Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_Ray A]

According to the Barna Group 9% of voters (surveyed) support Obama because he's black:

When comparing the dimensions on which each candidate stands out in the eyes of voters, Sen. Obama emerged as the candidate of new ideas, for being black (mentioned as their reason for supporting him by 9%), for being different from George Bush (9%), and for his positions on health care (9%). In each case, the percentage of people naming those reasons substantially exceeded the percentage that identified those as reasons for their support of the Republican candidate.

The faith-driven vote:

For the most part, the various faith communities of the U.S. currently support Sen. Obama for the presidency. Among the 19 faith segments that The Barna Group tracks, evangelicals were the only segment to throw its support to Sen. McCain. Among the larger faith niches to support Sen. Obama are non-evangelical born again Christians (43% to 31%); notional Christians (44% to 28%); people aligned with faiths other than Christianity (56% to 24%); atheists and agnostics (55% to 17%); Catholics (39% vs. 29%); and Protestants (43% to 34%). In fact, if the current preferences stand pat, this would mark the first time in more than two decades that the born again vote has swung toward the Democratic candidate.

[_dartagnan]

According to the Barna Group 9% of voters (syrveyed) support Obama because he's black

Yeah, and that's just the kind of question people would answer to honestly, right? Come on, you'd look and feel like an idiot for answering yes when being polled, unless of course you're black and you feel some sense of justification for voting along racial lines. I'm surprised 9% were honest, but could you imagine the public reaction if anyone said they were voting for McCain because he is white? Reverse discrimination in action.

In any event, 9% is enough to decide the election I'm sure.

The faith-driven vote:

Well, the faith driven vote is related to politics because with faith comes ideals and values that are common issues that are decisive in the political arena. But to elect someone because of skin color? That entails nothing but race. Nothing.

[_Ray A]

Yeah, and that's just the kind of question people would answer to honestly, right? Come on, you'd look and feel like an idiot for answering yes when being polled, unless of course you're black and you feel some sense of justification for voting along racial lines. I'm surprised 9% were honest, but could you imagine the public reaction if anyone said they were voting for McCain because he is white? Reverse discrimination in action.

I'll let you do the public mind-reading, Kevin. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified in that area, inspite of an interest in the supernatural.

Well, the faith driven vote is related to politics because with faith comes ideals and values that are common issues that are decisive in the political arena. But to elect someone because of skin color? That entails nothing but race. Nothing.

If you look at the Barna article:

"It is unusual to see such significant movement within the core segments of the Christian community," he explained. "While there is still a decided preference for Senator Obama, the more conservative element of the Christian population is slowly coming to grips with what an Obama presidency might be like. As the finer points of a wide range of issues are clarified by each nominee, the initial excitement about Senator Obama has lost some luster to an increasing number of people whose vote is influenced by their spiritual perspectives. If Sen. McCain converts such apprehensions into votes, this will be a closer race than many have anticipated."

The sort of people Obama appeals to:

Among the larger faith niches to support Sen. Obama are non-evangelical born again Christians (43% to 31%); notional Christians (44% to 28%); people aligned with faiths other than Christianity (56% to 24%); atheists and agnostics (55% to 17%); Catholics (39% vs. 29%); and Protestants (43% to 34%).

Note how high the atheist and agnostic support is, and "people aligned with other faiths", both the highest groups supporting him. All because he's black, of course.

[_Jason Bourne]

How can you blame the mother if a 17 year-old daughter gets pregnant?

Do you have any idea how out of control and rebellious some teenagers can be? I don't care if you take them to church three times a week and teach them every moral principle in the book. That isn't a guarantee for much of anything. Modern society is the real church for most kids these days.

Besides, there are only so many things to do, and so many ways to keep warm in Alaska (grin).

yes I do know how rebellious teens can be. I have had two of three that were very rebellious and one up and coming that the verdict is out on.

[_Some Schmo]

LOL

You're such a moron, dart. Even for you, this thread is a low.

LMAO

[_MsJack]

Do you have any idea how out of control and rebellious some teenagers can be? I don't care if you take them to church three times a week and teach them every moral principle in the book. That isn't a guarantee for much of anything. Modern society is the real church for most kids these days.

Funny how this thread is bringing opposites together, isn't it? I'm not usually prone to agreement with Kevin (or Antishock for that matter), but he's absolutely right here. My parents always drilled into us that premarital sex was stupid and if you were going to do it, use birth control/condoms/whatever, yet earlier this year the 16 year-old girlfriend of my 21 year-old brother came to us claiming he got her pregnant. She later claimed she had a miscarriage; we don't know, she may have made the whole thing up, but it's a fact that they were having unprotected sex. Don't even get me started on the age thing, and don't laugh too hard; they're both Barack Obama supporters.

Anyways, it was gutsy for the Palins to make the announcement on their own--you know, instead of lying about it for weeks while being hounded by the National Enquirer like certain past VP candidates who shall remain unnamed. It shows their honesty. They could have just hidden Bristol Palin from the public eye in some remote part of Alaska for two months, and they didn't. It was also a brilliant political maneuver to make the announcement today and now. Hurricane Gustav has forced the media to devote minimal coverage to it, and voters now have two months to get over it. This is how you do damage control.

by the way, kudos to Barack Obama for showing serious class in his response:

"Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother.

"How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/obama.palin/index.html

[_beastie]

I just have to make another comment. Several of you are gung-ho on McCain, including his hawkish intents towards Iran. I asked Dart a question he never responded to, but Droppy stepped up to the bat. I am extremely curious as to whether the rest of you McCain supporters agree with him:

My original question:

But even if they were, we simply do not have the military or economic might anymore to invade Iran. This is reality, as much as you might like to imagine the Superman America being able fly into and beat anyone to a pulp. Look at the difficulties we’ve had with Iraq. We now have concluded that we need at least 100,000 boots on the ground to even partially control the situation in Iraq. Iraq had a population of 24 million. Iran has 70 million. Iraq had manpower fit for military service of 4 million. Iran has 12 million. Iraq had a military budge of 1.3 billion. Iran has a military budget of 9.7 billion. In addition, Iran’s terrain is more problematic. facts obtained here

Now you tell me with a straight face that we have the military and economic might to conduct a successful war in Iran, PLUS still deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. I actually supported the invasion of Afghanistan, because they were hosting and enabling the people who actually did attack us. What would Afghanistan look like today had we focused our attention there, instead of diverting forces and money from Afghanistan to Iraq??? Afghanistan has been neglected and is now screaming for attention. The hard fact is that, aside from the incompetency of the Bush administration, we simply don’t have the means to deal with BOTH arenas simultaneously with a high degree of success. And you think we can add Iran on to that mess????

droopy’s response:

The primary focus and responsibility of good government is security, both civil and national, not a prescription drug benefit, not federal education standards, not taxpayer backed housing loans to poor credit risks, not the provision of health care, and not free this and free that to whomever will support the incumbent political class next election cycle.

and earlier:

Example: if Iran continues on with their nuclear program as they have been, then at some point before it becomes an imminent threat (precisely Bush's argument for the finishing the Iraq war his father left in limbo), it will have to be destroyed. The other option is, well, not to destroy it, with all the potential consequences that implies.

Essentially, droopy’s response is that the federal government will have to dismantle its basic social programs in order to totally destroy Iran if necessary. I wouldn’t even be surprised if droopy would approve of the use of a nuke. He didn’t mention the draft but that would have to be a part of the plan.

This is a lovely libertarian fantasy, but it ain’t gonna happen. The vast majority of US citizens want the federal government to provide social services and safety nets. Now, you may ideologically disapprove of that fact, but a fact it is. McCain isn’t going to change that fact, and even if he could somehow change that fact, it would take decades to fully implement such a tremendous change, so the potential financial benefits would arrive far too late to deal with Iran. But reality is that it’s not going to happen. You can fantasize and rant and rave about the stupidity of the American people (and some definitely are stupid, no doubt) all you want, but effective governing deals with the world as it is and not as how we would like it to be.

So, given reality as it is, just how do the rest of you McCain supporters suggest that we deal with Iran when we are barely – barely – barely – dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq already????

What will happen isn’t a miraculous, sudden, complete change of the entire federal government a la Droopy’s fantasies, but instead, the same thing that happened with Iraq- which is that the plan wasn’t ever fully fleshed out and completely ignored the hard reality of that part of the world, and turned out to be nothing like what its supporters imagined. It’s been a drain on our economy, a drain on our military, it has handicapped our ability to respond to possible situations that actually do threaten our country, and the end result is uncertain and very likely unfavorable to us in the end (given how our invading Iraq has strengthened Iran……)

[_Pokatator]

I don't believe that we have to do anything with Iran because Israel is going to take care of that. Of course the USA and the neutered UN will have to try to clean up the mess. Israel will do it because Israel will be blamed no matter what and their survival depends on it. All the Arab countries and all of Europe are scared to death of a nuclear Iran. But when the smoke clears even they will blame Israel.

[_antishock8]

We'll continue to engage Iran through proxies. That's the bottom line.

----------

Besides, the real issue that will most likely sink Sentor Obama's campaign will be about abortion. For example:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2 ... zZlYjkyNmY

Stanek had seen it all happen. That family had wanted a baby, but when they learned that theirs would be born with Down syndrome, they wanted an abortion. For that, they went to Christ Hospital in the southwestern suburbs of Chicago, which is affiliated with the United Church of Christ.

In “induced labor” or “prostaglandin” abortion — a common procedure at the hospital — the doctor administers drugs that dilate the mother’s cervix and induce contractions, forcing a small baby out of the mother’s uterus. Most of the time, the baby dies in utero, killed by the force of the violent contractions. But it does not always work. Such abortions sometimes result in a premature baby being born alive. Sometimes the survivors live for just a few minutes, but sometimes for several hours. No one tried to save or treat them — it is hard to save someone you just mauled trying to kill. But something had to be done with them for the minutes and hours during which they struggled for air.

Stanek says her friend had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet. She offered to take him instead. “I couldn’t let him die alone,” she says.

Senator Obama is for infanticide (it becomes infanticide once a baby survives an abortion). As stories like the one above continue to circulate and gain momentum Catholics, Conservatives, and the swing vote will, once again, go Republican. THAT along with energy are the real issue that will sway this election, not Iraq.

[_scipio337]

I just have to make another comment. Several of you are gung-ho on McCain, including his hawkish intents towards Iran. I asked Dart a question he never responded to, but Droppy stepped up to the bat. I am extremely curious as to whether the rest of you McCain supporters agree with him:

My original question:

But even if they were, we simply do not have the military or economic might anymore to invade Iran. This is reality, as much as you might like to imagine the Superman America being able fly into and beat anyone to a pulp. Look at the difficulties we’ve had with Iraq. We now have concluded that we need at least 100,000 boots on the ground to even partially control the situation in Iraq. Iraq had a population of 24 million. Iran has 70 million. Iraq had manpower fit for military service of 4 million. Iran has 12 million. Iraq had a military budge of 1.3 billion. Iran has a military budget of 9.7 billion. In addition, Iran’s terrain is more problematic. facts obtained here

You're comparing apples to rutabagas. I don't favor military action agains Iran, even if they do develop a nuke, unless they commit some act of aggression. My name's scipio, and I'm an evil McCain supporter.

An invasion of Iran would look more like Afghanistan than Iraq: small spec ops units working with locals, along with coordinated airstrikes. You miss the point on the Iranian military. Its abysmal. An air force slightly better than Iraqs, true, but still in 3rd world status.

Now you tell me with a straight face that we have the military and economic might to conduct a successful war in Iran, PLUS still deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. I actually supported the invasion of Afghanistan, because they were hosting and enabling the people who actually did attack us. What would Afghanistan look like today had we focused our attention there, instead of diverting forces and money from Afghanistan to Iraq???

Pipe dream. I've served tours in both. Different approach, different environment, different military footprint. Afghanistan could use 5-6k more troops, but nothing like the amount of boots on the ground in Iraq. That being said, could you point out which divisions were originally earmarked for Afghanistan, and switched to Iraq?

Afghanistan has been neglected and is now screaming for attention. The hard fact is that, aside from the incompetency of the Bush administration, we simply don’t have the means to deal with BOTH arenas simultaneously with a high degree of success. And you think we can add Iran on to that mess????

Another pipe dream. I've been to both, and the amount of success is measurable, particularly in Iraq.

Please, don't let some type of Bush derangement syndrome obscure those facts. It smacks of partisan hackery.

This is a lovely libertarian fantasy, but it ain’t gonna happen. The vast majority of US citizens want the federal government to provide social services and safety nets. Now, you may ideologically disapprove of that fact, but a fact it is. McCain isn’t going to change that fact, and even if he could somehow change that fact, it would take decades to fully implement such a tremendous change, so the potential financial benefits would arrive far too late to deal with Iran. But reality is that it’s not going to happen. You can fantasize and rant and rave about the stupidity of the American people (and some definitely are stupid, no doubt) all you want, but effective governing deals with the world as it is and not as how we would like it to be.

Your source of this "vast majority"?

So, given reality as it is, just how do the rest of you McCain supporters suggest that we deal with Iran when we are barely – barely – barely – dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq already????

Raise the sanction stakes until they cry uncle. Their nuclear program is a subject of national pride, wheres the mullahs, and the accompanying economic policy are definately not. Iranian unemployment continues somewhere around the 10% mark. Of course, the "carrot or carrot" foriegn policy fails to work, but the UN Security Council and IAEA need to be on board, which means bringing Russia back into a US-friendly standing.

What will happen isn’t a miraculous, sudden, complete change of the entire federal government a la Droopy’s fantasies, but instead, the same thing that happened with Iraq- which is that the plan wasn’t ever fully fleshed out and completely ignored the hard reality of that part of the world, and turned out to be nothing like what its supporters imagined. It’s been a drain on our economy, a drain on our military, it has handicapped our ability to respond to possible situations that actually do threaten our country, and the end result is uncertain and very likely unfavorable to us in the end (given how our invading Iraq has strengthened Iran……)

All your socialistic wet-dreams aside, you're simply batty if you think there will be any major military action against Iran in the near future.

The problem needs an injection of realpolitik that babe in the woods Obama can't provide. Unless, of course, you would consider "unconditional" direct talk (he was against unconditional direct talks, before he was before them, or is it vice versa) to be successful. It wasn't how four once-soon to be nuclear powers (Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Africa and Libya) reversed course.

Quite simply, clarify to Iran that the price for nuclear armament is greater than its potential use, and that the world, through IAEA, the UN and countries willing to impose sanctions, will not leave Iran alone until it gives up its quest for weapons-grade uranium.