How do we not have an election thread yet

[Croaxleigh]

It's not completely unheard of, though. Think about how many times Rev. Jesse Jackson has run for president. The larger problem is the mistrust that some people have for people that aren't "mainstream" Christian; and even then it depends on what they consider "mainstream." I don't know if the Bishop thing will work against him, but if it does then it won't be because he's a religious leader but specifically because he's a Mormon religious leader. They'll try to get people to think that he's going to use the Presidency to push some shady Mormon agenda or to give Mormon leaders undue influence in Washington. (Similar things were said about Kennedy because he was Catholic, and he wasn't even a religious leader; people claimed that if he was elected then the Pope would gain control over the US government.)

Hell, with Obama they even did double duty. Claimed he was going to give the Muslim Brotherhood power over the United States AND had a huge scandal concerning the preacher of the church he attended for 20 years or so. People always say crazy things when it comes to religion.

[Buguba]

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.

That's fair. I assumed that when you said it was a "racist organization" that you meant in comparison to other religious organizations at the time.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean. The Pearl of Great Price is scripture, and the Curse of Cain is scripture. That doesn't mean they necessarily factor into this decision. They can be potential arguments for why the Lord gave that sort of revelation, but we have no idea if that's why the Lord did it. It's always been the official stance of the church that, unless the revelation says directly otherwise, the Lord does things for his own reasons. It's much like the church's stance on homosexuality right now. Lots of leaders and prophets have given talks on why homosexuality is "wrong", but the truth is that it's just hearsay. The church's stance on homosexual unions is due to revelation given through the Proclamation to the World. At its core, the church has no official stance on its position against homosexual unions other than "because God says so".

What the difference comes down to is when we believe church prophets/leaders are making their own, personal decisions and when the Lord is directly guiding a decision within the church. We believe that our leaders are still men, and that they frequently make mistakes (sometimes due to personal bias, ignorance, or just flat out error).

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.

According to George Albert Smith (another church prophet),

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.

Ergo, the church considers the initial view on blacks receiving the priesthood to be a revelation. It isn't clear when this revelation was given, but it's clear that it was considered revelation.



As a side note, I do want to mention that I recognize that there appears to be a lot of room for the church simply trying to cover its racist arse. It could be more than true that the church was lead by imperfect, racist men who couldn't overcome their own personal viewpoints. It's my belief that these views are still separate from the church due to how explicitly both the Book of Mormon and the Bible state that all men are equal and loved in the eyes of God. In the end, more than anything the church leaders may have said at any time, our scriptures are the core source of our doctrine, and it's clear from the scriptures that there is no excuse for slavery or racism of any kind.

[Starblade]

According to George Albert Smith (another church prophet),

Poor choice of words, sorry. Revolution or policy doesn't matter to me, I was saying it didn't start under Smith, as he actually did ordain black priests.

At its core, the church has no official stance on its position against homosexual unions other than "because God says so".

That's just it, though. The rest of the world doesn't care why; they're still going to see it as bigotry. A stance against homosexuality because God hates it is still a stance against it. Consider Proposition 8, and public reactions to the LDS. It'll be (and has been) the same for the barring of blacks from being ordained. It's still going to be seen as a racist action. This is why Romney has to be careful to not let the issue be brought up (though again, I doubt it will be). The election is going to come down to independents, and this will only hurt him.

[Moe]

At its core, the church has no official stance on its position against homosexual unions other than "because God says so".

What more does it need? What you're saying is that your church is officially against gay people getting married. So your church is discriminating against a minority. So, if Romney were to follow the teachings of his church, as President (as in President of the US, not President of Straight Americans) he'd be forced to either go against his religion or to support discriminatory policies. Isn't that going to be problematic?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

So this whole "you didn't build that" thing. What a pathetic display. 30s of googling revealed it as utter nonsense from the start, but the doubling down by Steve Doocey (as pointed out by Jon Stewart) really crosses the line. I've had good laughs calling Fox News 'Faux News', or a propaganda outfit, and so on. But this is sickening. Cutting out the middle of a clip, the parts that completely contradict what you are saying...? It's pathetic. There is no possible explanation other than he is blatantly lying. You can't cut up the clip like that without having seen the middle. When does this sort of thing become actionable libel?

For those who don't know what i'm talking about... just watch the Jon Stewart clip, since it contains both the video of what Obama said and the right-wing propaganda campaign.

[GeoffS]

"Sorry, this video is unavailable from your location"

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Huuurgh forgot about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZO7XOpwa8
^what obama said, though it cuts off immediately.

it's been framed as Obamasocialism, Obama, hating on small business owners, et cetera et. al.

can't find steve doocey's clip but he basically cut it in the worst possible way.

[Starblade]

My favorite part are the ads with some great work and "You didn't build that". Do tell, GOP, who WAS the singular person who built the Empire State Building?

[Aesaar]

At its core, the church has no official stance on its position against homosexual unions other than "because God says so".

You'll find that people typically tend to use "because God says so" as a way to legitimise and/or excuse their own beliefs. Not too many people these days think slavery is acceptable because the Bible says it is (Leviticus 25:44-46 is one such passage, if you're wondering).

[Belgarion]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19052054#FBM110282
This interested me and in particular this quote

"The sky is the limit here," says Michael Toner, former chair of the US Federal Election Commission.
"I don't think you can spend too much."

No wonder your country is fecked

[Nalkor]

Given the gravity of the overall situation, it's best to drop the pleasantries and say fucked instead of fecked. I want Obama to win because Romney wants to stop funding to Stem Cell research, and I believe that Stem Cell research can create a genuine cure for diabetes. I don't suffer from that thankfully, but my mom and stepdad do, my little brother may end up getting it later in life, and my dad got a gastric bypass surgery just to get rid of his diabetes. My mom briefly mentioned that a gastric bypass is a cure for diabetes, but I see it as amputating a foot because of a broken ankle like in the Civil War days, medicine needs to catch up so that irreversible surgery isn't the only surefire cure for diabetes.

Romney also wants to end Planned Parenthood, something my mom went into a great amount of detail about, how poor women will end up having children since there won't be any birth control. That'll just make them poorer and even less likely to support the economy and pay their taxes. Not to mention that making abortion illegal won't stop it, it'll just stop the safe practice of it where a doctor performs it, not some back-alley drug pusher looking for extra money. I hear Romney wants to cut funding to education and medicare to put more funding into the military. That option right there hurts my little brother's chances of becoming a Special Needs Education Teacher and could ruin four years of college for him.

I want Obama to win his re-election because I'm getting tired of seeing what diabetes is doing to my family and I don't want to see my little brother's dreams of a teacher be endangered, so this is all very personal for me.

[Jonny]

I hear Romney wants to cut funding to education and medicare to put more funding into the military.

Really? Why exactly does the US need to ramp up it's already ridiculously over teched and over priced armed forces? Who are you defending against, aliens?

[Aesaar]

Franz argues that US elections are "relatively cheap" when compared with spending on, for example, the US military operation in Afghanistan.

When one of your arguments to defend the massive cost of an election is : "It's cheap compared to invading and occupying a country", there are issues with your system.

[Starblade]

Not to mention that making abortion illegal won't stop it, it'll just stop the safe practice of it where a doctor performs it, not some back-alley drug pusher looking for extra money.

Just a quick reminder that abortion services are an exceedingly small percent of what Planned Parenthood does and they are by law not allowed to use federal money to fund said abortion services. Saying you want to get rid of Planned Parenthood is basically a dog whistle for "I want women to suffer more".

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States, which include contraceptives and abortions, among other services.[3][4] Contraception accounts for 35% of PPFA's total services and abortions account for 3%; PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served.[5][6][7]

...

Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $360 million in 2009).[43] By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions,[44] but some opponents of abortion have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds to be re-allocated for abortion.[45][46]

...

Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

...

Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that "no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition."

Imagine the kind of leftist pinko commie it would take to enact Title X.


Oh.

Who are you defending against, aliens?

All other living organisms on Earth.

[TDATL]

Who are you defending against, aliens?

If we don't, who will?

[Codex]

You'll find that people typically tend to use "because God says so" as a way to legitimise and/or excuse their own beliefs. Not too many people these days think slavery is acceptable because the Bible says it is (Leviticus 25:44-46 is one such passage, if you're wondering).

A lot of people do this, not just religious folk. I've seen people pick and choose what to believe when it comes to science; the overt kind of youtube intellectual who likes to rub it into people's faces how darn smart he is. Then you point out the error in their ways...

"THIS IS SCIENCE SO IT'S TRUE YOU DUMB FUCKS"
"But you do know science is primarily explanatory, and scientists accept that theories can change?"
"... FUCK OFF"

[Aesaar]

Absolutely. "Because science says so" is just as wrong as "because God says so", at least when the person citing "science" has no real understanding of what he's talking about. Buguba was just talking about religious people, so I responded to that.

And anyway, few people use science as a moral compass, so it's a poor justification for views on morality. The Bible, on the other hand, is nicknamed "the Good Book", and many Christians (by no means all) happily quote the parts that coincide with their views as an attempt to boost their moral authority, and ignore the rest.

In discussions about ethics and morality, I've seen religion used a whole lot more than science, mainly because science doesn't tell you how to live your life. But you are right, appeals to authority aren't good arguments, regardless of what that "authority" is.

Aaand we've gone off topic.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Only sort of. One of the current topics du jour is the Chik-fil-A boycott, which centers around justifications for morality with regards to gays.

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

Seriously, how could you? What has Chick-Fil-A ever done for you? Sold you some fatty chicken at a ridiculous mark-up? Made you chuckle at semi-literate cartoon cows? You mean more to me than KFC possibly could. If I, in turn, don’t mean more to you than a chicken sandwich from Chik-Fil-A–if my life, my quality of life, and my dignity are such afterthoughts to you that you’d not only refuse the boycott, but go out of your way to support someone who was hurting me? if I let this stand, if I don’t stand up to the bullies and if I let my friends egg the bullies on, what does that make me?

Let's not forget that the school voucher movement is leading into taxpayer money paying for the teaching of creationism (& other religious-right hobby horses).

[roflmao]

@TDS: Obviously, only right wing christian fundamentalist countries like Sweden and Belgium would think school vouchers are a good idea. America has got to protect itself from the religious propaganda of those european countries that are part of the school voucher movement.

[Nalkor]

It's mainly for Separation of Church and State as far as I can tell. You can teach about religions and how they impact the world in school, but you're not allowed to favor your own religion and start teaching crap from the Bible/Tora/Quran while in a public school.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Really not sure what point you are making there roflmao. Whatever you think of vouchers, its a statement of fact that vouchers are being used for creationist schools.

[roflmao]

My point is that he movement towards vouchers is not just a right-wing creationist thing. There might be a particular group of people who support it for that reason, but there are a whole number of fantastic reasons to support vouchers.

As long as you have a substantial percentage of the population with political influence backing up creationism, you'll have creationism be taught in public schools. What public schools means is that the system is controlled by politics, and if the politician in charge happens to be of a creationist brand (which is extremely likely), you'll get creationism. You don't free yourself of it by having government run institutions.

[Rukoth]

It's not completely unheard of, though. Think about how many times Rev. Jesse Jackson has run for president. The larger problem is the mistrust that some people have for people that aren't "mainstream" Christian; and even then it depends on what they consider "mainstream." I don't know if the Bishop thing will work against him, but if it does then it won't be because he's a religious leader but specifically because he's a Mormon religious leader. They'll try to get people to think that he's going to use the Presidency to push some shady Mormon agenda or to give Mormon leaders undue influence in Washington. (Similar things were said about Kennedy because he was Catholic, and he wasn't even a religious leader; people claimed that if he was elected then the Pope would gain control over the US government.)

I just want to point out, every single position in the LDS church is volunteer. No one is paid, there isn't a way to "rank up" due to study or whatever or any certification. Romney had been chosen for a time period to be a bishop and yes sometimes that can happen multiple times, but after your released from a position in a church your released, your no longer in authority in the church. Any type of calling in the church can come at any time to any person, so Romney being LDS does not mean he will have some "mormon" agenda if he became President. The church leadership isn't about to get involved in something so dicey and if you notice, the Church hasn't come out in support for or against Romney, because the church always stays away from Political standpoints unless it has to do with something that is in direct contradiction of church laws (a la, why we supported prop 8 in california).

Also, just a tiny fact I think you guys would like. Some if not most of you know that the church is big into Genealogy. Well, I don't have the exact history of when this started but for the past long while the church presents to each U.S. President in Office when they become President with a personal group of volumes of research regarding that Presidents lineage.

Heres the article actually: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...ma.html?pg=all

[Starblade]

America has got to protect itself from the religious propaganda of those european countries that are part of the school voucher movement.

It's kind of funny how you're being snarky about this when a significant part of the US has a general disdain for Europe and "european socialism".

[Homdax]

So the conventions are over and done with and the date of elections (being those decided by obscure state laws or not) is fast approaching.
From what I could read in to the speeches of: Romney, Obama, Eastwood, Clinton (no one else) I summize that Eastwood is getting old, Romney escaped from a car selling convention, Clinton would be a better president today and Mr Obama is facing some tough challenges.

Would it somehow be impossible to realize that US economy is dependant on global economy and that GM (news recently) is considering shutting down plants in Europe? I dont get it, we are global today. US economics or employment rates can not be improved much independently of a an european recession.

[Vipey]

I really really want to vote this year, because I really dislike how things have been going in this country, but... neither Obama or Romney are going to solve anything. The debt's going to stay the same or just keep getting worse, jobs aren't going to open up...
it's like what's the point. For ONCE I'd like for a candidate that isn't Republican or Democratic to become popular enough to contend in the Presidential Elections

[Guilliman]

Your only option is revolution! Hang the rich upper class!

That said. As a European, and I'm sure I share a lot of other people's opinions over here. Your election system is as full of lies as our multi-party systems over here. All are full of lies and much of the same promises. It's all about money and power, and the expansion of it.

[Vipey]

I know man, I just made a thread here in GD because of that shit. I know I'm not the only one sick of this world. Too bad the peons can't do anything about it. As funny as it sounds, a revolution isn't that bad of an idea... hahahahaha.

[Starblade]

I really really want to vote this year, because I really dislike how things have been going in this country, but... neither Obama or Romney are going to solve anything.

So don't vote for them. Vote for someone else. I'm not going to vote for the lesser of two evils again, even if the other person doesn't have a chance of winning.

[Stripe7]

In the US the head of the government is supposed to be a civilian I do not think any of the 4 candidates ever served in the military. Biden's son is in the Military, none of Romney's son's are in the Military. I believe when Romney thinks of the Military, he only thinks of the Military Industrial Complex and the money they make and not the troops. He would be all for big iron and not for training, big boats, big weapons systems and not the hundreds of thousands needed to train one special forces soldier. I think what we need now are special forces troops since our enemy is hidden distributed cells of terrorists in several countries and not a large country. I am sure we would be in a war with Iran within a year of Romney becoming President. All the foreign policy pukes he uses are the ones who advised Bush.

[Aesaar]

After seeing Eastwood's speech, half of me is convinced he was mocking the Republicans and/or the political climate as a whole.

[Homdax]

Actually, a bit of my impression as well. The whole Obama chair thing was a tad fun, but only for mindless shoota-boyz.

[Starblade]

It still strikes me as weird that Eastwood did anything at all for anyone. I recall reading a quote of his saying "why can't everyone just leave everyone else alone, who gives a shit who they are or what they do".

[Trinity]

I noted in the news today Obama got a much bigger bump in the polls from the democratic convention than Romeny did from the republican one.
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?...88619X20120908


In simlar news Obama's donation intake has spiked considerably and has for the first time in months outstripped the Romney money machine.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,1853434.story

[Moe]

They had the advantage of going second, and they reacted very well to the Republican one. Clinton's speech in particular was very well done, and he managed to hit that sweet spot between "well we would love to cooperate and we are inclusive of Republicans, but those darn career politicians just don't want to compromise" and "the other side has horrible ideas" that isn't perceived as outright bashing of the other side. Conversely, the Republicans had an all out Obama-hatefest, which in retrospect just makes them look petty.

It doesn't help that their campaign is all over the place with healthcare, and that they keep getting caught making false statements.

[Stripe7]

It does seem a bit hypocritical that whenever Obama takes a Republican idea and tries to implement it the Republican's are against it.

[Jonny]

I'm not American so I'm just getting halfassed BBC reports of what the candidates are up to, but it did appear to me the other week that Romney was bashing Obama for not keeping his promises when as far as I know the Republicans have gone out of their way to make sure he couldn't keep his promises over the last four years.

Also, Romney's teeth are too bright, his hair is too slick, he was introduced as being "prayerful" before anything else and he looks like he's trying to sell something dubious. I really hope he doesn't end up leading the US, he's looking more like a slick and polished G.W. Bush Jr. than anything else.

[roflmao]

Both DNC and RNC were just line after line of completely empty political rhetoric. Nothing more than the two biggest circle jerks of the year where likeminded people gather to cry and celebrate their religious level of commitment to their political party.

[Moe]

Well he's a mormon, so he has some pretty crazy beliefs. As long as he keeps those out of his policy decisions that's fine, but somehow I don't think that'll happen.

[Trinity]

...the Republicans have gone out of their way to make sure he couldn't keep his promises over the last four years

Probably nothing truer will be said on the internet today.

[Kirjava]

I believe the Daily Show played a clip of someone high up (Chair?) in the Republican Party flat-out stating two (four? I forget) years ago that their defined objective was to put a spanner in the works of everything Obama was trying to do. It really is flat-out ludicrous, and an incredible show of either hypocrisy or double-think, for the Republicans to then say, "Look at how much he hasn't done!"

[roflmao]

Meh, that's politics. Same thing happened with Bush. Everyone accusing him of only getting involved in wars when, at least in his second term, the Democrats blocked everything he tried to do domestically, including SS reform and immigration reform.

Hypocrisy is to think this is some Republican-only phenomenon, or that somehow the Republicans are a "dirtier party" because they engage in political demagoguery that is commonplace among both parties because that's how politics works.

To drive the point:
- Romney passes individual mandate.
- Obama opposes it.
- Obama passes individual mandate.
- Romney opposes it.

[Trinity]

He says with Nixon in his avatar.

[roflmao]

My avatar is awesome. Someone here gave it to me. I'm not changing it. Your argument is invalid .

[Starblade]

Someone find me the quote when Obama was sworn in (or was it when they gained majority? I don't even recall anymore) where the GOP declared they would do all in their power to make Obama's term a failed presidency or impeach him or something along those lines. This is a lot harder to find than you'd think it is. The Democrats are shitty but the Republicans, as always, lead the way in new levels of shittiness. But don't worry, in five to ten years the Democrats will catch up and the cycle of false equivalencies will begin anew, and the circle of life will continue.

Also roflmao's avatar is great.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Meh, that's politics. Same thing happened with Bush. Everyone accusing him of only getting involved in wars when, at least in his second term, the Democrats blocked everything he tried to do domestically, including SS reform and immigration reform.

Drawing that comparison is absurd. Bush had a blank check to basically do whatever he wanted for his first five years and he used it. The Republican effort to privatize social security is notable because it failed. (good thing too, given the financial crisis.)

Between that, Katrina, the wars, and the 2006 election, Bush was relatively stifled for much of his second term. But the notion he didn't get fair shakes is just crazy. The Democrats lined up behind Bush, verifiable fact. In comparison, nothing moves in the Senate without getting filibustered. It's so bad that the Republicans notoriously filibustered one of their own bills on accident. Let's not even get into the nomination blocks.

[Jonny]

It seems like America is suffering from the Iron Law of Bureaucracy, the ones who only care for the structure of politics and government have well and truly ousted those who care for what politics and government are there for, the best interests of the people.

[mlai]

Well said, Jonny.
I don't think it's that the USA magically no longer produces men like Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. I think it's just the special-interests-fueled bureaucracy that's corrupting every man of office who started out with potential, or stifling them into obscurity because they wouldn't play ball.

[Retroboy]

mlal, I'd agree, but there's a lot of other points that drive these types naturally away from the job. Here are two.

The candidates themselves have to want to be candidates, and good and smart people will go to where they can make a difference. As an example, for the previous four years we had a horrible mayoral experience within our city, with both a mayor and a council who had tremendous ego problems making terrible spending decisions to build effective large city-structure monuments to themselves, getting into lawsuits because they interpreted analyses into financial failures of pension boards that they sat on to be personal attacks, bullying others in the council, that sort of thing - and I knew of several natural candidates who I believe would have been exceptional in the follow-up position. But when I spoke to one he said there's no way he would run. Way too much of a viper's nest, having to deal with these awful people that the voters had elected to spend all of his energy fixing someone else's mess rather than advancing a worthwhile cause. So instead he remained a private business owner and helped his extensive staff keep a secure and well-rewarded livelihood. (Luckily only the best few of the council re-ran and were elected, and the mayor was soundly thrashed and given the boot). I have to think that this case study would apply to american politics, and that a lot of otherwise noble and potentially excellent candidates would simply choose not to wade in.

There's the impact of the instantaneous reach of the sound-bite-driven social and mass medias. In Jefferson's and Washington's day, there was no ability to take the slightest mis-step and have it twitterversed across the entire country in seconds. There were no loathsome Limbaugh's or O'Reilly's waiting to pounce on quotes that could be taken out of context. Every detail of your history couldn't be sifted through for the tiniest questionable act from your teenage years. You had to impress the people you met with your character and bearing and a hand-shake, not appear handsome and perfectly groomed for every single minute you were in the spotlight on TV. Heroes and inspirational politicians could be human back then, not perfect figureheads, and get the job done.

By the way, it's not the USA that "produces <such> men". It's that such men produce themselves, sometimes in the USA. Some people come by it or grow into it naturally and organically, but others show this when they are thrust into a situation where these qualities exhibit themselves and make this person shine. I'm curious if some of the people that we might consider "great" (Churchill? Trudeau? Clinton?) were complete cheeseballs earlier in their life and grew into their shoes only because their environment forced them to.

[roflmao]

Yes, the widespread media and internet is a double edged sword. It helps spread truth, but also helps spread lies. It keeps candidates responsible and honest, but holds their feet to the fire on trivial matters that should be irrelevant.

While I genuinely believe that most politicians have a genuine desire to help their nation, you cannot possibly think that you are the right person to guide a nation of 300 million people without suffering from a bit of an ego problem. I don't think it's even possible to get into politics without having a pride/ego problem, it's pervasive everywhere.

Last but not least, I have to fully agree with Milton Friedman when he says this:

”It’s nice to elect the right people, but that isn’t the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things.”

A great leader is, well, great to have, but democracy doesn't work if it requires great leaders to be elected all the time, as this is an unreasonable goal. Democracy works when it causes mediocre, even bad leaders, to make the right decisions.

I'm curious if some of the people that we might consider "great" (Churchill? Trudeau? Clinton?)

You mean this guy, right, right??