USA Presidential Candidates

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The greatest leader I have ever met was a training manager in a call center. He could have done anything he wanted, but did that.

Jeez - every day makes this whole thing not only insufferable, but so bread-and-circus. What would be the proper way to spell "circusy" - as in, an adjective describing something "like" a circus, but not "really" a circ ----------------

oh wait..........

nm??

*researching*

Elephants gestate for 640-645 days depending on species....but since we are dealing with a North American elephant (as opposed, of course, to an Asian or African elephant) -


we only have to endure this for 502 more days - so, that's good! (I mean, compared to an Asian or African elephant, right? Get it outta me!!, you know.)
But then, of course we'll still have those 60 more days to prepare before the elephant winds up in the Oval Off room.
....wonder if it will be the baby elephant, or the mom elephant.....

Yeah, I'm thinking it will NOT be the trainable, smaller, adorable baby elephant, either....but the mother of all elephants -

I think her name is American Politics (but it might be Emmessem - I get confused.....)

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sadly, circusy sums our political candidates rather well!

Worse yet, I don't see it getting better anytime soon!

I don't like ANY of em...

quick question (excuse my ignorance)

If there is a separation between church and state, how can politicians run with their Religious ideologies as the Base of their issues?

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
quick question (excuse my ignorance)

If there is a separation between church and state, how can politicians run with their Religious ideologies as the Base of their issues?

The "separation" only means that government cannot sanction a state church or a government-approved religion.

Everything else, though, is on the table.

a reply to: beezzer

Everything else, though, is on the table.

Remember back in 2012, when there was all that row about preachers 'endorsing' candidates?
I heard a fantastic "Fresh Air" bit where Terri Gross interviewed Stephen Colbert (the real guy, not his character) about that very issue.

Should preachers be allowed to promote a certain voting strategy to their "flock"? It violates the sentiment of separation, I think.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: beezzer

Everything else, though, is on the table.

Remember back in 2012, when there was all that row about preachers 'endorsing' candidates?
I heard a fantastic "Fresh Air" bit where Terri Gross interviewed Stephen Colbert (the real guy, not his character) about that very issue.

Should preachers be allowed to promote a certain voting strategy to their "flock"? It violates the sentiment of separation, I think.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution ONLY limits government.

It does not limit anyone else.

a reply to: beezzer

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution ONLY limits government.

It does not limit anyone else.

And I take issue with that.
If a church doesn't pay taxes, why should they be allowed to influence who is in charge on Capitol Hill or in the White House?

Likewise with off-shored giant corporations - if they are skirting the law and their civic duty by doing business abroad and stashing their money (thereby AVOIDING taxes) - why should they be allowed to throw money at candidates?

I think that churches AND off-shored corporations should be barred from donating to anyone.

But then, I think campaign finance should be publicly funded - like if we each pledged that "$3" option on our tax forms - that should be ALL the money that is available. The candidates have to divvy it up between themselves. Not more than 6 weeks before the election, they can each have a certain number of minutes for Public Service Announcements on the airwaves (which are donated by each station/channel) -

and that's it.
Six weeks - no private OR non-profit donations - just the populace who decided to pitch in that $3 on their tax return.....

Good plan, eh?
I like it.

Vote for Pedro.

a reply to: beezzer

thank you, but does that mean they can't create laws based on a single Religions Ideology then?

Like once you become president you can't enforce laws on the base of 'X' Religion?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Like once you become president you can't enforce laws on the base of 'X' Religion?

Not laws, no.
There can't be any "laws" ABOUT ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL religion. But religion can certainly enter the POTUS's decision-making. Like how George W Bush said that "God told him to invade Iraq".

Presidents (the executive branch) have "spiritual advisers" for sure. But Congress (the legistlative branch) does the "law-making"....
And the Judicial system does the "enforcing" of the laws, with no input from Congress or the President.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
quick question (excuse my ignorance)

If there is a separation between church and state, how can politicians run with their Religious ideologies as the Base of their issues?

Funny, isn't it?

Its code speak. a candidate runs on a platform that is designed to maxmize the attractant value for voters. The farce in the US has devolved into having pigeon holed the entire process.

For example: what if i were a person that was against abortion but favored gay rights? Which pigeon hole would I fit into?

Even sadder: its these issues that attract votes. It obviously doesn't matter what kind of destruction is to be issued upon our Union, so long as we elect somoene who is for abortion. As if that matter hasn't already been put to bed.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

they can't create laws based on a single Religions Ideology then?

(I know you weren't addressing me, but I feel like throwing my own answers out here):

If enough members of Congress have religiously based ideas about "laws" (based on their own spiritual advisors or constituents' wishes or religious beliefs) - they can (and have) passed 'laws' that relate to religious freedoms and so forth - like whether or not certain religious people don't have to pay for xxxx, or take their kids to the doctor - that sort of thing.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly, it just seems like everyone is running on a platform where it's christian based, but says they don't want the Government in our business, yet want to make laws (or enforce) Laws that make the choice for other people, like Abortions and same-sex Marriage Etc which would place the Government in other peoples business?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Thank you, like i said i'm Ignorant to these type of things, and i don't like to speak about things without some knowledge or information

a reply to: Darth_Prime

laws are only passed for 3 reasons:

- the public will lynch Congress for not passing it (popular support)
- someone has figured out a way to monetize the legal screwing of some group
- to gain votes

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If a church doesn't pay taxes, why should they be allowed to influence who is in charge on Capitol Hill or in the White House?

The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.

In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

The IRS has published Revenue Ruling 2007-41, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities.
IRS-Charities, Churches and Politics

Ban on candidate pushing, not lobbying on issues.

Churches hardly ever get busted, even when they blatantly break the law, thanks to conspiracy theorists who claim the government is just trying to seize church property when they get slammed with an unpayable back tax bill.

Stinking conspiracy theorists!

a reply to: pthena

501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena.

Okay. Thanks for that......

What constitutes "a limited amount" then?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Under the substantial part test, an organization that conducts excessive lobbying in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations that lose their tax-exempt status due to excessive lobbying, other than churches and private foundations, are subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of their lobbying expenditures for the year in which they cease to qualify for exemption.
Lobbying:-Substantial-Part-Test

Lobbying is defined as actually contacting legislators and telling others to. There's no limit for educating about a legislative issue.

It would be fairly difficult to show that a church was using a substantial amount of time or money in lobbying. How much time would it take or money for someone to say, "Tell your congressman to vote no on prop xxxxx". That's like three seconds, and probably $0.00.

a reply to: bucsarg

Yeah is pretty bad, starting with the fact the election is NOT soon


It’s a year and 4 months away and were talking about it as if it is next month.

That’s one of the major problems with the system

The American people are so dumb they need almost 2 years to get to know the
candidates.