2012 Presidential Campaign

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

ELCA right here! I wonder if I'm one of those... are we Facebook friends?

I was raised LCMS but I think I migrated to ELCA

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

What if someone is just inspired by their faith or individuals in their church, to say, help poor people, and from that they construct a practical policy that addresses real life challenges in attempt to address those goals. Is that allowed? I think the line there is pretty grey.

Edit: But as far as I can tell the general rule is - if you're inspired by faith, religion, or spirituality to a position someone disagrees with, that that person considers that view invalid. But as long as the position is "correct", then it's fine for it to be based on those things.

I think the issue is more with forcing others to abide by your spiritual rules, not about how someone comes to their conclusions on policy. If you're talking about how to do health care or other services, I get it even if I disagree. But when you are trying to take away freedoms of mine that hurt no one else just because you don't like it, that's a problem.

If your religion says that we should do health care a certain way or build roads a certain way, that's fine. If your religion says you shouldn't drink beer and you want to force me to abide by those same guidelines, then fuck you. It's a small issue here, but I look more at the Middle East when it comes to this stuff. Like a girl getting a bullet to the head because she dared talk about getting an education.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

What if someone is just inspired by their faith or individuals in their church, to say, help poor people, and from that they construct a practical policy that addresses real life challenges in attempt to address those goals. Is that allowed? I think the line there is pretty grey.

Edit: But as far as I can tell the general rule is - if you're inspired by faith, religion, or spirituality to a position someone disagrees with, that that person considers that view invalid. But as long as the position is "correct", then it's fine for it to be based on those things.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!

This is essentially my argument. We vote on all policies coming from all sorts of motivations. Why is it considered "lesser" if it originates from a religious viewpoint?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I was raised LCMS but I think I migrated to ELCA

SI

Not wanting to start a my (or rather our) denomination is better, but I am still somewhat shocked that a mainline Protestant denomination like LCMS is anti-female pastors (I mean I guess I can see conservative mainline Prots coming along slower on gay rights, but female pastors?! Really?)

[CrimsonFox]

I myself am conffused that religion is now all acronyms.

[CrimsonFox]

It always has been silly to me that so many religious sects and subsects exist. It tells me they were all started by someone who decided "the other guys are wrong. I'm right and am going to write my own rules. Everyone follow ME" which is really the opposite of that the initial premise is (aka to follow God)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the issue is more with forcing others to abide by your spiritual rules, not about how someone comes to their conclusions on policy. If you're talking about how to do health care or other services, I get it even if I disagree. But when you are trying to take away freedoms of mine that hurt no one else just because you don't like it, that's a problem.

If your religion says that we should do health care a certain way or build roads a certain way, that's fine. If your religion says you shouldn't drink beer and you want to force me to abide by those same guidelines, then fuck you. It's a small issue here, but I look more at the Middle East when it comes to this stuff. Like a girl getting a bullet to the head because she dared talk about getting an education.

This. It's only a problem when it comes to taking away freedoms of somebody else based on your religion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ding, Ding, Ding!!

This is essentially my argument. We vote on all policies coming from all sorts of motivations. Why is it considered "lesser" if it originates from a religious viewpoint?

It's not considered "lesser." It's just a problem when you try to remove freedoms from people through legislating morality based upon your religion.

And FWIW I wasn't saying you need to accept reason as the complete be all and end all - that was misinterpreted or I stated it wrong...what I was saying is that you can't say that reason and rational thought don't have a place in the conversation. So I apologize if that came out the wrong way.

[CrimsonFox]

And then this happened...

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

And then this happened...

.

At press time, multiple male Senate candidates in their 60s remained divided between those who believe pregnancies resulting from rape are biologically impossible and those who believe they are the divine will of God.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

It's not considered "lesser." It's just a problem when you try to remove freedoms from people through legislating morality based upon your religion.

And FWIW I wasn't saying you need to accept reason as the complete be all and end all - that was misinterpreted or I stated it wrong...what I was saying is that you can't say that reason and rational thought don't have a place in the conversation. So I apologize if that came out the wrong way.

But it is ok to legislate morality based upon things other than religion? I mean the Tea Party folks have a beef about removing their freedoms through legislating morality based upon liberalism. Should be the same thing.

And no one is saying reason doesn't have a place in the conversation - the issue is that reason and rational thought have TOO much of a place in the conversation. So much so that emotions and feelings have no place in the conversation - when they are just as important as reason & rational thought (I believe that's the point of have Data in Star Trek: TNG ). We aren't rational animals, we're emotional animals who can reason. However, the initial basis for that emotion shouldn't be elevated or lessened based on the source of it - because one source is not objective superior to the another (though it is subjective superior to certain people).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But it is ok to legislate morality based upon things other than religion? I mean the Tea Party folks have a beef about removing their freedoms through legislating morality based upon liberalism. Should be the same thing.

I agree with this. Basically my stance is that you shouldn't legislate morality to someone if their behavior is not hurting or could cause direct harm to others. Whether that's conservatives fighting against pornography or a liberal fighting against 64 oz sodas.

I'm fine with either side having strong opinions on it, just don't force others to live by your moral beliefs if they are not hurting others. And I find this goes well beyond just religious people who do it. I've come across a lot of people who want trans-fats banned, or vaccines banned, and so on. They are just as wrong for forcing others to live by their own beliefs.

[ISiddiqui]

The argument to made against that, however, is that asking for increase in tax money for some sort of social program or defense spending can be said to be forcing other people to live by your moral belief (in this regard paying for things they may not want to pay for - & yes, spending on social programs or stronger defense is a moral belief, ie, it is right to take money to spend on X).

Basically, law is legislated morality. So any law passed is forcing someone's morality upon others in some way, shape, or form.

[cartman]

So the Texas Attorney General has threatened to arrest any election monitors from the OCSE that appear at Texas polling places. Never mind that they were invited by George Bush in 2004 and 2008 to monitor elections in the US. Never mind that they have no powers to intervene on election day, only observe and produce a report afterwards. If this is a group that we send to other countries to monitor elections, shouldn't they see how ours run if we believe we are the gold standard, so those elections can be held to the same level?

Texas official threatens to arrest election monitors observing US polls | World news | guardian.co.uk

[RendeR]

Is he THAT afraid that Texas might go Blue?? really?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The argument to made against that, however, is that asking for increase in tax money for some sort of social program or defense spending can be said to be forcing other people to live by your moral belief (in this regard paying for things they may not want to pay for - & yes, spending on social programs or stronger defense is a moral belief, ie, it is right to take money to spend on X).

Basically, law is legislated morality. So any law passed is forcing someone's morality upon others in some way, shape, or form.

This smells to me like you're trying to use a "slippery slope" argument to say (for example) "well because we legislate that we spend money on defense and Quakers for example don't like that therefore it's okay to legislate to outlaw abortions."

Which is a fun little intellectual argument, but it's pretty clearly just trying to use a slippery-slope argument to push your religious beliefs onto others.

[JPhillips]

Just saw a list of California initiatives. How can anyone be well informed on all of those? It might be a good idea, but in practice it's a terrible system.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This smells to me like you're trying to use a "slippery slope" argument to say (for example) "well because we legislate that we spend money on defense and Quakers for example don't like that therefore it's okay to legislate to outlaw abortions."

Which is a fun little intellectual argument, but it's pretty clearly just trying to use a slippery-slope argument to push your religious beliefs onto others.

It doesn't have to be as extreme as Quakers and violence - don't you try to force your moral views on others by favoring tax increases, rules, regulations, etc. for everyone, in order support particular social programs you support, or to limit business practices that you don't like?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This smells to me like you're trying to use a "slippery slope" argument to say (for example) "well because we legislate that we spend money on defense and Quakers for example don't like that therefore it's okay to legislate to outlaw abortions."

Which is a fun little intellectual argument, but it's pretty clearly just trying to use a slippery-slope argument to push your religious beliefs onto others.

Not in the slightest. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of saying "I don't want legislated morality". IT'S ALL LEGISLATED MORALITY!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

It doesn't have to be as extreme as Quakers and violence - don't you try to force your moral views on others by favoring tax increases, rules, regulations, etc. for everyone, in order support particular social programs you support, or to limit business practices that you don't like?

Again we go back to what was said last night though - that's not infringing on other people's civil rights. When anybody tries to legislate morality to deny/infringe upon other people's civil rights is where the issue is.

There's also something to be said for materiality and common sense.

Example: I'm not at all in favor of the ban on big sodas in NYC. I think that's government overreach.

But you can't deny that there's a material difference (and a moral one at that) between banning people's ability to buy large sodas and forcing someone who was raped to carry her attacker's baby to term. One is just a LITTLE BIT (sarcasm intended) more consequential and meaningful than the other.

Maybe she can't give the kid up for adoption. Maybe she has to keep it (for whatever reason - there could be a number...medical problems, whatever). You really think it's morally defensible to force her to potentially relive the rape everytime she looks at the kid? Is that healthy for her? Is it healthy for the kid?

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Again we go back to what was said last night though - that's not infringing on other people's civil rights. When anybody tries to legislate morality to deny/infringe upon other people's civil rights is where the issue is.

The concept of "civil rights" is a means of pushing morality on other people through law. And that's generally a really good thing (as long as it's morals we agree with, of course.) A "civil right" is just a man-made construction where we identify particular moral values as being SO critical, that they're afforded extra protection in law.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They are still separate issues. Just because you don't believe in pre-marital sex doesn't mean you have to be against safety in sex. I don't ride motorcycles and find them dangerous, but I'm not in favor of banning helmets out of spite. And their stance on contraceptives doesn't just apply to unmarried individuals, it applies to everyone. Married people use birth control also.

Whatever mental gymnastics they use to justify the stance, their position still leads to more abortions. Something they claim to be against.

Their position doesn't lead to more abortions. People should stop having so much sex, and it should be for the intent of procreation (I'm going extreme here). Therefore, their position does not lead to more abortions. It also leads to fewer sexually transmitted diseases.

Their position is clear and consistent. The fact that other people do not adhere to what they preach and practice is a separate issue. Aiding and abetting someone who is committing a sin is a sin in and of itself.

In the case of a married couple, the contraceptives do not need to be provided because the responsible and ethical couple will either provide their own contraceptives, or not have sex until these have been procured, they will not rely on others to provide them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Again we go back to what was said last night though - that's not infringing on other people's civil rights. When anybody tries to legislate morality to deny/infringe upon other people's civil rights is where the issue is.

Originally Posted by molson

The concept of "civil rights" is a means of pushing morality on other people through law. And that's generally a really good thing (as long as it's morals we agree with, of course.) A "civil right" is just a man-made construction where we identify particular moral values as being SO critical, that they're afforded extra protection in law.

A thousand times this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

The concept of "civil rights" is a means of pushing morality on other people through law.

A point that seems to have somehow gotten considerably lost along the way somewhere. Alongside the reality that "rights" are simply whatever the people with the most/best guns working for them say they are.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But life isn't really subject to a scientific determination here. Embryos are, of course, alive - heck, viruses are alive. Amoebas are alive. The question is whether they are human (after all, we kill plenty of alive things without care).

What I'm trying to point out is that it can be easy to take your comments and to feel one is being talked down to. Now, as I've stated, I don't believe that human life starts at conception - but I can see where some would see you tone as thinking those that do aren't interested in science.

I don't think you meant to talk down, but just be cognizant of how it may come across.

I can totally see that. I wish it was easier to convey the actual tone of my voice via text as I'm not always the best at explaining myself.

[ISiddiqui]

Nah, you're cool .

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Nah, you're cool .

Right on.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Their position doesn't lead to more abortions. People should stop having so much sex, and it should be for the intent of procreation (I'm going extreme here). Therefore, their position does not lead to more abortions. It also leads to fewer sexually transmitted diseases.

Their position is clear and consistent. The fact that other people do not adhere to what they preach and practice is a separate issue. Aiding and abetting someone who is committing a sin is a sin in and of itself.

In the case of a married couple, the contraceptives do not need to be provided because the responsible and ethical couple will either provide their own contraceptives, or not have sex until these have been procured, they will not rely on others to provide them.

Unwanted pregnancies lead to abortions. Not using contraceptives leads to unwanted pregnancies. Like I said, that stance is akin to saying you don't think people should drive cars so seat belts should be banned. You can be against something and still want it done in a safe manner.

No matter what they try to say, their position increases the number of abortions directly or indirectly. That's all that should matter for a group that is against abortion. Decreasing the number of them should be their top priority. But like I said, they don't care about abortion, they care about shaming sex which is why that takes priority.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just saw a list of California initiatives. How can anyone be well informed on all of those? It might be a good idea, but in practice it's a terrible system.

I think it's terrible as well. Especially when you get situations where you actually are voting "no" to be in favor of something.

[larrymcg421]

Ralph Reed fail. This is a direct mail voter guide he sent out in Florida where he attacks Obama for supporting traditional marriage:

[mckerney]

I get the feeling that next election cycle GOP senate candidates may just avoid the word rape all together.

Or maybe GOP primary voters will try to steer clear of the tea party candidates.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Anyone notice the elephant in the room in the likely voters' numbers by Gallop?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/20...like-2008.aspx

Demographics remain the same, but it appears the Republican and Republican-leaning voters are expected to outnumber Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters. That's a stark contrast from four years ago, where Democrats and Democrat-leaning voters outnumbered Republicans from 10-12 points. We'll see how that translates and whether any of the polls start to make that change in their polling figures.

[JPhillips]

Good polls don't weight by party ID, including Gallup. Party ID is fluid and changes too rapidly to make weighting it useful. Weighting works for age, income, education, etc. but party ID is just taken as it develops from survey to survey. So, there isn't anything for other polls to reflect based on the Gallup tracker.

[CrimsonFox]

nice little montage

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Anyone notice the elephant in the room in the likely voters' numbers by Gallop?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/20...like-2008.aspx

Demographics remain the same, but it appears the Republican and Republican-leaning voters are expected to outnumber Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters. That's a stark contrast from four years ago, where Democrats and Democrat-leaning voters outnumbered Republicans from 10-12 points. We'll see how that translates and whether any of the polls start to make that change in their polling figures.

Gallup has been an outlier all along for this reason. There doesn't seem to be any real reason for this. Since Gallup is including leaners, it's hard to justify their numbers, which suggest the strongest turnout by GOP voters in 30 years. If they end up right, good for them.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Good polls don't weight by party ID, including Gallup. Party ID is fluid and changes too rapidly to make weighting it useful. Weighting works for age, income, education, etc. but party ID is just taken as it develops from survey to survey. So, there isn't anything for other polls to reflect based on the Gallup tracker.

Actually good polls do weight by party ID, and virtually every professional poll you see is weighted by party ID. You may not see some polls weighted by party ID if they end up with a reflective sample.

In college, I did work for a pollster who used quotas -- they knew how many people they wanted for each gender, age range, etc. Once you maxed out your quota, you stopped taking their results. If I already had my quota for women, we would skip ahead to ask a few questions and end the call so they didn't feel like we were profiling them.

I know other pollsters who will call get the number of responses they want and use that sampling data to fit their profile. If they think turnout on election day will be 35% Dems, 27% GOP and 38% independents, that's how they will weight the responses.

[JPhillips]

I know Gallup and Pew this election have both said they don't weight by party ID because of the extreme volatility. Gallup weights by age/education/income and past elections to determine their LV screen. The party ID is just the raw answers from those weighted groups.

From Mark Blumenthal:

Claims that media polls "assume" a specific partisan or demographic composition of the electorate are mostly false. The pollsters behind most of the national media surveys, including those who conduct the CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac, NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist and Washington Post polls, all use the same general approach: They do not directly set the partisan or demographic composition of their likely voter samples. They first sample adults in each state, weighting the demographics of the full adult sample (for characteristics such as gender, age, race and education) to match U.S. Census estimates for the full population. They then select "likely voters" based on questions answered by the respondents, without making any further adjustments to the sample's demographics or partisanship.

There are pollsters that weight the subset of "likely voters" by party or to match very specific assumptions about the demographics of those they expect to vote. However, such practices are generally shunned by the national media surveys whose recent results have drawn most of the "skewed poll" criticism.

[mauchow]

The Redneck, Jeff Foxworthy, was on my radio today.... just an awful ad, it goes something like this:

"Lost jobs, poor economy, etc.. Romney will change that, etc.. "

Then the last 20 seconds was:

"Don't be a fool. The definition of a fool is doing the same thing and expecting change so don't be a fool.."

Seriously. THat's the definition, Jeff? I know you can twist the definition a bit but it was pretty obvious that they were stating the definition of 'insanity' but I guess they didn't want to say "So don't be insane.."

[Passacaglia]

Um, I wouldn't argue with Jeff Foxworthy about definitions. That's like his entire schtick.

[kcchief19]

The guy at UnskewedPolls.com is becoming more unhinged. Here's his attack on Nate Silver today.

Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the “Mr. New Castrati” voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I know Gallup and Pew this election have both said they don't weight by party ID because of the extreme volatility. Gallup weights by age/education/income and past elections to determine their LV screen. The party ID is just the raw answers from those weighted groups.

From Mark Blumenthal:

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, since some of those polls have continually had a consistent party ID. However, even if all you are doing is using age, gender, education and income to determine likely turnout, you're indirectly impacting the party ID of your sample.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The guy at UnskewedPolls.com is becoming more unhinged. Here's his attack on Nate Silver today.

Somebody should ask that guy, "U mad, brah?"

[stevew]

I hate giving that unskewed douchebag hits, but he's fucking hilarious.

[RainMaker]

What does he do after his polls come out hilariously wrong? Does he claim a big conspiracy?

[mauchow]

What an awful website design.

[mauchow]

Michelangelo Signorile: Romney: 'Some Gays Are Actually Having Children. It's Not Right on Paper. It's Not Right in Fact.'

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

Michelangelo Signorile: Romney: 'Some Gays Are Actually Having Children. It's Not Right on Paper. It's Not Right in Fact.'

I'm surprised that Obama and his supporters haven't gone after Romney's and more importantly his religion's stance on homosexuality. It's a pretty scary history actually with the use of "conversion therapy" until fairly recently when the Mormon Church "condemned" it.

And I read somewhere recently that Billy Graham and his son have endorsed Romney after meeting him and removed the part of their website about Mormonism being a cult.

Billy Graham buys election ads after Romney meeting – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

[JPhillips]

IMO most GOP members aren't racists, but far too few of them are willing to call out the sizable portion that are. Kudos to Wilkerson.

"My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people -- not all of them, but most of them -- who are still basing their positions on race. Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable," - Laurence Wilkerson, former chief-of-staff for Colin Powell.

[SirFozzie]

U.S. to Sponsor Health Insurance Plans Nationwide - NYTimes.com

Ubteresting, if this story is true, then we may get the public option that some folks in the Democrats wanted from the start..

[molson]

I voted today, hopefully nobody that I voted for commits murder or anything before the election.

Doing my research yesterday, I was pleasantly surprised how moderate the Republicans in my district are. There was a decent amount of support in this state last year for a bill that would require women to get ultrasounds prior to obtaining abortions. It ended up getting killed at some point, but the local paper still asked everyone running for state and national legislative office their opinion on it (among many other questions) - all 8 or so Republicans I could have voted for were against it. All 8 are pro-life, but they all said the same thing - there shouldn't be extra government hurdles in the way of a legal activity. A few even advocated focusing on ways to reduce abortion - education and contraception and stuff. I'm positive that would shock my liberal friends back east who think who have very exaggerated views of what people are like here politically. There were a few Dems who stood out too - like the lady who thinks Obamacare is dumb because it gives private insurance companies too much power and will be too expensive. And all 8 Dems wanted to end a particular tax here that is apparently really cumbersome and expensive to enforce.

So, it was kind of nice to come to the realization that at least in my pretty liberal district of Idaho, I was casting votes for human beings rather than cartoon characters. Maybe if you don't pay close attention you only hear the loudest, craziest voices (and certainly each side wants those voices to be the loudest and most prominent too), but who knows, maybe in reality. there's not as many crazies out there as it appears.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I'm surprised that Obama and his supporters haven't gone after Romney's and more importantly his religion's stance on homosexuality. It's a pretty scary history actually with the use of "conversion therapy" until fairly recently when the Mormon Church "condemned" it.

And I read somewhere recently that Billy Graham and his son have endorsed Romney after meeting him and removed the part of their website about Mormonism being a cult.

Billy Graham buys election ads after Romney meeting – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

For the same reason they don't go after Romney for his religions past on blacks. Obama has those votes won, there isn't a point in chasing after them.