|
United States22883 Posts
On February 22 2012 17:01 Miyoshino wrote:
Carter was the last religious US president imo. All those after them were atheists. It is obvious that they have to lie about their faith. Then when you look at their personal life and the development of their 'faith', there is a clear picture that only Carter was actually religious.
I don't even know if the people I vote for are religious or not.
There's a difference between being a theist/having faith and being religious. Carter was the only one that was religious.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 22 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic.
Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense from a political perspective.
On February 22 2012 10:45 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 05:33 koreasilver wrote:
Obviously not. At this point I'm more interested in the 2016 elections, really. Yeah me too. I assume Hilary would be the democratic nominee but who gets the Rep nomination. If we assume that Obama wins this year whoever get the rep nomination will have done serious damage to their support base. For example if Romney wins the nomination but loses the election because he doesn't ignite massive republican support, he would have had a shot a the presidency twice and failed both times (once to get the nomination and once in an election). So his type of middle of the road candidacy obviously isn't viable so the 2016 candidate would likely be more conservative. Alternatively, if one of the crazies (eg Santorum) gets the nomination and loses, does that mean that the ultra-conservative christian wing of the party will lose influence? Would you expect a more reasonable candidate in 2016 or a further shift rightwards? I mean if the reps can't put a winning candidate up against Obama with the economy in the state it is in, they will have serious trouble in 2016 when presumably things will look better.
2016 will actually have a very deep field. Unless they all choose to sit out for personal reasons, it's likely to have many more moderate front runners: Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie, Ryan, maybe Jindal rises from the dead.
|
It seems that W Bush (and Obama) seem the most obvous closet atheists out of the bunch. W Bush's lifestyle and conversion seem rather obvious. He was an addict and his wife gave him the final chance, so he fixed his life. Nothing to do with religion. Then when he got into politcs he started faking his faith.
Consulting certain people doesn't tell me anything.
We can't know for sure but if I had to bet I would bet Carter was the last US president not an atheist.
|
On February 23 2012 00:55 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic. Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense from a political perspective.
Seems pretty hit-and-miss honestly. Not consulting religious leaders seems like a safer choice. Americans might like Christianity but there are a lot of sects out there and they don't always get along. There are also a lot of moderates who think religion is personal matter and don't like the religious rhetoric even if they are religious. It's not that clean-cut at all.
|
On February 23 2012 01:04 Miyoshino wrote:
It seems that W Bush (and Obama) seem the most obvous closet atheists out of the bunch. W Bush's lifestyle and conversion seem rather obvious. He was an addict and his wife gave him the final chance, so he fixed his life. Nothing to do with religion. Then when he got into politcs he started faking his faith.
Consulting certain people doesn't tell me anything.
We can't know for sure but if I had to bet I would bet Carter was the last US president not an atheist.
Why is that bizarre? Lots of people turn to religion after drug/alcohol addiction or fall on hard times. I was going to say that out of all the presidents since Carter that W is the only one I would think religious.
|
On February 22 2012 16:07 Sogo Otika wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 16:01 Falling wrote:
And because Santorum has positioned himself as the defender of social conservatism, he needs to de-legitimize Obama's faith claims. (Whatever Obama may actually believe- he's pretty quiet about it, but that might just be his style.) It is my view that Obama is much too intelligent to believe in a magical sky fairy. He simply states that he believes for the sake of being able to be elected into public office. There is the quote (can't remember the exact words off by heart): "Religion is great for the common people, false for the intellectuals, and useful for the rulers." I have no doubt that if he read books like The God Delusion he would find it to be very rational and agreeable, unlike fundamentalist Christians who tend to disregard it and vehemently decry it as being wrong without even reading it.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" - Seneca
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet” Napoleon Bonaparte
Gosh I partly feel bad for the pain train being run on any true believers lurking this thread  Then again it's time to move on so most of me doesn't feel bad at all.
|
On February 23 2012 01:04 Miyoshino wrote:
It seems that W Bush (and Obama) seem the most obvous closet atheists out of the bunch. W Bush's lifestyle and conversion seem rather obvious. He was an addict and his wife gave him the final chance, so he fixed his life. Nothing to do with religion. Then when he got into politcs he started faking his faith.
Consulting certain people doesn't tell me anything.
We can't know for sure but if I had to bet I would bet Carter was the last US president not an atheist.
I'd bet they've been more agnostic theists than anything.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 23 2012 01:16 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 00:55 Jibba wrote:On February 22 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic. Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense from a political perspective. Seems pretty hit-and-miss honestly. Not consulting religious leaders seems like a safer choice. Americans might like Christianity but there are a lot of sects out there and they don't always get along. There are also a lot of moderates who think religion is personal matter and don't like the religious rhetoric even if they are religious. It's not that clean-cut at all.
You don't have to make it public but they do meet with them.
|
On February 23 2012 01:31 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 01:16 DoubleReed wrote:On February 23 2012 00:55 Jibba wrote:On February 22 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic. Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense from a political perspective. Seems pretty hit-and-miss honestly. Not consulting religious leaders seems like a safer choice. Americans might like Christianity but there are a lot of sects out there and they don't always get along. There are also a lot of moderates who think religion is personal matter and don't like the religious rhetoric even if they are religious. It's not that clean-cut at all. You don't have to make it public but they do meet with them.
Then maybe I'm not understanding what the political benefit is.
|
On February 23 2012 00:55 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic. Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense from a political perspective. Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 10:45 Probulous wrote:On February 22 2012 05:33 koreasilver wrote:
Obviously not. At this point I'm more interested in the 2016 elections, really. Yeah me too. I assume Hilary would be the democratic nominee but who gets the Rep nomination. If we assume that Obama wins this year whoever get the rep nomination will have done serious damage to their support base. For example if Romney wins the nomination but loses the election because he doesn't ignite massive republican support, he would have had a shot a the presidency twice and failed both times (once to get the nomination and once in an election). So his type of middle of the road candidacy obviously isn't viable so the 2016 candidate would likely be more conservative. Alternatively, if one of the crazies (eg Santorum) gets the nomination and loses, does that mean that the ultra-conservative christian wing of the party will lose influence? Would you expect a more reasonable candidate in 2016 or a further shift rightwards? I mean if the reps can't put a winning candidate up against Obama with the economy in the state it is in, they will have serious trouble in 2016 when presumably things will look better. 2016 will actually have a very deep field. Unless they all choose to sit out for personal reasons, it's likely to have many more moderate front runners: Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie, Ryan, maybe Jindal rises from the dead.
Yea A lot of people don't realize this election (2012 rep primary) is basically made up of people who don't actually expect to win the presidency. I believe a running incumbent has lost 5 out of 19 races he's ran in (and I'd say Ford and Carter basically had their fate sealed before the election even began.) And A GOP candidate who lost the presidency has never been allowed to run again.
SO, if I am Palin, or Christie, or Daniels, or Huckabee I'm sitting watching while these 2012 morons ruin each others careers trying to get a chance to go against the Osama Killer, waiting for my chance to win an open election in 2016. So yea the GOP will for sure give a better primary showing in 2016 (like seriously this 2012 field was Disgusting in the funniest way possible.)
|
On February 23 2012 01:40 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 00:55 Jibba wrote:On February 22 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic. Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense from a political perspective. On February 22 2012 10:45 Probulous wrote:On February 22 2012 05:33 koreasilver wrote:
Obviously not. At this point I'm more interested in the 2016 elections, really. Yeah me too. I assume Hilary would be the democratic nominee but who gets the Rep nomination. If we assume that Obama wins this year whoever get the rep nomination will have done serious damage to their support base. For example if Romney wins the nomination but loses the election because he doesn't ignite massive republican support, he would have had a shot a the presidency twice and failed both times (once to get the nomination and once in an election). So his type of middle of the road candidacy obviously isn't viable so the 2016 candidate would likely be more conservative. Alternatively, if one of the crazies (eg Santorum) gets the nomination and loses, does that mean that the ultra-conservative christian wing of the party will lose influence? Would you expect a more reasonable candidate in 2016 or a further shift rightwards? I mean if the reps can't put a winning candidate up against Obama with the economy in the state it is in, they will have serious trouble in 2016 when presumably things will look better. 2016 will actually have a very deep field. Unless they all choose to sit out for personal reasons, it's likely to have many more moderate front runners: Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie, Ryan, maybe Jindal rises from the dead. Yea A lot of people don't realize this election (2012 rep primary) is basically made up of people who don't actually expect to win the presidency. I believe a running incumbent has lost 5 out of 19 races he's ran in (and I'd say Ford and Carter basically had their fate sealed before the election even began.) And A GOP candidate who lost the presidency has never been allowed to run again. SO, if I am Palin, or Christie, or Daniels, or Huckabee I'm sitting watching while these 2012 morons ruin each others careers trying to get a chance to go against the Osama Killer, waiting for my chance to win an open election in 2016. So yea the GOP will for sure give a better primary showing in 2016 (like seriously this 2012 field was Disgusting in the funniest way possible.)
A field made up of the 4 you mentioned is still a pretty sad field. Palin is kind of a joke after she sold herself to Fox, and even if she spends the next four years "smarting" herself up, she's going to have to deal with the media portrayal and ingrained public opinion. I imagine by 2016 LGBT rights will have made significant progress, and Chris Christie will be remembered as that governor who vetoed gay marriage. Huckabee... is like Santorum. Come on, the guy said homosexuality was a public health risk. He doesn't believe in evolution either.
Daniels could make a good candidate though. Jindal is a smart guy, but he needs to figure out how to run Louisiana properly before he tries the US.
|
On February 23 2012 03:32 ticklishmusic wrote:
A field made up of the 4 you mentioned is still a pretty sad field. Palin is kind of a joke after she sold herself to Fox, and even if she spends the next four years "smarting" herself up, she's going to have to deal with the media portrayal and ingrained public opinion. I imagine by 2016 LGBT rights will have made significant progress, and Chris Christie will be remembered as that governor who vetoed gay marriage. Huckabee... is like Santorum. Come on, the guy said homosexuality was a public health risk. He doesn't believe in evolution either.
Daniels could make a good candidate though. Jindal is a smart guy, but he needs to figure out how to run Louisiana properly before he tries the US.
I mostly agree with this post, however I think Christie isn't really hurt that badly by vetoing gay marriage.
Sure, by 2016 LGBT rights will be more accepted than they are now. But Christie can simply change his stance on this issue, and if that is the only position he really has to change then that's not a big deal. If support for LGBT rights really takes off in the next 4 years, he may also be able to sign a later bill into law (perhaps in 2015 when such a trend would he obvious) which would put some legitimacy behind his repositioning.
The Republican candidate can win the election with two of: Virginia or Iowa or Colorado, plus all of the states more conservative than those, and I don't think a veto of gay marriage would do much damage to him in any of those states.
|
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet.
|
On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet.
Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid.
In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window.
Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials.
|
On February 22 2012 15:51 Sogo Otika wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 15:06 Signet wrote:
But if the economy recovers, Romney won't be president anyway. He might not even be the Republican nominee if the economy recovers (the stronger the economy, the more primary voters will focus on social issues). So it makes sense for him to start giving himself this leeway now. You're making a presumption forgetting that he is one of the wealthiest people in the world. Money wins you elections. Obama won because he had money. Voter perceptions can be influenced by advertising. By saying he won't be President anyway is only showing your ignorance. You underestimate two things - money, and the retardation of the general American public. Just watch Borat or Bruno if you need a reminder of what the people in your country are like.
Don't assume you know what I am or am not aware of. A candidate is often able to outraise their opponent because of other advantages, such as being more popular (Obama 08), having a policy perceived as better, or being the incumbent. Campaign spending is more a result of being the otherwise favored candidate as it is a driver of election results.
According to some research, *doubling* your campaign's spending only results in a 1% gain in the popular vote.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/
Also I'm kinda implying the retardation of the American public by saying Santorum might get the nomination over Romney.
|
On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials.
Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then.
In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does.
|
On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials.
Wiki: Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim" 1] according to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". By either description the fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions.
In his book Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, Neil Postman states that "the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming....(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are 'false', but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false."[2]
Everything that ends with "-ism" is bad for this world ... no matter what color it has.
|
On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does.
You might have a complete different outlook if you were a woman or homosexual.
|
On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does.
I did not say that by any means that the Iran and the US and A have the same typ of government or laws - i'm not stupid. I said, that FOR ME (if he will be president) they are on a same level of idiocy. I do not care if those kill them and the others just put them in prison or try to socially isolate them. Wrong is wrong. The level of wrongness for me is no point of argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
