So I haven't read the last two pages here, I'm just responding to the OP.
I've listened to McMullin and I think he's a nut job. I think it was on KSL's Doug Wright program or some other local talk show that I listened to. His comments seemed to be an attempt to give "Mormons" a choice other than the degenerate Casino/Beauty Pageant Reality TV mogul who could in no sense appeal to nitwit moralist LDS types.
I've had my questions about Trump being Hillary's Perot, a replay of 1992 that gave us Bill the Perv.
I think most of you JazzFanzers are nitwit lefty dreamers who don't know reality any better, especially Coltin who loves his ivory tower Utopian vision of a progressive LDS world. I used to be in that Utah Campus world, and I'm glad I got out. Years of wall to wall progressive knowitalls with a penchant for fixing the world their way, quibbling over the finer distinctions between the Romneys and the Reids.
The LDS Church, historically, jumped in the sack with the Rockefeller/Chase Bankers back in the days of Pres. Grant, roughly speaking the roaring twenties, and ran right along with Prohibition and socialist welfare schemes like Eccles' Federal Reserve economic banking, even before Keynes made a name for himself. I think the LDS leadership has no credibility as a Christian organization modeled on the teachings of Jesus which centered on individual conscience and personal responsibility in all aspects of our lives. I think the LDS policy manual and lesson manuals are the same kind of statist drivel as Common Core or John Dewey "education". Somebody has to have a policy that authoritatively parses all the nuance in life and produces the absolute right views and morals for everyone.
I think that is why the Utah Republicans have all disavowed Trump, who is nothing but a free independent man with a notion of practical management, which does not line up with the LDS or CFR sort of programs. Trump just wants people to be free.
Trump is my kind of man, all the way. I proudly stand for him.
It's no crime for a man to be fascinated by pretty women or to talk about them. Most of you don't have a problem with your lurid pics and discussions of who to hit on right here in the "Family-Appropriate" JazzFAnz threads.
I don't think the State has any business to regulate personal lives, or to endorse lifestyles, or teach sexuality. I don't like government managed education on any issue, even science. Well, maybe on a state level there is no Constitutional bar against States taking up some of these issues, but I think State-sanctioned religions sorta went out back in the 1820s, and I see no real positives for people regulating one another or making personal morals the focus for qualifying anyone for the Presidency.
Except, of course, where we have good laws designed to protect our national interests and personal liberties, and our vested interests in our government. On these issues, Hillary fails. McMullin fails because he's just another Romney sort of statist. Done with that.