How do we not have an election thread yet

[Moe]

It's the ultimate faceoff! Incumbent v newcomer! Democrat v Republican! Black v White! Rich v even Richer! And from the looks of it, this campaign season shows a lot of promise to be the douchebaggiest one yet. Don't miss out on the epic shitshow that is ensuing!

So, discuss how Obama is going to institute socialist death panels or how Romney is going to sell your newborn to THE CORPORATIONS (tm).

Also, predict the winner and win admiration if you're correct, and ridicule if you're wrong!

[FriendlyFire]

I predict the winner will be corporations, and the loser will be the general population. Perhaps lawyers will get a part of the pie too.

[roflmao]

United States is in a state of permanent election. It never ends :P.

[Black]

I really hope Obama wins, not just because I think he'll continue to do a better job than a Republican candidate, but also for the hope that 8 years of failure will convince the Republican party that their shift towards the far right is a stupid political strategy.

[absauston]

Could have sworn the thread was longer than this. This weeks gaffe goes to Romney.

The short version:
I was not CEO of Bain after Feb. 1999, even though I filed as CEO and got paid up to 2002. Also, I plan to bring business sense to Washington using my job exporting skills.

[OhJohnNo]

abs: Server hax caused the thread to shrink rapidly.

[Aron_DeTomado]

United States is in a state of permanent election. It never ends :P.

The sad thing is this is actually true in many parts of the country. There are states which have their elections set for odd years, so they don't coincide with the federal ones. They literally have an election year every year.

I'm rooting for Romney, personally. Obama has shaped up to be nothing but an extension of the old Bush Administration. With Romney, on the other hand, there is a new surprise in store every week.

[Rukoth]

I really hope Obama wins, not just because I think he'll continue to do a better job than a Republican candidate

Imo he hasn't done hardely anything in the past four years. Hes spent a ton of tax payer dollars, more then any other president combined in less time then any other president. The economy is still sluggish and is in danger of going into recession yet again. I don't have any hatred or negative feelings towards Obama, but he hasn't done better.

Also, im tired of Republican and Democrat labels. And according to polls from different groups most of the United States population is getting more and more fed up with both parties pantoring to Party Lines instead of actually just fixing issues and realizing a mix of both sides would fix more then a hardline right winger or a hardline left winger. There needs to be a medium. A radio host suggested, and also a well known blowhard (forgot his name, always in the media and always laughed at) came up with the suggestion that we do away with political parties and just have candidates run on specific platforms for different views they believe in instead of having to worry about getting browny points with a political party.

I myself and fed up with both parties, I think im going to switch to independent myself soon. I just hate how our media and politicians pattern their voices after a party line instead of whats right. Regardless if whats right for a certain issue is more left then right or more right then left in the spectrum of things.

[Starblade]

And according to polls from different groups most of the United States population is getting more and more fed up with both parties pantoring to Party Lines instead of actually just fixing issues and realizing a mix of both sides would fix more then a hardline right winger or a hardline left winger.

There is no major leftist power in the US. That's part of the problem; we get right-wing and extra right-wing. The best you get are the barely-there Socialist party.

[Buguba]

There is no major leftist power in the US. That's part of the problem; we get right-wing and extra right-wing. The best you get are the barely-there Socialist party.

Come to think of it, I don't believe there's ever been a large socialist following within the US. Right about the time it started becoming a world movement, the US was pretty entrenched in the gilded age. Then we suddenly decided that the rise of satanism and socialism shared a correlation that simply could not be ignored.

Not to say that socialism is a perfect system, but it is a tad funny how extensively it's demonized within the US.

[TDATL]

@Buguba: I think that is largely to do with how it clashes with some rather central "American" ideas. The US has spent most of it's existence being a nation of expansion. The other nations have all been "settled down" for several hundred years. I don't mean that their boarders haven't changed. I mean that there hasn't been huge swaths of land lacking a militarily equal nation occupying it.

The various colonies were the first glance at that in more than a thousand years of human history and very quickly the people of the "new world" started to break off from their nations of origin. It wasn't long enough for it to reshape the European mainland cultural identities.

People living in close proximity to each other will eventually find that working close with each other is in their best interest. They simply can't avoid each other and working together eases their loads while working against one another only makes it worse.

Meanwhile people living far from each other will find handling their own affairs to be the best option. Relying on your "neighbor" who is half a day's travel away is suicide. The US has had a very low population density for most of it's history. We have always been expanding and spreading out and the idea of "making it on your own" has almost reached the point of not just being an ideal but something to be ashamed of not meeting.

It is going to take awhile before most of the US views socialist concepts with anything less than disdain. To a large degree it will feel like "giving up" on the idea that we can all "make it on our own." Such things clash against "American values."

@The party issue: I think the issue is not being able to vote on how your official should vote (and being able to punish them for doing otherwise.) As it stands we lump far FAR too many topics onto individuals who we then vote for in the hopes that they do what they said they would. The main problem with this is that it forces people to settle where they shouldn't have to. I shouldn't have to vote for (strictly for example) Candidate A who I trust will do what he says but what he says is not what I want and Candidate B who I feel is a lying sack of human refuse. I should be able to say I want Candidate A and then say I want him to do X and Y.

We also have a serious issue with people campaigning while they are in office. A while back I heard about two congressmen who missed getting sworn in because they were at a fundraiser for their next campaign (which was also illegal for them to be at as it were.) They then proceeded to vote on things even though they weren't sworn in and that caused even more problems.

And the issues don't all rest on having bad candidates. We have a TON of procedural issues. Even if we had a perfect selection of representatives the system is so fouled up it would still be hard to know what people were voting for and still nearly impossible for the representatives to properly do their job. Nobody can be reasonably expected to regularly read a 200-1200 page law and it's dozens of alternates and vote on that matter in a few days. Granted lots of these bills are a long time coming and people think they have plenty of time to research them. But we are talking about easily 10k pages of law per voting issue that they have to wade through. Then there are HUNDREDS of those votes they have to do. Our government is simultaneously and paradoxically both too big and too small for it's own good.

It is a mess. Honestly I think the best solution at this point is to slowly put as much power in the hands of the people as we can.

[Maktaka]

Hes spent a ton of tax payer dollars, more then any other president combined in less time then any other president.

That's a lie, but it's a lie that serves Romey's and Fox News's purposes of getting angry people to vote for them and watch their channel respectively, so they tell it whenever they can. Here's the actual spending numbers, and you'll note that by the time all is said and done it's expected that Obama's budgets will spend less money than any president since before Reagan, although he may edge out Clinton's first term.

Keep in mind that Fox News created and ran their own attack ads on Obama and is run by a man with his own GOP-backing super PAC. You should assume everything they have to say on the election is driven by the demonstrated motivation of sponsoring Romney into the White House.

[Croaxleigh]

I think that a large part of the reason that Socialism is demonized is that people don't actually know what Socialism is. It's been linked with Communism so often in propaganda that some people use the terms interchangeably, with the definition of either being "a system comprised of godless monsters that want to destroy the American way of life and take everyone's money and homes away." Though now that I think about it, that just describes the US banking industry.

[FerociousBeast]

There is no major leftist power in the US. That's part of the problem; we get right-wing and extra right-wing. The best you get are the barely-there Socialist party.

Which problem is it, exactly, that you think more socialism will fix?

We have a shaky economy, but we're still doing better than the rest of the world. Government ownership of the means of production isn't going to be getting us out of any of the messes we currently find ourselves in. Without exacerbating the others, anyway (thinking of healthcare and debt).

We do need higher taxes, unfortunately, but that's not socialism. That's just facing our depressing fiscal reality.

[roflmao]

There's one big common ground among socialists (I mean actual socialists) in the states:

Few of them have actually experienced socialism.

I bet if they had to endure CFE or Pemex for 25 seconds they would change their minds pretty quickly. Or if they had to experience a government in which you require 150 steps and 13 years of legal procedures to open up a business.

[Starblade]

Government ownership of the means of production isn't going to be getting us out of any of the messes we currently find ourselves in. Without exacerbating the others, anyway (thinking of healthcare and debt).

I was thinking more along the lines of social issues. UHC, for example, welfare. And yes, taxes need to be raised, among other things.

I bet if they had to endure CFE or Pemex for 25 seconds they would change their minds pretty quickly. Or if they had to experience a government in which you require 150 steps and 13 years of legal procedures to open up a business.

I want our country to move in a more progressive direction, something like Denmark, for example. I want Fuck You Got Mine to not be the ruling philosophy of the day. We have no party pushing for that right now.

And I take that bet. I bet you all the money you have I can endure it for 25 seconds. Do you accept?

[roflmao]

If you take a global perspective, Denmark is an enormously free capitalist country.. Denmark actually has a smaller [relative] government than the United States. They rank #15 on economic freedom. If you want to look at first world countries that are more socialist, then Sweden and France are better examples, and even they fall completely short in comparison to a country like Venezuela. From Venezuela's perspective, Denmark verges on being anarchocapitalist.

Which is, why as I said, true socialists haven't experienced what they believe in. More business regulation, welfare and taxes is not really full-on socialism.

You could say all modern first world countries have taken a balanced approach. There are no full-on free market first world countries and there are no full-on socialist first world countries. They all have a bit of both. So I guess you could argue that from a historical perspective what has produced the best results is a balance between the two.

[FriendlyFire]

Are we going to go all over the left/right wing debate with word redefinitions and pointless debates again?

[roflmao]

Well true, it kind of entirely depends on what you mean by these terms. There's a really interesting phenomenon in third world countries that occurs that as government becomes too burdensome, these countries move from relatively high levels of socialism to basically total free market anarchies which isn't any better. But that's so off topic that I won't get into that :P.

[Starblade]

If you want to look at first world countries that are more socialist, then Sweden and France are better examples, and even they fall completely short in comparison to a country like Venezuela. From Venezuela's perspective, Denmark verges on being anarchocapitalist.

Okay, I'll bite. Why are we equating the phrase "left wing" with the word "socialism"?

e: Oh and roflmao:

Social democracy is not itself a socialist system. Rather, traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades.[61] This approach has been called the Nordic model.

No it's not socialism, but it's not strictly capitalism either; it's like you say. Even the US isn't purely capitalistic. I'm not sure why you and FB have fixated on socialism, anyway. All I said is that it's the most/only real left-wing party in the US I can think of. It's not like I think it's the solution to all our problems.

[Rukoth]

That's a lie, but it's a lie that serves Romey's and Fox News's purposes of getting angry people to vote for them and watch their channel respectively, so they tell it whenever they can. Here's the actual spending numbers, and you'll note that by the time all is said and done it's expected that Obama's budgets will spend less money than any president since before Reagan, although he may edge out Clinton's first term.

Keep in mind that Fox News created and ran their own attack ads on Obama and is run by a man with his own GOP-backing super PAC. You should assume everything they have to say on the election is driven by the demonstrated motivation of sponsoring Romney into the White House.

Hey man, I give you mad props for dispelling that for me. Its not something I heard recently but I have heard it, thought it was true. I'm glad when I clicked your link that I wasn't looking at MSNBC or something or I wouldn't give you props :P. Thats actually a good thing to know coming from Forbes who knows a thing or two about money. Still, I think Obama's spent too much on top of Bush and others. At any rate him, nor hardly anyone in congress or the senate seems to give a flying crap. hence all their infighting and inability to rant at each other and just pass useful bills and laws. Hence me wanting more and more to distance myself from either party and their stupid politics.

I really have alot of respect for you dude. Good stuff. I like getting my facts straight, even if its proving something I believed right or true wrong :P.

[GeoffS]

We have a shaky economy, but we're still doing better than the rest of the world.

No, you aren't. You are doing OK, but not best in the world.

[Busby]

Just a note on Fox News: They aren't registered as a news source, but as an entertainment channel. Therefore they can put out any content they wish without being required to follow standards real news sources must, and it doesn't need to be based in fact. So ignore anything and everything they say because they are simply the Republican party's propaganda machine.

[Starblade]

Before someone jumps on Busby for that last line, one of them openly read from a script they got from the GOP. On air. (No idea who or what mediate is but they have the videos I couldn't be bothered to go look somewhere else for.) My favorite part of the video is the look on the co-host's face. Not that it wasn't obvious that they get their cues from the Republican party anyway, but it's amusing to watch the guy slip up.

Though, I would still pay attention to Shepard Smith. He's probably the only decent guy there.

[NastyNoodle]

Obama has basically already won. Romney's tax evasion is going to cost him any chance of being elected, especially as his enemies in the Republicans and Fox News have started to turn on him publicly. I'll be interested to see what happens at the convention, as they still have a chance to nominate someone else over him.

Either way, the public loses, both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of Corporate America.

[Lurch]

@Busby, my Google fu can't turn any thing up about Fox news Being registered as a entertainment company, care to post a link backing that up?

[Busby]

Sadly all my google-fu skills makes me believe it was a hoax, probably started by the Onion. :/ Well, as constellation I did find out that Fox News is part of the Murdock empire, by being a subsidiary of Fox Entertainment which is owned by News Corporation. Regardless, the bias on that channel is shameful and it still is a political spin machine.

[Langy]

I don't know what's meant by 'registered as an entertainment company', but Fox News has gone on the record to say that only a small portion of their programming - the portion that people generally don't watch - is actually supposed to be news, while the rest is editorials. I think their 'news' shows are the block starting around 11AM and going to 4PM or so? Not sure how they defined it exactly.

[Carl]

You know all these thread full of disillusioned voters makes me wonder if we shouldn’t all throw together our own idea's of how we'd run our countries. See what kind of craziness we come up with.

[Kirjava]

The US election (hell, US politics in general) is one long black comedy sketch. Consider Rush Limbaugh (I know so many are loathe to, but still). This chap, with a terrifyingly large audience, seems to genuinely believe that the villain Bain in The Dark Knight Rises has been chosen so as to make voters associate the word "Bane"- ie the "Bain" in "Bain Capital" of Mitt Romney 'fame'- with a Bad Thing and hence is proof the Hollywood Liberal Elite is plotting with Obama to, I dunno, kill all Christians or something.

We watch from across the Pond and, if things weren't so thoroughly depressing in the UK, we'd laugh.

[Mac_Bug]

Fox news won a court case where the judges ruled that not distorting the news was a policy and not a law

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

[NastyNoodle]

Oh god, the Bane/Bain thing. It's almost as bad as the birth certificate 'controversy'. Obama really is playing interdimensional chess!

He would have had to orchestrate creating the character in the 90's, somehow knowing that Mitt Romney would be both running for president in 2012, Be involved with Bain, and that the Batman series would be hugely popular. Then, he would have to time it just right, in persuading Christopher Nolan to write him in as the villain of his film a year before the scandal with Bain Capital was even known about.

[Kirjava]

I almost wish Obama had that kind of power- if he was capable of such interdimensional chess (what an absolutely delightful term) the upcoming election would be a cakewalk. He could, I dunno, change the fabric of space and time so that Romney confessed on air to bankrolling Al-Qaeda three days before the election.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I have a question to the older members of the forums: How long has it been since an American presidential election was this boring? Obama vs McCain was rather epic, and I seem to recall the Bush elections being rather fascinating, but this round has basically been a snorefest since Herman Cain dropped out.

[Maktaka]

Hey man, I give you mad props for dispelling that for me. Its not something I heard recently but I have heard it, thought it was true. I'm glad when I clicked your link that I wasn't looking at MSNBC or something or I wouldn't give you props :P. Thats actually a good thing to know coming from Forbes who knows a thing or two about money. Still, I think Obama's spent too much on top of Bush and others. At any rate him, nor hardly anyone in congress or the senate seems to give a flying crap. hence all their infighting and inability to rant at each other and just pass useful bills and laws. Hence me wanting more and more to distance myself from either party and their stupid politics.

I really have alot of respect for you dude. Good stuff. I like getting my facts straight, even if its proving something I believed right or true wrong :P.

Yeah, I figured you were just unaware that it was a frabrication being spread for political purposes á la Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. A lot of people back then didn't realize that all these jackwads saying they "served with John Kerry and he did nothing to earn those medals" were actually saying "I was in the army at the same time as John Kerry, but have not ever been within 1,000 miles of the man and have no idea what happened when he earned those medals".

The Democrats learned a hard lesson then about letting lies like that slide; confirmation bias is a ludicrously powerful thing and is not to be underestimated. If you compare Obama's attack ads now (which are pounding on Romney for every single inconsistency he's made) to his ads in 2008 (somewhat vague, but still targeted on McCain) to Kerry's complete lack of any real attack ads in 2004, it's clear the message has come through: research everything, source everything, and do not let any information of any kind regarding either candidate stand without the campaign's input for a second. In the era of the 24 hour news cycle, the first message is the only one people will remember before the next topic comes up.


On a different note....

In all honesty, I'd really like it if Romney grabbed Ron Paul as his VP. I doubt it'll happen, the old guard GOP hate the Tea Party, but it would still be nice. I think Paul's stance on social issues is ludicrously naive and would just allow backwards cities and counties to restore some Jim Crow-quality legislation, and his ideas about the economy are a wet dream for corporations and doom for consumers (a functional Free Market requires a fully informed consumer, which requires a strong central government that forces corporations to inform and punishes them when they don't) but the mere fact that he has a VERY strong libertarian bent on almost all issues regarding personal freedoms and government security invasiveness is wonderful in this day and age. Compared to Romney's, Obama's, and Biden's usually-authoritarian stance, his voice would force the Dems to move at least somewhat away from the top end of things on that spectrum. Maybe not by much, but any move would be positive. There really needs to be a leftist version of a Tea Party candidate channeling that level of libertarianism, and they need to be wearing a fucking suit while they do it. The OWS movement has the passion, but if they're not willing to out-respectable the authoritarian candidates it's not going to result in the level of change they want.


@Aron 2000 sucked. Nobody cared because at the time the economy was still doing gangbusters on top of the .com boom and so neither candidate wanted to say anything that would make people think they'd rock the boat. Al Gore wanted to pay off the debt more than Bush and emphasized environmental protection more, but not in a way that he tried to characterize his campaign on. Both candidates mostly focused on social security solvency, each saying their plan would save it and the other would ruin it, each having a think tank to back up their numbers. The end result was the campaign was won simply by the more charming, affable person: Bush.

[Kirjava]

Wasn't it also won by electoral fraud, or is that total myth?

[Maktaka]

The whole election ended up coming down to the incredibly close Florida results thanks to the whole electoral college silliness we've still got in place. The initial results were oh-so-slightly leaning Bush, but as close as it was and as contested as the results were there was an expensive manual recount process run multiple times, but the recounts weren't closing the gap for Gore any, particularly since the recounts were incorporating more and more absentee-ballot military votes, a demographic which at the time was still a very right-leaning group. The Supreme Court eventually put an end to any further recounts when it became clear the outcome wasn't going to change and it was just damaging confidence in the election process itself (which is the death of a democracy), which meant Florida and by extension the whole election went to Bush, although the popular vote was in Gore's favor by the largest margin in U.S. history (again, electoral college silliness).

[NastyNoodle]

I recall a very important part of the election being called early by FOX in Bush's favor, by Bush's cousin, which made all the other mainstream news outlet report Bush as having won as well, even though he hadn't.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

We don't know the results of the 2000 recount because it was never finished. In part because the Supreme Court ordered it stopped while they deliberated, then 'oops the deadline passed how did that happen '

The Supreme Court eventually put an end to any further recounts when it became clear the outcome wasn't going to change and it was just damaging confidence in the election process itself (which is the death of a democracy),

this is nonsense, even on its face. It's factually incorrect that the gap wasn't closing (Bush originally 'won' by 1500+ votes), and it is not the court's place to even care if it was. It is simply not their job to determine what the vote totals are. Why was the Supreme Court even hearing the case at all? Why does exerting every effort to make sure the vote count is accurate 'damage confidence in the election process'? Do you think it's some stand for democracy when a 5-4 partisan court majority decides an election?

I mean, seriously. It is some bizarro-world where we can't attempt to make sure the vote count is accurate because then people might think elections arn't perfect (when they arn't.)

This is even leaving aside Katherine Harris' blatant voter suppression and removal of legitimate voters from the voter rolls, or similar efforts in other states, or the undervotes/overvotes - some of which issues makes my blood boil to this day.

[Maktaka]

Most people prefer the blissful ignorance of thinking the electoral process is untouched than see weeks of doubt on the most important election in the country. People want stability out of their government, and seeing ongoing debate over whether the United States would face the first rerun on the presidential election in the country's history wasn't helping that. This is a country where half of the population can't even be assed to vote for the president of the country, where people will fight tooth and nail to protect their dream path to becoming rich instead of facing the reality of being poor and making changes for the better. Politics is something that's just supposed to stay out of their way and not break (to some, change) anything, not drag on and on leaving the country's highest elected office without a successor.

Would some people be more comfortable with the electoral process upon seeing some portion of the gray areas shed light upon and scrubbed up? Absolutely, but I'd argue there's an even greater number who would be disillusioned in the whole thing and stop participating if faced with proof and convictions of people involved in it. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done (the ludicrous difference in results with e-voting machines vs exit polls compared to paper ballots should result in executions), but when it's being attempted in a doomed bid to overturn election results it won't get the bi-partisan backing it needs to succeed and will just lead to bitter feelings for the rest of the elected official's tenure in office regardless of his/her involvement. Tackle it in an off-year when results aren't directly being called into question to eliminate as much of the politics from the endeavor as possible. But as we've seen, the only time anyone seems to show any interest is right after an election when they think they can overturn the results, nothing comes of it as expected, and then everyone just harumphs home until the next election has results they don't like.

[Moe]

I guess my question got eaten by the forum last time - what are people's opinions on Romney's religion? That is to say, will this help or hurt him?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

i'd say it's already irrelevant. but otherwise, it can only hurt him, especially amongs the theocrats. the whole 'bishop' thing is weird for a politician but probably won't get brought up.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Could it help him secure Utah? Or is that a Republican safe state anyway?

[Buguba]

Could it help him secure Utah? Or is that a Republican safe state anyway?

That's a republican safe state. Ironically enough, I'm pretty sure Utah would vote for the devil himself if he ran on a republican platform.

i'd say it's already irrelevant. but otherwise, it can only hurt him, especially amongs the theocrats. the whole 'bishop' thing is weird for a politician but probably won't get brought up.

Unless it's taken grossly out of context (which is entirely possible considering American politics), I don't know how being a Bishop would have been weird. For the LDS church, the clergy is strictly volunteer-based. Positions of all forms (leadership or otherwise) work on a rotation system. Basically, it just means he was asked to be the "Pastor" of his congregation for a couple years and he accepted. After some time, he stepped down and someone else was asked to take the position.

[Starblade]

I guess my question got eaten by the forum last time - what are people's opinions on Romney's religion? That is to say, will this help or hurt him?

Short of something else bringing it up, I'm willing to bet it won't matter. Obama won't bring it up because of the whole "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Usurper" Republican narrative, and Romney won't because of how it's seen as a cult in several parts of the country and because of the whole "black people are black because of sin" thing and Proposition 8. It probably wouldn't matter to Republicans, but it would hurt him with some independents.

Could it help him secure Utah?

There is basically no way Romney won't get Utah.

[Buguba]

whole "black people are black because of sin" thing

?

That's never been an LDS belief. Ever.

[Starblade]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...ack/52920394/1

Until 1978, the LDS church banned men of African descent from its priesthood, a position open to nearly all Mormon males and the gateway to sacramental and leadership roles. The church had also barred black men and women from temple ceremonies that promised access in the afterlife to the highest heaven.

As he explored joining the church in 1988, Perkins said he asked Mormons near his Los Angeles home about the racial doctrines. They gently explained that blacks were the cursed descendants of Cain, the biblical murderer, he recalls.

"Blacks are not going to vote for anyone of the Mormon faith," the Rev. O'Neal Dozier told The Palm Beach Post on Jan. 22. "The Book of Mormon says the Negro skin is cursed."

The Book of Mormon says no such thing. But another Mormon scripture, The Pearl of Great Price, says, "blackness came upon" Cain's descendants, who were "despised among all people."

Among Cain's heirs was Noah's son, Ham, who was "cursed … as pertaining to the priesthood," according to the scripture. Mormons trace their priesthood to Adam and Noah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_p...ter-day_Saints

An early statement by Young about a priesthood ban in the LDS Church was made on February 13, 1849. The statement — which refers to the Curse of Cain as the reason for the policy — was given in response to the question, "What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro?" Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."[5]

Sorry, they bear the Curse of Cain, they are not blackened with sin. (For anyone too lazy to open those links, the LDS reversed their position on letting blacks serve as priests in 1978.) Regardless, the LDS is widely perceived as a racist organization, though it should be noted they have made a turnaround in that area in recent decades.

[Buguba]

Sorry, they bear the Curse of Cain, they are not blackened with sin. (For anyone too lazy to open those links, the LDS reversed their position on letting blacks serve as priests in 1978.) Regardless, the LDS is widely perceived as a racist organization, though it should be noted they have made a turnaround in that area in recent decades.

You're mixing a couple of things up here. One, anyone who has perceived the LDS church as a "racist organization" is at best applying a double standard to churches of the time. The exact same source that you're quoting also states:

In 1966, Armand Mauss surveyed Mormons on racial attitudes and discriminatory practices. He found that "Mormons resembled the rather "moderate" denominations (such as Presbyterian, Congregational, Episcopalian), rather than the "fundamentalists" or the sects.

Two, the Book of Mormon (the church's official source of doctrine) has always stated:

“black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33).

For the LDS church, there are only several things that count as true doctrine: the scriptures, and revelation from God. We believe revelation from God to be an extension of the scriptures. Anything else stated by the church leadership (Prophets and apostles included) is at best hearsay and opinion. To quote David O' Mckay, another church prophet:

"There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . . It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed"

The barring of blacks from the priesthood was a revelation received by Joseph Smith, but there was never once a reason given for it. There is no evidence that it was associated with "the curse of Cain", "black skin being a sign of sin", or anything else. It was simply a revelation. Later, there was revelation that lifted this ban. If you want to read into it and imply that the revelations were based off of racist undertones, then that's your decision. If you don't believe in church prophets receiving revelation, I can understand that viewpoint. However, it remains true that the church has never officially condemned Africans on the basis of race.

This isn't the first time (and it probably won't be the last) that the church has operated under "revelation without reason". The Word of Wisdom was received via revelation, and it specifically bars members of the church from drinking alcohol, coffee, or other "hard" substances. It wasn't this way at first in the church, and there wasn't any reason given for it beyond "because God said so". Some LDS members may claim that it was created to keep people healthy, but that's still opinion. It's just a rule, and that's the way it is.

[Starblade]

One, anyone who has perceived the LDS church as a "racist organization" is at best applying a double standard to churches of the time.

I don't think I said anything about other churches, and I even pointed out that they've gotten better on race issues, even discounting the 1978 repeal on banning blacks from holding priesthood. You can bet that if the religious issue arises though that the Democrats will focus on things like this.

For the LDS church, there are only several things that count as true doctrine: the scriptures, and revelation from God.

Where does that leave the Pearl of Great Price and the line about the Curse of Cain, then? And the reason given for the ban by then church president Brigham Young as literally being due to the curse? Unless I'm misreading it, the policy was started by Young. According to Wikipedia several blacks were admitted to the priesthood under Joseph Smith.

Under the leadership of Joseph Smith, several African-Americans, including Elijah Abel were admitted to the priesthood. But that policy changed sometime before 1852, because in that year, church president Brigham Young made a pronouncement to the Utah Territorial Legislature stating that African-Americans "cannot hold the Priesthood."

The Church never denied membership based on race (although slaves had to have their master's permission to be baptized), and several black men were ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime. The first known black Latter-day Saint was "Black Pete", who joined the Church in Kirtland, Ohio, and there is some evidence that he held the LDS priesthood.[3] Other African Americans, including Elijah Abel in 1832, Joseph T. Ball in 1835 or 1836 (who also presided over the Boston Branch from 1844–1845), and Walker Lewis in 1843 (and probably his son, Enoch Lovejoy Lewis), were ordained to the priesthood during Smith's lifetime.[4] William McCary was ordained in Nauvoo in 1846 by Apostle Orson Hyde.[3] Two of the descendants of Elijah Abel were also ordained Elders, and two other black men, Samuel Chambers and Edward Leggroan, were ordained Deacons.[4]

This page seems to confirm that it didn't start until Young, as several black men were ordained during Smith's lifetime. It was a revelation that reversed the policy, however.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Unless it's taken grossly out of context (which is entirely possible considering American politics), I don't know how being a Bishop would have been weird. For the LDS church, the clergy is strictly volunteer-based. Positions of all forms (leadership or otherwise) work on a rotation system. Basically, it just means he was asked to be the "Pastor" of his congregation for a couple years and he accepted. After some time, he stepped down and someone else was asked to take the position.

he also managed several other congregations. which is why I said 'bishop' and not 'pastor'. nevertheless, being a religious leader is not normal in american politics for a whole host of reasons.