send the kids back without parents that would be wrong . And about the detention centers there being held at the reason why they aren't the best place is because both sides won't get over there own ego to pass bills to better the detention centers and if they do then they won't agree on how much money or if any money should be allocated to pay for the new centers . The reason why there are so called cages which are actually fencing is so the family doesn't try to escape judgment of there crimes . If I was going illegally to a different country the key term illegal and I wanted to stay there I would expect the same treatment . We tried the catch and release strategy and that didn't work they did not show up to there court hearings . If i skipped a court hearing to convict me of a crime then I would have a warrant out for my arrest but that wouldn't work for these illegal immigrants because they have no reliable legal documents to find them . The only way we could release them is if we put tracking devices in there arms and even then it wouldn't really work because you can just take it out . So in reality this is the best option . Now I know what you might say best option ? ' tilts head in confusion . Yes but we need to have better detainment centers but sadly both sides won't stop pounding sand to actually get that done or agree on the funding and put it in use .


With all due respect, brother Malicious. I think you might be assuming that my sources of information are questionable. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez went to the border. That wasn't under Obama. It's very easy to try and blame Obama but it is clear from the testimony of Jeff Sessions that this was a new policy and that it was meant as a deterrent. But I think you can agree that there is no better witness than the people who are directly involved. If I give you second hand information you can simply dismiss the source. And I can as well. So I propose, that at least between us, we show each other video.



Listen to his words. "New enforcement priorities". New. Obama didn't have a "zero-tolerance" policy. He deported a LOT of people; more than he gets credit for by the right and was often called the "Deporter in Chief". However, politics from the right constantly accuses Democrats as wanting open borders. Do you see the problem with that? Instead of arguing talking points about "the other side" we would be wise and do well to dispute issues based on verifiable evidence and not some kind of superstitious boogeyman strawman where Lefties are trying to rob you of your civil liberties. Because those are the politics of fear. And we, of all people, should not be influenced by that.


(and take note of the caption about the judge ordering reunifications of families)
Again, the situation at the border didn't exist under Obama like this because of the zero tolerance policy of the Trump administration. The talking points on the right enable the use of a fallacy. In other words, they say x happened under Obama so what we're doing isn't that bad. While that x may not have been that bad under Obama, anything taken to an extreme is prone to disaster. And because of the flood of people combined with zero tolerance, there were too many people to process and they had no system in place to handle so many people and keep accurate records. THAT is what created the problem. The execution. Not the law. Let's remove it from the political context so you can see my point without any "that's my team though" influence.

Let's say you have a car. It works fine. It's not the best car, but it's not the worst. It's got a decent engine and tires. Well, you know that car is going to be okay under normal driving conditions. But how long can you run that car at 100mph without any problems? At 100mph, the engine matters a whole lot more. The tires matter a whole lot more. Because obviously you're putting stress on that car. Now if the previous owner of the car was a race car driver you might expect certain things about the performance. It could be in great condition and may have upgrades. Or he could have worn it out so that it wont perform as well as it used to at higher speeds. Now if the previous owner was a granny, that makes a difference but if you're racing the car you can't blame the granny or even the race car driver for how you are pushing that car to the extreme. Is that fair? Because there wasn't a zero-tolerance policy under Obama it wouldn't be fair to compare the 2014 pics with the same kind of pics but with many more people or excuse the inability to reunite families because of how carelessly they were separated. And a lot of the recent influx are asylum seekers because of the situation in South America where their lives are in constant danger. We're not simply talking about Mexicans who are looking for work.



note: Johnson said that chain link fences or "cages" weren't ideal but were one of the ways authorities dealt with a mass immigrants that had to be transferred to Health and Human Services (HHS) within 72 hours. - www.foxnews.com/politics/jeh-johnson-oba...mp-migrant-detention

if you've ever been to jail, being there for 8 hrs is different from 24 which is different from 48 and so on.

The other thing I would recommend is that, and you don't have to I'm just giving you options, we address (preferably with more than one video) one small point at a time because often the small points add up to a larger outlook and often a larger agenda and the larger agenda is often used to advance and defend these smaller points that may or may not be pure propaganda. If there's propaganda on the left that you want to disprove, trust me, I want you to disprove it. But there has to be some evidence, not an opposing talking point on the right. Because the moment we assume that 1 side is lying on the other and our side is only and always truthful with us, then we're lost. Agreed?
Last edit: 04 Dec 2019 17:58 by ZealotX.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Dec 2019 19:13 #346739 by Wescli Wardest

After reading a good deal of this very long thread I had one primary thought come to mind…
(no, I did not read the entire thing – maybe 60/70 plus percent?)

I find it interesting how politics has become more about people than policy. Maybe we should change it to people-tics :P

If the last few years has shown anything, I have been witness to a level of moral, ethical and moral bifurcation and partisanship that I honestly never thought the general populace would sink to. All in support of “their man.” I personally don’t care who is representing us so long as they actually represent us. And given what we’ve been shown… I think the politicians we have do represent the populace on a whole.

Getting online and checking everyone’s favorite web site, www.i’mright.com and cherry picking the statistics that supports one argument and representatives position is hardly the way I think we should approach the governance of a society.

How about actual research and careful consideration of what the best option for not only a short term but long term outcome would be? Then putting aside our petty differences to implement a policy that could see it to fruition.

Or whatever. The circus is entertaining. I don’t mind watching for a while longer LOL :laugh:
Sometimes it takes a matter of epic proportion to change the status quo. I just wonder if everyone will really believe it was worth it when that time comes. :unsure:


Monastic Order of Knights
The following user(s) said Thank You: Omhu Cuspor, OB1Shinobi, Kobos, Rex, Malicious

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Dec 2019 19:56 #346742 by Malicious
Omhu and zealotx I will respectfully disagree with your ideas on this matter and I will refrain from posting on again this specific thread . Because I see your minds are made up on the matter and even if I politely argue with you and the talking points ( specifically from omhu ) it will be an endless debate . Until one of us just decides the matter is no longer relevant to argue because we made our point . My point is this no matter how or who you vote for if you want to be a Jedi then be a Jedi . If some of your personal beliefs conflict with the Jedi way than that is okay , and if your preferred candidate's beliefs or policies doesn't exactly match the temples that's okay too . We have a right to vote for who we want and no one or religion should tell you otherwise and if they do then that is infringement on our rights and that's not good . Also if a religion has a standard on who you can or can't vote for than that religion in that case has bad values . And no I'm not saying that the temple is bad in that sense , personally I love this place and the people within . I like the values ,openness , and acceptance of this temple and in no way am I saying they need to be altered in anyway . I'm just saying that there should be no mandate on who to vote for , or there should be no ( because this candidate has different policies than we endorse you can't vote for them and if you do the you can't be a member or call yourself a Jedi ) .

=_= Malicious (+_+)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Omhu Cuspor

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Dec 2019 20:36 #346743 by ZealotX

Omhu Cuspor wrote: The title of this thread - "Can't be a Jedi if you support Trump?" seems to potentially convey two meanings, due to an observation someone once made about the word "you": "When I say 'you', I mean either you, me, or everybody." So, if the intent is to convey "everybody", as in "Could anybody be considered a Jedi if s/he supports Trump?" I am going to sidestep the question. There are people here who clearly think the answer is yes, and perhaps that is correct; I don't see anyone in this thread whom I think is malicious (other than Malicious, heh), Absent any bad intent, I don't wish to start proposing rules about who and who does not belong here.

But, if "you" actually means "you" in this case, so the question is "Do you yourself find being a Jedi compatible with a choice to be a Trump supporter?", a response is more clear.

Dominant in my mind is the prominent statement on the opening page of the Temple: "Jedi believe in the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it." With that in mind, I consider various impacts of the political policies of the current U.S. administration:

* Dramatically reversing America's commitment to climate change, placing ever-greater restrictions on the use of scientific evidence
at the EPA and making America one of only two nations on Earth to repudiate the Paris Climate Accord. This denies the inherent
worth of today's young people, future generations, and non-human forms of life.
* Equating asylum seekers with illegal aliens, imprisoning them under harsh conditions, and kidnapping children from their parents. This
denies the inherent worth of non-Americans.
* Making implied threats of a first-strike nuclear war on two occasions (against North Korea and Iran). This arguably denies the inherent
worth of virtually everyone.
* Implementing a tax cut mostly benefitting the very rich while over half of Americans can't afford a $400 emergency. This negates
the inherent worth of the middle class and poor.
* With some justification, withdrawing the American military from Syria - but in a manner that left our Kurdish allies exposed to danger.
This denies the inherent worth of the Kurds - and, as a sideline, has driven them into a tentative alliance with Russia.
* Trying to implement an across-the-board ban on Muslims entering the U.S. This abrogates the inherent worth of Muslims.
* In an admitted extension of longstanding U.S. policy, has participated in the instigation of disorder and violence in Venezuela and Brazil.
This denies the inherent worth of our Latin American neighbors.
* With the help of Congress, has taken no action to secure America's easily hackable election system. This denies the inherent worth
of voters, or at least their desires.

So - could I personally in good conscience be a Jedi if I supported Trump? Easy squeazy lemon peasy -

No.



All good points.

I think the distinction we have to make is that we're specifically talking about Trump and his policies, not about the Republican party, Conservative values, blue collar workers, or any other group that identifies with an overall agenda of "make america great again" because that phrase means different things to different people. There must be a distinction because, in my opinion, Trump is rewriting Republican culture as we speak and its not good for them either. But Republican congress people feel trapped because of his support among "the base", and we can get into who that is, is too strong for them to stand on their conservative principles. But because of their silence the base never hears the full truth, only Trump's story and those who support that story in order to maintain political power.

It is hard for me to believe that conservatives are happy to keep these children in these detention centers for WEEKS. I don't believe THEY are heartless. I believe Stephen Miller is heartless. People can hide behind a policy but it matters how you execute it. For example, Marijuana is illegal on the federal level but isn't being enforced upon states like California. It's schedule 1 just like Heroin. So it kills me how people defend the way in which immigration policy is executed as if there's no choice or room for leniency; as if the violations of federal law make someone deserving of this kind of treatment or even the possibility of losing their children forever.

These EXTREME actions are not the view of a political party but rather strategy cooked up by Miller and rubber stamped by Trump. And I said this before Trump got elected, that he lacks the ability to see secondary and tertiary consequences and that's the main skill you need to be president. That's why Trump never understood Obama and a lot of people react negatively to the executive branch and distrust government in general. What you do for one group of people affects another. That "energy" has to come from somewhere. So Trump was like, "America first" which implied that non-Americans were to blame. Other companies don't pay enough for defense. People come here from "s-hole countries". Muslims are terrorists. Mexicans are taking our jobs. Blacks are getting public assistance. Etc. So Trumpism says F(orget) all these people. Let's make it great again for us... "real" Americans.

And of course someone's going to complain about what I just said but the fact is that everyone is free to interpret MAGA in their own way without knowing how Trump and his allies interpret it themselves. And that's another secondary consequence that Trump either didn't see or doesn't care about. Everyone wants to make "their" [version] America great again. And that involves decisions that will negatively impact the other groups (typically minorities) they don't care about. They think MAGA is good because they believe they are the Americans that Trump wants to protect and defend. So they assume his version of America, and American greatness, is the same as his, without fully seeing that he is acting largely in response to Obama. Trump wasn't against Democrats under Clinton. Trump donated to the Clintons. But Trump lies so easily and convincingly that people in his base simply believe that he thinks the same way they do on all these issues and that he cares.

And so he becomes a kind of white knight Jesus character and people refuse to see him as a real man instead of the fictional character he was on The Apprentice. Think about it. Everyone thinks they know Jesus and Jesus wants to save them but let's apply critical thinking and logic. None of them would need to be saved if they were never born. And if he simply came earlier, they would never have born and never would have needed salvation because they didn't exist. But what do humans do? We start with the notion of self and ego and I and then we work backwards from there. But in reality, for every generation people claim Jesus died for, that's another generation he couldn't come back for before they were born. And if we then cannot answer the question for the next generation, were Jesus to come today, how can we then answer the question for our own generation?

So no offense to believers but the point is that often we try to filter the world through our beliefs and imagine that people are on our side. But Trump's on his own side.He simply knows that being on his own side comes at the cost of making people believe he cares.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Omhu Cuspor

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Dec 2019 20:36 #346744 by Carlos.Martinez3
I have a hard time reading anything that says if your this you ARE this. Especially when it come to modern day Jediism.
Truth of the matter is - real talk -you can be a jerk and still be a modern day Jeddist. With that said - some may find me the jerk at times and some may not - gotta love the Hero’s journey like that - we can play multiple parts in multiple paths for a multitude of things and people. You can be anything and a Jeddist - it’s kinna a given thing. One of the hidden Joys to all this is ( for me as well) - we know this. It’s like as to family is for me some times - some I wanna hug some I wanna kick some in the head and some I don’t associate with any more- but they are still family. No matter how ya feel some days - get salty or call that crazy lot what ya want - call em to the table and eat.
Sit down and eat already! Lol
We can have the extra seat available mentality or keep letting labels separate ... either way- choice is always ours.

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Dec 2019 20:55 #346746 by ZealotX

Malicious wrote: Omhu and zealotx I will respectfully disagree with your ideas on this matter and I will refrain from posting on again this specific thread . Because I see your minds are made up on the matter and even if I politely argue with you and the talking points ( specifically from omhu ) it will be an endless debate . Until one of us just decides the matter is no longer relevant to argue because we made our point . My point is this no matter how or who you vote for if you want to be a Jedi then be a Jedi . If some of your personal beliefs conflict with the Jedi way than that is okay , and if your preferred candidate's beliefs or policies doesn't exactly match the temples that's okay too . We have a right to vote for who we want and no one or religion should tell you otherwise and if they do then that is infringement on our rights and that's not good . Also if a religion has a standard on who you can or can't vote for than that religion in that case has bad values . And no I'm not saying that the temple is bad in that sense , personally I love this place and the people within . I like the values ,openness , and acceptance of this temple and in no way am I saying they need to be altered in anyway . I'm just saying that there should be no mandate on who to vote for , or there should be no ( because this candidate has different policies than we endorse you can't vote for them and if you do the you can't be a member or call yourself a Jedi ) .


voting for Trump and being a "Trump supporter" are not the same thing to me. Let's make that clear.

Supporter means you are in favor of HIM. That's not the same thing as voting for him, believing him to be the lesser of two evils. Like I said, i voted in favor of Jill Stein because at that time I didn't want to vote for the lesser of two evils, but that kind of vote is NORMAL. If I support a candidate, that's more proactive. I like them. I'm engaging in activity to "help them" win. I'm not just giving them my vote because "meh... at least he's not Roy Moore".

Plenty of Republicans vote R. Period. It doesn't matter who the candidate is. And especially for local races. Most people don't go vote, knowing all the people they're voting for. They see the D or the R and they check the box based on a general assumption about the candidate's perspective being similar to their own. But this thread isn't talking about those voters. It's not talking about the red team or the blue team. It's specifically about a man. Donald Trump.

If you're voting for him and holding your nose, that's understandable pragmatism. But if you give full throated support because you like what he's doing... that's the support we're talking about. Supporters WANT zero tolerance at the border. That's why someone in his rally crowd said "shoot em" and we don't need to rehash Trump's response. But clearly, he doesn't care about those people. But those people are not less human because they're not American. And NO ONE deserves to lose a parent or child because of some federal law that can be selectively enforced.

And it was the same with Bill Clinton. I didn't agree with what he did with Monica Lewinsky but that was more of a issue in his marriage. I could still vote for him. However the crime bill meant that I can't support him. Based on policy. The other guy might be even worse and so I have to consider that in my voting. I have to consider what not voting for him would mean for other candidates too. But I don't support the man. So if you say, "well I wanted conservative judges on the supreme court", okay. But that's support for a conservative republican agenda; still doesn't mean you have to support the man.

Does that make sense?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Malicious

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Dec 2019 20:56 #346747 by Rex

Malicious wrote: Omhu and zealotx I will respectfully disagree with your ideas on this matter and I will refrain from posting on again this specific thread . Because I see your minds are made up on the matter and even if I politely argue with you and the talking points ( specifically from omhu ) it will be an endless debate . Until one of us just decides the matter is no longer relevant to argue because we made our point . My point is this no matter how or who you vote for if you want to be a Jedi then be a Jedi . If some of your personal beliefs conflict with the Jedi way than that is okay , and if your preferred candidate's beliefs or policies doesn't exactly match the temples that's okay too . We have a right to vote for who we want and no one or religion should tell you otherwise and if they do then that is infringement on our rights and that's not good . Also if a religion has a standard on who you can or can't vote for than that religion in that case has bad values . And no I'm not saying that the temple is bad in that sense , personally I love this place and the people within . I like the values ,openness , and acceptance of this temple and in no way am I saying they need to be altered in anyway . I'm just saying that there should be no mandate on who to vote for , or there should be no ( because this candidate has different policies than we endorse you can't vote for them and if you do the you can't be a member or call yourself a Jedi ) .


To be fair malicious, you display quite a few of the strategies I've seen trump supporters use: "I don't like him, but he's better than *insert amalgamation of all the worst things about any possible opponent*" "you aren't going to change your mind, so it's pointless for me to try and back up my talking points I introduced" "my vote is my choice" etc.

If we broke down the discussion into clinical little policy quanta, would you stand by some of the explicitly TotJO points (e.g. opposing capital punishment) or would you be closer to someone else's line? Your understanding of how the first amendment works is lacking quite a bit. If you have questions about it, I could answer them over PM.

At any rate, if you don't support someone's policies, don't support them. The US went for the majority of its history without the 2-party hegemony we see today, so why be a sucker for it. Make elections closer, and don't give into ideological laziness

IP Team Lead
TM: Carlos Martinez
ὁ δὲ ἀμυχηδόν νεξέταστος βίος γίγνομαι βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
The following user(s) said Thank You: Malicious

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Dec 2019 23:08 - 04 Dec 2019 23:18 #346753 by CaesarEJW
"poop" - George Washington

“Muddy water is best cleared by leaving it alone.” - Alan Watts
Last edit: 04 Dec 2019 23:18 by CaesarEJW.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 Dec 2019 03:23 - 05 Dec 2019 03:24 #346764 by Br. John
When I was born it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person in 22 states. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation...in_the_United_States

The US Supreme Court struck down these laws in 1967. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Here's an unsettling article from a couple of years ago. NEARLY 20 PERCENT OF AMERICANS THINK INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE IS 'MORALLY WRONG,' POLL FINDS

If someone supports banning interracial marriage (a constitutional amendment making banning legal) can they be a Jedi?

According to the Arabic proverb, there are no such things as a Phoenix, a Ghoul, or a True Bosom Friend, but I say to you that I found them all among my neighbors. ~ Kahlil Gibran
Last edit: 05 Dec 2019 03:24 by Br. John.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Omhu Cuspor, Carlos.Martinez3

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: KobosBrick