The 2012 Three Ring Circus AKA The US Presidential Election

[Ashmoria]

its not time for a new face. i like mr obama's face very much.

It's not a deal breaker, but it can't hurt that you could think about Obama during sex and not get turned off.

as opposed to thinkimg about mitt singing "america the beautiful"

way better.

[The Archregimancy]

I wasn't singling out Mormons - it was more the idea of tax donations to a religious institution I was querying; that Romney belongs to a church that requires its members to tithe, and that said mandatory tithing is tax deductible, perhaps adds an interesting twist to the query, but it isn't necessarily the core point.

Well, what happens when Mormons or Catholics don't pay the required tithe? Burn their house down?

Catholics aren't required to tithe.

Mormons aren't technically required to tithe, either, but those who fail to tithe appropriately are, I believe, ineligible to rise to higher ranks in their church.

There are no elaborate rules about calculating what to pay; Mormons regard it as a matter of conscience - something between them and God.

It's not something that a Mormon will take lightly, since tithing is one of the basic standards of judgement to test whether a person is worthy to receive the higher ordinances of the gospel.

At year's end everyone can attend a tithing settlement to declare whether or not they are full-tithe payers. The bishop or branch president is a witness for the Lord, and he records the declaration for the Church records. The correctness of the declaration is known only to the individual and God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... hing.shtml

Certainly, tithing is the primary source of the LDS church's income.

I'd be happy to be corrected by any Mormon contributors to the discussion if I'm wrong on any of the above.

[Northern Dominus]

Well, what happens when Mormons or Catholics don't pay the required tithe? Burn their house down?

Catholics aren't required to tithe.

Mormons aren't technically required to tithe, either, but those who fail to tithe appropriately are, I believe, ineligible to rise to higher ranks in their church.

There are no elaborate rules about calculating what to pay; Mormons regard it as a matter of conscience - something between them and God.

It's not something that a Mormon will take lightly, since tithing is one of the basic standards of judgement to test whether a person is worthy to receive the higher ordinances of the gospel.

At year's end everyone can attend a tithing settlement to declare whether or not they are full-tithe payers. The bishop or branch president is a witness for the Lord, and he records the declaration for the Church records. The correctness of the declaration is known only to the individual and God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... hing.shtml

Certainly, tithing is the primary source of the LDS church's income.

I'd be happy to be corrected by any Mormon contributors to the discussion if I'm wrong on any of the above.

Let's see, unmitigated greed, iron-clad hierarchy, institutionalized discrimination against minority populations....yup, no mistaking Mormonism for a distinctly American product.

[Frisivisia]

Well, what happens when Mormons or Catholics don't pay the required tithe? Burn their house down?

Catholics aren't required to tithe.

Mormons aren't technically required to tithe, either, but those who fail to tithe appropriately are, I believe, ineligible to rise to higher ranks in their church.

There are no elaborate rules about calculating what to pay; Mormons regard it as a matter of conscience - something between them and God.

It's not something that a Mormon will take lightly, since tithing is one of the basic standards of judgement to test whether a person is worthy to receive the higher ordinances of the gospel.

At year's end everyone can attend a tithing settlement to declare whether or not they are full-tithe payers. The bishop or branch president is a witness for the Lord, and he records the declaration for the Church records. The correctness of the declaration is known only to the individual and God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... hing.shtml

Certainly, tithing is the primary source of the LDS church's income.

I'd be happy to be corrected by any Mormon contributors to the discussion if I'm wrong on any of the above.

As someone who lives among the Mormons, I can honestly say that de facto, you need to tithe. De jure, maybe not, but in reality, it's necessary. I have an aunt that hasn't tithed for a while, but other than that, most people pay tithe.

[Ashmoria]

On the issue of Romney intentionally underdeclaring his donations to the Mormon Church (which is what the overwhelming majority of his charitable donations consist of, I think) in order to pay a higher tax rate, and thereby meet his campaign claim that he always paid over 13% of his taxes...

If he loses the forthcoming election, he can simply file a revised tax return claiming the full charitable deduction, and the US tax office will be required to repay the relevant amount.

So he'll likely still end up paying the 10.55% anyway.



On a related issue... Does it bother anyone over there on the other side of the Atlantic that the mandatory Mormon tithe to the LDS church (and, let's be fair, any donation to any recognised religious organisation in the USA) is tax deductible?

no

except for the queasiness when thinking about the mormon church. most americans go to church, most who go to church give money to church, most who itemize their deductions claim charity money given to their church (sometimes when they dont give any money to any church).

no one wants to get rid of that deduction.

....

but maybe mitt romney will work to get rid of the charitible deduction "loophole" in his quest to flatten tax rates.

[New Chalcedon]

Perhaps the whole "donations to churches as a tax deduction" thing can be shuffled into its own thread?

***

Oh, Jill. Jill, really?

It seems that Joe isn't the only Biden prone to opening his mouth and sticking his foot in.

Some responses on the YT video:

Erection 2012! Your vote counts!

Mrs. Biden is clearly very excited about the upcoming erection.

We are a nation of six year olds. And yes, I'm guilty of laughing at this.

Apparently Joe Biden is a Big Fucking Deal as well!

Although, I must admit that Mrs. Biden did handle the upshot of it with a great deal mor humour than I can see Ann Romney doing....given her recent lashing-out at Mitt's conservative critics.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Does the US exist in some parallel cartoon world or something?

What do you think?

Or this Republican gem:

[Wamitoria]

Romney had to pack his recent Univision Forum interview by busing in supporters, threatening to cancel the interview because Univision preferred a students-only audience.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/how-romney-packed-the-univision-forum

[Brassica Primes Cabbage Followers]

There is no reason for me to participate in or advocate a democracy of the bourgeoisie.

[The Nuclear Fist]

There is no reason for me to participate in or advocate a democracy of the bourgeoisie.

The alternative is handing over the leadership of your nation to the very people you condemn.

The true mark of wisdom is knowing how and when to choose the lesser evil.

[Brassica Primes Cabbage Followers]

If we are to remain confined with the two choices, then there is absolutely NO difference between the two.

If we involve other candidates that are in the disadvantage of the two-party system, the actions of quite a few of them would be mostly similar, those differing reverting back to the corrupt practices of today.

The "lesser of two evils" psychology is one of cowardice and complacency.

[The Nuclear Fist]

If we are to remain confined with the two choices, then there is absolutely NO difference between the two.

The quote button exists for a reason. And congratulations, you noticed that there are two choices. But they are similar in only the broadest, most vague ways.

That being that they both like their country and are both Capitalists and Americans.

The "lesser of two evils" psychology is one of cowardice and complacency.

And abstaining from voting is one of ignorance and laziness.

You choose the lesser evil as an acknowledgement that one is actively trying to make conditions for the nation as a whole better, where as the other would do the opposite. And meanwhile, you work as hard as you can to slowly build up a support base for whatever party it is you find yourself a member of. That's called actually doing something instead of fruitlessly complaining.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

If we are to remain confined with the two choices, then there is absolutely NO difference between the two.

True, but fighting against both gives an advantage to the major party (the Reps) who you would not vote for if you refused to abstain, as the Democrats lose voters more inclined towards them than Mitt's lot.

The "lesser of two evils" psychology is one of cowardice and complacency.

Complacency is believing that your abstention helps anyone except Mitt. Vote for the Democrats, build up a support base, and then override both.

[Khadgar]

There is no reason for me to participate in or advocate a democracy of the bourgeoisie.

Just for giggles, did you used to post here during the jolt days?

[Brassica Primes Cabbage Followers]

The forums I have had past membership of tended to frown upon quoting the person directly above you, so I've adapted to that behavior. (Edit: This statement now seems pointless with the new posts, but the following applies overall.)

They may espouse differing intentions (to some slight extent), but their actions have proven the same; assault of living conditions, working conditions, privacy, civil rights, freedom, continuation of war between bourgeoisie interests and sending the common person to fight for said interests. Every issue other than LGBT rights and Abortion, really, which isn't a federal issue.

I abstain from voting because the candidates' true intentions are merely for the ruling class, the wealthy elite and the government paid by them, who work to make sure that we are both satisfied and confused enough not to be a legitimate threat. The result shall be the same. They merely pandering to "different" ideologies.

The revolution can not be won through methods of the plutocracy.

More than half of the U.S. population has said that it would vote for a third party candidate. The only excuse not to is cowardice. Even though I acknowledge my dissent with such third party candidates, such consciousness by the public to dust of the shackles would be a step forward.

@ Khadgar: I've only been here for a few months.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

They may espouse differing intentions (to some slight extent), but their actions have proven the same; assault of living conditions, working conditions, privacy, civil rights, freedom, continuation of war between bourgeoisie interests and sending the common person to fight for said interests. Every issue other than LGBT rights and Abortion, really, which isn't a federal issue.

The distinction being that Democrats don't view welfare as evil to the same extent that I imagine Governor Ryan does.

I abstain from voting because the candidates' true intentions are merely for the ruling class, the wealthy elite and the government paid by them, who work to make sure that we are both satisfied and confused enough not to be a legitimate threat. The result shall be the same. They merely pandering to "different" ideologies.

Like I said, you're only helping the worse capitalists.

More than half of the U.S. population has said that it would vote for a third party candidate. The only excuse not to is cowardice.

Or perhaps because, without mass co-ordination, it's just people throwing votes away?

Even though I acknowledge my dissent with such third party candidates, such consciousness by the public to dust of the shackles would be a step forward.

Go out and do it, then, because consciousness is not achieved by a few individuals abstaining.

[Brassica Primes Cabbage Followers]

Both parties really enact the same measures relating to welfare. Further having businesses degrade it. There's not really any 'worse' candidate if both/all possess identical practices.

A mass co-ordination is something that would happen if not for cowardice and if people just voted their consciousness.

[Wamitoria]

Both parties really enact the same measures relating to welfare. Further having businesses degrade it. There's not really any 'worse' candidate if both/all possess identical practices.

A mass co-ordination is something that would happen if not for cowardice and if people just voted their consciousness.

Has your head been buried underground for the past 12 years?

[Brassica Primes Cabbage Followers]

I suppose it was somewhat otiose to post on a thread like this with my perspective. To make up for it, (if I were forced to by excessively physical methods) I'd endorse...



Let Vermin Supreme Run Your Life.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Both parties really enact the same measures relating to welfare.

Well that's demonstrably false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_p ... rack_Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... mic_policy
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_ ... overty.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Ro ... overty.htm

To equate Republican welfare policies with Democratic ones because they're both capitalist ignores the subtelties.

Further having businesses degrade it. There's not really any 'worse' candidate if both/all possess identical practices.

Which they don't.

A mass co-ordination is something that would happen if not for cowardice and if people just voted their consciousness.

But because people are scared and suppress their consciences with the belief that their vote is wasted, they don't co-ordinate, and won't. People don't overcome fear and entrenched mindsets en masse spontaneously.

[PapaJacky]

Both parties really enact the same measures relating to welfare.

Well that's demonstrably false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_p ... rack_Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... mic_policy
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_ ... overty.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Ro ... overty.htm

To equate Republican welfare policies with Democratic ones because they're both capitalist ignores the subtelties.

Further having businesses degrade it. There's not really any 'worse' candidate if both/all possess identical practices.

Which they don't.

A mass co-ordination is something that would happen if not for cowardice and if people just voted their consciousness.

But because people are scared and suppress their consciences with the belief that their vote is wasted, they don't co-ordinate, and won't. People don't overcome fear and entrenched mindsets en masse spontaneously.

He said parties, not candidates. In which case he'd be mostly right. We didn't get an expansive social safety net through 50 years without bipartisan support.

[Brassica Primes Cabbage Followers]

I don't base it on that they are capitalist, but with what the state of the world is under all rulings. Although Obama/Democrats pander to the centre-left with what they say, they appeal to the right with the actual actions of the Obama administration and their allies. Romney/Republicans pander to the centre-right with what they say and enact the same things as the Democrats. They both may make a lilliputian percent of space for proletarian wiggle room, (can't let them get too rowdy), but they both intend for the continuing increasing power and protection of the wealthy elite and wealthy elite interests, and the decreasing living conditions of the common person, while forcing the consequences of capitalist economic crises and war on the proletariat.

[PapaJacky]

I don't base it on that they are capitalist, but with what the state of the world is under all rulings. Although Obama/Democrats pander to the centre-left with what they say, they appeal to the right with the actual actions of the Obama administration and their allies. Romney/Republicans pander to the centre-right with what they say and enact the same things as the Democrats. They both may make a lilliputian percent of space for proletarian wiggle room, (can't let them get too rowdy), but they both intend for the continuing increasing power and protection of the wealthy elite and wealthy elite interests, and the decreasing living conditions of the common person, while forcing the consequences of capitalist economic crises and war on the proletariat.

Letting the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy end isn't exactly putting down the Proletariat?

[Not Safe For Work]

If we are to remain confined with the two choices, then there is absolutely NO difference between the two.

Not logically consistent. If that held true, there'd be no difference between being really cold and being really hot, when those are the two choices.

[Khadgar]

If we are to remain confined with the two choices, then there is absolutely NO difference between the two.

Not logically consistent. If that held true, there'd be no difference between being really cold and being really hot, when those are the two choices.

So sex with men and women, totally the same thing, since you only have two choices.