The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[CarolKing]

This isn't the religion thread but you could start one. What about the Christians that have killed folks in the abortion clinics in the "name of God" here in the U.S?

Timothy McViegh killed the folks in the Federal building and it wasn't even religiously motivated. How many hundreds died?

We have a lot of home grown terrorist right here in our own country.

Let's get back to the Presidential Election.

Edit
Thanks for pointing out McVeigh had religious motivations. I had to refresh my memory. Actually 168 people were murdered and several hundred injured some losing arms and legs. This was in retaliation for the wife and a son of a white separatist that were killed at Ruby Ridge, ID.

 

[Snappo]

This isn't the religion thread but you could start one. What about the Christians that have killed folks in the abortion clinics in the "name of God" here in the U.S?

Timothy McViegh killed the folks in the Federal building and it wasn't even religiously motivated. How many hundreds died?

Let's get back to the Presidential Election.

President Obama stuck around after last night's ‪#‎POTUSonNewsHour‬ to answer more questions. Here's his answer to a question about Second Amendment rights and gun control. Watch the full town hall special here: http://www.pbs.org/…/watch-live-president-obamas-town-hall…/

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154247237078675

 

[yogoshio]

I find it hard to argue the comparison between driving and firearms. For one, driving/owning a car isn't specifically written into the constitution. Secondly, driving is inherently MUCH more dangerous than carrying a gun. Even if everyone in the country had guns, bumping into each other wouldn't cause the weapon to randomly fire. Also, we have all the hard statistics about guns, gun violence, demographics, etc. But whenever the data is used, it almost inevitably shows that 97% of gun violence is perpetrated by illegal gun owners. Why do we need the CDC to be the ones to interpret it? That idea just doesn't make sense to me.

However, what annoys me the most, is if we would just institute and use the actual laws already in place, MANY of these issues wouldn't be an issue, but because we have counties, states, and local authorities all adding their own language and nuance to the statutes/laws/regulations, its infinitely more difficult to apply the law.

 

[lwien]

However, what annoys me the most, is if we would just institute and use the actual laws already in place, MANY of these issues wouldn't be an issue.....

Same thing could be said for immigration laws, eh?

 

[Silat]

This isn't the religion thread but you could start one. What about the Christians that have killed folks in the abortion clinics in the "name of God" here in the U.S?

Timothy McViegh killed the folks in the Federal building and it wasn't even religiously motivated. How many hundreds died?

We have a lot of home grown terrorist right here in our own country.

Let's get back to the Presidential Election.

Just for the record there was religion in McV.
Tim McVeigh used William Peirce's Turner Diaries as a how to guide. Both the book and the movement are rightwing white supremacist, anti-government and invoke the Christian God when convenient.
Timothy McVeighs Christianity http://www.ethicsdaily.com/an-accurate-look-at-timothy-mcveighs-beliefs-cms-15532

 

[Snappo]

I find it hard to argue the comparison between driving and firearms. For one, driving/owning a car isn't specifically written into the constitution. Secondly, driving is inherently MUCH more dangerous than carrying a gun. Even if everyone in the country had guns, bumping into each other wouldn't cause the weapon to randomly fire. Also, we have all the hard statistics about guns, gun violence, demographics, etc. But whenever the data is used, it almost inevitably shows that 97% of gun violence is perpetrated by illegal gun owners. Why do we need the CDC to be the ones to interpret it? That idea just doesn't make sense to me.

However, what annoys me the most, is if we would just institute and use the actual laws already in place, MANY of these issues wouldn't be an issue, but because we have counties, states, and local authorities all adding their own language and nuance to the statutes/laws/regulations, its infinitely more difficult to apply the law.

I understand your points, and agree. But the president has had to develop an awareness of his immediate audience and his audience at large, all of which have an average 9th-grade level understanding of things, if that, and who's world view education in large part comes from media buzz and simplistic rhetoric... so he uses analogies that at least give them a modicum of grasp... a/k/a feeding our dumbed-down American society. Even though our seasoned politicians say it, i.e., "I have faith in the intelligence of the American public", they don't believe in it for a second.

 

[yogoshio]

Even though our seasoned politicians say it, i.e., "I have faith in the intelligence of the American public", they don't believe in it for a second.

Oh I'm sure they mean it, just not in a nice way.

 

[grokit]

This isn't the religion thread but you could start one. What about the Christians that have killed folks in the abortion clinics in the "name of God" here in the U.S?

I did mention that earlier today:

He was more concerned about a theology that has literally codexed jihad. He was unswayed by my counterargument that certain domestic fundamentalist christians are just as hateful, and sounded more like my ex-cia friend that told me recently that it's already too late.

In any respect, I think we're only discussing religion here in terms of the next potus's potential domestic and foreign policies as they relate to "religion-inspired violence", both at home and abroad.

I'm still rooting for a miracle, so we don't have to choose between domestic race wars and wwiii...

These two articles, from one of the most unbiased but hawkish publications I've ever laid eyes on, provide a salient compare & contrast between our two leading polarized politicians regarding foreign policy :

Trump Goes on the Attack in New Foreign-Policy Speech

It was a defiant Donald Trump who warned about a Muslim threat today.

It was a defiant Donald Trump who delivered his new foreign-policy address today. “The Muslims have to work with us,” he stated, “They have to work with us. They know what’s going on.”

This marked a polar opposite from the tones that Hillary Clinton sounded a few hours before Trump—and from the ones that leading Republicans such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would like him to adopt. Trump declared that he would not succumb to political correctness in battling radical Islamic fundamentalism. And he repeatedly invoked repeatedly an omnipresent Muslim threat inside America that threatens to sap its liberties and freedoms, replacing them with terror, violence and fear.

In contrast to Clinton—who did not mention Trump by name during her speech Monday and offered a three-part plan that included beefing up resources for first responders and law enforcement and intelligence officials—Trump repeatedly assailed her and Obama. He pointed to her support for intervention in Libya as helping to spawn terrorism.

Earlier in the day, Trump had suggested that Obama himself was either naïve or perhaps abetting terrorists. "Look, we're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind," Trump told Fox News. "And the something else in mind — you know, people can't believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on."

more...
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-goes-the-attack-new-foreign-policy-speech-16570


Orlando and Hillary's Dilemma

Clinton is hemmed in by political correctness.

With each new terrorist attack—Orlando is just the latest of a lengthening global string—Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects sink further. The reason may be traced to the four corners of a “no way out” box that a politically correct Clinton now finds herself trapped in.

At one corner of this box, Hillary is tied at the hip to a president who won’t even utter the words “Islamic extremism.” Hillary herself renounces the phrase “radical Islam”—even as she meekly denounces “violent extremism.” However, as Confucius once said: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name,” and American voters are overwhelmingly going to see a far blunter and waterboarding Trump as the wiser (and tougher) one here.

At a second corner of Hillary’s “no way out” box, there is the very real conflict between her support for both women’s and gay rights versus her politically correct views on “religious tolerance.” Says Clinton: “America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation, and as you know, we are home to people of all religions.’’

Here, however, is Clinton’s political conundrum: Clinton is supporting an intolerant religion in the name of religious tolerance—and much of the American public knows it. This includes all those American women who Clinton is heavily banking on to carry her to victory. They sure don’t want their daughters donning burqas at the behest of some new American Caliphate.

more:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/orlando-hillarys-dilemma-16566

 

[Silat]

Even though our seasoned politicians say it, i.e., "I have faith in the intelligence of the American public", they don't believe in it for a second.

I do not believe it either.

 

[CarolKing]

Trump has been saying that Obama is not a real American since before the Tea Party group started. Now Trump is insinuating that the president doesn't get it or doesn't want to get it. I don't think that Trump gets it. Trying to get credit for being right about Muslims because of this horrific tragedy. Fuck you Trump!! Wrong thread - I couldn't resist.

I have no faith in the American people when it comes to voting for a president.

 

[Gunky]

Already world leaders and religious leaders are making excuses for religion. This happens each and every time a person commits violence in the name of religion.
When right wing conservatives in America try to pass Christian sharia against women, they are not real Christians.
When right wing Christian Talibanista's commit violence at women's health clinics we hear that they were not real Christians.
When Christians committed rape, murder and genocide in Bosnia in the name of christianity we were told they were not true Christians and ethnicity was what it was about.
When Christian conservatives from America go to Africa and promote death of gays we are told they are not real Christians.
When Mormon extremists commit terrorism they are not real Mormons.
When Muslim extremists commit violence we hear the same excuses.
"Religion hijacked by these extremists"
"This has nothing to do with religion"
WRONG
This has everything to do with religion.
Whether it be a Christian, Muslim or any other religion, when acts of violence are committed in a religions name it can be directly laid at the feet of that RELIGION.

That seems a bit harsh. Why not make room in your vision for the many people who subscribe to an organized religion and who are civilized and decent? Must they all be thrown into the realms of outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth? Could it be that I don't really have all the answers, therefore it behooves me to be tolerant and respectful to the extent that that doesn't do violence to my most important priorities? Condemning other folks' religion can turn into a dehumanizing violence all by itself, whether motivated by a competing religion or a competing non-religious ideology.

 

[lwien]

I have no faith in the American people when it comes to voting for a president.

Hang in there CK. The jury's still out on that one.

 

[yogoshio]

I find it interesting that there are several (although I can only think of one off the top of my head) where Muslim religious rights have trumped equal rights issues. Specifically, a Muslim taxi driver kicked out a gay couple for kissing in the back seat *gasps!* and he won the civil suit. If that had been a Christian, well.... They can't even not bake a cake and get their asses handed to them.

Hang in there CK. The jury's still out on that one.

Given the two political options, I think we can safely say she's right.

 

[Silat]

That seems a bit harsh. Why not make room in your vision for the many people who subscribe to an organized religion and who are civilized and decent? Must they all be thrown into the realms of outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth? Could it be that I don't really have all the answers, therefore it behooves me to be tolerant and respectful to the extent that that doesn't do violence to my most important priorities? Condemning other folks' religion can turn into a dehumanizing violence all by itself, whether motivated by a competing religion or a competing non-religious ideology.

Well in my old age I subscribe to the position that if you knowingly support a bad cause you are part of the problem.
Example: Trump is a racist. That is just a fact. It has been known for decades. My feeling is that if you know that fact, and you vote for him then you support racism.
"non-religions ideology"? No. Atheism is as much a "belief system" as not believing in unicorns is a belief system; in other words it's not a belief system.

 

[yogoshio]

Atheism is as much a "belief system" as not believing in unicorns is a belief system; in other words it's not a belief system.

Not sure how Atheism isn't a belief system when the entirety of the basis revolves on a lack of evidence for something as opposed of for something.

 

[CarolKing]

There's the extremist version in all religions. The Muslim are who we are talking about today. We are a country of many religions. We honor and respect all religions as long as they are obeying the law and are kind to their followers. I worry about Scientology - they could go crazier someday. There's already little danger signs.

The Muslims aren't the only radicals around.
I'm getting sucked into the religious conversation.

 

[TeeJay1952]

A billion and a half Muslim. 25-30 thousand 'radical". You cannot let so small a minority speak for the greater. the dude from florida (hate and hurt be upon his name) was an American born and raised. Build a wall around time? Around us?

 

[Gunky]

Well I have always felt free to criticize foolery cloaked in religion, such as the pope canonizing Junipero Serra. Might just as well make Pol Pot a saint as far as I'm concerned. And it matters to me that massacres and genocide not be covered up so I speak out about it. But I would never presume to criticize the pope, other Christian leaders, or indeed any Christian on their theology (or any other religion) or their explanation of what life is all about which I take to be the core of religion. Things are not always what they seem. There are mystics in all the main traditions who, it seems to me, are pointing at a similar realization. Our world is so riven now by tribal animosities, religious animosities, national animosities, etc. Do we really need to add anti-religious animosity to the list? Is it really useful to tar all co-religionists with the same brush?

 

[yogoshio]

Is it really useful to tar all co-religionists with the same brush?

Depends on what industry you work in. Politics, yes. Gun trafficking, yes. School teacher, depends on where you live. It's an interesting world. And not necessarily in a good way.

 

[Silat]

Not sure how Atheism isn't a belief system when the entirety of the basis revolves on a lack of evidence for something as opposed of for something.

Not believing is "not" a belief system.

 

[Snappo]

Not believing is "not" a belief system.

Not so sure about that... If I said that I'm of the belief that the odds are much more against there being a god than for there being a god, that is a belief based on my deductive and experiential value system - a belief system. How does that differ from one who is of the belief that the odds are more in favor of there being a god (who's life is then guided in religiosity by that belief) than against the existence?

 

[Silat]

Not so sure about that... If I said that I'm of the belief that the odds are much more against there being a god than for there being a god, that is a belief based on my deductive and experiential value system - a belief system. How does that differ from one who is of the belief that the odds are more in favor of there being a god (who's life is then guided in religiosity by that belief) than against the existence?

Atheism is an absence of belief.

 

[Snappo]

Atheism is an absence of belief.

Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of God... Belief is: something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat; confidence in the truth, existence, or non-existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof i.e., neither the existence or non-existence of God is immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Belief is belief, for or against, or maybe....

Back on topic: Boooo Trump!

 

[Silat]

Not so sure about that... If I said that I'm of the belief that the odds are much more against there being a god than for there being a god, that is a belief based on my deductive and experiential value system - a belief system. How does that differ from one who is of the belief that the odds are more in favor of there being a god (who's life is then guided in religiosity by that belief) than against the existence?

God is the biggest atheist of all.
Some humor and thoughts:
"Assuming God is all knowing, if God existed God would know that he existed. His relationship with himself would be different from the relationship theists have with God, because theists rely on faith whereas God would have direct knowledge of his existence.
In order for God to be an atheist, he would have to not believe he exists; however, since God is all knowing, he would know that he exists. He would have evidence of his existence, which is all most atheists are asking for before they would believe as well."

and

God the super atheist:
"Let's assume for the sake of argument that God does indeed exist, and that he created the natural universe that we live in. Let's also further assume that religions that claim to be revealed by God are in fact revealed by God. Let's go even more and assume that what God revealed is what God believes is true (ie. God is not lying to us). So what is revealed to us through religions is that God of religions created this universe, and that he was not created, but rather God came into existence without having been created by some kind of "super god".
The question becomes: Is God an atheist? Certainly God cannot prove nor disprove the claim that he was created by some "super god"... So in reality the fact that God does not believe in "super god" in a very real sense makes him super-atheist!!"

and

"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off." -- Emo Phillips

Great read on the subject.
http://www.alternet.org/story/148555/is_atheism_a_belief

 

[Snappo]

God is the biggest atheist of all.
Some humor:
"Assuming God is all knowing, if God existed God would know that he existed. His relationship with himself would be different from the relationship theists have with God, because theists rely on faith whereas God would have direct knowledge of his existence.
In order for God to be an atheist, he would have to not believe he exists; however, since God is all knowing, he would know that he exists. He would have evidence of his existence, which is all most atheists are asking for before they would believe as well."

I must also then consider the possibility that if God does exist, God does so in a perpetual state of dissociative self/non-self identity comprised of infinite multiple personalities, none of which are aware of the other. But I digress, again... F'! Trump!