2016 Election

[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.

[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.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Griff

...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.

Griff: I understand the concept of learning both sides of a news story.
So I may be misreading your intent here, especially in your selection of that particular Federalist article,
which criticizes only the liberal media's handling of Fiorina's attribution's to "Planned Parenthood Videos".

Here are the link and sub-links…

First link - The Federalist:

<snip>
The other story was what Carly Fiorina said during the GOP debate about those Planned Parenthood videos.
One of them shows a baby, she said, “its heart beating, its legs kicking,”
having survived an abortion but left to die in a metal dish.

…linked to: The Federalist:

To be clear, Fiorina, like the other Republicans attacking Planned Parenthood,
doesn’t have her facts straight. None of the videos have anyone talking about “harvesting” brains.
The supposedly macabre video she’s talking about was highly, selectively edited by right-wing activists.

The anti-abortion-rights group targeting Planned Parenthood is acknowledging
that its most recent video used an image of a stillborn baby that was made to look like an aborted fetus.
The Center for Medical Progress posted a new link on its video late Thursday,
adding that one of the images was actually a baby named Walter Fretz, born prematurely at 19 weeks.

While it is obviously not the same baby as the one she harvested the brain of,
the footage helps viewers to understand what a 19-week old baby looks like
when hearing the testimony of an ex-employee who harvested brains from babies of the same age.

Then, despite their own "fact-finding" and editorial comment,
the author dismisses them with an editorial contrivance that:

ibid
Illustrating stories with appropriate images is a common journalistic technique, one used by all media outlets.

Which is followed a sub-link to: Breitbart.com headline:

Carly Fiorina PAC Video Proves Planned Parenthood ‘Legs Kicking, Heart Beating’ Fetus True

Which takes us yet to another sub-link to another Breitbart.com headline:

Carly for America’s headline: Carly Under Attack By Planned Parenthood and Their Media Allies

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by 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. <snip>

Griff, maybe you should be prepared tonight to resume that discussion with your "younger".

Fiorina has been refusing to answer questions posed by the Press regarding her remarks
about those "Planned Parenthood videos", and the description of a fetus, etc. etc.
The "liberal press" immediate refuted her remarks, which in turn led to articles such as your link to The Federalist.

All this is just my way of saying that Fiorina is now being confronted in the press,
by the mother of the stillborn infant shown in the doctored videos.

This mother's story may well be a major issue in the next few days.

[Griff]

We're actually on the same side on planned parenthood. The original refutation, which i heard, was not correct since it said that Fiorina hadn't seen the footage. It turned out she had seen the footage but the footage was doctored. The problem for me is that journalists pick a side and work it until they have their facts but like the Federalist crowd they stop when they have the facts they want never looking deeper. UT looked deeper on the "invention" of a clock story but we didn't see that in the press. We saw two sides stopping with the facts they liked.