Loading 1 Vote - +

Given today's pool of candidates, my vote is leaning toward?

I'm a Republican - Voting for the GOP.
19 (21%)
I'm a Republican - Abstaining.
3
I'm a Republican - Obama is better. :-(
4
I'm a Democrat - Voting for the GOP. :-(
7
I'm a Democrat - Abstaining.
1
I'm a Democrat - Voting Obama.
27 (30%)
I'm Independent - Voting Independent.
1
I'm Independent - Abstaining.
1
I'm Independent - Voting for the GOP.
9 (10%)
I'm Independent - Voting Obama.
17 (19%)
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
-2 Votes  - +
Options by Anonymous

So our three options are: not voting, GOP, and Obama?

I would not vote for the GOP, but I would vote for Paul simply because the corporate media is hiding him.

The way the candidates are being handled is nothing short of disgraceful. The ‘debates’ are press conferences to identify which GOP candidate might be taking a lead; thus making him/her the new target to stop.
The electoral college will vote what is politically correct for them regardless of how their constituency voted. There will be a loud show at convention time that will not reflect the wants/needs of individual states.
Other than choosing what we are being spoon fed by the media, do we have any true alternative options?
The government safeguards put into place two hundred years ago are being trampled.
Can you tell me again exactly what our options are?

I think the problem is really that the GOP simply doesn’t have much in the way of viable candidates. Clearly, there’s a big chunk of their base that simply doesn’t like Romney, but the other candidates are jokes.

Perhaps the GOP has gone so far to the right that no reasonably sensible person having moderate political beliefs can gain any traction there.

Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul certainly make Romney look sane.

How can you tell. If he has the full LDS belief set then he would have to give some batshit crazy answers to certain questions. But I agree with you that on the campaign issues he looks quite sane against the background of the other candidates.

I think that there is a warning here about how a weirdo could slip under the radar if not properly pinged.

I think that there is a warning here about how a weirdo could slip under the radar if not properly pinged.

I don’t think that’s really the problem here. I think it’s the fact that they have been “properly pinged” that’s showed us how bad most of them are. It’s what’s let Romney look the best.

To be honest, I don’t see what it is that conservatives don’t like about Romney — from their perspective, he’s clearly more conservative than Obama, he’s not bug-shit insane like the other candidates, so what’s not to like?

I suspect the only real problem with Romney is that the GOP has set up a de facto religious test for office, and Mormons don’t qualify. I’m sure a lot of them are gagging on the fact that two of the other three choices are Catholic.

the GOP has set up a de facto religious test for office, and Mormons don’t qualify.

That seems like a reasonable assumption to me given the attitudes of the Christian conservative right – but it is one that no one can talk about without looking like a bigot.

I doubt if it would matter much what religion the President is under normal circumstances because personal beliefs get suppressed for political reasons. However, if is ever came to a crunch over a religious issue, say a clash with Islam, then the personal beliefs of the Commander in Chief could be highly influential.

I would prefer a Mormon President in that situation than a conservative, end-times-believing protestant.

Catholics are so pragmatic, tolerant, and accustomed to ignoring their church hierarchy, and their books, so that faith in a President would not make much difference.

Best of all would be a Chief who believes that all religions are bull shit, and who has made up his own mind using reason, education, and expert advice, in a consistent manner over his entire life.

Catholics are so pragmatic, tolerant, and accustomed to ignoring their church hierarchy, and their books, so that faith in a President would not make much difference.

Depends on the Catholic. Gingrich’s religion doesn’t much matter to me — he’s clearly just punching a ticket. He’s been married three times and each time switched to his bride’s religion, and each time treated it as if it were some big revelation. I don’t believe any of it. I don’t think he’s any more a Catholic today than he was a Southern Baptist four years ago.

On the other hand Santorum is also a Catholic. He’s kind of a weird Catholic, in that he seems to have adopted quite a few Protestant Fundamentalist traits that are actually at odds with Catholic dogma, but on paper, he’s Catholic. He very clearly does not fit your picture of “pragmatic, tolerant, and accustomed to ignoring … their books”. He recently accused Obama of having an agenda that wasn’t “Bible based” — as if Catholics ever much cared what the bible actually says.

Best of all would be a Chief who believes that all religions are bull shit, and who has made up his own mind using reason, education, and expert advice, in a consistent manner over his entire life.

Yeah — too bad that won’t be on offer for at least another decade.

Yes, Newt is merely a weather vane, pointing wherever the wind is blowing. Santorum is trying to have it both ways.

Santorum is nuts! Why on Earth would a 21st c President need to have an agenda for a country (having no state religion) basied on a Jewish/Christian Book from the Age of ignorance?

Christians who want that are no better than the Muslims who want to impose Sharia Law on us.

I haven’t had this discussion in a while, and my wife went to bed early, so…

If he has the full LDS belief set then he would have to give some batshit crazy answers to certain questions.

You ask the question and I’ll give what I think he’d answer. Then we can both decide how crazy it is. Ready, go.

You ask the question and I’ll give what I think he’d answer. Then we can both decide how crazy it is. Ready, go.

You asked for it. Here are but a few obvious ones.

President Romney, since you have your finger on the nuclear trigger which could destroy us all, we need to know how mentally stable you are. Therefore I would like to question you on your deeply personal beliefs.

Do you believe that:

  • you are a saint and and that you could become a god if you play your cards right
  • Are your religious beliefs predicated on a lost tribe of Israelites who migrated to North America and founded a new better form of Christianity among the indians
  • Have you been spiritually influenced by by Joseph Smith, a convicted con artist, from Palmyra, New York, who allegedly found golden plates, which he translated to become the Book of Mormon.
  • that God the father, who has a body of flesh and bones, told JS that all churches were an abomination and he must restore the true gospel.
  • that Joseph Smith joined one of these abominable churches.
  • a woman can’t get into heaven unless her husband lets her in and once there, she will get to be eternally pregnant with billions of spirit children.
  • Black people are inferior because they sat on the fence during the war in heaven.
  • that your underpants give you special status, powers or privileges.
  • The three Nephites were granted immortality by Jesus when he visited America. and that they may show up to change flat tires for stranded Mormons.

No offence intended Brandon. I think that all religious beliefs appear crazy when examined closely by a non believer.

I’ll let Brandon answer this, but you seem to be letting him off easy with all but one of your questions. The last belief is the only completely accurate and honestly asked question. All of the others have errors in the doctrine or facts stated.

Perhaps, but they are still questions that would be asked. Which one is valid LDS doctrine?

I think Romney’s response would be something like this:

“I’m running for political office, not church office. I suggest you go to official sources if you have doctrinal questions.”

My assessment of the craziness: 0. On a scale from 1 to 10. (Yes, that’s right. 0.)

I think that all religious beliefs appear crazy when examined closely by a non believer.

First, don’t say all. It makes it too easy to dismiss your whole argument.

Second, it’s not the closeness of the examination; it’s the bias and error.

I don’t think so. The media will make no effort to consider correct LDS doctrine when it frames its questions. On the contrary, it will formulate them in the most bizzare manner possible. They will assume (correctly) that the public is not interested in hearing correct LDS doctrine. They tried to make a muslim our of Obama and they will try to make a religious fool out of Romney. The media often asks questions on a 0 level of craziness.

Mine are not doctrinal questions. They are questions that are trying to discover if the new President believes weird stuff. For example if he believes that becoming a god is possible then perhaps he will come to believe that he has made it now that he is one of the most powerful people in the world. We do really need to know if the finger on the trigger is governerned by a sane rational mind. People in other countries having different faiths may be concerned that he intends to punish them. Every new policy that he is involved in will be scrutinised for Mormon encroachment.

Personally, I would be more concerned if he came from one of those fundamentalist Christian groups like (S Palin’s) that looks forward eagerly to the “end times”, but I presume that LDS is not so far towards the dangerously crazy end of the spectrum. Other Americans will not be so sure, He, and you, can look forward to him being probed on every aspect of his religious beliefs. LDS dogma and doctrine will come under an intense global spotlight. I wonder if it can stand up to that without wilting.

First, don’t say all. It makes it too easy to dismiss your whole argument.

I stand by that. Can you name one religious tradition that doed not have elements to its beliefs that are so improbable as to deserve to be called "crazy"by a non believer – I can’t (unless you consider athiesm as a religion). I think that if you were not a devout Mormon you would understand this better. Consider how a Chinese peasant, or a North Korean general, who has never heard of LDS will think when some of the new President’s beliefs are explained to him.

Yes, I agree the media will ask some ill-informed questions (as you did), but that won’t change Romney’s answer, imo – nor would it change mine if I were running for political office.

You (and the media) can choose to be paranoid and/or inflamatory. You can choose to make decisions that don’t consider the record in business and elected office of all others sharing Romney’s faith. You can choose to ignore the volumes of credible and official doctrine at your fingertips. None of that, however, is a good reason for Romney to turn himself into a religious spokesperson.

He, and you, can look forward to him being probed on every aspect of his religious beliefs. LDS dogma and doctrine will come under an intense global spotlight. I wonder if it can stand up to that without wilting.

I wonder how many will choose to persist in their misconceptions even after seeing what the spotlight reveals.

Can you name one religious tradition that doed not have elements to its beliefs that are so improbable as to deserve to be called "crazy"by a non believer

I find it hard to believe you’re really asking this, but I’ll indulge you: Love your neighbor as yourself.

I find it hard to believe you’re really asking this, but I’ll indulge you: Love your neighbor as yourself

You misinterpreted me. I intended “tradition” to have the meaning of “sect.” or discrete religious group, so it holds up.

On the remainder, I think you are being (understandably) over sensitive and defernsive.

LDS claims that the other Christian groups have gone off the rails and need to be reformed according to the teachings of their very own Prophet: much as Luther did with the Catholics (although Martin did not claim to have a prophet). If you are going to take such an offensive line, you should expect a lot of scrutiny and opposition you your claims.

Also, the man who becomes POTUS is given enormous power and should be questioned about any beliefs that could lead to bad decisions. This is not paranoia,

It’s odd you think I’m being defensive of my religious beliefs when that is precisely what I’m making a point not to do – both in my own commentary and in how I suggest Romney would respond to religious questioning.

On the contrary, I’m arguing against sentiments like this:

the man who becomes POTUS is given enormous power and should be questioned about any beliefs that could lead to bad decisions.

I’ll agree it’s not paranoia if you can give me a supportive model and the data to back it up. In other words, give me your testable hypothesis on how the belief set that comes along with being devout Mormon makes one less fit to be POTUS, and then check the data to see if it is supportive.

I am not aware of any Mormons who have held similar positions of power who could be used as models to test any hypothesis.

the man who becomes POTUS is given enormous power and should be questioned about any beliefs that could lead to bad decisions.

What is incorrect about that sentiment. Judgement of personal characterister is quite normal in the assessment of an individual’s fitness for high office. Essentially, it is a risk mitigation strategy that also applies formally in the Senate to all of the President’s appointments.

He lost me when he said that he would “repeal what he considers the bad aspects of the Affordable Health Care Act”http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/12/19/is-mitt-romney-committed-to-repealing-obamacare-part-deux/. I understand that he did support similar legislation as Governor, but that makes it worse. I think it is appalling that he would put his principles aside in the interests of shoring up support from GOP conservatives. Would he stand up to those like Marco Rubio who want to scrap it all? If you don’t like these principles I can get new ones (Groucho) Marx. Is that consistent with the core principles of the Mormons on helping the needy?

In his own words:
America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation — rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends. He promised better; we deserved better.
What utter tea bagger bullshit! President Obama made a valiant effort to protect ordinary folks from being destroyed by health costs. At best, Romney is too rich, and too far right, to understand.

There are lots of Mormons in high political office. All it takes is a quick search, Occams.

What is incorrect about that sentiment.

I explained in the previous post.

“I’m running for political office, not church office. I suggest you go to official sources if you have doctrinal questions.”

I’d have to agree with Occams, here. That answer is evasive.

The questions weren’t meant as a test of his knowledge of LDS doctrine. It’s legitimate to ask whether he believes these things.

Does he believe Jesus and Satan are brothers? That their father lives on a planet, named Kobol, that’s actually located physically out in space somewhere? That he’ll one day be a god presiding over his own planet?

You know that there are elements of LDS doctrine that non-believers consider weird, and it’s legitimate to ask whether Romney believes these things.

These days, relatively few American Catholics believe in a literal transubstantiation (though I’m sure Santorum does) — wouldn’t it be fair to ask a Catholic candidate whether he believed that bread and wine literally turned into flesh and blood when the priest says the magic words each Sunday?

wouldn’t it be fair to ask a Catholic candidate whether he believed that bread and wine literally turned into flesh and blood when the priest says the magic words each Sunday?

Fair to ask, but 0% crazy to avoid answering – and to get really annoyed.

If those asking the questions (including you) have serious concerns, then take serious truth-finding steps. No, I don’t mean read the candidates diary to discover what they believe on the subjects most different from what you believe. I mean put forward a valid and pertinent hypothesis and test it. For example, “Devout Mormons in military command positions accomplish their missions at a lower frequency.” Or, “Devout mormons in public office make a higher number of unprecedented decisions.” You know, something that actually proves these fears of yours have any merit.

I think any Catholic who was asked publicly whether he believed in transubstiation would have to answer yes or claim that he was no longer a Catholic. Otherwise he would be disowned by the church and most other Catholics. This is abelief that has been around for most of the last 2000 years and is held by hundreds of millions of people around the world, so it is not so unusual as to be considered dangerously crazy. It is much older than protestantism. It seems weird, even crazy, to non believers, (confirming my earlier statements), and even the RC church considers it a miracle. However, it can hardly be said to be a dangerous belief for a President.

I think the Catholic could admit to it without suffering political harm. JFK certainly would have. I also think Romney should simply admit to the core beliefs of Mormonism. That is what he is. Take it or leave it. He would probably be accepted by the majority, even if he endorsed each one of the core set of Mormon beliefs. At most you could say he is vulnerable to being conned by false prophets, which is not very Presidential. Sarah Palin’s apolyptic beliefs are far more dangerous but she almosat got away with them, until she was brought down by her other manifest inadequacies which made here religious beliefs seem trivial.

I also think Romney should simply admit to the core beliefs of Mormonism. That is what he is. Take it or leave it.

First, if anyone out there wonders whether or not Romney accepts the core beliefs of his religion, they just aren’t paying attention. He’s a devout Mormon. Everyone knows this.

Second, please tell me you don’t think what you (or Scott) have offered up as LDS doctrine even resembles “core beliefs.” The Church has had a well-known, published and canonized list of basic theological principles for more than 150 years … and I hope you’re able to see the difference.

I did not know it.

Those core beliefs will do. It was not up to me to nominate them. A great deal must be read into 7 and 8 if you follow the references. Does that mean that the lost tribe and Indians stories and the inscribed plates, angels, multiple wives, and planet the stuff Scott referred to is optional and can be rejected by a Mormon who is running for the Presidency?

How about this one.

President Romney. Do you believe that the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet and spokesperson for God?

Yes (is there another option for this answer?)

Then would you feel obliged to follow any instructions or advice that he gave to you from God regarding your role as President of the United States?

How would he answer that one Brandon?

Should a US President be beholding to a religious leader with delusions of grandeur?

Has the President the tight to make the USA subject to foillowing the instructions of any other person on Earth? I think not.

My answers to your five questions:

  1. [Something like I said before]
  2. No.
  3. See #2.
  4. No.
  5. No.

Come on Brandon! Get off that high horse. It is a reasonable question. Would he defy a Mormon leader who he believes is relaying the word of God?

I know that it sounds far fetched now, but if, say, the confrontation with Islam became much worse, then the religion dimension could become huge. I think a Catholic President would defy the Pope if he believed it necessary for the security of the USA. Could Mitt? Would Mitt?

The Catholic President would not fear excommunication, shaming, and being cut off from his family. That really does happen to Mormons who are deemed to be apostate. I am sure Mit has done it to others.

This could work the other way too. Suppose he is a very good president who achieves liberal reforms that his church does not like. The discipline of LDS is such that the Church could campaign against him having a second term. That would just be be democracy, but you have to factor in the discipline of LDS overcoming free will.
It is a vulnerability for the Chief.

I answered that question. Did you want details or something?

That really does happen to Mormons who are deemed to be apostate.

But what does it take to be an apostate worthy of excommunication? I’ll give you a hint: A lot more than disagreeing with the prophet about political actions.

I am sure Mit has done it to others.

Ok, excommunication isn’t funny – but this cracked me up. It’s just so, so far from the truth … and yet you’re sure about it.

The more I know how little you know about how my church works, the more I understand your odd opinions of it.

Suppose he is a very good president who achieves liberal reforms that his church does not like.

Like what, exactly? I know tons of liberal Mormons. (My Mission President’s wife once told me she didn’t understand how any upstanding member of the Church could be a Republican.) There are even Mormons serving as Democrats in Congress and as Governors.

The discipline of LDS is such that the Church could campaign against him having a second term.

First, please tell me what the “discipline of LDS” is. Second, yes, the Church could campaign against him … but is there any precedent for that? I understand there was Prop 8 in California, but can you name the last time the Church endorsed or came out against a specific candidate in any race?

the discipline of LDS overcoming free will

Can’t. Stop. Laughing. I’m going to use this “discipline of LDS” terminology thing. It’s great. It’ll go right next to “The Book of the Marmons.”

Perhaps I feel this way right now because I recently saw a TV doco about Mitt when he was “Bishop”. They intervied a woman who claimed that when she was having a baby out of wedlock, Mitt visited her and told her that she must give it to the church. She was terrified of excommunication, but the program did not make it clear that this had actually happened to her when she kept the baby. Nevertheless she was very alienated from the LDS anbd Romney by the experience. There was also an ex Mormon mother who was very disraught because she was prevented from attending her daughter’s wedding in the temple. I understand that non believers should stay away from services, but a wedding is a family occasion and a decent church should make allowances for that.

Then they interviewed a bunch of ex Mormons in Utah, including one who was Mitt’s second counsin, and looked a lot like him. He had come to the conclusion that the Mormon origins story was a great fraud perpetuated by the hierarchy in spite of its improbability, and the embarrassment it causes. He described how the church forbade his family from communicating with him. Another described how the church destroyed his business by making his customers stay away.

This is what I mean by LDS discipline. These are cult characteristics that no doubt the Mormon Church is trying to distance itself from as it craves broad community acceptance. Do you deny that this kind of thing has been typical, even if it is no longer true today? It is enough to make most people run a mile from the young men in the suits with all the answers.

I believe you about the existance of LDS Liberrals. Democrats are typically not Liberals, just centrists. LDS charitable beliefs would place people in the Democrat camp. I think it more surprising that Mormons can become Republicans.
So how many left wingers do the Mormons have?

I do not hate or fear the LDS. I merely think they are one of the sillier forms of American Christianity.

So. There are people out there that don’t like the Church or have grudges against it … The discipline of LDS! I don’t get it. Sorry.

Let’s take your example of the woman having a baby out of wedlock. If you’re a Bishop, you sometimes ask to meet with people who are struggling. So, you make an appointment with them (if they accept) and you talk about things – either at their home or at the church. You do your best to show them you love them and help them make good choices.

Oh, the discipline of the LDS!

People who sin aren’t excommunicated; people who fight against the church are. Think about it like a soccer team. You don’t have to be good at soccer to be on the team. You don’t even have to try to help your team succeed. All you have to do is not try to help the other team score goals.

The discipline! The discipline!

If you choose to get married in the temple, you know who will be able to go and who won’t. If there’s someone who doesn’t have a temple recommend who you really want to be at your wedding, then get married outside the temple in a traditional wedding and then later go to the temple to get sealed. Or, get sealed and then have a ring ceremony where everyone can attend. You can even hold it in an LDS chapel (for free).

The LDS and their discipline!

You’re trying to cobble together negative Internet whispers, a handful of experiences from disgruntled former members, and your anti-religion inclinations into a coherent picture of what the Church is like … and you’re failing. If you want to start discussing the Church in an informed manner, you’re going to have to put some time into real study or experience.

You do your best to show them you love them and help them make good choices.

That is not how she described the meeting.

If you choose to get married in the temple, you know who will be able to go and who won’t. If there’s someone who doesn’t have a temple recommend who you really want to be at your wedding, then get married outside the temple in a traditional wedding and then later go to the temple to get sealed. Or, get sealed and then have a ring ceremony where everyone can attend. You can even hold it in an LDS chapel (for free).

It was her mother for Heck’s sake. How would it hurt the church to let her be there? The point was clearly to hurt the mother.

Since you find it so strange, why don’t you try Googling “LDS discipline.” It is certainly not an unknown expression, on the contrary, it is a term used by LDS spokespersons..
It gets pretty silly.
This guy faced a disciplinary hearing for making a shirtless calendar

_*Church spokeswoman Kim Farah* declined to comment on Hardy’s specific situation, but said that “any church discipline is the result of actions not beliefs.” Decisions are made at the local level and are based on individual circumstances and merits, she said.
Members have been excommunicated for reasons including criminal activity and scholarly works of history or theology that contradicted church claims.

Then there is Informal Discipline

If you are gay or lesbian and your bishop knows it, you may have already encountered the Church’s system of informal discipline. As part of this system, a bishop may suspend your right to partake of the sacrament, hold a Church position, exercise the priesthood, or enter the temple. Thus, informal discipline allows a bishop to punish a member without holding a “disciplinary council” (a church court). According to church policies, a bishop can apply informal discipline to a person who confesses voluntarily, who commits the fault for the first time, who has not violated temple covenants, and whose situation has significant mitigating circumstances.

In the case of gays and lesbians, informal discipline works only for those who are willing to abandon their homosexuality. Through a program of frequent interviews, the bishop could attempt to control the most personal and intimate aspects of your daily life. He may ask you if you masturbate, if you have sexual fantasies, or if you are sexually active. He may suggest or require that you participate in some “ex-gay” group such as Evergreen. More dangerously, he may suggest or require that you undergo some form of so-called “reparative” or “conversion” therapy. Some bishops will even offer to pay for this therapy.

It was her mother for Heck’s sake.

For heck’s sake? Now you’re finally getting what Mormonism is all about.

How would it hurt the church to let her be there?

Letting anyone in who wants to come in defeats the purpose of having the temple in the first place.

You didn’t address that the decisions of the bride/groom and mother play just as big a role in the situation as the Church’s policy. And you didn’t acknowledge they have the options I described that would completely rectify the situation.

You’re trying so hard to make it seem like the Church is abusing this poor mother and it just doesn’t add up.

The point was clearly to hurt the mother.

Yes, actually the Discipline of the LDS hates mothers. The lot of them.

Now you’re finally getting what Mormonism is all about.

Yes, it appears so. Thanks.

It takes a while to break through the apologist bullshit and see down to the 19 th century Masonic roots of exclusion, secrecy, blood oaths, and pagan ritual.

These things have been witewashed out of modern LDS in the effort to gain respectability and appeal to the mainstream, but they are still there if you scratch the surface, as those witnesses I described testify.

You didn’t address that the decisions of the bride/groom and mother play just as big a role in the situation as the Church’s policy.

The Church policy considered the wishes of the family irrelevant, so I did not bother to go into them, except to assume that the desire of a mother to attend her daughter’s wedding was natural and human, and the desire to prevent that is the opposite.

Why can’t you accept that the mother did not want to return to the bosom of the church: she just wanted to see her daughter’s wedding.

Yes, actually the Discipline of the LDS hates mothers. The lot of them.

No. Only mothers that piss off the LDS.

and it just doesn’t add up.

No. It multiplies.

It takes a while to break through the apologist bullshit and see down to the 19 th century Masonic roots of exclusion, secrecy, blood oaths, and pagan ritual. These things have been witewashed out of modern LDS in the effort to gain respectability and appeal to the mainstream, but they are still there if you scratch the surface, as those witnesses I described testify.

Those are some old witnesses.

Why can’t you accept that the mother did not want to return to the bosom of the church: she just wanted to see her daughter’s wedding.

So why didn’t her daughter let her? All she had to do was have a ring ceremony (which would be exactly like a wedding) outside the temple.

No. Only mothers that piss off the LDS.

I think you mean the Discipline of the LDS. Let’s keep our terms straight here.

Those are some old witnesses.

Not really. Younger than me, all of them.

The mother said that her daughter wanted her to be there. I guess she wanted to be married in her church even more.

I think you mean the Discipline of the LDS. Let’s keep our terms straight here.

No it was, as you said, church policy.

Not really. Younger than me, all of them.

Hard to be young and a witness of something from the 19th century.

The mother said that her daughter wanted her to be there. I guess she wanted to be married in her church even more.

I can’t speak for what the daughter wanted, but I’m glad you’re talking about this in terms of complex family relationships and putting the power in the bride/grooms’ hands.

People all over the world have dreams of what they want their wedding to be. Some choose to fly to exotic places knowing that only a select handful will be able to join them. Some choose to elope and have no one there at all. Some choose to have multiple weddings to make things easy on dispersed family/friends. In all cases I hope those around the newlyweds are able to support them in what makes them happy. (I can testify from first-hand experience that this does happen. My wife is the only church member in her family.) It is, after all, not their wedding.

Hard to be young and a witness of something from the 19th century.

Harder still to eradicate all the vestiges of silliness from the 19 Century so much that traces of them cant be seen today. You only have to look at your undies to see some of those traces.

I broadly agree with the rest. I had a problem mainly because I am more familiar with churches that go out of ther way to admit people, and to foster familial love, rather than those that have polices to keep people out and separate kin (unless they all want to be happy in the church.

Harder still to eradicate all the vestiges of silliness from the 19 Century so much that traces of them cant be seen today.

Yes, yes – that is hard. A lot of silliness went down in those 100 years. Spontaneous generation. Children’s soothing syrups. The four humors. Treating wounds with mercury and coughs with heroin. Blood-letting.

You only have to look at your undies to see some of those traces.

I don’t see any 19th century silliness on my undies. I just see inscriptions of the chants I teach to my children to brainwash them into destroying all orphanages when they reach the age of destructionation (which is fourteen).

rather than those that have polices to keep people out and separate kin

Everyone draws the line somewhere.

Yes, yes – that is hard. A lot of silliness went down in those 100 years. Spontaneous generation. Children’s soothing syrups. The four humors. Treating wounds with mercury and coughs with heroin. Blood-letting.

Yes and in the USA, riverboat gamblers, carpet-baggers, vaudville magicians, and con men starting new religious cults.

I don’t see any 19th century silliness on my undies

My mistake. I thought you had a Masonic set square on one nipple and a Masonic compas on the other. Or perhaps you are senior and rate higher ranking symbols.

I thought you had a Masonic set square on one nipple and a Masonic compas on the other. Or perhaps you are senior and rate higher ranking symbols.

No, no, no. You have it all wrong. Us of the Discipline of the LDS need to destroy! We need tools to bring up a terrible generation of zombie warriors. Tools to accomplish evil. I mean, how much carnage can I do with a couple of covenant reminders? It’d be about as useless as those LiveStrong bracelets.

They say that the set square is there to remind you to do square deals and the compass is to remind you to stay within your limits. Harmless enough, just vestiges of 19th century thinking.

You really do have a big hang up on LDS discipline. I must have touched a raw nerve there. Have you received some, or do you dish it out?

They say that the set square is there to remind you to do square deals and the compass is to remind you to stay within your limits. Harmless enough, just vestiges of 19th century thinking.

Yes, integrity is quite old fashioned. And, of course, we of the Discpline of the LDS have no limits.

You really do have a big hang up on LDS discipline. I must have touched a raw nerve there.

It’s not a hang up; it’s hilarious and, more importantly, useful. I’ve always needed a way to easily reference the church people like you talk about – as opposed to the church I attend.

This is getting boring, but I did not invent the term LDS Discipline: an it is not an entity in itself but the way that Mormons control their flock. It is an integral and very formal part of the church you attend. It is not hilarious: it is simply pathetic in a modern religious institution. All the old churches had it at some time in the past. Catholics, protestants and puritans- burn the heretics. The LDS are mild by comparison, but it is still a quaint anacronism, and apparently so curious that you cannot believe it. Google is your friend.

My thesis is that it is a hangover from the early days of the LDS when it was strongly influenced by Masonic ritual, and that was because Joseph Smith was a Mason. Masonism was very strong in the 19th century, pervading business, politics and the judicial system so much that there were claims that ex masons had been murdered for revealing all, and the killers could not be prosecuted. The concept of secret ritual with severe penalties for those who betray the secrets is very Masonic. So when JS started his own cult he introduced some of that Masonic cultic behaviour. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it looks that way to a casual observer.

Google is your friend.

If only scholarship was yours.

You’re trying to paint a picture of something sinister and ugly (even devilish), but in the end all you have are appeals to emotion and I’ve heard a thousand times. Sorry if it bores you, but it’s hard for me to take that seriously. Hopefully one day you’ll decide to try your hand at some real study. Until then, we can keep playing this fun Discipline of LDS game.

appeals to emotion and protests I’ve heard a thousand times

Hopefully one day you’ll decide to try your hand at some real study.

I cannot study the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It is all so improbable, historically and scientifically inaccurate and inconsistant. Most of all it is so dull in comparison to all the genuinely informative books that I don’t have time to read. Life is too short to read any book more than once. Study is a sure way to reduce any otherwise appealing subject to torture.

I think the Mormons are pretty harmless but deluded people, and I have great difficulty seeing how someone who is so obviously intelligent as you are can buy that whole fantastic Mormon story. I can’t accept that, and this is why I have to assume that you realy know it is all fake. I know that you must know better. I grant that the sect does many good works and enables its followers to have fulfilling, wholesome and productive lives.

In Samoa and elsewhere, I have seen your young naive missionaries, who have hardly yet lived themselves, pressing mature but trusting islanders who have converted enthusiastically to Christianity. THey convince them to shed their deeply held (but still delicate in terms of understanding doctrine) Christian faith and take up the whole impossible American Mormon belief set. That is what is really irritating about Mormonism to me – the sheer self righteous arrogance of it all.

We have discussed this before and I know that you believe that all people are equally fair game wherever they live and whatever they believe now. This is wrong.

The discipline thing is not really significant because it can be easily rationalised away as pastoral care, as you have done. It probably only really matters when it divides families. I don’t even think that is done from malice, but from a genuine but misguided conviction that these people must be saved above all else – even from their loved ones, and it does not matter in that context if anyone gets hurt. THis is wrong too.

I have great difficulty seeing how someone who is so obviously intelligent as you are can buy that whole fantastic Mormon story.

That’s probably because…

I cannot study the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

…assuming by “study the Book of Mormon” you also mean “study the religion that goes along with it.”

We have discussed this before and I know that you believe that all people are equally fair game wherever they live and whatever they believe now. This is wrong.

Fair game to what … approach them on the street and talk to them? Anything more than that and teaching those sincerely involved – as well as regular service and study – isn’t what the missionaries are there to do. Not sure where the problem is.

a genuine but misguided conviction that these people must be saved above all else – even from their loved ones, and it does not matter in that context if anyone gets hurt. THis is wrong too.

I don’t follow you. Are you saying it’s wrong to choose a religion that differs from your parents?

you also mean “study the religion that goes along with it.”

Yes, even less interesting.

Fair game to what …

Fair game to have contempt for what they believe (broad Christianity, the work of other missionaries) and to take advantage of their openness and innocence of the western religious spectrum to corner them at one extreme end with the strange beliefs of a small secretive American sect.

American youths should go to places like that to broaden their own outlook by learning about other cultures, and not to impose their own narrow world view on others.

Are you saying it’s wrong to choose a religion that differs from your parents?

I have no problem with people changing their religious beliefs, only with those who make it their goal to change other people. More respect; live and let live; you don’t know it all.

Yes, even less interesting.

So, you’re interested in claiming to know what you’re talking about online, but not interested in studying enough to actually know.

I guess that explains a lot.

And did missionaries mug your grandmother or something? Sheesh.

Missionaries present people with a choice: learn more or not. You disagreeing with how some respond to that choice doesn’t mean there was force involved.

No, this started because you dared me to put questions about his faith to an LDS President of the USA.

In doing so, I played the part of the media – which is not in the least interested in what you consider to be the truth about your church, but is very interested in the crazy aspects. I have maintained that role.

Missionaries present people with a choice: learn more or not.

No, it is not that simple. The choice is not as clear as that to them. Thes people have special needs, and they want to learn about all the good things that the developed world can bring them. The early missionaries were carrying the credibility and authority of the developed world to unsophisticated people still living in the iron age. They had a social responsibility to respect and preserve the unique cultures that they encountered.

Sure, they often did good work in health and education, and the 19th century missionaries in the South Pacific took great personals risks and endured much hardship to achieve what they did. Even so, missionaries are responsible for untold destruction of the cultures of indigenous peoples all over the world. It is perhaps most recent, noticeable, and regrettable in the South Pacific.

I imagine that your don’t care attitude was typical of LDS missionaries.

If you’re playing a role with all of the anti-Mormon stuff, then the Discipline of the LDS charade was oddly appropriate.

I imagine that your don’t care attitude was typical of LDS missionaries.

Outside of my family, I can’t think of a group of people for whom I cared more than those I met/taught/served on my mission.

the Discipline of the LDS charade was oddly appropriate.

Its all out there now and it won’t go away however much you mock its existence.

I am sure that you did care for your converts, but all from within the narrow perspective that you were saving their souls according to the beliefs of LDS. Anyway, they were Europeans weren’t they. How many are still in the LDS. Now there is a free kick for you.

Its all out there now and it won’t go away however much you mock its existence.

I don’t think Brandon is saying that the things listed in that link don’t exist, only that this idea of the LDS church being very police-state like is inaccurate. When I read your posts, I get the image of big-brother-esque reporting and punishment. And it isn’t like that. Well, maybe except at BYU, but that is a whole different and creepy world. One which Brandon and I, as former students of Texas A&M, aren’t well versed in.

Typical members just don’t have to deal with this except under situations where they bring their problems to their congregational leader/bishop. So my and Brandon’s experience does not in any way jive with your understanding of it. That’s all. Not to say unnecessarily overreaches never happen, but the high irregular instances that you read about are drowned out in the multitude of interactions that are the norm. I’m pretty sure that is why he is mocking your term “LDS Discipline”.

Thanks, that is reasonable and helps. I only pushed that discipline point because Brandon tried to dismiss it as amusing and histerical.

I can well accept that LDS has a pastoral interest in its followers that causes it to attempt to intervene if they appear to be losing the faith, or attacking their church, but which is not intrusive in other matters, and not at all like the pressure exerted in the more cult-like sects. Sadly, he did confirm my understanding that families may be damaged by church discipline regarding association with those who leave. Therefore there will always be some very hurt people around who are willing to talk to the kind of media who, in order to damage a President, will be happy paint it as a typical religious cult.

I can imagine what it must be like at BYU, and how that would not appeal to a couple of techo Aggies. I don’t doubt that a person could get an excellent education there in many subjects, but the idea of any religion dominating university life repels me too. That is the time of life when one should be exploring and experimenting with new ideas and not be dealing with academics who believe that they have all the answers. To be fair, it might be just as bad at a Baptist or Jesuit school as at one run by the LDS.

Sadly, he did confirm my understanding that families may be damaged by church discipline regarding association with those who leave. Therefore there will always be some very hurt people around who are willing to talk to the kind of media who, in order to damage a President, will be happy paint it as a typical religious cult.

A couple of things: Families may be damaged, but that’s really up to them. I have a gay sibling who regularly and openly attacks (I use that word with caution, but really it’s the only accurate description… “criticize” wouldn’t do it justice) it. I’m not saying he doesn’t have legitimate beefs, but he would be an ideal example of a person who the LDS has interest in isolating/shunning/whatever. No one in my family has ever been asked to disavow or shun or do anything negative to him. It’s just not an issue. That being said, I know members who act differently in the same situation. It’s just a call that the families make, perhaps with a cultural pressure to avoid discussion about it by disengaging with the “problem” individual.

I totally agree that Mormonism will probably always have to deal with the cult thing. It may not feel fair, but there’s a lot to deal with. It’s a highly hierarchical church and it’s strict about lots of things people find wacky (coffee, tea, pretty much anything having to do with sex, etc). It has non-public aspects. It has a ton of controversial events that it has to answer for anytime someone searches for “polygamy” or “Mountain Meadows” or any number of things.

This election, it will just come down to whether Americans decide they want an alleged closet muslim (who regularly attended a controversial church?) or a crazy cult leader (who desperately wants to be seen as “one of the guys”) as the president.

I can accept all that.

Perhaps the LDS will in time come to relax about those things which cause it problems and are not really important to its message.

For example, I saw on You Tube a TV program, Q&A, from Australia last week, in which the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Pell, a notorious conservative, was questioned with Richard Dawkins, on his personal religious beliefs.

He conceded among other things that I don’t remember that:

  • original sin does not make sense in relation to children;
  • that many intolerably disgraceful things are advocated in the Old Testament and must be ignored;
  • that Genesis is merely a story designed to give a message about the requirement for redemption to an unsophisticated Hebrew people;
  • he did not believe in eternal souls, but a ressurection of the body in the future;
  • that atheists could go to heaven;and,
  • that homosexual unions should have all the recognition, rights, obligations and privileges of marriage, but without that name.

I am not a fan of Pell, mostly because of his recalcitrant attitude to women and paedophiles in the church, and I expected Richard Dawkins to wipe the floor with him intellectually. But he didn’t, although the professor won the debate on reason in my view. While Pell had to stick to the core catholic doctrine ( he failed to convince on transubstantiation) he made these concessions which I think most catholics would regard as enormous. These are not by any means new ideas to progressive Catholics, but it was really something to hear them coming from Pell.

I think this is an example of a church adapting to modern realities, without giving up its principles. The alternative would be to be consigned to oblivion.

Would he defy a Mormon leader who he believes is relaying the word of God?

I answered that question.

And I think you answer was “Yes”, without any explanation.

So that means that Mitt either does not believe that the Mormon President channels God the Father, or that he would be prepared to defy the word of God. Which is it?

Sigh. Here are your questions with the answers I gave (expanded in some places):

Occams the interviewer: 1. Do you believe that the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet and spokesperson for God?

BrandoMitt: [ Something like I said before. In other words, avoid discussing religious beliefs and focus on the politics. ]

OTI: 2. Then would you feel obliged to follow any instructions or advice that he gave to you from God regarding your role as President of the United States?

BrandoMitt: No.

OTI: 3. How would he answer that one Brandon?

BrandoMitt: See #2. (Because that’s where I answered it. Get it?)

OTI: 4. Should a US President be beholding to a religious leader with delusions of grandeur?

BrandoMitt: No.

OTI: 5. Has the President the tight to make the USA subject to foillowing the instructions of any other person on Earth?

BrandoMitt: No.

Please can we move on now? Tell me some more about the weird cultish stuff I do at church.

It’s really funny to hear you talk about what’s optional and what’s not. That’s just not how things work. Sure, if you want a temple recommend you need to have a testimony of certain things (Christ, the Restoration, etc.), but you can disagree with every bit of doctrine and still be a Mormon.

… but you can disagree with every bit of doctrine and still be a Mormon.

I have a problem with that line of thinking. If you don’t believe in the doctrine of X, you’re not X. At that point you are some derivative of X. And that really draws to question, if you don’t believe the alleged word-of-god as defined in the doctrine of X, then what is the basis of your belief unless you are a prophet yourself? If nothing but “gut feeling” … then you really have to admit you’re just believing in personal fantasy.

You either believe a religion’s dogma or you don’t.

Yes, yes. Of course. My statement is in reference to what it would take for the Church to remove you from their rolls: Either you ask for them to remove your name, or you fight against the Church.

See, on the one hand you have people trying to paint the Church as being horrible and abusive for kicking anyone out, and on the other hand you have people saying the Church is inflating its numbers by not removing the people who don’t “really believe.” Kind of a Catch-22, don’t you think?

From the general context, yes, I agree with that.

… people trying to paint the Church as being horrible and abusive for kicking anyone out …

I suppose that makes me the exception then as I view this behavior as exactly what it needs to do.

And all of the congregations of expelled folks that are based on nothing but “this is what we feel” should just be called community centers or clubs … not churches. Just my opinion.

What would Jesus do with people who are not fully committed to his teachings?

Good point. You have the woman taken in adultery who he forgave and urged not to sin anymore. And then there’s his reaction to the moneychangers in the temple. Clearly different reactions in different circumstances.

I don’t see your point. His reactions were opposite for behaviour that was opposite.

The Prostitute thing was about love and forgiveness and the moneychanger thing was about preserving the scactity of the holy place.

If the moneychangers wanted to copy the prostitute, stop it, repent and seek forgiveness, he would have given it to them.

It the prostitute wanted to do tricks in the pews, he would have kicked her out.

Exactly. It comes down to what’s in the heart of the offender – which is as it should be, imo, even though it doesn’t make for a very transparent or documentable interaction.

Now, tell me what you think would happen if Jesus had a policy of not commenting on any of such disciplinary measures but those disciplined had their way with the media.

It comes down to what’s in the heart of the offender

Well it was mone in the hands of the money chaners, and for a prostitute it would not be what was in her hart, but eleswhere.

Now, tell me what you think would happen if Jesus had a policy of not commenting on any of such disciplinary measures but those disciplined had their way with the media.

Yes such a policy could lead to misunderstandings – perhaps that is why he doesn’t have one.

The lack of LDS official comment does not make the witnesses false.

Cults usually have lots of survivors who will talk to the media.

Yes such a policy could lead to misunderstandings

You were so close to getting out of your rut there. But then…

The lack of LDS official comment does not make the witnesses false.

Right – it just means you only have one side.

Cults usually have lots of survivors who will talk to the media.

The Discipline of the LDS let out survivors! This just won’t do.

The Discipline of the LDS let out survivors! This just won’t do.

Thast is a big problem for the cultish religions. They lose their disciplinary hold when members leave: unless they all take the Kool Aid.

It’s like you’re a fly on President Monson’s wall. Amazing.

Discipline! Discipline! Discipline of the LDS!

It may be a bit of a Catch-22, but there’s nothing inconsistent or strange about it. It’s not the same people making both complaints.

I have no problem with the church kicking out anybody they want to — for any reason. On the other hand I think LDS does inflate its membership numbers to make themselves seem more relevant.

I agree with Nasty Princess.

but you can disagree with every bit of doctrine and still be a Mormon.

I think not. You may still be enrolled and contribute your tithe, but you would be a ginormous hypocrite. If you made your non beliefs known publicly you would be visited by some elders who would give you a hard time.

If you made your non beliefs known publicly you would be visited by some elders who would give you a hard time.

Hahaha. Please, Occams, tell me how I can get this conversation to go on forever. I was going to watch an episode of Doctor Who tonight, but I think I might just try and get you to explain more about the sinister inner working of the discipline of LDS. Hilarious.

Seriously, what is it you think should happen if someone starts to fall away? Kick them to the curb? Hold a prayer meeting outside their house? Text them?

No, you’d try and visit them to tell them you love them, help them with any concerns they might have, and let them know they’re welcome back.

But if they didn’t break, you’d have to slash their tires on the way out. Or at least come back and TP their house later. I mean, it’s not a church of wusses.

No, you’d try and visit them to tell them you love them, help them with any concerns they might have, and let them know they’re welcome back.

Or threaten them with excommunication and to cut them off from their family.

Are you claiming that the LDS Church does not have Disciplinary Council?

Bishops and branch presidents and stake, mission, and district presidents have a responsibility to help members overcome transgression through repentance. The most serious transgressions, such as serious violations of civil law, spouse abuse, child abuse, adultery, fornication, rape, and incest, often require formal Church discipline. Formal Church discipline may include restriction of Church membership privileges or loss of Church membership.

Formal Church discipline begins when a presiding priesthood leader determines that it is necessary to hold a disciplinary council. The purposes of disciplinary councils are to save the souls of transgressors, protect the innocent, and safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

Church discipline is an inspired process that takes place over a period of time. Through this process and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, a member can receive forgiveness of sins, regain peace of mind, and gain strength to avoid transgression. Church discipline is designed to help Heavenly Father’s children in their efforts to be purified from sin through the Atonement, return to full fellowship in the Church, and receive the full blessings of the Church.

Or threaten them with excommunication and to cut them off from their family.

That’s right! I told you; we aren’t wusses in the discipline of the LDS. You gotsta smack them upside the head with the Book of tha Marmons and teach them who’s boss!

It’s like the Sopranos mixed with Scarface mixed with Metallica mixed with a pit bull mixed with Marilyn Manson.

Mixed with brass knuckles.

Ok, seriously:

Are you claiming that the LDS Church does not have Disciplinary Council?

No, the description you posted there is accurate. How you get “threaten them with excommunication and cut them off from their family” out of that I don’t know.

How you get “threaten them with excommunication and cut them off from their family” out of that I don’t know.

You get it from victims who are willing to speak about it publicly.

If those asking the questions (including you) have serious concerns, then take serious truth-finding steps.

I actually don’t have serious concerns. I don’t think he can actually win, and I think that he’s the best the Republicans have on offer at the moment even if he did have a chance.

Of course, the conservative side of the aisle repeatedly insisted that Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity was somehow material in judging his worth as President. It seems to me that these beliefs in the ridiculous are just as indicative of the man’s “character”, and if the Clinton witch hunt was at all justified, then so are these questions.

That’s an interesting point (about Clinton). If you can’t demonstrate it makes him less able to perform the essential duties of the POTUS, then why does it matter?

You could argue that “being of upstanding moral character” is pretty high on the list of desirable traits, though – possibly even essential. Once someone lies about one thing (whether it’s to his wife, the media, etc.), doesn’t it compromise his/her integrity?

Your argument seems to be that if one has an irrational religious belief set, then it compromises his/her rationality in the same way. It’d be interesting to see a study on that. In other words, compare the rate at which those who cheat in their marriage are dishonest in their occupations with the rate at which those who have faith-based religious beliefs make irrational choices in their occupations.

If you can’t demonstrate it makes him less able to perform the essential duties of the POTUS, then why does it matter?

That is an unreasonable test. When we are employing or appointing someone to a sensitive position we have to use our own character assessment. We compensate by alloting the task to an hopefully diverse interview panel. Such panels are not usually required to be able to demonstrate that their assessment is true.

Anyway, Clinton gave his reason for stating that he did not have sex with that woman : oral sex does not count_. Quad est demonstrandum, because for a President representing the USA to the world, it certainly does count.

Other than choosing what we are being spoon fed by the media, do we have any true alternative options?

We should change the Presidential election system drastically. The primaries method has proven to be excessively expensive and divisive in the modern media age, and largely ineffective in nominating the best candidates.

I think it would be better for all of the primaries to take place on the same day, which is preceded by a year during which there is a ban on all political advertising in the electronic media and press.

Promotion of candidates should be done by the closed circulation of pamphlets from candidates to party members, and by debates, forums etc.

Only registered party members should have a vote on the nomination of their party. If any members do not by all-primaries-day already know the relative worth of their party candidates, then they should not be in the party and have not shown enough interest to deserve a vote. The rest of us would be spared all the party infighting and dishonest crap that goes on during primary campaigns, unless we want to track it for the party for which we have registered.

As it is, we are making the most essential characteristic (without which there is nothing) for a future president be his ability to raise campaign funds. They say Obama will be raising a $billion. I think there are much more important selection criteria.

The primaries method has proven to be excessively expensive and divisive in the modern media age, and largely ineffective in nominating the best candidates.

While I agree with you on the charges of divisiveness and ineffectiveness, I’m not so sure about cost.

I just saw a report the other day that showed the cost of the nomination hasn’t even kept pace with inflation over the last fifty years or so.

I think it would be better for all of the primaries to take place on the same day, which is preceded by a year during which there is a ban on all political advertising in the electronic media and press.

What’s the point of that? The problem is that the electorate is already too ignorant of the candidates and the issues — a year long media blackout, followed by the primary elections is guaranteed to end up worse than high school student council elections. You’d end up with the guy who has the best head shot winning. Derek Zoolander for president? I suppose he’d be an improvement on Santorum, but that can’t possibly be what you’re after.

As it is, we are making the most essential characteristic (without which there is nothing) for a future president be his ability to raise campaign funds. They say Obama will be raising a $billion. I think there are much more important selection criteria.

But campaign fundraising — under some reasonable conditions — is a reasonably good proxy for the candidate’s worth. It’s not as if the money comes from his own pockets — he has to go out and convince people he’d do a good job in order to get their money.

Right now, we have a problem in that those reasonable conditions aren’t enforced. When the Supremes declared anonymous campaign contributions to be free speech, they made it possible to simply buy an election. Back before the Citizens United decision, there were limits on how much an individual contributor could give. Put those kinds of limits back in place, and campaign contributions start to look like votes — it’s not one-man/one-vote, but it’s a reasonably faithful proxy for it.

Im so disappointed with the whole lot of our current choices for president, no matter the party, that I’d rather vote for my 1 year old….and she’s currently engaged in throwing Chex cereal all over our kitchen floor and screeching like a mad cat. Once again, I’m embarrassed by our candidates.

Term limits! Term limits! Term limits!!!!

0 Votes  - +
Executive Experience by Jackson

I don’t know a better place for this, so I’ll plop it down right here. I understand that the GOP used the “he has no executive experience” argument when Pres. Obama was running in 2008. He didn’t really have that experience. He was a state senator for 7 years and a U.S. senator for about half of a term. Fine.

Fast forward to 2012. Why am I still hearing this argument? Does any experience (executive or not) prepare you for the office of the president better than holding the office of the President? It seems that is a ridiculous charge to make against a sitting president.

Maybe you don’t like his decisions, but Obama has almost four years of experience of being the POTUS. I think you need a better reason than “lacks experience” to deny him four more.

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

What if a spouse cheats?

16 votes, 4 comments