Which is the least likely minority to be elected President of the USA?

[Dave]

I find it funny that belief in an imaginary friend is what gets your vote over things like health care, the economy and foreign relations. If an atheist was the best person for the job what does it matter?

Jimmy Carter was an insanely religious and good man. Didn't make him a good President.

 

[Chazwozel]

I find it funny that belief in an imaginary friend is what gets your vote over things like health care, the economy and foreign relations. If an atheist was the best person for the job what does it matter?

Jimmy Carter was an insanely religious and good man. Didn't make him a good President.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, let's nut get nuts on Jimmy C, here. A good reason that his presidency sucked so bad was because of Nixon fucking things over in the previous years.

 

[makare]

makare and I differ so much in this it's not even funny. I'd much rather vote for someone who doesn't believe in God than I would for someone who professes to believe and acts counter to these professed beliefs. See the notes on how GW used the religious right to further his own political ends and basically ignored them in the process.

I want a representative who governs with logic and a sense of right/wrong based on social norms rather than arbitrary rules based on a book a couple thousand years old written by an outdated and archaic establishment bent on dominating the weak and lonely.

But makare has the right to believe what she wants so it's all good.

yet again, I did not say anything about religion.

I want someone who believes that people have a spiritual self, something beyond their physical body. I wouldn't vote for some fundamentalist religious person whose allegiance are automatically split between the people and religion.

You can be spiritual without a book, thousands of years old or otherwise. You don't need gurus, rituals or sects. Spiritualism requires nothing but a belief in something spiritual beyond yourself.

 

[Snuffleupagus]

The president is my representative on a national scale. I want to be represented by someone who, you know, represents me. So I would vote for the person that most represents me.

That's fine. It's your vote. But I wholeheartedly disagree that the right person for the job must think like the voter in terms of personal affiliations in order for that voter to give them their vote.[/QUOTE]

This doesn't make sense. If the candidate doesn't share the same values as the voter then they are not the correct candidate for that voter. It's all based on how you see them whether or not you're going to vote for them.

By the way this is completely aside from religion. I could care less if people want to pray to their imaginary friends.

 

[Dave]

makare and I differ so much in this it's not even funny. I'd much rather vote for someone who doesn't believe in God than I would for someone who professes to believe and acts counter to these professed beliefs. See the notes on how GW used the religious right to further his own political ends and basically ignored them in the process.

I want a representative who governs with logic and a sense of right/wrong based on social norms rather than arbitrary rules based on a book a couple thousand years old written by an outdated and archaic establishment bent on dominating the weak and lonely.

But makare has the right to believe what she wants so it's all good.

yet again, I did not say anything about religion.

I want someone who believes that people have a spiritual self, something beyond their physical body. I wouldn't vote for some fundamentalist religious person whose allegiance are automatically split between the people and religion.

You can be spiritual without a book, thousands of years old or otherwise. You don't need gurus, rituals or sects. Spiritualism requires nothing but a belief in something spiritual beyond yourself.[/QUOTE]

Okay, spirituality. What does that have to do with anything? At all? Let's say for a second that there is something larger out there and we just can't perceive it as Humans. If the only way to find out is to die how does it compute that a belief in this has any bearing at all on the ability to govern?

The illogic of this viewpoint makes my head go all crazy.

 

[Espy]

I find it funny that belief in an imaginary friend is what gets your vote over things like health care, the economy and foreign relations. If an atheist was the best person for the job what does it matter?

Jimmy Carter was an insanely religious and good man. Didn't make him a good President.

You guys aren't getting this are you? Serious, real religious belief and commitment informs every part of your life, it means that you take into account the values you are committed to and they affect your views on all of those political ideals. Stop getting so held up on "hur hur believe in big guy in the sky" and start thinking more in terms of personal values. Every single one of us has things that affect what we believe is right politically and those values stem from somewhere, for some it's from religious belief. You don't have to like it but it's stupid to denigrate it just because you get your values from somewhere else.

So if I believe that God has commanded us to take care of those in need that affects who I vote for and their stances on helping those in need, etc, etc. Does that makes sense? I personally won't say I wouldn't vote for an atheist if I felt that they had similar values, you certainly don't need to be a Christian to have the same values I do, but I haven't had the choice to make yet.

 

[Snuffleupagus]

I find it funny that belief in an imaginary friend is what gets your vote over things like health care, the economy and foreign relations. If an atheist was the best person for the job what does it matter?

Jimmy Carter was an insanely religious and good man. Didn't make him a good President.

You guys aren't getting this are you? Serious, real religious belief and commitment informs every part of your life, it means that you take into account the values you are committed to and they affect your views on all of those political ideals. Stop getting so held up on "hur hur believe in big guy in the sky" and start thinking more in terms of personal values. Every single one of us has things that affect what we believe is right politically and those values stem from somewhere, for some it's from religious belief. You don't have to like it but it's stupid to denigrate it just because you get your values from somewhere else.

So if I believe that God has commanded us to take care of those in need that affects who I vote for. Does that makes sense?[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

 

[Chazwozel]

The president is my representative on a national scale. I want to be represented by someone who, you know, represents me. So I would vote for the person that most represents me.

That's fine. It's your vote. But I wholeheartedly disagree that the right person for the job must think like the voter in terms of personal affiliations in order for that voter to give them their vote.[/QUOTE]

This doesn't make sense. If the candidate doesn't share the same values as the voter then they are not the correct candidate for that voter. It's all based on how you see them whether or not you're going to vote for them.

By the way this is completely aside from religion. I could care less if people want to pray to their imaginary friends.[/QUOTE]

I don't give a shit about a candidates personal values, whether they had been married ten times over, gay, had 10 abortions, or if they're stout religious followers. All that stuff should be out the door in a professional setting. If I feel they have academic/professional experience for the job then I choose them. I want a political leader, not someone who shares my beliefs and values. I know I'd suck as president.

 

[makare]

makare and I differ so much in this it's not even funny. I'd much rather vote for someone who doesn't believe in God than I would for someone who professes to believe and acts counter to these professed beliefs. See the notes on how GW used the religious right to further his own political ends and basically ignored them in the process.

I want a representative who governs with logic and a sense of right/wrong based on social norms rather than arbitrary rules based on a book a couple thousand years old written by an outdated and archaic establishment bent on dominating the weak and lonely.

But makare has the right to believe what she wants so it's all good.

yet again, I did not say anything about religion.

I want someone who believes that people have a spiritual self, something beyond their physical body. I wouldn't vote for some fundamentalist religious person whose allegiance are automatically split between the people and religion.

You can be spiritual without a book, thousands of years old or otherwise. You don't need gurus, rituals or sects. Spiritualism requires nothing but a belief in something spiritual beyond yourself.[/QUOTE]

Okay, spirituality. What does that have to do with anything? At all? Let's say for a second that there is something larger out there and we just can't perceive it as Humans. If the only way to find out is to die how does it compute that a belief in this has any bearing at all on the ability to govern?

The illogic of this viewpoint makes my head go all crazy.[/QUOTE]

Im confused. Faith affects your ability to govern but the lack of faith doesn't? That doesnt make any sense to ME.

 

[Dave]

I find it funny that belief in an imaginary friend is what gets your vote over things like health care, the economy and foreign relations. If an atheist was the best person for the job what does it matter?

Jimmy Carter was an insanely religious and good man. Didn't make him a good President.

You guys aren't getting this are you? Serious, real religious belief and commitment informs every part of your life, it means that you take into account the values you are committed to and they affect your views on all of those political ideals. Stop getting so held up on "hur hur believe in big guy in the sky" and start thinking more in terms of personal values. Every single one of us has things that affect what we believe is right politically and those values stem from somewhere, for some it's from religious belief. You don't have to like it but it's stupid to denigrate it just because you get your values from somewhere else.[/QUOTE]

In most cases wrong/right are taught by society in a variety of ways. Yes, religion is a part of these indoctrinations but there are also ways such as leading by example, parents teaching kids, etc. Religion or spirituality notwithstanding, these socio-political norms are ingrained into us at a fairly early age. But that doesn't make these indoctrinations logical, infallible or right! There are groups who teach hatred of minorities as right, groups who rail against abortion, groups for whom homosexuality is an evil that needs to be literally exercised. Whether these beliefs are because of a religion or some larger spiritualistic influence is immaterial.

What she's saying is that anyone having belief in something bigger is better than someone who does not believe in a larger cosmic patterning and I state that this is a logical fallacy and is the type of thinking that has been preyed upon for decades by the popes, overlords and politically savvy who use the beliefs as tools for their own personal gain.

I must say that even though I disagree with some of you this conversation is interesting.

 

[Espy]

Beliefs of ANY kind from ANY source have been prayed upon. You assuming someone without belief is morally superior or a better politician is just as silly as the view that you think is dumb Dave, how can you not see that? In the end people are people and we try and choose people that REPRESENT our desires for our country. For some of us it's because we have beliefs instilled by faith, religion, parents, WHATEVER. But lets not pretend that those personal values and beliefs, whatever the source, are somehow better than someone else's. You can not agree with how Mak votes based on X but it's no dumber than anybody else's reasons. It's just us people doing the best we can. I really don't get the animosity about this here.

 

[Snuffleupagus]

The president is my representative on a national scale. I want to be represented by someone who, you know, represents me. So I would vote for the person that most represents me.

That's fine. It's your vote. But I wholeheartedly disagree that the right person for the job must think like the voter in terms of personal affiliations in order for that voter to give them their vote.[/QUOTE]

This doesn't make sense. If the candidate doesn't share the same values as the voter then they are not the correct candidate for that voter. It's all based on how you see them whether or not you're going to vote for them.

By the way this is completely aside from religion. I could care less if people want to pray to their imaginary friends.[/QUOTE]

I don't give a shit about a candidates personal values, whether they had been married ten times over, gay, had 10 abortions, or if they're stout religious followers. All that stuff should be out the door in a professional setting. If I feel they have academic/professional experience for the job then I choose them. I want a political leader, not someone who shares my beliefs and values. I know I'd suck as president.[/QUOTE]

I had a really long post written but it's not really worth arguing. Basically, respresenting the values and beliefs of the nation is the presidents job.

 

[Espy]

If I feel they have academic/professional experience for the job then I choose them... not someone who shares my beliefs and values

So would Chaz vote for someone with the experience but who was against every issue he was for? According to that post he would but I really doubt it for some reason.

 

[Dave]

Beliefs of ANY kind from ANY source have been prayed upon. You assuming someone without belief is morally superior or a better politician is just as silly as the view that you think is dumb Dave, how can you not see that? In the end people are people and we try and choose people that REPRESENT our desires for our country. For some of us it's because we have beliefs instilled by faith, religion, parents, WHATEVER. But lets not pretend that those personal values and beliefs, whatever the source, are somehow better than someone else's. You can not agree with how Mak votes based on X but it's no dumber than anybody else's reasons. It's just us people doing the best we can. I really don't get the animosity about this here.

Nein! I never said anything of the sort. What I did say is that we all learned right/wrong from different places and that merely voting for someone based on their PROFESSED spirituality is ludicrous. Instead, vote on their past deeds, their abilities and their vision for the future. If the person best suited for the job is a spiritual person then more power to you. But to dismiss out of hand a valid candidate because he or she is not spiritual is silly.

 

[Philosopher B.]

Personally, I don't care about what you believe in as a presidential candidate, I care about what you intend to do. Even if I don't agree with everything you intend to do, I maye agree with more that you intend to do than the other guy. I like what Chaz said earlier about not caring how you get from point A to point B.

 

[ElJuski]

If I were a politician, I would just pretend I'm a Catholic and just be the agnostic/atheist that I am so I could get the Makare vote. I have no problem pretending I'm under some religious banner if it means it helps me get that easy vote.

 

[crono1224]

If I were a politician, I would just pretend I'm a Catholic and just be the agnostic/atheist that I am so I could get the Makare vote. I have no problem pretending I'm under some religious banner if it means it helps me get that easy vote.

I'm pretty sure that with how the media is now, they could see how lazy of a Catholic you would appear to be, unless you go to church anyways?

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

If I were a politician, I would just pretend I'm a Catholic and just be the agnostic/atheist that I am so I could get the Makare vote. I have no problem pretending I'm under some religious banner if it means it helps me get that easy vote.

You running for Prime Minister of in Canada? Cause I don't see why you'd pretend to be Catholic in the States, dude, but it sure would seem to help here.

 

[makare]

If I were a politician, I would just pretend I'm a Catholic and just be the agnostic/atheist that I am so I could get the Makare vote. I have no problem pretending I'm under some religious banner if it means it helps me get that easy vote.

yeah I didnt say i would vote for just anyone because they are spiritual. I said I would not vote for an atheist. I still have many other factors that influence my voting.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I would not vote for an atheist.

There go my dreams of becoming governor of North Dakota

:tear:

 

[Baerdog]

Good think for you that's not where she lives. Hope springs eternal!

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Eh? It says right there in her location that she's from . . . South. :doh:

Alright! The Dream's alive. Just gotta get into professional wrestling and turn gay and I'll be ready for the gubernatorial arena.:high5:

 

[Baerdog]

Go get 'em, Tiger.

 

[makare]

Eh? It says right there in her location that she's from . . . South. :doh:

Alright! The Dream's alive. Just gotta get into professional wrestling and turn gay and I'll be ready for the gubernatorial arena.:high5:

What exactly is going on in North Dakota?

 

[crono1224]

Good think for you that's not where she lives. Hope springs eternal!

It's comical to correct his geographical problem by presenting a grammatical one.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Tigerpansy. That's my wrestling name.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

What exactly is going on in North Dakota?

Nothing yet. But when I'm governor, it'll be 4 years of - well, still nothing. It's North Dakota after all. I just want a cushy government job. I'd try for Alaska, but it's too cold and Russia's right next door - too scary.

 

[makare]

North Dakota is the inferior Dakota.

 

[Espy]

Beliefs of ANY kind from ANY source have been prayed upon. You assuming someone without belief is morally superior or a better politician is just as silly as the view that you think is dumb Dave, how can you not see that? In the end people are people and we try and choose people that REPRESENT our desires for our country. For some of us it's because we have beliefs instilled by faith, religion, parents, WHATEVER. But lets not pretend that those personal values and beliefs, whatever the source, are somehow better than someone else's. You can not agree with how Mak votes based on X but it's no dumber than anybody else's reasons. It's just us people doing the best we can. I really don't get the animosity about this here.

Nein! I never said anything of the sort. What I did say is that we all learned right/wrong from different places and that merely voting for someone based on their PROFESSED spirituality is ludicrous. Instead, vote on their past deeds, their abilities and their vision for the future. If the person best suited for the job is a spiritual person then more power to you. But to dismiss out of hand a valid candidate because he or she is not spiritual is silly.[/QUOTE]

Ok, thats fair, I can agree with you on that, HOWEVER I would assume no one here is actually saying the only thing they want in a candidate is spirituality but rather someone who's spirituality or religion and the values that come with it are in line with the voters.

North Dakota is the inferior Dakota.

Hey, it's got that whole "flat as a pancake" thing going for it. That can come in handy when you um... when... um... I got nothing.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I'd say. It lacks the greatness that South Dakota possesses: You

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Which one has Mt Rushmore?

 

[makare]

South Dakota has Mt. Rushmore, which is pretty cool, but the area where it is is a very small part of the state really. We have Sturgis and if you own a bike the hills and the scenic roads are some of the best in the world. I love living here <3

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Which one has Mt Rushmore?

It doesn't matter.. We know which one has Makare and that's all that matters.

Also, North will soon have me as governor, which is a pretty hefty point in the South's favor.

 

[Shakey]

South Dakota has the Corn Palace and Wall Drug too. Can't beat that.

 

[makare]

I could fill pages of this forum singing the praises of my state, but I probably better not.