2016 Election

[fargon]

I would vote for Mr. Sanders.

[BigV]

I, too, would vote for Bernie Sanders.

On the larger question about religion and the Presidency, I was aghast at the comments by Ben Carson, campaigner for the Republican nomination for the office.

Asked Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether a president's faith should matter, Carson said, "I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter."

Related: Ben Carson's Campaign Responds to Outrage Over Comments on Islam

Then Carson added, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

Carson was, of course, expressing his personal view and did not call for barring Muslims from the presidency. But many constitutional scholars say Carson's view is at odds with the design of the nation's founders.

OMFG.

Personal views, sure, ok, you religious bigot. Please pardon me while I catch my breath from the shock of your ignorance of our Constitution, especially the part about no religious tests for holders of public office... Mr Carson, this is an example of a deal killer for me. You can't espouse this belief, and any other combination of other beliefs and still persuade me to vote for you. Nuh-uh, nope, nada, zip, no way.

[BigV]

In other happy news, I just heard that Scott Walker, he of the selective intolerance of collective bargaining (cops and firefighters, ok; teachers, no way), has just announced that he'll suspend his campaign.

Oh happy day!

“I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same, so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive conservative alternative to the current front-runner,” Mr. Walker said in the short appearance, at which he took no questions. “This is fundamentally important to the future of the party and, more importantly, to the future of our country.”

Way to take one for the team. And it shows a certain mortal fear of the power of Trump's blithering demagoguery. And they're right to be afraid, we should all be afraid, at least when we're not rotfloao.

[fargon]

YAY!!!

[Happy Monkey]

It's a competitive title, but I think he was the worst of the lot.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It's a competitive title, but I think he was the worst of the lot.

When the GOP campaign began, he worried me more than any of the others.

FWIW, I had a lot of fun debating my wife today on what it would be like if
Fionena became the GOP candidate and Clinton was the Democratic candidate.

Then no matter which won, the winner would say they proved 1 woman can beat 16 men*.





*... when all the men are Republicans...

[it]

Originally Posted by BigV

I, too, would vote for Bernie Sanders.

On the larger question about religion and the Presidency, I was aghast at the comments by Ben Carson, campaigner for the Republican nomination for the office.



OMFG.

Personal views, sure, ok, you religious bigot. Please pardon me while I catch my breath from the shock of your ignorance of our Constitution, especially the part about no religious tests for holders of public office... Mr Carson, this is an example of a deal killer for me. You can't espouse this belief, and any other combination of other beliefs and still persuade me to vote for you. Nuh-uh, nope, nada, zip, no way.

I don't think he is saying we should legally prevent someone from running based on their religion, I think he is saying that we should consider someone's religious beliefs when deciding who to vote for, and that it's ok to choose not to vote for someone based on their religious beliefs.

IMO it isn't "wrong" so much as it misses the importance of looking for the context religious takes within the person's life and the role it takes in informing their ethics and ideology. There is an important difference between someone who is religious in their personal life and someone is running in the name of religion.

I have voted for both parties lead by Jewish and for parties lead by Muslim politicians in different elections here in Israel, depending on the state of the elections (I find that the need to pander to Arab parties helps keep the left in check), but they were also mostly secular liberal people.
On the opposite side of the context coin, we also have Jewish parties who are outright defined by their religion and would like nothing more then to turn keeping the shabat into law, biblical dress code into public decency requirements and kosher food into government regulations, and I would - and have in the past - voted for alternative small parties with the expressed intention to weaken the religious parties power. Likewise, I have friends in Egypt who were protesting against the Muslim brotherhood, and if I lived in Egypt I likely would have done the same. Much the same way, if I was living in the US as a citizen, I would probably not mind voting for a christian, but I would be quite reluctant to vote for someone who uses Christianity to inform their beliefs and policies that regard human sexuality.

(I admit though, it is very easy for me to say because I never actually had a choice of voting for someone who shares my beliefs - or lack thereof - in the first place. It's quite possible that if I had lived long enough with the option of voting for people who are openly agnostic or atheists, I would eventually come to look for that as a requirement. When you declare you would never eat the candy you never had access too, that's one very fragile high horse).

[Griff]

I was talking with my eldest about the election and got thinking about an issue I just found covered in a recent the Federalist article. Her politics are more like my own carrying a healthy skepticism about bureaucracies effectiveness along with a desire for a more egalitarian state. My younger is a more intense liberal with a little less skepticism. Finding a news source which is at all reliable is a problem especially in election cycles. Let's face it nobody has time to read all sides except for journalists and they don't seem interested is presenting a fair minded view...

But we’re also separated, increasingly, by the news and commentary we read and watch. To the extent that it informs us of what’s going on, and why, and what to expect, our fragmentation and insularity has reached a dangerous tipping point: we no longer agree on what’s real.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ain't nobody got time for that reading, I just have to assume everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

[BigV]

traceur--

I see from reading and rereading your remarks that we're saying the same thing. Voting for someone should involve examining their character, etc, including their ideas on religion. What Ben Carson's saying is that being a Muslim is a disqualifying condition for President of the United States. *I'm* saying that's a completely bullshit point of view. And that someone who's vying for public office that holds such unambiguously rigid prejudices is himself unfit for public office.

He's saying "no" *because* someone's a Muslim.

He's not saying any more about "the importance of looking for the context religious takes within the person's life and the role it takes in informing their ethics and ideology." He's just saying "no", being Muslim is enough for him to make his decision. That's prejudiced and ignorant and bigoted, not characteristics I believe are conducive to good public leadership. He compounds this error by citing its "unconstitutionality", adding a good dose of dumb to his remarks.

[Undertoad]

do you have some complete quotes for this so we can judge the level at which we should be aghast and all harumphing at

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

do you have some complete quotes for this so we can judge the level at which we should be aghast and all harumphing at

Sure. I quoted him in post number 137, and included a link in that post to my source. He said this during an appearance on meet the press. He's subsequently reaffirmed his position.

[Undertoad]

Oh, is that all? I, too, would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I was expecting some sort of actual Constitutional challenge or something. Something to really be aghast about.

[BigV]

Huh.

So, I can't ask Ben Carson, but I can ask you: that's all it takes for you to reject a candidate? Don't need to know anything else about them, once it's clear they're Muslim, the answer for you is "no".

[Undertoad]

Right now? 2016? Yeah, no.