2016 Presidential Horse Race

[GowerND11]

I guess I would use the Middle East as an example here. They are comprised of nationalized countries based in Islam. None of these countries based their message specifically in race, but rather religion. Every major dispute splitting factions of population in that region has been based in religious differences (Sunni vs shiite for instance). While they do not have the racial makeup of the US, there certainly are many races throughout the Muslim world. None of which, seems to matter when it comes to Shariah Law and its place in Islamic Politics.

To be fair, though, aren't the different sects of Islam split (for the most part) amongst the ethnic groups. Kurds are predominately Sunni whereas Turkmen are predominately Shia? So in a sense there is a bit of ethnic tension involved, but I do agree with your general idea.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I guess I would use the Middle East as an example here. They are comprised of nationalized countries based in Islam. None of these countries based their message specifically in race, but rather religion. Every major dispute splitting factions of population in that region has been based in religious differences (Sunni vs shiite for instance). While they do not have the racial makeup of the US, there certainly are many races throughout the Muslim world. None of which, seems to matter when it comes to Shariah Law and its place in Islamic Politics.

That's a good point, but the Middle East is also far more religiously observant than the US. Unlike the Muslim world, we've been marinating in liberalism for centuries, which has dissolved the cultural relevance of faith in the West. What sort of religious movement could inspire tens of millions of Americans to wage the sort of sectarian conflict that rages across the Middle East against their own countrymen?

 

[NDohio]

It's not what I see Trump doing persay, but him laying the groundwork. He will use his nationalistic message for his personal gain and create a base of people that will follow this message. The same social conservatives that followed him into the nomination, will be the same followers of this new platform. The reality is that the same poor, uneducated Christian white dude with a confederate flag on his pickup... Is the same guy that can be government dependent (welfare statistics certainly suggest this) and extremely patriotic in nature. To you and I, he may seem polar opposite to the black guy from South Chicago with a BLM poster. But that BLM fella can very well be (statistically mind) very religious and has negative views of gays. Both of these guys can rally behind a Nationalist message based in God and Patriotism. Both will be promised the "American Dream" via government aid. While they couldn't be more different today, this is a platform that would be attractive to both.

Pretty scary the more I mentally peel the onion...

I grew up in and lived in OH up until the last four years. This is exactly the view I had of the southern Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the people you described here haven't set foot in a church nor opened their Bible in years, yet they scream about their religion every chance they get. I have found that the entire idea of South Carolina being the middle of the Bible belt to be a farce.

Maybe I don't understand evangelicals. Doesn't the word "evangelical" connote action, as in you're not an evangelical Christian if you're not out evangelizing people? Isn't it therefore a contradiction in terms to be a non-practicing evangelical Christian? It sounds like what you're saying is that "evangelical Christian" is based on self-identification of a subset of denominations that really has no correlation to actual practicing people of faith. If that's the case, that's honestly a fundamental shift in how I view the country. Having never lived in the evangelical south or Midwest, maybe the country is simply much less religious than I realized.

The term Evangelical Christian should mean what you describe here, but IMO it has become a catch-all phrase for anyone that fits Wooly's description up above, Christians from traditional denominations(Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, etc), and the actual Evangelicals. That number of true Evangelicals is quickly dwindling and the group that is part of the traditional denominations is becoming more and more liberal. The Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopals have all had splits in their denomination over gay marriage and gay pastors. Each of those traditionally conservative groups are now split about that controversy. You now have one group of these denominations that support LGBT rights and one group that does not. The United Methodist Church has a huge vote coming up this month on whether to allow gay marriages in the church. No matter which way this vote goes, it will probably cause a huge rift in the denomination.

Yes, the country is way less religious than what you thought.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The Republican Party runs for more than just the POTUS. If these folks are going to leave the Party...they should leave for all seats not just POTUS.

Most of the damage from Crazy Christians is done at the State level but there are plenty of buffoons in Congress as well.

The GOP controls 31 Statehouses, I believe. So in which states have 'social issues' harmed the party? New York? New York Republicans don't even run as pro-life, typically, and certainly don't emphasize social issues.

 

[pkt77242]

Looking to November: Clinton leads Trump by double-digits in new poll

 

[Whiskeyjack]

 

[connor_in]

Baptists are typically considered evangelicals, no?

And what does that mean, that religion is "very important"? Of Americans who self-identify as Catholic, only 24% attend weekly mass. And of those, a much smaller minority confess at least once a year. Those are the people who actually believe what the Church teaches, and there's not many of them.

Evangelicals are similar. There's a massive gulf between identifying as "Christian" and actually practicing it. As Trump's "evangelical" support shows, those who identify and don't practice are much more secular and liberal in their values than Christian.

I confess I miss the GC

:frowny face:

 

[connor_in]

Whiskey, you saw this from this morning, right?

 

[Legacy]

How religious is your state? (Pew Research)

Religious Landscape Study: Religions
Explore religious groups in the U.S. by tradition, family and denomination (Pew)

 

[dales5050]

The GOP controls 31 Statehouses, I believe. So in which states have 'social issues' harmed the party? New York? New York Republicans don't even run as pro-life, typically, and certainly don't emphasize social issues.

It goes beyond 'pro-life' and honestly they have pivoted away from that to so called 'family values'..

I am in North Carolina and back country Christian Republicans have cost the state a metric fuck ton for the two major metro areas due to their family values BS. Outside of NC...Crazy Christians have pretty much held back everywhere in the flyovers that they are in power.

I am all for religious freedom. I just don't want it within five miles of the public sector or politics.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I am all for religious freedom. I just don't want it within five miles of the public sector or politics.

"I'm all for civil rights. I just don't want to see any racial minorities in the public square or running for office."

 

[dales5050]

"I'm all for civil rights. I just don't want to see any racial minorities in the public square or running for office."

Ya...no.

The problem with religious folk is they somehow think that they have the right to impose their belief structure on others.

It's fine if someone is pro-life but abortion has been legal for over 40 years. Just because you want to interpret a book of fiction into your core values does not give you the right to tell anyone else what they do.

It's fine if someone does not agree with homosexuality. But you have no right to tell others how they should live their life.

Crazy Christians don't want religious freedom to practice religion. They don't want it because they already have it. What they want is to impose their moral structure over others in the name of a book of fiction.

Sorry but not the same as civil rights in your example.

 

[NDgradstudent]

It goes beyond 'pro-life' and honestly they have pivoted away from that to so called 'family values'..

I am in North Carolina and back country Christian Republicans have cost the state a metric fuck ton for the two major metro areas due to their family values BS. Outside of NC...Crazy Christians have pretty much held back everywhere in the flyovers that they are in power.

This is common argument created by a professor named Richard Florida. The purpose was to justify public expenditure on bike paths, and other nominally lefty policies, on the basis that it would be "good for business." There is no evidence for this theory, but it serves a political purpose, and so we keep hearing it.

The top 10 states ranked best for business by CNBC, 6 have GOP legislatures, 3 are divided, and 1 has a Democratic legislature.

In Forbes' rankings 8 are GOP controlled, 1 divided, and 1 Democratic.

You'll find similar results no matter what ranking you look at, so the claim about being 'held back' is absurd. Corporations threatening North Carolina are posturing for attention among their bourgeois clientele. Anyway, there is more to life than money.

I am all for religious freedom. I just don't want it within five miles of the public sector or politics.

Are you in favor of 'freedom' -religious or otherwise- in general? Or do you prefer control?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Ya...no.

The problem with religious folk is they somehow think that they have the right to impose their belief structure on others.

It's fine if someone is pro-life but abortion has been legal for over 40 years. Just because you want to interpret a book of fiction into your core values does not give you the right to tell anyone else what they do.

It's fine if someone does not agree with homosexuality. But you have no right to tell others how they should live their life.

Crazy Christians don't want religious freedom to practice religion. They don't want it because they already have it. What they want is to impose their moral structure over others in the name of a book of fiction.

Sorry but not the same as civil rights in your example.

Then enlighten me, professor. How are the values underlying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more empirically grounded than the Christian prohibition against abortion?

 

[NDgradstudent]

Ya...no.

The problem with religious folk is they somehow think that they have the right to impose their belief structure on others.

Everybody believes that. That's what law is: an imposition of a 'belief structure' on others. If the legislature says in law that 'the normal speed limit should be 65 MPH on the highway, because nobody can safely drive faster than that,' then it has imposed its belief system on you, even though you might think some people can safely drive faster than 65 MPH.

It's fine if someone is pro-life but abortion has been legal for over 40 years.

Is this an argument? It's been legal because the Supreme Court so decreed. Not because legislatures so voted. The principal efforts in legislatures since then have been to restrict abortion.

Just because you want to interpret a book of fiction into your core values does not give you the right to tell anyone else what they do.

It's fine if someone does not agree with homosexuality. But you have no right to tell others how they should live their life.

Anybody who makes moral judgments about anything 'tells someone how to live their life.' If I say, "you should give 30% of your money to the poor," I've told you how to live your life. In a liberal society, the law is supposed to prevent harm and rights violations. The whole argument about abortion is whether or not it constitutes harm and/or a rights violation.

Crazy Christians don't want religious freedom to practice religion. They don't want it because they already have it. What they want is to impose their moral structure over others in the name of a book of fiction.

So if the book was true, it would be okay to 'impose' on others? Which books are true, in your opinion? Scientific books do not address moral questions. Whether or not going over 65 MPH leads to X number of accidents can be scientifically (empirically) verified. Whether or not that means it should be illegal to go that fast is not verifiable scientifically.

 

[phgreek]

That's not true, Rack. Everyone KNOWS that there is no basis for R disagreements with Ds other than just taking an opposite point of view in order to be contrarian. The Rs have no reasoning or philosophy behind ANY of their positions.

...nor any of the "good data"...

 

[phgreek]

There's nothing wrong with social conservatism if that's your belief. I just believe the country, as a whole, leans left on almost every social issue so making it (social conservatism) such a huge part of your party platform sets you at a disadvantage right out of the gate. I think you agree with me on this based on your post. I didn't say neo liberal economics, though. I said more conservative economics than the neo libs (right of Hillary, not her equal). There are plenty of issues to oppose if you're a new conservative up against a neo liberal. I'm just suggesting that the social and religious aspects not take up such a huge chunk of the party platform. The more diverse groups of people you can relate to, the better your chances of getting their vote. *I'm not suggesting pandering. I'm simply suggesting that the new party learn to be more inclusive socially, but still maintain their conservative values economically and otherwise.

...Since we are being all practical and all...the evangelical block is what? Ignored?

Also, throw out social conservatism and then please explain the platform's basis for conservatives caring about anything but money. What the party is, is dysfunctional, but the components represented in it are important. A natural retooling will occur, and after Clinton 2, the Dems will be facing the same...if the are smart enough to realize what they've just done.

 

[Irish YJ]

I think Mother England has it's own challenges right now. I have a few buds in London, Redditch, and Manchester. Believe me, all is not peaches and cream in UK from their perspective. Most I know are very concerned about the economy, terrorism, immigration (primarily Muslim), and the EU in general.

Britain’s Muslim Problem - WSJ

 

[connor_in]

I was just reading an article and did not realize this fact. Not looking at the delegates at all, just straight state wins of primaries/caucuses HRC is only beating Bernie 23-18. I knew Bernie kept getting wins, but did not realize it was that close. Because the delegates are the focus and not wins or losses, and with HRC getting all the supers, she has hardly focused on Bernie at all and simply goes about as the presumptive nominee.

 

[phork]

I was just reading an article and did not realize this fact. Not looking at the delegates at all, just straight state wins of primaries/caucuses HRC is only beating Bernie 23-18. I knew Bernie kept getting wins, but did not realize it was that close. Because the delegates are the focus and not wins or losses, and with HRC getting all the supers, she has hardly focused on Bernie at all and simply goes about as the presumptive nominee.

Sanders should run as an independent.

 

[dales5050]

Everybody believes that. That's what law is: an imposition of a 'belief structure' on others. If the legislature says in law that 'the normal speed limit should be 65 MPH on the highway, because nobody can safely drive faster than that,' then it has imposed its belief system on you, even though you might think some people can safely drive faster than 65 MPH.

Right. And if public officials have a problem with people driving 65 MPH they work to change the speed limit. You don't go out and ban the ability for someone to fill up their gas tank on odd days of the week or remove the shoulders of the road to try and force people to slow down as a byproduct.

This is comparable to trying to curb abortion through everything but banning abortion.

But that's not even the worst part. The challenge with your comparison is this. If we are to have a conversation about the speed limit and our 'belief structure' on what it should be, we can debate and discuss that issue until resolved. For everything you claim, I can counter and vise versa.

With religion, you want to refer to this book of fiction as fact and play some type of divine trump card that ignores all logic and reason. Even with undeniable scientific evidence there are people who place equal weight on the interpretation from a passage of a line or two, by a modern day man in his Sunday message as equal to a mountain of undeniable scientific evidence.

Is this an argument? It's been legal because the Supreme Court so decreed. Not because legislatures so voted. The principal efforts in legislatures since then have been to restrict abortion.

Looks like you should have taken one more course in Civics and one less in Theology.

Anybody who makes moral judgments about anything 'tells someone how to live their life.' If I say, "you should give 30% of your money to the poor," I've told you how to live your life. In a liberal society, the law is supposed to prevent harm and rights violations. The whole argument about abortion is whether or not it constitutes harm and/or a rights violation.

Heh. Pretty funny you won't touch the topic of homosexuality in your moral judgments....

Pretty telling.

So if the book was true, it would be okay to 'impose' on others? Which books are true, in your opinion? Scientific books do not address moral questions. Whether or not going over 65 MPH leads to X number of accidents can be scientifically (empirically) verified. Whether or not that means it should be illegal to go that fast is not verifiable scientifically.

Ya. You're wrong about that. Scientific books do address moral questions. They address it by framing the discussion rather than providing the answer. Scientific books just don't tell you what to do based on the thinking of men who walked the desert 3400 years ago.

This does not even touch the selective interpretation that people have from this book...take a little bit of this but leave out these barbaric items here... That's like a scientist taking 30% of their research that has results they want while ignoring the 70% that just does not fit the narrative.

Look, if you find value in your bible...good for you. If it inspires you to be a better person..that's fantastic. If you want to implement your values on others, this is also fine. It's how our Republic works. Just don't hide behind fiction that is not based on anything other than good storytelling as the basis of your values when trying to integrate them into the Republic is all I am saying.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

...Since we are being all practical and all...the evangelical block is what? Ignored?

Also, throw out social conservatism and then please explain the platform's basis for conservatives caring about anything but money. What the party is, is dysfunctional, but the components represented in it are important. A natural retooling will occur, and after Clinton 2, the Dems will be facing the same...if the are smart enough to realize what they've just done.

I feel as if I've bitten off more than I can chew with that comment as it was pretty broad and there are those with far superior intellect on this board regarding the subject. The main point I wanted to make is simple: The GOP nominee isn't even a true conservative, yet he crushed all of his opponents. There's a chance he wins the WH, but imo, it's unlikely. So my point? What does a revised GOP platform need to look like in order to appeal to enough voters to regain the WH? Representing a population of beliefs is fine, but the ultimate goal is to win the WH. Else what's the point? That's just the way I look at it when it comes to "What's next for the GOP?"

 

[Irish YJ]

Sanders should run as an independent.

I certainly don't agree with most his views (except on free tuition, getting big money out of politics, and native American rights), but I respect the guy and feel that he is sincere (unlike HRC).

 

[gkIrish]

Sanders should run as an independent.

What is interesting is that he could actually get A LOT of #NeverTrumpers to vote for him. Many people who would never vote for Trump also really don't want to vote for Hillary. If Bernie is a viable 3rd option, I personally would vote for him because I'm not worried about his crazy policies getting passed and I actually think he is a good, smart guy.

In a world where the electoral college is generally not "split" in each state, none of the candidates would get the nomination through electoral votes. Then it would go to the House of Representatives?

 

[woolybug25]

What is interesting is that he could actually get A LOT of #NeverTrumpers to vote for him. Many people who would never vote for Trump also really don't want to vote for Hillary. If Bernie is a viable 3rd option, I personally would vote for him because I'm not worried about his crazy policies getting passed and I actually think he is a good, smart guy.

In a world where the electoral college is generally not "split" in each state, none of the candidates would get the nomination through electoral votes. Then it would go to the House of Representatives?

This is how I feel as well. I would vote for him as a third party simply because he would be the only option that has a soul.

That being said, I disagree with him on almost all issues. Especially with free college tuition and breaking up the banks. The latter of which could put me out of a job and an idea that wouldn't actually fix anything. So I think it says something about how bad the choices are that I would vote for him, considering he's consistently told me that he wants to put policy in place I do not like, one of which, could cost me my job. Ha

 

[NDgradstudent]

But that's not even the worst part. The challenge with your comparison is this. If we are to have a conversation about the speed limit and our 'belief structure' on what it should be, we can debate and discuss that issue until resolved. For everything you claim, I can counter and vise versa.

If I'm trying to convince you, I won't appeal to what the Bible says. Arguments against morality and/or legality of abortion do not typically appeal to the Bible. The most common argument against the legality of abortion is something like this:

(1) Abortion generally violates a person's rights.
(2) Any practice that violates a person's rights should be illegal.
(3) Abortion should be generally illegal.

You might not accept the premises, but the argument does not appeal to personal revelation, or Scripture, church teaching, etc. Just because you reject the argument does not make it "religious."

Looks like you should have taken one more course in Civics and one less in Theology.

This is non-responsive, but that fact that some practice has been around a long time is not usually regarded as a conclusive point in its favor.

Heh. Pretty funny you won't touch the topic of homosexuality in your moral judgments....

Pretty telling.

We were talking about abortion, as I recall. I don't believe "homosexuality" should be illegal, nor do I believe that the state must provide marriage licenses to anyone. I don't approve of the state telling churches/schools/businesses who care they can hire and fire, though.

Ya. You're wrong about that. Scientific books do address moral questions. They address it by framing the discussion rather than providing the answer. Scientific books just don't tell you what to do based on the thinking of men who walked the desert 3400 years ago.

So the claim "directly killing the innocent is always wrong" can be established by science? Which scientist proved that? Moral claims cannot be established as true by the scientific method.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

SIAP

Tow truck owner said he refused service to woman because she sup - FOX Carolina 21

 

[woolybug25]

SIAP

Tow truck owner said he refused service to woman because she sup - FOX Carolina 21

Wow... What a complete asshole. Nothing like a Trump supporter leaving a woman stranded on the side of the road.

 

[ShawneeIrish]

Nlot only an asshole but a fool. Regardless of politics this will make a lot of people angry and damage his business.

 

[gkIrish]

When Trump gets asked about that he should say he doesn't want that guy's vote.