Why did Mccain lose?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Why did Mccain lose?

So I was thinking about religion and politics, and can't seem to get around the fact that Mccain lost.

 

 

I mean let's see here, Obama:

 

-Supports federal funding for stem cell research

-Supports Gay marriage

-Supports legal abortions

 

I thought this is the issues that get the fundies panties in a knot, yet Mccain was toast.

 

Mccain/Palin, to my knowledge, was a shoe-in for the fundies, yet I don't think it was even close. I mean 365 to 173 electorial votes.

 

 

Oh and for the record, you can't say the minority support Obama, because if so, he would not have won.

 

 

So why? Why didn't the fundie platforming Mccain/Palin win? and why did the moderate Obama?

 

 

 

 

 

 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Simple. Bush hhad alienated

Simple.

Bush hhad alienated the fundies, and enough Repugs were begining to feel the pain.

A donkey could have run against McCain, and won. You don't actually believe that Americans put aside their racist tendencies, after voting for Obama. Do you?


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Oh, but the real fun is in

Oh, but the real fun is in kicking around the ideas that some McCain supporters were using to explain the loss before it even happened.  Search the old threads on this very website.  You'll find reports of people who were attributing the problems that the McCain campaign was having to...

 

...wait for it...

 

...witchcraft.

 

Yes, you read that right.  I still think that McCain deserved to lose on that account alone.  Or, at least, that I didn't want a successful Presidential campaign to owe its victory to folks who actually believed such silliness.

 

Conor


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Errr... think I'll pass on

Errr... think I'll pass on that search.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
One word......

Palin.

 

<Yeah, I know. It's a name, not a word.>

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 Two reasons.1- 8 years of

 Two reasons.

1- 8 years of idiotic Bush.

2- Palin

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Obama does not support gay

Obama does not support gay marriage. For that matter, he still hasn't ended 'don't ask don't tell.' He could simply make an announcement that kicking gays out of the military is no longer going to happen and it would be so. I doubt he cares about gay people. His campaign pledges (ie: lies) about gays are apparent now.

Sorry gay people: the Dems use you and give you nothing in return the same way the Reps use the religious right and don't actually give them what they want. But at least the dems support the gays in empty rhetoric.

As for the topic: McCain doesn't look healthy to me and Palin is scary as all hell. I still couldn't vote for Obama, but I refused to vote McCain also. Yay third party candidates.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I think McCain lost for a

 I think McCain lost for a number of reasons, but here are the main ones:

1) Most Americans knew McCain as a longtime moderate Rethuglican who was sympathetic to the plight of regular Americans.  He was a war hero, after all, and Americans like war heroes, and think of them as "one of the boys."  During the runup to the Republican Primaries, McCain sucked Bush's dick in public as often as he got the chance.  He moved farther and farther to the right, and people didn't like that on two counts:  First, moderates didn't like that because they felt he would cave into the far right and cater to the religious wingnuts, just like Bush.  Second, Religious Wingnuts didn't believe him.  They saw his move to the right as a calculated move to win their support, and they felt like he was condescending, and would return to his moderate, non-religious middle ground after the election.  In other words, he tried to play both sides of the Republican fence, and pissed both sides off in the process.

2) Palin.  The worst vice presidential choice ever.  She really only appealed to the far right, and most middle-ground voters feared her from the moment she stepped onto the platform.  She's an imbecile, and shot the party in the foot with that ill-prepared TV interview.  Those who were ok with her religion feared her ignorance and apparent unwillingness to learn things like... what the U.N. does.  Many people were still feeling the sting of the White House using religion to sell war, and were afraid of putting a Bush flunkie AND a fundamentalist Christian in office together.  In short, she was too over-the-top ignorant AND religious to appeal to anybody besides the over-the-top ignorant AND religious.  Even fundamentalists aren't total morons, and as we've seen, common sense occasionally overrides religion, particularly when it hits us somewhere like the pocket book.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Oh... and one other

 Oh... and one other thing...

You should have heard the number of Georgians who said things like, "McCain is not a real conservative.  Voting for him is no better than voting for Clinton."  At least in Georgia, Republican turnout was a bit lower than expected because many hard-core religious conservatives couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain or Obama -- a liberal or a black!

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Well, to be honest, the

Well, to be honest, the Republican party hasn't been conservative for quite some time--since the Reagan years, some might say.  It's become a strange mix of social conservatism and governmental liberalism, which is really fucking scary if you ask me. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I would say the last true

 I would say the last true American conservative politician was Barry Goldwater.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Well, yeah.  As far as

Well, yeah.  As far as conservatism being taken to its logical extreme, I think Goldwater was closer than anyone to that particular ideal. 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, Goldwater. The

OK, Goldwater. The senator from Arizona whose seat is currently being kept warm by McCain. In other words, that other guy who could not get into the white house despite his popular appeal.

 

Just checking to get the facts straight.

 

In any case, shall we call a spade a spade and be done with it?

 

McCain is clearly a moderate. Yet when he thought that he had a chance, he tried to play the right wingnut game to get those voters. Trust me, they had no problem figuring it out.

 

Case in point being the bit about us being in Iraq for a hundred years. He was pretty clear that the model he was going for was us being in Germany all this time. If matters work out like that, who the fuck cares? Even so, it was catering to a voting block and those who are part of it knew it as false.

 

As far as real issues go, he probably is not all that much different from Obama. Seriously, I doubt that he would change the whole don't-ask-don't-tell thing. Nor would he be on top of repealing the Clinton era DOMA deal. The fact is that one knows when a politician is lying because words are coming out of his mouth.

 

Then he just had to pick caribou Barbie as his running mate. Dammit but she makes Dan Quayle look like a rocket scientist. Had he picked Bobby Jindal or Mike Huckabee, he would have had a chance.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2402
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
way-------no way

 

 

 

       McCain's biggest  problem to get elected was 8 years worth of "Dubya" and a highly popular underdog from Chicago.  Caribou Barbie didn't help but has a republican candidate he didn't have much of a chance anyways.  How meny repuglians told the search committee  "No way jose!!!"  before they suckered the Wacko from Wasilla into saying yes.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I have a priority rank in

I have a priority rank in estimating a president's effectiveness, and it differs significantly from my personal philosophical views.  Ask me to sign a petition calling for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and I'll sign it.  Ask me if I think repealing that policy is of major importance for the future of America?  Nah.

Defense of Marriage Act?  Important to repeal?  Yes.  Of paramount importance right now?  No.

One of the reasons I don't get into political arguments is that I agree and disagree with both sides too much.  Right now, I'm looking at what by all accounts is a very successful business model that isn't making any money, and I'm paying my mortgage out of my failing IRA.  If you tell me I have to choose between legalizing gay marriage and getting the economy out of the shitter, I'm going to apologize profusely to my gay friends and tell them to buy a plane ticket with their newfound prosperity and get married somewhere where it's legal, or to pay a lawyer to draw up equivalent contracts.

Some people may see this as not an either-or issue.  Why can't we have a better economy AND gay marriage?  Maybe we can, but let's not pretend that we have all the research data that the politicians do.  They know how much political capital they have, and they have a set of priorities.  Obama has a very large portion of the country thats want him to fail.  If he passes something as controversial as a repeal of DOMA before he proves that he can handle the economy, he's going to lose a lot of political capital.  It's not fair, but it's reality.  Bills are passed with favors.  Let's not try to hide ourselves from that fact.  There are going to be times in Obama's administration where he's going to have to call in every favor he's owed to get something through Congress.  Favors aren't cheap, and they're often single-use.  I personally would rather have Obama pass something wide-reaching that would have a permanent effect on the economy than blow all his favors on a popular Right Wing talking point.  Regardless of what Obama does with DOMA, it's going to be a soap box for the fundies every election from here to eternity.  On the other hand, he's got a very short four years to fix an economy that's been heading for the shitter since we bought into Reaganomics.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Let's not forget the nail in

Let's not forget the nail in the coffin, which was that the economy started tanking pretty hard in the three months or so before the election. There was plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but that it happened on Bush's watch was enough to taint the Republicans.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I mean let's see here, Obama:

 

-Supports federal funding for stem cell research

-Supports Gay marriage

-Supports legal abortions

 

 

The only one that is true here is the first one. He allowed the law banning federal funding of that to expire.

The second one he is not for. He has said this already, unfortunately.

The third one has no relevance, as it is already legal.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: The second

ClockCat wrote:

 

The second one he is not for. He has said this already, unfortunately.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

 

 

 

Quote:

The third one has no relevance, as it is already legal.

 

The point is that he wants to keep it legal

 

 

Oh and I one thing I forgot  seperation of church of state

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/Obama_mocks_buybull

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 There's a poll going

 There's a poll going around Facebook that has something like 60% of respondents saying they strongly disapprove of Obama's performance in office.  I dug for about ten minutes and decided that the poll originated within strongly Christian and Republican groups, which accounts for the bizarre results.

The Fundies here are deeply disturbed by Obama's lack of support for their interests.  (By here, I mean Georgia.  I can't speak for other states.)  They're accusing him of being Muslim, Atheist, Illuminati, Free Mason, and anything else that sounds nasty.  

From what I've seen, it appears that Obama has no interest in doing away with the institutionalized power of Christianity in America, but he would like to give it limits, particularly with regard to its interference with science and civil liberties.  I can't say that's the perfect position, but I certainly think it's a good start.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: There's

Hambydammit wrote:

 There's a poll going around Facebook that has something like 60% of respondents saying they strongly disapprove of Obama's performance in office.  I dug for about ten minutes and decided that the poll originated within strongly Christian and Republican groups, which accounts for the bizarre results.

 

But how many people responded and is it possible to vote more than once?

 

Quote:

The Fundies here are deeply disturbed by Obama's lack of support for their interests.  (By here, I mean Georgia.  I can't speak for other states.)  They're accusing him of being Muslim, Atheist, Illuminati, Free Mason, and anything else that sounds nasty.  

 

That's kinda my point. He should have lost. I thought the moderates pander to the religious right, but if that happened than Mccain would have won

 

 

 

Quote:

From what I've seen, it appears that Obama has no interest in doing away with the institutionalized power of Christianity in America, but he would like to give it limits, particularly with regard to its interference with science and civil liberties.  I can't say that's the perfect position, but I certainly think it's a good start.

 

 

 

I think all he can do is keep it out of government [what else do you want him to do?] he can't stifle free speech

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:But how many people

 

Quote:
But how many people responded and is it possible to vote more than once?

When I saw it, it was 9k or so respondents.  I didn't look to see if I could respond twice.  I assume so.

Quote:
That's kinda my point. He should have lost. I thought the moderates pander to the religious right, but if that happened than Mccain would have won

McCain did win Georgia.

Quote:
I think all he can do is keep it out of government [what else do you want him to do?] he can't stifle free speech

I wouldn't expect him to.  Law and free speech are different.  I don't want the church given any special treatment in the law.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:McCain did win

Quote:

McCain did win Georgia.

 

I was talking about the election, not just Georgia

 

 

Isn't Georgia in the Bible belt where the majority of people are Fundamentalist?

 

Only 4 states have less than 50% of people saying that religion play an important role in their lives and the lowest is Vermount with 42%

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Isn't Georgia in the

 

Quote:
Isn't Georgia in the Bible belt where the majority of people are Fundamentalist?

Yes.

Quote:
Only 4 states have less than 50% of people saying that religion play an important role in their lives and the lowest is Vermount with 42%

But not all these states are predominately fundamentalist.  Typically, in the bluer states, you have a higher number of theists who are going to disagree with the strongest right wing religious agendas.

I know what you're getting at here, but it's not working.  You're trying to make a dichotomy where there isn't one.  I don't think I ever stated that all moderates will vote for everything fundies want to do.  That's not it at all.  In this last election, voters were given a choice between two Christians, and over the previous 8 years, the far Right Wing Religious Agenda (tm) had joined forces with the Right Wing Rich American Agenda (tm) to basically screw everybody who wasn't a rich WASP.  While there were certainly religious issues on the table in the election, it was more about the economy, the war, and the enormous failure of the Bush Agenda in general that caused the movement of the middle away from the far right.

This wasn't an election for the president of the Southern Baptist Convention.  It was a memo from the public to the political parties that people want a more moderate and intelligent administration.  I'm sure when the data becomes available, it will show clearly what the last election data showed -- religious affiliation does correlate with people's voting, and a significant portion of the middle gravitated to the right simply for religious reasons.  The thing is, there were more pressing problems than gay marriage and abortion.  People were worried about their jobs, mortgages, car payments, and dead Army children.  The far right simply didn't have the full package.  Yeah, they had the religious pull, but not enough to outweigh the disastrous effect of their own economic and foreign policies on America's status, internally and abroad.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
McCain

 

 

   I can't see that Palin helped his campaign.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Agreed. Caribou Barbie

Agreed. Caribou Barbie was insurance against being assassinated while in office.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
1] I'm not buying the

1] I'm not buying the economy explanation, the economy was bad during the 2004 election, yet Kerry lost

 

2] According to your definiton of faith, it is believe despite contractory evidence, so they should have supported McCain despite the evidence that he would have a negative affect [I assume that is your reasoning as to why Bush was re-elected despite hi policies had no proof of working]

 

 

3] Obama significantly pissed off the fundies [as per the video I posted] and that should have turned away moderates regardless of the economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Yah, I don't think that

Yah, I don't think that the economy is automatically a controlling factor in the elections either. It was not in a really great place for 2004. However, it was in worse shape in 2000 and before that in 1992.

 

In any case, I haven't looked for stats yet but I suspect that the fundie vote was probably lower in the 08 election because of the fact that McCain is a RINO. Had it been Huckabee running, I would bet that the fundies would have turned out in larger numbers.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yeah.  If the TV pundits

Yeah.  If the TV pundits are to be believed, the fundy vote has historically been tied directly to the fundy fervor of the candidate.  I know that in the 2000 election, churches all over Georgia were openly advocating Bush and basically declaring Al Gore to be an enemy of the One True Church (TM).  Goddamn, there were so many things wrong with that election...

In 08, support for McCain in Georgia was flagging really hard until he picked up God's Cheerleader as a running mate.  The local News seemed almost on the point of panic when they predicted that this might be the first year for Georgia to go blue since Carter.  Again, based on the polls they showed on TV, it was pretty much a neck and neck race until a genuine fundie joined the ticket, and then the fundie voters crawled out of their holes.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
In Georgia it was 52%

In Georgia it was 52% McCain, 47% Obama

 

 

 

     

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Yes.  I know.  That's

 Yes.  I know.  That's the closest it's been in a while.  It was 55-43 in 2000.  Err.. actually, I think it may have been relatively close in 2004, but geez, what do you expect with the worst rated president in a hundred years seeking re-election.

Sheesh.  Americans are stupid.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Uh. Alison? Are you

 Uh. Alison? Are you getting at the evangelical vote? 

 

You must be. It's what we complain about, and what Bush rode on.

McCain was not an evangelical. Hence, fundamentalist evangelicals were not interested in voting for him. Sarah Palin, while clearly a far-right retard/lunatic, is also not an evangelical, and is from Alaska. 

Alaska. That northern state that borders Canada. You know what fundamentalist evangelical Christians from America hate more than Canada?

Absolutely nothing.

(EDIT: ...Palin is actually a Pentacostal. When one is looking for evangelical votes, this would be a rather bad thing. Sticking out tongue )

 

John McCain lost because he didn't get the evangelical vote. That's more or less the end of the story. Evangelicals, believe it or not, are not actually even predominantly racist. I mean, look at Fred Phelps; he's clearly insane and about as fundamentalist as you can get, but is also a big proponent for defeating racism.

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:1] I'm not buying

 

Quote:
1] I'm not buying the economy explanation, the economy was bad during the 2004 election, yet Kerry lost

Bad by what standard? Bush had just finished signing-in a series of tax cuts, which always get Americans roaring with approval as it creates an illusion that things are going fine (and helps to get a smile on cheery faces like yours and Jormunganders).

Quote:
3] Obama significantly pissed off the fundies [as per the video I posted] and that should have turned away moderates regardless of the economy.

...Uh. Alison? 

Watch te whole video. It's on YouTube.

 

He was not 'bashing the Bible'; the chosen footage for the video at the beginning of that thread is very misleading. 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Hanoi Hilton

While I agree that Americans love a war hero, I heard quite a bit of discussion about his time as a POW.  He spent a long time in that Hanoi pit of hell, and that is bound to do something to a person's psychological stability.  The public witnesses it as his well-known temper, but who knows what really lurks under that wooden smile.  In short, the man spent too long in a tiger cage to be trusted with a nuclear bomb.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I agree nero.I dont think

I agree nero.

I dont think the subtle twitch in mccain's left eye later in the campaign was wholly from face cancer. I believe it was from stress.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: Uh.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 Uh. Alison? Are you getting at the evangelical vote? 

 

You must be. It's what we complain about, and what Bush rode on.

McCain was not an evangelical. Hence, fundamentalist evangelicals were not interested in voting for him. Sarah Palin, while clearly a far-right retard/lunatic, is also not an evangelical, and is from Alaska. 

Alaska. That northern state that borders Canada. You know what fundamentalist evangelical Christians from America hate more than Canada?

Absolutely nothing.

(EDIT: ...Palin is actually a Pentacostal. When one is looking for evangelical votes, this would be a rather bad thing. Sticking out tongue )

 

John McCain lost because he didn't get the evangelical vote. That's more or less the end of the story. Evangelicals, believe it or not, are not actually even predominantly racist. I mean, look at Fred Phelps; he's clearly insane and about as fundamentalist as you can get, but is also a big proponent for defeating racism.

 

 

 

Here's a little secret, Obama wasn't evangelical either. McCain was the closest to fundie as the they had

 

Like I said, Obama disagreed with the fundies on lots of issues more that McCain disagreed with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I guess you're going to

 I guess you're going to ignore where I corrected you?  I have never said, and nobody else I know of here has ever said that moderates will always vote the same as fundamentalists.  Have you just taken to creating strawmen as a hobby?

Moderates do vote differently than fundies on a significant number of issues.  That much is obvious.  What I and others continue to say (and people like you continue to misunderstand) is that there is no divide between moderates and fundies.  They are on the same scale.  Their voting is a reflection of how much religious insanity they will tolerate.

Obama's version of religious insanity is significantly less insane than Bush's.  Compared with Bush, it's hard for most people to think of him as even being religious.  He is, though.  He's a moderate, and you will see througout his term that he will never speak out against the foundation of the fundamentalists' worldview, for it is his own foundation, tempered by reason (and a high degree of naturalism).  He will speak out against various fundamentalist activities, and their mixing of church and state -- he does seem to be a believer in the wall of separation.  But, he will never challenge fundamentalists to weigh everything they believe against pure, unadulterated scientific naturalism.  He won't do that because his own god belief relies on nonscientific non-naturalism -- the same as every other moderate in the world.

So... again, I have to correct your caricature of my position.  All theists do not vote the same.  Moderates do not always vote with fundies.  Moderates tend to vote for moderates, and fundies tend to vote for fundies.  You're not going to be able to use this election to knock over some poorly constructed strawman and win any points for your support of moderates as not being part of the problem.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 On reflection, I suppose

 On reflection, I suppose it would be good rhetorical flourish to challenge fundies to weigh everything against the evidence, but I think Obama is smart enough that if he ever did that, he would make it vague enough that he couldn't be called out on his own beliefs.  Either that, or he would claim -- as many moderates do -- that his god belief IS measured against reason, and he would just be wrong.  

I think he's too smart to make that mistake, though.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
No, Hamby you argue that the

No, Hamby you argue that the moderates stand idly by and do nothing to stop the fundies.  This shows that they do do something.

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Sometimes, Pineapple, I

Sometimes, Pineapple, I wonder at your reading comprehension.  I'm not saying that as an insult or a joke.  I just don't understand how you still don't understand my argument.  

Let me make it very, very pedantic, ok?  All theists have as a central tenet of their worldview that some things are true despite disagreeing with naturalism, science, and reason.  The difference between a moderate and a fundy is how many things they believe based on faith.  The most liberal theists will often hedge on the actual physical existence of God, and hedge their bets with some kind of postmodern gobble-de-gook.  Most moderates, however, believe that an actual god exists.  As you have astutely observed many times, Pineapple, they tend to let most things in life get judged by reason, with the exception of god-belief.  They tend not to believe god does things that defy logic or reason, and see him as a rather scientific old gent who likes it when people think for themselves.

Fundies, on the other hand, believe far more things on faith.  Not only does god exist, but he wants very specific things from us, whether they make sense or not.  Anyone who trusts reason above god is a foolish person indeed.

Again, let me make clear that there is no foundational difference between fundies and moderates.  They both believe that some things must be taken on faith.  The difference between them is how many things -- and which things specifically -- must be taken on faith.

Now, as I have explained multiple times before, fundies and moderates clearly live different kinds of lives, support different candidates, raise their children differently, etc.  However, where the moderates are implicitly condoning and facilitating the fundies is by ONE SPECIFIC ACT of standing idly by.  They do not call the fundies to task on faith.  They cannot, for their own worldview relies on it, though to a lesser degree.  

I have not, nor will I ever say that moderates are the same politically or ideologically as moderates.  That's a stupid strawman.  Anyone who said it would be a moron.  I have also never said that moderates do nothing.  In fact, in my first article on this subject, I specifically mentioned that moderates often do encourage to fundies to be more moderate.  The point is, they have no basis on which to ground their claim that fundies ought not be so fundie.  They cannot appeal to logic, reason and science, for they also reject logic, reason, and science in their own god-belief.  Moderates just happen to believe (on faith) that their god is relatively reasonable and logical.  Their belief and fundies belief is exactly the same.  "God exists, and he's like this.  Your god isn't the right version.  I know it because it's true, and I have faith."  Again, you have pointed out that people's religious beliefs are typically a reflection of their own personalities, and this is generally true to a degree.  Fundies are typically authoritarian types -- high RWAs -- and moderates tend to be low RWAs.  Each of their religious views is based on faith, and therefore, is unquestionable.

To be pedantically clear, when I say their belief is unquestionable, I don't mean that all Christians refuse to question their beliefs, or get angry when others do.  I mean that once a theist has decided on faith that his god is this or that way, there is nothing anyone can do to convince him otherwise based on reason or logic.  It is a faith-based decision, even if it does happen to coincide with his personal views and personality type.

In this way, fundies and moderates are exactly the same -- they believe in their god based on faith.  Since they are the same foundationally, they cannot attack each other's god belief.  All they can do is stand on their pulpit and proclaim their own truth.  Gee... it's like I've said this before.  There's no reality check for either of them.

Moderates enable fundies even when they oppose them politically, for their worldviews are founded on the same thing -- faith -- and both of their views are equally defendable based on faith.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Here's a little

 

Quote:
Here's a little secret, Obama wasn't evangelical either.

Yeah. And he didn't need the evangelical vote.

Republicans do need it. Since John McCain couldn't get it, he lost the Presidential ticket.

 

Check for yourself. See how many times the Republicans have won an election without taking Virginia. 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940