Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Then of course there is the large portion of liberals who can't stand anyone of faith to be in office.

As a secular humanist, I have no belief in mysticism or the supernatural and that humans can rise above their lot in life. However, as a pragmatist, I know a non believer is worse than a Muslim as far as politics is concerned in this country. As a person with some minor sense of history, I know that many people of faith have improved humanity's lot. Put that together, I vote for who I think can best promote humanity's elevation and who can conceivably get elected. That's it. "Can't stand anyone of faith" doesn't play into it. I can't stand the color brown, but I don't judge people based on their choice of suit or pant suit color. That's as much consideration as I give to a politician's religious views, because that's about how much meaning I think it has unless that politician makes their political platform their religious beliefs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Then of course there is the large portion of liberals who can't stand anyone of faith to be in office.

Then of course there are people who believe that 'large portions of liberals' believe that.

then of course there are people who believe there are people who believe that large portions of liberals believe that.

Belief doesn't have to come into it. You flat out said it.

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

I'm just noting, just as there is the hardcore reactionary religious element on the Republican side, there is the hardcore reactionary anti religious side on the Democrat side.

 Frazzled wrote:
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?


I'm just noting, just as there is the hardcore reactionary religious element on the Republican side, there is the hardcore reactionary anti religious side on the Democrat side.

Neither, I am believing what you wrote (so I guess my eyes, anybody care to substantiate what he wrote?) (whether or not you believe it, I have no idea).

Where are the viable politicians willing to espouse their non religious views? (What's that? They speak in code?) I guess the Dems are more pragmatic as well.

Edit: moved to pm.

You're right. There are absolutely no antireligious types in the Democratic Party. I will go off to repent via forcing myself to drink only midpriced rum and water tonight.

Maybe I'll watch some old shows about comedic aliens...

 Frazzled wrote:
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

I'm just noting, just as there is the hardcore reactionary religious element on the Republican side, there is the hardcore reactionary anti religious side on the Democrat side.

On the Democrat side, its not an anti-religious reaction, its an anti-fundamentalist reaction.

Atheists are still the least trusted minority in the population, repeatedly and reliably scoring worse than Muslims and homosexuals in opinion polls. If what you said were true, than the Democratic Party would include a significant subset of atheist elected politicians...but it doesn't. At least not on the national level.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're right. There are absolutely no antireligious types in the Democratic Party. I will go off to repent via forcing myself to drink only midpriced rum and water tonight.

Maybe I'll watch some old shows about comedic aliens...

Damn, I'm drinking low priced scotch and ice tonight. You got me beat... GOP and their over spending ways.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You're right. There are absolutely no antireligious types in the Democratic Party. I will go off to repent via forcing myself to drink only midpriced rum and water tonight.

Maybe I'll watch some old shows about comedic aliens...

Damn, I'm drinking low priced scotch and ice tonight. You got me beat... GOP and their over spending ways.

You know it. Not to mention lighting up a churchill with a wooden match and a Benjamin baby!

Maybe it's just a minor technicality that only matters to people who pay attention to actual words and such, but there might just be a tiny difference between "I wouldn't vote for a [faith] president", and "presidential candidates should have to renounce [faith] if they run for office".

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe it's just a minor technicality that only matters to people who pay attention to actual words and such, but there might just be a tiny difference between "I wouldn't vote for a [faith] president", and "presidential candidates should have to renounce [faith] if they run for office".

d-USA is correct.

"I wouldn't vote for a vegetarian" is good whereas

"Presidential candidates should renounce vegetarianism" is not wait thats good too. What about

"Vegetarians got no reason to live" It sounds bad but it sure feels good.

The Sharia, not faith bit

Though excercise:

Real Ben Carson: I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country. Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.

Bizarro World Ben Carson: I do not believe laws derived from Biblical principals are consistent with the Constitution of this country. Christians feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.

Sharia
Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet (Hadith and Sunna), prescribing both religious and secular duties and sometimes retributive penalties for lawbreaking. It has generally been supplemented by legislation adapted to the conditions of the day, though the manner in which it should be applied in modern states is a subject of dispute between Islamic fundamentalists and modernists

 Jihadin wrote:
Sharia
Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet (Hadith and Sunna), prescribing both religious and secular duties and sometimes retributive penalties for lawbreaking. It has generally been supplemented by legislation adapted to the conditions of the day, though the manner in which it should be applied in modern states is a subject of dispute between Islamic fundamentalists and modernists

Yes, I think we're all familiar with the general concept of Sharia.

Making sure because some people forget

What's odd to me is that Carson wasn't asked whether a "supporter of the implementation of Sharia" should be elected President. He was asked if a Muslim should be elected President.

So he doesn't see any differentiation between the two.

This guy seems less and less impressive to me as time goes on. As a candidate, he is certainly an in-artful speaker. I am now starting to wonder whether its not clumsy speech at all, but just clumsy thinking.

Odd thing, apparently both Israeli and Arabic lawyers consult with each other due to the similarities to some extent between Sharia and Levitical law.

The Koran is such a blatant plagiarism of Jewish scripture, this doesn't surprise me at all.

 jasper76 wrote:
What's odd to me is that Carson wasn't asked whether a "supporter of the implementation of Sharia" should be elected President. He was asked if a Muslim should be elected President.

So he doesn't see any differentiation between the two.

This guy seems less and less impressive to me as time goes on. As a candidate, he is certainly an in-artful speaker. I am now starting to wonder whether its not clumsy speech at all, but just clumsy thinking.

He's a great, high end surgeon. Thats kind of...it.

Word.

Speaking of surgeon's, when I play the "Who would I vote for?" game among the GOP field, I like Rand Paul the best. Why is this dude's ranking so low?

 jasper76 wrote:
Word.

Speaking of surgeon's, when I play the "Who would I vote for?" game among the GOP field, I like Rand Paul the best. Why is this dude's ranking so low?

He uses words that are too big. Doesn't support rampant unending military conflict. Is not a fan of corporatism. Isn't really caught up in immigration, islam and other faux issues. He isn't Christian enough. Understands foreign policy and statesmanship...etc etc.

Oh, and he isn't a Republican by modern Republican standards.

Fair enough, I guess those might be some of the reasons why I like him.

 jasper76 wrote:
Fair enough, I guess those might be some of the reasons why I like him.

My professor showed me an analysis of the last debate. Trump is still pulling the best numbers. What was interesting was that all of the candidates used language that reflected roughly and 8th grade education level except Cruz and Trump. Trump was using a 5th grade level (up from the previous debate of 4th grade) and Cruz was using a 12th grade level consistently (ironic because he is considered dumb lol).

Trump literally debates at a 5th grade education level lol.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Fair enough, I guess those might be some of the reasons why I like him.

My professor showed me an analysis of the last debate. Trump is still pulling the best numbers. What was interesting was that all of the candidates used language that reflected roughly and 8th grade education level except Cruz and Trump. Trump was using a 5th grade level (up from the previous debate of 4th grade) and Cruz was using a 12th grade level consistently (ironic because he is considered dumb lol).

Cruz is anything but, "dumb".

Folks underestimating him at your own peril.

Cruz's debate tactic is to segway from question to canned soliloquy-style speech segment, which might explain the more advanced "grade". He's pretty good at it, I think. However, he came off in both debates as over-emotional, very afraid and pessimistic. There is something about his eyebrow position when he is speaking that makes him look like a hungry kid begging for food, and that makes him seem weak.

I never got the impression from him that he was unintelligent, though.

 jasper76 wrote:
Cruz's debate tactic is to segway from question to canned soliloquy-style speech segment, which might explain the more advanced "grade". He's pretty good at it, I think. However, he came off in both debates as over-emotional, very afraid and pessimistic. There is something about his eyebrow position when he is speaking that makes him look like a hungry kid begging for food, and that makes him seem weak.

I never got the impression from him that he was unintelligent, though.

I'll admit... he comes off "smarmy"... but, that's me.

But the dude knows his legal chops... Maybe the next SC Justice? (what heads goes splodey, but the Congress-critters would love to have Cruz out of Congress).

Cruz hasn't played nice with the GOP, so I doubt any hyoptherical GOP President would have him high on their Christmas list. I think the Senate might be the pinnacle for Cruz's career in government.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Fair enough, I guess those might be some of the reasons why I like him.

My professor showed me an analysis of the last debate. Trump is still pulling the best numbers. What was interesting was that all of the candidates used language that reflected roughly and 8th grade education level except Cruz and Trump. Trump was using a 5th grade level (up from the previous debate of 4th grade) and Cruz was using a 12th grade level consistently (ironic because he is considered dumb lol).

Trump literally debates at a 5th grade education level lol.

Don't underestimate Cruz, you will do so at your own demise. He is extremely intelligent, extremely good at promoting his own premise, and extremely good at making his position look mundane.

Oh, I don't underestimate any of them but The Donald.

All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Oh, I don't underestimate any of them but The Donald.

All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Oh, I don't underestimate any of them but The Donald.

All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...

Now now... you know that's not true.