US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[MattShizzle]

[Coito ergo sum]

[Pappa]

Seraph summed it up best...

Have you actually ever looked at Godwin's law? Apart from being meant to be a joke, it's also meaningless. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." You may as well replace "Nazis or Hitler" with "X". And it doesn't say that therefore the thread is at its end, let alone why or how.

[Coito ergo sum]

After months of hedging, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is giving serious thought to jumping into the ring for a GOP presidential run -- and could make his decision next week, The Post has learned.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/c ... z1ZLYqHCwZ

I like Chris Christie.

Some interesting analysis on this subject:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

My takeaway is the same as I've said a while back: I think he could be tapped for Veep, or maybe run for the nomination in 2016. It's possible that he may instead soon enter the 2012 race, but I don't think I'd bet money on it.

Awesome link...I watched the 1978 Yankee/Red Sox game live as a kid. It still sends chills up my spine...

Er, I meant this one:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... -calendar/

I don't think he's going to run. He's been too adamant about not running. If he flipflops now, then he will risk the accusation that he isn't the straight-shooter he claims to be. I really, really want him to run. And, I hope he does. He is a straight-shooter, and a competent governor, and he seems to have a lot of native intelligence.

His opposition is already starting to hammer on his weight, as if that should matter. But, his opposition will say whatever they have to in order to slur him. They'll paint him with any number of denigrating labels. But, objectively, he seems like a good choice.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seraph summed it up best...

Have you actually ever looked at Godwin's law? Apart from being meant to be a joke, it's also meaningless. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." You may as well replace "Nazis or Hitler" with "X". And it doesn't say that therefore the thread is at its end, let alone why or how.

The idea of the person raising the inappropriate Nazi or Hitler analogy or comparison has lost the argument is actually a corollary to Godwin's original law. It's really a tradition, because whoever raises the silly comparison ought to be resoundingly and collectively facepalmed.

We might also consider the usage of the Hitler reference to be "reductio ad Hitlerum."

[JimC]

Obama agrees with whack-job that "Jesus is Lord."

It's bat-shit crazy to call Obama the antichrist, but not at all crazy to worship a guy who has supposedly been dead for 1980 years +/-.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... aiser.html

So much for the doubts about Obama's Christianity, of course. He accepts Jesus as his Lord.

He states that publically, because to otherwise in the US these days would be political suicide. Being a politician, he may well be saying one thing and believing another...

Evidence?

Well, has there ever been an openly atheist politician elected to reasonably high office in the US? (not counting local government in places like San Francisco... )

Or even a member of another major religion? (that, I could understand)

And, if you mean do I know whether he is actually Christian or not, I have no idea. All I implied is that, if he were at heart an atheist, he would never admit it until his days of seeking high public office were gone.

[Ian]

Obama agrees with whack-job that "Jesus is Lord."

It's bat-shit crazy to call Obama the antichrist, but not at all crazy to worship a guy who has supposedly been dead for 1980 years +/-.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... aiser.html

So much for the doubts about Obama's Christianity, of course. He accepts Jesus as his Lord.

He states that publically, because to otherwise in the US these days would be political suicide. Being a politician, he may well be saying one thing and believing another...

Evidence?

Well, has there ever been an openly atheist politician elected to reasonably high office in the US? (not counting local government in places like San Francisco... )

Or even a member of another major religion? (that, I could understand)

And, if you mean do I know whether he is actually Christian or not, I have no idea. All I implied is that, if he were at heart an atheist, he would never admit it until his days of seeking high public office were gone.

In the House and Senate (and state Governors) there've been quite a few Jews and "unspecified" members. Recently there've also been a couple buddhists and muslims. There have also been a number of quakers and mormons, which some people lump together with Christians, though quite a few Christians don't really see them that way. And yes, there has been at least one openly atheist Congressman, recently.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html#109
http://bligbi.com/2007/03/12/first-atheist-in-congress/

[JimC]

Ian wrote:

And yes, there has been at least one openly atheist Congressman, recently.

One, for the whole country...

And he's from California, so it doesn't count...

As for the others, I suspect it's a case of any religion is better than being one of those horrid atheists...

But would you agree that an open atheist would have zero chance of being elected President?

[Ian]

Ian wrote:

And yes, there has been at least one openly atheist Congressman, recently.

One, for the whole country...

And he's from California, so it doesn't count...

As for the others, I suspect it's a case of any religion is better than being one of those horrid atheists...

But would you agree that an open atheist would have zero chance of being elected President?

Sadly, I would agree. For now. But I think that could change - atheists and "non-religious" people are the fastest growing religious demographic in the US. And Europe, after all, has seen religion gradually fade into near-irrelevancy over the last few generations, some countries more so than others. Regions in the US, and the US overall, I believe, is in for a similar shift.

No doubt we've had other atheist leaders, including Presidents (plenty of reason to look at Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, etc.) But being openly atheist, especially in the last few generations, would not go over well. Who knows if Obama really believes in Christ's divinity and other weird stuff from the bible; he may be only "Christian" in name, and that's what his evangelical opponents no doubt think of him, but I don't know the real deal. He'll never say otherwise as long as he's in office, or maybe a while thereafter if he's really concerned about establishing his legacy.

[JimC]

Ian wrote:

And yes, there has been at least one openly atheist Congressman, recently.

One, for the whole country...

And he's from California, so it doesn't count...

As for the others, I suspect it's a case of any religion is better than being one of those horrid atheists...

But would you agree that an open atheist would have zero chance of being elected President?

Sadly, I would agree. For now. But I think that could change - atheists and "non-religious" people are the fastest growing religious demographic in the US. And Europe, after all, has seen religion gradually fade into near-irrelevancy over the last few generations, some countries more so than others. Regions in the US, and the US overall, I believe, is in for a similar shift.

No doubt we've had other atheist leaders, including Presidents (plenty of reason to look at Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, etc.) But being openly atheist, especially in the last few generations, would not go over well. Who knows if Obama really believes in Christ's divinity and other weird stuff from the bible; he may be only "Christian" in name, and that's what his evangelical opponents no doubt think of him, but I don't know the real deal. He'll never say otherwise as long as he's in office, or maybe a while thereafter if he's really concerned about establishing his legacy.

That accords perfectly with what I can pick up about American politics from this side of the pond.

I have the opposite problem. We have an openly atheist female Prime Minister, belonging to a nominally left of centre party, but she is an oily politician at heart, and her government has been incompetent in far too many ways...

Problem is, our opposition leader is even more of an arsehole...

[Posse Comitatus]

I don't think there's any reason whatsoever bar wishful thinking to doubt the sincerity of Obama's faith. If you read his books the deception would seem almost pathological.

[Tyrannical]

I don't think there's any reason whatsoever bar wishful thinking to doubt the sincerity of Obama's faith. If you read his books the deception would seem almost pathological.

You might have read his books, but did Obama write them

If I recall, Obama didn't go to Church until his wife made him for political reasons join that crazy YT hating one in Chicago.

[Hermit]

... Godwin's original law.

Godwin's original law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." You may of course expand on that with any corollary you choose, but please make it a plausible one. This one you quoted above does not qualify.

Godwin's law ... does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.

[Coito ergo sum]

... Godwin's original law.

Godwin's original law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." You may of course expand on that with any corollary you choose, but please make it a plausible one. This one you quoted above does not qualify.

Godwin's law ... does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.

Sure it does. It's the corollary that the person who pulls that card automatically loses is a common corollary. It qualifies fine.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama agrees with whack-job that "Jesus is Lord."

It's bat-shit crazy to call Obama the antichrist, but not at all crazy to worship a guy who has supposedly been dead for 1980 years +/-.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... aiser.html

So much for the doubts about Obama's Christianity, of course. He accepts Jesus as his Lord.

He states that publically, because to otherwise in the US these days would be political suicide. Being a politician, he may well be saying one thing and believing another...

Evidence?

Well, has there ever been an openly atheist politician elected to reasonably high office in the US?

Reasonably close to openly "atheist" would be Thomas Jefferson, who was by most accounts a Deist, but that was about as close as anyone could really get in the 18th century, and the idea of a prime mover seemed to follow logically at the time. Abraham Lincoln's religious beliefs are murky, and he certainly denied being a Christian. Lincoln’s closest associate, William Herndon, while describing the sheer complexity of Lincoln’s religious views, stated that Lincoln was “at times, an atheist."

Back in the day, the Republican Party was the friendlier party to atheists.... Charles T. Beaird (1922–2006), was a Republican Party member and newspaper publisher. Lori Lipman Brown was a Nevada state senator from 1992 to 1994.

Pete Stark is a U.S. Representative (D-CA), and an openly atheist member of Congress.

(not counting local government in places like San Francisco... )

Or even a member of another major religion? (that, I could understand)

Senator Lieberman, Senator Levin...

And, if you mean do I know whether he is actually Christian or not, I have no idea. All I implied is that, if he were at heart an atheist, he would never admit it until his days of seeking high public office were gone.

Well, I've heard the refrain a lot, that Obama isn't really an atheist, and is just pretending to be a Christian. I see no evidence of that at all. There is no more evidence of that than there is to think that he's a "closet Muslim." And, that is - zero evidence. There is plenty of evidence that he is a Christian, going by the objective evidence of his behavior and his words.