Guest MattP Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 I'm reasonably sure an atheist presidential candidate would have trouble getting the nomination for either major party, let alone get near the Presidency. In fact, I think getting the nomination would be harder for them. Very true, Obama wouldn't have got through the primaries, he actually lost the popular vote to Clinton.
Detroit Blues Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 I think the "have to be a Christian" card is just as overplayed as anything else in American politics, I can't see one state on the list of those he won that Obama wouldn't have had he even declared himself as an athiest. US elections are won on who takes the swing states - Florida, Las Vegas, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Vermont - I don't think religion plays a massive part in any of those. Very good point. I would also mention being religious isn't as important in the democratic party as it is in the republican party. Most of the religious states in the South and Midwest are going to vote for the republican candidate regardless. So really it comes down to winning the undecided/moderate voters in the states you mentioned. Also, i think you meant to say Nevada, and not Las Vegas .
Guest MattP Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Very good point. I would also mention being religious isn't as important in the democratic party as it is in the republican party. Most of the religious states in the South and Midwest are going to vote for the republican candidate regardless. So really it comes down to winning the undecided/moderate voters in the states you mentioned. Also, i think you meant to say Nevada, and not Las Vegas . That extremely embarrassing given I've spent time in Nevada.
Guest Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Being fairly uneducated on the US election and generally being fairly neutral in politics, on the face of it Sanders is probably my favourite, and by favourite I mean best of a bad bunch. Although the American brand of Socialism is nowhere near it's European counterpart in the way it's Socialist as it doesn't benefit the gun industry or the dissolution of any kind of social cohesion for the growth of big business. What does trouble me is how much Conservative Christianity plays a part in the campaign, I mean it's nowhere near as bad as some Islamic countries or the Orthodox Church in Russia but the fact being some proud Christian is a power play in the elections hits me funny. All for freedom of religion but I would of hoped the 'Secular' Superpower would of moved on socially to make scientific evidence more encouraging in a candidate than blind faith in entity which possible existence has been virtually destroyed over the last one hundred years or so. I think it is as bad as those you mention. It truly amazes me how these people spout on about God - WTF has God done to help them in their hours of need e.g. Twin towers? Anyone doing that should be thrown out of politics as insane - not put into a position of power.
ozleicester Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 Socialism is on the increase, a better world is getting closer.
SMX11 Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 Socialism is on the increase, a better world is getting closer. History would suggest otherwise....
Finnaldo Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 I think it is as bad as those you mention. I wouldn't class it anywhere near as bad as Sharia Law or Russia's Orthodox Church-influenced ban on 'gay propaganda' but it's still terrifying it's that involved in politics.
ozleicester Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 History would suggest otherwise.... to be fair, weve never had a capitalist society at the level we have now, the variation of socialism will also be different http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/goldman-sachs-says-it-may-be-forced-to-fundamentally-question-how-capitalism-is-working
SMX11 Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 to be fair, weve never had a capitalist society at the level we have now, the variation of socialism will also be different http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/goldman-sachs-says-it-may-be-forced-to-fundamentally-question-how-capitalism-is-working I would argue that we don't live in a capitalist society. If we did Goldman Sachs would have collapsed along with the other mega banks. Modern socialists have embraced this crony capitalist model and control it through regulation (old fascist model) instead of the state owning the means of production.
Guest MattP Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 Socialism is on the increase? Even Venezuela just booted out a socialist government. Islamism is spreading, the hard right is now being elected across Europe, we have a socialist leading the opposition in Britain and the ruling party has their biggest lead since polls began despite ****ing everything up in the last six months. Apart from Canada who has remotely to the left?
MPH Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 Cruz is as scary, if not scarier, than Trump. I am a Christian, but Cruz is way too extreme Christian for me. Did not see that result coming, Rubio looks back on to be the candidate for the GOP again. Sanders on the heels of Clinton, are the left just refusing to pick serious candidates for election anymore? The result for Rubio is huge, as you say he's now the anti buffoon candidate with a chance of winning. Trump now has a rival. Sanders will struggle deeply in the South, his support is pretty much exclusively young white people; Clinton has great ratings among old, hispanic and black voters. That said Iowa should always be taken with a pinch of salt, Santorum and Huckabee have won here. I wouldn't get carried away with the Iowa caucus... It is a much more conservative state that New Hampshire so the likes of Cruz and Rubio are going to fare better.. and so im pretty sure Trump will come out way ahead in New Hampshire...
Merging Cultures Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 I wouldn't get carried away with the Iowa caucus... It is a much more conservative state that New Hampshire so the likes of Cruz and Rubio are going to fare better.. and so im pretty sure Trump will come out way ahead in New Hampshire...Definitely not getting carried away. Just stating Cruz is a dick!
MPH Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 Definitely not getting carried away. Just stating Cruz is a dick! Probably should of just said ' Ignore the iowa causcus! Out of the three, I'd Probably go for Rubio.... Seems to have a bit of a better balance on Immigration than the others..
Merging Cultures Posted 3 February 2016 Posted 3 February 2016 Probably should of just said ' Ignore the iowa causcus! Out of the three, I'd Probably go for Rubio.... Seems to have a bit of a better balance on Immigration than the others.. Agreed. I'm a Rand Paul guy myself.
Guest Posted 4 February 2016 Posted 4 February 2016 I wouldn't class it anywhere near as bad as Sharia Law or Russia's Orthodox Church-influenced ban on 'gay propaganda' but it's still terrifying it's that involved in politics. Gay propaganda - anti abortion. Is one worse than the other? It is relgious extremism and will lead to the same extremes as Sharia law. I would argue that we don't live in a capitalist society. If we did Goldman Sachs would have collapsed along with the other mega banks. Modern socialists have embraced this crony capitalist model and control it through regulation (old fascist model) instead of the state owning the means of production. Or maybe we have capitalism except when it doesn't suit the rich.
Finnaldo Posted 4 February 2016 Posted 4 February 2016 Gay propaganda - anti abortion. Is one worse than the other? It is relgious extremism and will lead to the same extremes as Sharia law. By the banning of gay propaganda, it means no protection of gay rights and there's been dozens of cases of gays being lured to a meeting point, abducted and tortured by right wing groups. The torturers themselves upload photos of the torture an there's no government action. In stricter Sharia Law there's stoning for all kinds of petty crimes, some we wouldn't even conceive as out the norm. To me that's of a lot more concern than an anti-abortion debate.
Guest MattP Posted 4 February 2016 Posted 4 February 2016 Try and get your head around this, I can't.
leicsmac Posted 4 February 2016 Posted 4 February 2016 By the banning of gay propaganda, it means no protection of gay rights and there's been dozens of cases of gays being lured to a meeting point, abducted and tortured by right wing groups. The torturers themselves upload photos of the torture an there's no government action. In stricter Sharia Law there's stoning for all kinds of petty crimes, some we wouldn't even conceive as out the norm. To me that's of a lot more concern than an anti-abortion debate. That's reasonable, on a scale factor they aren't quite on the same level. That being said, the idea of the richest and most powerful country in the world - the one with the most potential for progress and scientific development due to their immense power and riches - having a massively significant voting bloc that believes fully in acts of God rather than acts of verifiable science (coupled with inhibition of freedom of choice for any demographic that isn't White Anglo-Saxon Male) scares me.
Finnaldo Posted 4 February 2016 Posted 4 February 2016 That's reasonable, on a scale factor they aren't quite on the same level. That being said, the idea of the richest and most powerful country in the world - the one with the most potential for progress and scientific development due to their immense power and riches - having a massively significant voting bloc that believes fully in acts of God rather than acts of verifiable science (coupled with inhibition of freedom of choice for any demographic that isn't White Anglo-Saxon Male) scares me. Oh yes, that's exactly the point I made earlier. If religion disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't solve the world's problems but it'd make them a lot easier to navigate.
Guest Posted 4 February 2016 Posted 4 February 2016 By the banning of gay propaganda, it means no protection of gay rights and there's been dozens of cases of gays being lured to a meeting point, abducted and tortured by right wing groups. The torturers themselves upload photos of the torture an there's no government action. In stricter Sharia Law there's stoning for all kinds of petty crimes, some we wouldn't even conceive as out the norm. To me that's of a lot more concern than an anti-abortion debate. I'm not undervaluing your points about Gay rights or sharia law. They are extremely valid and important concerns. The anti-abortion debate is rather a disingenious way of putting that situation unless you really think that woman should have no rights over their own bodies. Forcing women and girls to extreme and dangerous methods to not have unwanted children or forcing them to have children that they don't want and the ruining of both the "adults" and children's lives that follow on from this. And of course anti-abortion is only one of many extremist "christian" views that are happily accepted by this sector of the population.
Finnaldo Posted 5 February 2016 Posted 5 February 2016 I'm not undervaluing your points about Gay rights or sharia law. They are extremely valid and important concerns. The anti-abortion debate is rather a disingenious way of putting that situation unless you really think that woman should have no rights over their own bodies. Forcing women and girls to extreme and dangerous methods to not have unwanted children or forcing them to have children that they don't want and the ruining of both the "adults" and children's lives that follow on from this. And of course anti-abortion is only one of many extremist "christian" views that are happily accepted by this sector of the population. I'm pro-choice personally, and I don't see any benefits in anti-abortion policy at all. In fact it's intrusive and quite frankly medieval in thinking, as is the case with most (if not all) of theocratic policy.
UPinCarolina Posted 10 February 2016 Posted 10 February 2016 Sanders and Trump win the New Hampshire primary...Which basically means nothing. What's more important is who came in second place on the Republican side, as hopefully the field will begin to become a little more clear.
leicsmac Posted 10 February 2016 Posted 10 February 2016 Wins for both Bernie and Trump in New Hampshire. Trump: "The world is going to respect us again!" Might want to check a thesaurus there Donny my friend...the last time I checked 'fear and be paranoid of a demagogue who's perfectly cool with waterboarding' were not synonyms with 'respect'. Kasich in second on the Repub side...might be the establishment candidate in the end. Expect to see a mass cull of most of the other candidates soon enough.
MC Prussian Posted 10 February 2016 Posted 10 February 2016 Sanders is going to surprise many, I think. Even I couldn't see him performing this well from the start. Now with Clinton under investigation, could the Democrats actually turn to a coherent, sensible and progressive liberal? Not that I'd call him Socialist or anything (which is pretty much frowned upon in Free Market Central USA), but imagine a 75-year old taking office in his first term. You can only hope he'd last that long. I'd find his appointment a breath of fresh air, but also somewhat risky.
Guest MattP Posted 10 February 2016 Posted 10 February 2016 Bernie Sanders and sensible being used in the same sentence? Come on. I don't want a Team America style USA but a Sanders led USA would be just as catastrophic for the World, Putin, ISIS, Iran and North Korea would be rubbing their hands together at the thought of a Bernie Sanders led America. Fortunately if he did somehow beat Clinton I think any Republican candidate would beat him.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.