U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Kasierith]

Actually, no you didn't. But part of the USSR's fall was a direct result of the lack of "new blood" and new ideas, or even contrary ideas into the overall leadership, in fact it's STILL holding Russia back considering that many of your state institutions are still run by the same old men who ran them in the USSR.

Well, my question was more along the lines of being lighthearted than a serious statement, but ultimately there is a massive multitude of circumstances that made the fall of the USSR inevitable. Although, I am overall a supporter of Putin, and see a great deal of the negativity towards him a result of opposing medias pandering not to Russians, but to the rest of the world, garnering support by tying their opponent to communism. Given that even with my political viewpoints, I've come to the US for my upper education and truly love the time I spend here, I'm certain you'd agree that I'm hardly one to keep a closed mind of the world around me. But that's a discussion for completely different thread, so I'll leave it at that.

Religion aside, Romney is economically and socially disconnected with the vast, vast majority of America. Sure, the position he has in life is where the vast majority of America want to be...but it's not where they are. And wishing they were him won't make them him, but he plays right into that. "Elect me and you can be me." It's like those Victoria Secret commercials, "Wear this bra, and you're as sexy as I am." or those beer commercials: "Drink this beer and you'll be a sex god like me!"

Everyone knows they're not true....but we all wish on some level that they were...like the Old Spice commercial

Ya, I definitely get what you're saying. Even coming from the outside, I can see the massive disconnect there. In a wide variety of areas. He hardly even had a connection to his own ideals, it seems. Personally, consistency is one of the most defining aspects of someone's character. It shows that your actions have validity, and shows that if you promise to do something, I can trust that you would come through with it. I see no consistency with Romney, on any level. All of his actions seemed directly oriented towards "What can i do to be president" rather than "what plans can I come up with that would help the people."

[Sunseeker]

Well, my question was more along the lines of being lighthearted than a serious statement, but ultimately there is a massive multitude of circumstances that made the fall of the USSR inevitable. Although, I am overall a supporter of Putin, and see a great deal of the negativity towards him a result of medias pandering not to Russians, but to the rest of the world, garnering support by tying their opponent to communism. Given that even with my political viewpoints, I've come to the US for my upper education, I'm certain you'd agree that I'm hardly one to keep a closed mind of the world around me. But that's a discussion for completely different thread, so I'll leave it at that.

I don't like Putin, and I think Medvedev is a moron(who makes a great puppet), but I agree that Putin is probably the best thing for Russia at the moment. If there's anything Russia could use heaping doses of, it's consistency and strong leadership, even if it's got that good 'old boy KGB smell to it.

Ya, I definitely get what you're saying. Even coming from the outside, I can see the massive disconnect there. In a wide variety of areas. He hardly even had a connection to his own ideals, it seems. Personally, consistency is one of the most defining aspects of someone's character. It shows that your actions have validity, and shows that if you promise to do something, I can trust that you would come through with it. I see no consistency with Romney, on any level. All of his actions seemed directly oriented towards "What can i do to be president" rather than "what plans can I come up with that would help the people."

Exactly, but that's been his business strategy through Bain for decades. Tell people he'll give them what they want, then sell them to the highest bidder. Even his list of "successful" companies makes up some of the most quickly dying name-brands in the country.

[Spectral]

Let's be very clear though - Romney isn't saying that the mysteries of the universe are indecipherable, and that he believes there's a deity behind it, he's referring to the literal appearance of a human who is God in Missouri. Please read the italicized back to yourself. Do it again if still seems just fine. If it still seems fine to you, to each their own. I'm not interested in trusting someone that can talk about such a thing with a straight face with Presidency of the United States though.

[Spectral]

I respectfully disagree. The abject crazy that's expressed by LDS, in my opinion, greatly exceeds that of generic American Christianity, of we have video of Romney heartily endorsing it. I'm quite averse to any and all religion, but I don't think it's all quite the same, and I surely don't think you'll find any bit of craziness from Obama that approaches what Romney's saying in the video from the last page. I don't know, people seem to be capable of shrugging off an absolutely shocking level of crazypants when it comes to religion that they'd never let slide in any other venue. I mean, I can't be any more clear - he's talking about a deity appearing in Missouri. That's not something I disagree with, it's something that's straight out fucking insane.

[Spectral]

Is it any stranger than believing a deity will appear in Jerusalem, as most Christians/Jews believe?

The origins make it a bit more odd, to put it lightly. Really though, I'm disinclined to take anyone seriously if they're willing to stand behind such a doctrine. Put simply, it's an insane belief.

I've known quite a few Mormons in my day, and besides what's in their bible, they're just normal people. That's really all I'm trying to get at. But I know you and I have had this conversation before, and we never got an agreement on it before either, haha.

Right, true enough. I don't respect beliefs that I think are amazingly stupid, and I don't care if someone wants to hide them behind religion. I think all ideas should be subject the same scrutiny, and I don't think you'd accept this kind of crap if people didn't hide it behind religion. The idea of an all powerful being appearing in fucking Missouri is plainly stupid, and we both know it.

[Felya]

Is it any stranger than believing a deity will appear in Jerusalem, as most Christians/Jews believe?

I've known quite a few Mormons in my day, and besides what's in their bible, they're just normal people. That's really all I'm trying to get at. But I know you and I have had this conversation before, and we never got an agreement on it before either, haha.

I don't see a difference. I think people put too much stock in the location and the time. If the same story were told 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, I bet there would be very little difference in acceptance to main stream religions.

[Kasierith]

Is it any stranger than believing a deity will appear in Jerusalem, as most Christians/Jews believe?

I've known quite a few Mormons in my day, and besides what's in their bible, they're just normal people. That's really all I'm trying to get at. But I know you and I have had this conversation before, and we never got an agreement on it before either, haha.

For what its worth, and its something that my country is seeing quite a bit of... there is a difference between a religion that can motivate one's actions, especially since religion serves as a strong moral and ethical framework that is related to but separate from its theological function, and a religion that very actively inserts itself into politics. Its coming from the perspective that the law is focused not on the people, but on the religion's creed, and therefore comes into the situation without looking at it from a consequence-based perspective.

[Felya]

For what its worth, and its something that my country is seeing quite a bit of... there is a difference between a religion that can motivate one's actions, especially since religion serves as a strong moral and ethical framework that is related to but separate from its theological function, and a religion that very actively inserts itself into politics. Its coming from the perspective that the law is focused not on the people, but on the religion's creed, and therefore comes into the situation without looking at it from a consequence-based perspective.

Mormons don't really play a role in influencing polotics. There is nothing unique about Romney or Ried policy, that is a reflection of them being Mormon. I personaly hope to participate in an election where we don't care or even know about candidates religion.

[Spectral]

I personaly hope to participate in an election where we don't care or even know about candidates religion.

I personally hope to participate in an election where we know that our candidates don't buy into philosophically untenable positions. I'm not counting on this hope being fulfilled.

[Spectral]

I'm not trying to make you an atheist, why are you trying to make me a Christian/Muslim/etc?

I think perhaps this is the core of where we differ. I'm fine with other people trying to make me Christian (by persuasion, not force), and I'd like that they become atheists (although I'm not counting on it at all, and I'd never bring this shit up to someone for no apparent reason). I think conversion's an important part of the world, and I don't want to live in a world where people largely inherent their beliefs from their parents and never change. Shedding religion from society isn't going to happen in an entirely passive fashion, or at least I don't think it is.

---------- Post added 2012-11-03 at 01:42 AM ----------

Well, of course, but humans are flawed. I've accepted that. I've been able to cognitively separate it from a person's normal behavior. Besides, where I live, if I took it as seriously as you did with people and religious beliefs, I'd practically have no one to talk to.

I can't be friends with people who I can't say, "that's fucking stupid" to about things that I think are fucking stupid. I'd bet about 27 dollars you're a more polite person than I am

To be fair, specific religious beliefs don't seem to come up often. I think perhaps because most educated people know they're indefensible.

[Kasierith]

Mormons don't really play a role in influencing polotics. There is nothing unique about Romney or Ried policy, that is a reflection of them being Mormon. I personaly hope to participate in an election where we don't care or even know about candidates religion.

I was more putting in a side note on where the subject became an issue for me, and not specifically commenting on Romney, but hasn't Mormonism had a significant impact on Utah laws concerning alcohol and lotteries? I could be wrong, but that is something I observed.

[Grizzly Willy]

I seem to have to ask this every time Romney's religion is brought up: do we have any evidence that his Mormonism is going to influence his actions? Did it affect his ability to act as Governor?

[Spectral]

I seem to have to ask this every time Romney's religion is brought up: do we have any evidence that his Mormonism is going to influence his actions?

Did you see the video on the last page? He was quite clear about the matter. I think his own words are pretty good evidence. Perhaps, in the case of Romney, his words aren't evidence of anything at all though.

[Spectral]

By the way, I hope you're aware this topic makes me irritable and I don't mean to be a jerk. So if I am... erm... sorry about that.

[Spectral]

That works

Some things get to some people, and I'm probably more irritable than the average person in the first place. This one really does it for me, as I just don't get it, at all. Blah... I could rant extensively, but I suspect it'd be nothing you really disagree, and it stops being on the point of the thread. It really creeps me out that this sort of thing matters at all in politics.

[Grizzly Willy]

Did you see the video on the last page? He was quite clear about the matter. I think his own words are pretty good evidence. Perhaps, in the case of Romney, his words aren't evidence of anything at all though.

So far all I'm seeing is that he is against abortion and advises against it, but that the opposite positions aren't punished by his religion according to him.

I disagree with his positions on sex ed and abortion, but that's because he's a social conservative idiot. He just gets to feel good about being a faithful Mormon because his secular ideology is lockstep with his Mormon ideology.

[Spectral]

He just gets to feel good about being a faithful Mormon because his secular ideology is lockstep with his Mormon ideology.

Hell of a coincidence, that. It's almost like his secular ideology isn't secular at all, and it's secular nature just a facade...

I've never seen a remotely plausible secular argument for socially conservative policy positions. Mitt Romney's not a stupid man, he knows full well what he's doing.

[Grizzly Willy]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why this makes him any worse than he already is. I don't want the GOP deciding social issues, period.

And I edited my post, I had worded it improperly and said the opposite of what I meant regarding the Mormon Democrats.

Hell of a coincidence, that. It's almost like his secular ideology isn't secular at all, and it's secular nature just a facade...

I've never seen a remotely plausible secular argument for socially conservative policy positions. Mitt Romney's not a stupid man, he knows full well what he's doing.

So, when the argument was used that we can't take Obama's word at face value it still stands? If we're not going to take Romney's - and I see no reason not to - then I don't think we should be taking any politicians, but that could just be my Mark Twainian attitude towards politicians in general. Well, mostly congresspersons.

[Spectral]

I'm with Felya, and in a sense, many of the founders. Let's have an election where we're not doing a religious test, even if it's a public "test".

It seems pretty clear, in my opinion, that they intended our government to be secular. I think they underestimated the tenacity of the religious, even with the checks and balances they introduced. Jefferson's big appeal to have an educated populace was one of his big focal points. I know it would make many strict Constitutionalists have an aneurysm, but Jefferson pushed fervently for education to be in federal purview, because he believed an educated populace meant a healthy democracy. We got lost somewhere down the way...

I think part of where we got lost (not in my view, trying sort out Jefferson's ideas to the best of my ability) is using a popular election. I might be misinformed, but I'm under the impression that Jefferson wasn't keen on the idea of everyone having the right to vote. I still have mixed feelings about the idea that everyone's vote should count equally; the only reason I support it is because I can't think of a legitimately better idea.

[Spectral]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why this makes him any worse than he already is. I don't want the GOP deciding social issues, period.

And I edited my post, I had worded it improperly and said the opposite of what I meant regarding the Mormon Democrats.

It doesn't, unless you take points off for sheer dogdamned crazy. I'm doing so. Then again, my downgrade from a solid F to a more solid F probably isn't likely to hurt him much...

---------- Post added 2012-11-03 at 02:11 AM ----------

I was about to disagree, but then I saw the bolded. You win this time!

Ha... oddly, my father (another atheist) makes a secular argument for a pro-life position. Needless to say, I don't find it remotely plausible. In fact, it's a good example of an idea that I call, "fucking stupid". Some people can't take others calling their ideas, "fucking stupid", my dad and I both do it with a smirk!