DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Stray Pooch on February 12, 2008, 06:50:56 PM
-
My family just voted together (except my oldest in Massachusetts and my middle son in s different district). I'm not sure how the oldest voted. He has been generally conservative and admired Mitt, but he made noises about Obama when we visited him last month.
My middle boy has been touting Hillary over Obama, but may have just been pulling my chain. He is a self-proclaimed gay man, but has been re-exploring that issue since he was in Japan and is attending an Evangelical church. Even before that he was surprisingly conservative for a gay man (even to the point of opposing gay marriage). But I don't see him voting Huckabee or McCain. So he may be a vote for the Her Royal Clinton-ness.
As for the other five of us, we all just went en masse to the polls and voted for Barak across the board. My eldest daughter (who has posted on this forum occasionally as kin2straypooch) is a flaming liberal lesbian. But surprisingly, she is scared to death of Hillary Clinton. She voted Barack. My youngest boy (who I used to call straypup, but that term is hardly sensible anymore as he is 19) voted Barak for the same reason I did. (Just a minute, I'll get to that.)
My youngest daughter, who is just barely old enough to vote in the primary (17, but will turn 18 before the general election) voted for Barak as well. Her reason? "Sanity," she tells me. "Other than Voldemorte, Obama is the only sane candidate!" She likes to joke a lot (can't imagine where she gets it) but she has spent almost two years preparing herself for this and I am very proud of her.
As it happens, both my eldest daughter and my youngest son were also first time voters today. I'm surprised my eldest daughter (26) hasn't voted until now, but it was kinda neat to have us go as a family to the polls.
My wife voted for Obama because she feels that Barak is a leader, and everybody else left in the race is just a politician. She is a middle-of-the-road voter, and may have voted either way. But she was so turned off by the Evangelical rejection of Mitt over religion that she stated she would not reward the Republican Party for bigotry.
Finally, the Pooch. In spite of the fact that I voted Democrat in the last governor's race, I am not switching sides. I just realized that I had the choice as a Republican to vote for the presumptive nominee, who I do not support, or Huckabee, who I would not support for the same reason as my wife. It's a shame really. Huck is the only candidate who supports the fair tax and he is at least a social conservative. He would be right in line to get my vote, but his candidacy just doesn't pass the smell test. I feel like a Latter Day Saint voting for Huckabee would be like an African-American voting for David Duke. McCain will probably get my vote by default in November. Though I have some questions about his tactics, I can certainly vote for a former POW and war hero. Unlike many conservatives, I don't get too bent out of shape over his compromise positions and maverick reputation. Actually, those are selling points to me. But in this election, my son and I both felt that a vote for McCain was not likely to have the slightest effect (though Huck might win in this state). McCain will be the nominee for the Republicans however we voted today.
But the Democratic race is up in the air. It's still pretty likely that Hillary will win the nomination, but it wouldn't break my heart to see Obama get the nod. As such, if a few votes as a Hillary spoiler gets the job done in Virginia, I can live with that. Further, if there must be Dem in the White House next year, I'd rather it be the "sane" one. So my vote for Barak was one of practicality. In November, I'm red again (unless Huckabee becomes the VP nominee). But for now, I'll vote as an ABC voter.
-
I would think as a LDS, you would have trouble voting for anyone who is not pro-life, but that is just my opinion. As for McCain and his more pro-gay views, the LDS Church is clear on that issue, too, is it not?
Just curious.
-
Perhaps Pooch was upset by Huckabee suggesting that Mormons believed that Jesus and Satan were brothers.
On the other hand, what would be the proper description of the relationship in question? Both were presumably created by God. Perhaps a different term needs to be invented.
Surely we cannot say that Satan was the 'elder evil twin'.
-
Perhaps Pooch was upset by Huckabee suggesting that Mormons believed that Jesus and Satan were brothers.
On the other hand, what would be the proper description of the relationship in question? Both were presumably created by God. Perhaps a different term needs to be invented.
Surely we cannot say that Satan was the 'elder evil twin'.
Why be upset? I am not a theologian, but I believe that is a rough assessment of the theology, isn't it? A throwback to the Thor - Loki relationship, perhaps?
-
I would think as a LDS, you would have trouble voting for anyone who is not pro-life, but that is just my opinion. As for McCain and his more pro-gay views, the LDS Church is clear on that issue, too, is it not?
Just curious.
You make the common mistake, Professor, of believing that Latter Day Saints all think, vote and act the same. Most Latter Day Saints understand the difference between church and state. Having been one of the few churches directly targetted by the United States government and actually ordered exterminated by a state, we get all ansy about theocracy.
Yes, I am pro-life. Yes, I am against gay marriage. That does not mean that any cadidate I vote for must pass some litmus test on those issues. Mitt Romney was against the fair tax, and Huck is for it. I feel very strongly about that issue, too. But neither of those candidates won or lost my vote on that issue.
Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch are Latter Day Saints. My Bishop is a liberal democrat. I am a middle of the road conservative. My home teacher is a staunch right winger. Yes, LDS votes tend to lean right, given our social stands. But there is a great diversity of opinion in our church, as in any other.
Of course, my reason for voting Obama was not related to wanting him as President, but rather NOT wanting Hillary. So the observation that my pro-life, pro-family stand should have kept me from voting for Obama (if I understand your point correctly) is not really valid. As for my wife, who DID vote for Obama and may well do so in November, she is also able to vote for a candidate she respects, even if that candidate isn't on board with all of her views.
-
Perhaps Pooch was upset by Huckabee suggesting that Mormons believed that Jesus and Satan were brothers.
On the other hand, what would be the proper description of the relationship in question? Both were presumably created by God. Perhaps a different term needs to be invented.
Surely we cannot say that Satan was the 'elder evil twin'.
You are completely wrong in your analysis of my vote. It's true that Huckabee was the anti-Mormon candidate, and his comment about LDS philosophy was intended to appeal to anti-Mormonism. But I voted against him because of Evangelical bigotry, not because of any particular comment. I didn't even hear about that specific comment until it was mentioned on this forum. Specific digs aren't much of an issue to me, given that they are fired at Latter Day Saints on a constant basis. I am against Huckabee because he is against me.
Now as it happens, Huckabee's description (as yours and the Professor's) is technically correct and practically completely wrong. Would it be correct to say that, since God created everything, he is the author of sin? Well, that would make sin God's will, which would, in turn make sin impossible. That argument is used by some atheists in a silly attempt to "disprove" God by supposedly unassailable logic. The logic is, of course, ridiculous. Similarly, ALL of us are brothers and sisters as children of God - Satan and Christ included. Characterizing our understanding of God as father and creator of everything in the universe as "Satan and Jesus are brothers" is oversimplification to the point of absurdity. I've already explained that, and it's pointless to cast pearls before swine. I was not upset by Huckabee's comment per se. I was upset about how that comment, and many like it, were used by Evangelicals to trash my faith and fight against the horrible spectre of a MORMON in the White House. Many Evangelicals, apparently, really ARE robotic voters who can't see beyond religious bigotry. I will certainly not reward the Evangelical wing of the party for that bigotry. Huckabee is the candidate of the Evangelicals - not of the Republican party.
-
So Pooch , seems as if a lot of your neighbors are thinking the same way.
http://voanews.com/english/2008-02-13-voa1.cfm
Democratic Senator Barack Obama has won his party's presidential primary election, held Tuesday in Virginia.
-
I've got to say Pooch, you've got an interesting family dynamic. Good for you for voting what you believe.
As to Mormons, I've known several and you're right, they're all over the place politically. A lot of Catholics are the same way.
-
So Pooch , seems as if a lot of your neighbors are thinking the same way.
http://voanews.com/english/2008-02-13-voa1.cfm
Democratic Senator Barack Obama has won his party's presidential primary election, held Tuesday in Virginia.
The turnout seemed pretty heavy compared to other elections I have seen here, but that remains to be seen. Obama's supporters were EVERYWHERE. He was the first candidate to release commercials here and pushed pretty hard to win. Huckabee was the only candidate who came to this neck of the woods (Shen Valley) but this is the redneck end of this red state and Huck will very likely snag most of the votes here.
McCain is the projected winner on the Republican side. He has a pretty good lead with 83% of precincts reporting.
-
I've got to say Pooch, you've got an interesting family dynamic. Good for you for voting what you believe.
As to Mormons, I've known several and you're right, they're all over the place politically. A lot of Catholics are the same way.
So are Jews, Protestants, and atheists....voting for a president more often than not comes down to a personal need/want.
imo
-
I've got to say Pooch, you've got an interesting family dynamic. Good for you for voting what you believe.
As to Mormons, I've known several and you're right, they're all over the place politically. A lot of Catholics are the same way.
So are Jews, Protestants, and atheists....voting for a president more often than not comes down to a personal need/want.
imo
Exactly. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Every candidate is bound to have one or more issues that rub their base the wrong way. Or the candidate works perfectly for a small percentage of voters but won't appeal to a large base. If I vote for McCain it will be because I settled. Even if I voted for Mitt, I would have settled, because I really want a candidate that supports the fair tax. But c'est la vie.
-
I've got to say Pooch, you've got an interesting family dynamic. Good for you for voting what you believe.
As to Mormons, I've known several and you're right, they're all over the place politically. A lot of Catholics are the same way.
Interesting family dynamic, huh? That's what our therapist says :D
Interestingly, my father was a Catholic and sister is as well. He was a Goldwater Republican and she is a hard core liberal. My mom was a Lutheran and raised all of us that way. My older brother is a Lutheran now, but is terribly prejudice against blacks and gays. My mother was prejudice against neither (at least later in life - earlier she was prejudice but everyone in that generation was in the 50s and early 60s).
All Scientologists, of course, are flaming Democrats :D
-
Perhaps Pooch was upset by Huckabee suggesting that Mormons believed that Jesus and Satan were brothers.
On the other hand, what would be the proper description of the relationship in question? Both were presumably created by God. Perhaps a different term needs to be invented.
Surely we cannot say that Satan was the 'elder evil twin'.
You are completely wrong in your analysis of my vote. It's true that Huckabee was the anti-Mormon candidate, and his comment about LDS philosophy was intended to appeal to anti-Mormonism. But I voted against him because of Evangelical bigotry, not because of any particular comment. I didn't even hear about that specific comment until it was mentioned on this forum. Specific digs aren't much of an issue to me, given that they are fired at Latter Day Saints on a constant basis. I am against Huckabee because he is against me.
Now as it happens, Huckabee's description (as yours and the Professor's) is technically correct and practically completely wrong. Would it be correct to say that, since God created everything, he is the author of sin? Well, that would make sin God's will, which would, in turn make sin impossible. That argument is used by some atheists in a silly attempt to "disprove" God by supposedly unassailable logic. The logic is, of course, ridiculous. Similarly, ALL of us are brothers and sisters as children of God - Satan and Christ included. Characterizing our understanding of God as father and creator of everything in the universe as "Satan and Jesus are brothers" is oversimplification to the point of absurdity. I've already explained that, and it's pointless to cast pearls before swine. I was not upset by Huckabee's comment per se. I was upset about how that comment, and many like it, were used by Evangelicals to trash my faith and fight against the horrible spectre of a MORMON in the White House. Many Evangelicals, apparently, really ARE robotic voters who can't see beyond religious bigotry. I will certainly not reward the Evangelical wing of the party for that bigotry. Huckabee is the candidate of the Evangelicals - not of the Republican party.
Interesting, Pooch. But your statement: "I will certainly not reward the Evangelical wing of the party for that bigotry." cannot be applied across the board. Personally, I voted for Huckabee but if he would not have been available I would have had no problem at all voting for Romney. The resurrection of McCain is still somewhat a mystery to me and a conspiracy theorist could have a field day on that one!
A related note. A friend of mine here whom I work with is a LDS Bishop and he does say there is a prohibition from the Church about voting non pro-life, but I confess I may have misread his statement as it was a far-winded conversation we had the other day on these matters. I cannot see myself voting for ANYONE, regardless of Party, if he/she is not pro-life. Gimme two pro-deathers and I'll sit out the election. The other issues like immigration, taxes, etc are not litmus tests for me. They are indeed important but not a litmus test. But that is just MY position.
-
Interesting, Pooch. But your statement: "I will certainly not reward the Evangelical wing of the party for that bigotry." cannot be applied across the board. Personally, I voted for Huckabee but if he would not have been available I would have had no problem at all voting for Romney. The resurrection of McCain is still somewhat a mystery to me and a conspiracy theorist could have a field day on that one!
Limbaugh, as I understand it, suggests that McCain recruited Huckabee to counter Mitt. I take that with a grain of salt, but it did turn out that Mitt and Huckabee split the conservative vote and everybody else dropped out. My theory is that the Repubs took the Hillary 2000-2004 stance. Those were bad years for Hillary to run because the Repubs had a very good chance to win (and keep, respectively) the White House. I think none of the heavy Repubs wanted to take too big a risk this year, as HRC seemed to be the candidate of destiny. That left the field open for newbies like Mitt and Huck and the maverick warhorse, McCain.
I recognize, Professor, that many Evangelicals do not fit in the category I described. Many Evangelicals had no problem voting for an LDS president. In fact there were "Evangelicals for Mitt" groups all over the place. There have been several prominent Evangelicals in the past few years who have reached out to LDS people. One memorable talk given by a person who was (at the time) a leader of the Fuller Bible Institute (IIRC) stood out. He apologized to Latter Day Saints for the way Evangelicals had been treating them. He said (and I paraphrase) that he still had disagreements of eternal importance with Mormonism, but that Evangelicals had "sinned" against Mormons and needed to repent. That was extremely gratifying.
My problem is with those who are not interested in "repenting." I haven't got the slightest problem with Evangelicals disagreeing with - even preaching against - my religion. That's expected, and completely appropriate. I DO have a problem with people telling me I am not a Christian (I most certainly am) or spreading lies about my beliefs such as a cartoon on youtube which actually says that Joseph Smith claimed to have done more for salvation than anyone, including Jesus Christ. (In fact, he never said or thought any such thing. What this lie refers to is a statement written in tribute by John Taylor after Smith died, and it says exactly the opposite.
A related note. A friend of mine here whom I work with is a LDS Bishop and he does say there is a prohibition from the Church about voting non pro-life, but I confess I may have misread his statement as it was a far-winded conversation we had the other day on these matters.
You may not necessarily have misread his statement. He may just be wrong. The church does not instruct members on voting, and in fact has a policy of political neutrality when it comes to candidates. The church DOES encourage members to vote, and suggests that we should be choosing candidates who are worthy, moral people that uphold values we respect. Since we are a pro-life church, some may interpret that as your Bishop friend has. But that interpretation is one of opinion - not church policy. Nobody in the church is told how to vote. For official church policy on this and other political matters, see this link.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality
-
I've got to say Pooch, you've got an interesting family dynamic. Good for you for voting what you believe.
As to Mormons, I've known several and you're right, they're all over the place politically. A lot of Catholics are the same way.
So are Jews, Protestants, and atheists....voting for a president more often than not comes down to a personal need/want.
imo
Exactly. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Every candidate is bound to have one or more issues that rub their base the wrong way. Or the candidate works perfectly for a small percentage of voters but won't appeal to a large base. If I vote for McCain it will be because I settled. Even if I voted for Mitt, I would have settled, because I really want a candidate that supports the fair tax. But c'est la vie.
"But c'est la vie."
I often wonder if this c'est la vie is the very thing that Canadians, for example, find so naive and frustrating about our nation's political tone.
(Not you personally Poochie...)
but indeed, we can only hope for the candidate of our dreams to fall at least 3 degrees away from the one who leads this nation in the end.
We settle a lot 'round these parts. . .
Viva la difference!!
We can only hope for dissention to become such a love for difference , someday.....
-
I'm watching the PBS program right now on The Mormon.
Wow, Pooch, this reminds me of all that I learned when was a young girl, growing up around a lot of Mormons in the late 60's.
The church of LDS has come a long way...
At one time the Mormon, according to the program....considered black people to be "representative of the satan" and white folks were representative of white/goodness. yikes.
Well, not that Catholics are perfect, either...for sure! ( I am a Catholic by choice)There is so much crap that occurs in each and every cranny and nook....ahhh, humankind...So we are not perfect.
But, we need someone to love and accept us for that imperfection....
God does that for so many.
Jesus does that for so many.
I celebrate your religion, Pooch. When I was young, I studied a lot about Smith in H.S. (Joseph)
My best friend invited me to her church in '68. I was set to meet the Bishop and I almost joined the church. My parents stepped in, of course, as I was only 15. I have always been a journeywoman of sort in terms of religion.
I remember feeling a sense of 'awe" when I heard of my friend's family life. Each Sunday they celebrated with family at dinner as a group, as they could "talk"... discuss issues, ...Gosh, to have had that bonding of family, what a gift. We could only hope for such a thing today.
Her brothers did not go to Vietnam, as they were against the war. They were to become missionaries. Again, I was so in awe of all of this.
I just heard that during the Katrina floods, Mormons were there before any other group....even BEFORE the floods arrived. wow!!
Impressive.
-
I'm watching the PBS program right now on The Mormon.
Wow, Pooch, this reminds me of all that I learned when was a young girl, growing up around a lot of Mormons in the late 60's.
The church of LDS has come a long way...
At one time the Mormon, according to the program....considered black people to be "representative of the satan" and white folks were representative of white/goodness. yikes.
Well, not that Catholics are perfect, either...for sure! ( I am a Catholic by choice)There is so much crap that occurs in each and every cranny and nook....ahhh, humankind...So we are not perfect.
But, we need someone to love and accept us for that imperfection....
God does that for so many.
Jesus does that for so many.
I celebrate your religion, Pooch. When I was young, I studied a lot about Smith in H.S. (Joseph)
My best friend invited me to her church in '68. I was set to meet the Bishop and I almost joined the church. My parents stepped in, of course, as I was only 15. I have always been a journeywoman of sort in terms of religion.
The one thing I remember feeling so profoundly and awsome, was the way my friend's family seemed to be so very, very close. They had Sunday dinner as a group each and every week, so they could "talk"... discuss issues, ...Gosh, to have had that bonding of family, what a gift. We could only hope for such a thing today.
I just heard that during the Katrina floods, Mormons were there before any other group....even BEFORE the floods arrived. wow!!
Impressive.
Doggone it, I forgot that was on again tonight! I watched it last night and was pretty impressed. It was nicely balanced. I don't agree with everything it says, but there was a good attempt to be neither anti-Mormon nor pro-Mormon. A lot of this show had subjective opinions, but again, they seemed to make a real effort to have representatives from several different perspectives. Pretty good stuff, from what I saw.
-
There is a man on now who claims the wrong of the LDS. . . no different from the disappointed young boy who was raped by the priest in the Catholic Church.
God, mankind can be so cruel.
The devil.
There is evil in the world.....lest we be so stupid and naive NOT to know that.
There is the issue of sin.
It's not a matter of....adam/eve alone.
It's a matter of LOVE.
Joseph Smith restored the Church, according to the believers within.
SO, they LOVE GOD, and the Love of Jesus has touched them. I celebrate that.
LOVe is better than hate..any day of the week. .. .
God, we must find a way to LOVE one another........simple, and silly to some...but Love is the key in the end....
I saw that when my eyes were opened to God.
That is truly is the bottom line in the end.
-
McCain will probably get my vote by default in November. Though I have some questions about his tactics, I can certainly vote for a former POW and war hero. Unlike many conservatives, I don't get too bent out of shape over his compromise positions and maverick reputation. Actually, those are selling points to me.
Yet again, this tends to reinforce my query about if Romney's dropping out, just did in the Dems (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5361.0). Pooch a strong "righty" gonna go for McCain. Fatman, a social liberal indicating that if the vote were today, Mccain would probably get it. sirs, a partisan conservative, now swayed to supporting a McCain, given the alternatives. I guess that the one thing that can pull this out for Obama, is if what Plane articulated holds all the way into Nov.....Republican apathy.
We shall see
-
I guess that the one thing that can pull this out for Obama, is if what Plane articulated holds all the way into Nov.....Republican apathy.
That's absolutely the name of the game. In the end, voter apathy has put an awful lot of people in the White House, and the Dems have an exciting race and the chance to lock up the national leadership. So unless the Republicans get hot, the Dems could win big.
-
I guess that the one thing that can pull this out for Obama, is if what Plane articulated holds all the way into Nov.....Republican apathy.
That's absolutely the name of the game. In the end, voter apathy has put an awful lot of people in the White House, and the Dems have an exciting race and the chance to lock up the national leadership. So unless the Republicans get hot, the Dems could win big.
And if were to occur, then the Dems will dramatically cut the Defense budget so they can load up their social programs, resulting in hundred of thousands of jobs. Oh boy! Can't wait!
-
Yet again, this tends to reinforce my query about if Romney's dropping out, just did in the Dems. Pooch a strong "righty" gonna go for McCain. Fatman, a social liberal indicating that if the vote were today, Mccain would probably get it. sirs, a partisan conservative, now swayed to supporting a McCain, given the alternatives. I guess that the one thing that can pull this out for Obama, is if what Plane articulated holds all the way into Nov.....Republican apathy.
I think that if the election comes down to McCain and Obama, I think that McCain has a strong chance, even with Republican apathy. Obama speaks platitudes, McCain at least has some substance. One of my dislikes with Obama is that although he's probably the best oratist in the race, he doesn't lay out any details, just keeps going on about change. Well, change is fine, but I'm not going to support it unless I know what the hell he plans on changing, other than pulling the troops out, which as someone pointed out in another post, could just be words on Obama's part. One of the big reasons that I support McCain is that a Republican President would be a check to a Democratic Congress, which I expect to grow even more in majority in this election. I didn't like the Republicans in control of Congress when Bush was President, I'm not going to like a Dem Congress and Dem President either. It seems like both only function when there is some pressure from the other.
I also realize that McCain will probably "grow" the govt. I just think that Huckabee will do the same, if not more. At least McCain is a social liberal/moderate, and that I can live with.
-
And if were ot occur, then the Dems will dramatically cut the Defense budget so they can load up their social programs, resulting in hundred of thousands of jobs. Oh boy! Can't wait!
Those "new" jobs will come as a result of the loss of jobs in the defense sector.
-
However, the skillsets do not necessarily match.
-
Yet again, this tends to reinforce my query about if Romney's dropping out, just did in the Dems. Pooch a strong "righty" gonna go for McCain. Fatman, a social liberal indicating that if the vote were today, Mccain would probably get it. sirs, a partisan conservative, now swayed to supporting a McCain, given the alternatives. I guess that the one thing that can pull this out for Obama, is if what Plane articulated holds all the way into Nov.....Republican apathy.
I think that if the election comes down to McCain and Obama, I think that McCain has a strong chance, even with Republican apathy. Obama speaks platitudes, McCain at least has some substance. One of my dislikes with Obama is that although he's probably the best oratist in the race, he doesn't lay out any details, just keeps going on about change.
You hit the nail on the head, Fatman. A ton of utopian-like verbage, yet neither has he ever put a price tag on anything, nor where the money will come from, for this glimpse of utopian nirvana. One can assume he'd simply slash the defense budget, then of course let the Bush tax cuts, which spearheded us out of a 911 enhanced recession, with unquestionably low uneployment #'s, and a stock market that hit 13000, cease, and that supposedly will take care of everything?? All the while watching the country's economic system tank in the process.
Did anyone notice how when we had all Dems running congress & the WH, our economy suffered miserably (See Carter). When we had a Republican Prez (who cut taxes across the board) & Dem congress (that spent like a drunken sailor) the economy did "fairly" well. When we had a Dem Prez and a GOP congress holding down spending, our country did just as good practically. Then we had a Republican Prez (who cut taxes across the board) and GOP congress (that spent like drunken sailors), and the economy again did fairly well. Lastly, we have a Republican Prez and a Dem congress, and low and behold, the economy is now starting to shake (at least that's what current economists are referencing). Worst thing we can do is bring back a Carter-like scenario. Yea, there'll be "change" alright. So much change, we may have to bring back the misery index to properly qualify it
But if that's what the electorate wants......