Who will win? Obama or McCain?

Remove all ads!

It depends whether he is talking about Gov. Palin, or Cindy

 

I will never understand how faithful christian can put so much value into the homosexual issue while not putting any value whatsoever on what has to be seen as the core of the New testament. Judge not lest ye be judge, love thy neighbour, turn hte other cheek, treat others as you want them to treat you and so forth. Those things seem to pale compared to the question of whether two men should be able to inherit from each other. I just don't get it.

 

Not everyone considers these conservative ideals to be a part of Christian Values, Gnarff. Barack Obama's old church, which has (among other things) performed gay marriages certainly does not. The real truth is that "Christian values" tend to change from Christian to Christian.

 

So, let me get this straight. Now you want the government to force everyone to follow Christian values? Yes, Christians should help the poor, injured, infirm, etc. but the gov't shouldn't force everyone to. Furthermore, as much help as possible should be functional (give them a job they can do so they can support themselves). Remember, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

As for the issues of abortion and gay marriage, while certain 'Christian' sects tend to disagree, the Bible is fairly clear about how God feels. He knew you since before you were concieved, and He generally doesn't say nice things about homosexuality. Of course, you all know my opinion on the last one. (For those who don't, I believe that legislation is the worst possible way to address the issue.)

 

That's one of the things I love about Republicans. We'll give you the highest protection possible while you're a fetus. But once you're born - you're on your own!

Seriously though Gnarff, if abortion is ever over-turned in the US, I will view it as a quantum leap backwards. Certainly it would be a leap backwards to at least 1972 when the initial Rove v. Wade decision came down. It would also have political fallout in that the Republican party would lose every election after that for the foreseeable future. Making abortion illegal - nevermind tantamount to murder (I seriously don't think you mean that abortion should be a capital crime) - would lose the Republicans a huge number of women voters, who currently support the party for several reasons, but among them that abortion will remain legal.

Banning abortion will transform a huge number of people into one issue voters - and most of them will not come down on the side you would like them to. Believe it or not, abortion is not the primary issue for most voters right now. Most people are in agreement that the US will remain like the rest of the Western world where abortion is legal. If that changes, you'll see the backlash.

Of course not. Obama is a Christian and his former church performed gay marriages. So the Christian faith he followed did not even believe marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. His Christian beliefs are different than your Christian beliefs. So it's sounds silly when you keep bringing points like this up. You keep making that same mistake over and over again. You not only think all people support a Christian view of marriage (which they don't) but you also think that all people support the traditional Christian view of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman (which they certainly don't).

Have you looked at recent polls? If your statement is correct, it would suggest that the abortion and gay marriage issues are, in fact, resolved to their liking, because it looks like the US is about to elect a Democrat.

(As an aside, I'd like to point out that the race isn't as close as it looks (based on the most recent polling Obama is ahead 49% to 43%). Sure 6% doesn't sound like much, but here's a few numbers for you. Reagan won both the 1980 and 1984 election by about 9%. George H.W. Bush won the 1988 election by 7%, and Clinton won the 1992 and 1996 election by about 6% and 8% respectively. What do all those elections have in common? They were all landslides in the electoral college. You need to have the popular vote be really close to get a close vote in the electoral college - like we did in 2000 and 2004 (in 2000, Bush actually earned about 0.5% LESS of the popular vote than did Gore, and in 2004 Bush won the popular vote by just over 2%). The point being, if Obama heads into November with a 6% lead in the polls, he'll probably earn somewhere around 350 electoral votes.

EDIT:

Of course not. (Perhaps I should have used the thing to make it clear I was being sarcastic. Gnarff pointed out that he thinks the Republicans will win because of the Christians. I was merely pointing out that items on the Democratic platform could also be construed as Christian values, and that the Republican party has not cornered the market on morality.

 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE...can we NOT turn this thread into another gay marriage Gnarff-o-rama? Really, I haven't the strength...

 

Don't beat around the bush, DR, tell us how you really feel!

I think that the point some are trying to make is that the Evangelical christians and other conservative sects tend to identify themselves quite strongly with the Republican party and it's traditional views on social issues. The Democrats also have a number of other Christian sects supporting them, but they are also supported by many groups that have historically found themselves at odds with said traditional Christian values -- I'm talking about left wing labour unions, radical feminists, gay rights groups, etc. It seems to me, thought the facts may be different, that the Evangelicals hold quite a bit of power in rural regions, especially the south. They could hand the election to the Republicans.

 

A couple of points here. I can understand why you would say that gay rights groups go against traditional Christian values, and I can even see how you can extend that (albeit tenuously) to radical feminists. But how on earth are labor unions at odds with traditional Christian values? Especially considering that union workers comprise a much larger segment of the Democratic Party than do radical feminists and gay rights activists combined.

You are correct that Evangelicals hold quite a bit of power in the rural south - specifically the southeast - in what is traditionally termed the Bible Belt. We're talking about places like South Carolina, Gerogia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and spreading a bit northward into Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky. Furthermore, you are correct that all of those states are expected to vote in favor of McCain - they are what are referred to as McCain's base of support. Fortunately for Obama, he neither needs nor expects to win any of those states. Obama's base of support is in the northeast, and the west coast. It is going to be the midwest states (like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana), a few mid-Atlantic states (Pennsylvania, Viriginia and North Carolina), and a few western states (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico) that will determine the election.

There are a few other states that can go either way, but after a quick consultation of the electoral map, I count up 260 electoral votes that Obama should definitely get, and 176 electoral votes that McCain should definitely get, which leaves 102 electoral votes that could go either way. As 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidency, McCain has to win nearly all of the remaining states to pull out a victory.

EDIT: OK - For those wondering how I came up with those numbers, I broke down the states into five different categories:

1) Certain Obama states - these are states where Obama is ahead by double digits in the polls, and there's no way he isn't winning those states.

2) Likely Obama states - these are states where Obama has at least a 6% lead in the polls, but less than 10%. While losing a 6% lead would be nearly unprescendented in a presidential election, I can only say that it is likely Obama will win.

3) Certain McCain States - same as 1 except states where McCain's lead is more than 10%

4) Likely McCain States - same as 2 except states where McCain's lead is 6%-10%

5) Up for grabs states - these are states where recent polling is within the poll's margin of error (typically 3%). Some of these lean Obama, some lean McCain, but because the lead is so small, these states can easily go either way come the general election.

Here is how the states were assigned (going roughly in a east to west direction):

1) Maine, Vermont, Massachusettes, Rhode Island, Connecticuit, Maryland, District of Columbia, Illinois, California, Washington, Hawaii.
Total electoral votes: 134

2) New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon
Total electoral votes: 126

Total Definite + Likely electoral votes = 260

3) South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah
Total electoral votes: 89

4) West Virginia, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Arizona, Alaska
Total electoral votes: 87

Total Definite + Likely electoral votes = 176

5) New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Nevada
Total electoral votes: 102

 

Ohio and Florida - yet again! How many elections did the voters of these two states decide?

 

As Aldeth has already commented, it's not exaclty a news flash that Southern Evangelicals are going to vote for McCain. There, I just had to say that because a year ago they would rather have converted to Isalm than to have voted for the totally "Unchristian" John McCain. The very same John McCain who complained about Pat Robertson's (and other evangelicals) bad influence on the Republican Party. My, my, how times do change. It proves that it could be Judas running for prez, but if he has an "R" next to his name on the ballot, evangelicals would vote for him.

 

What I find surprising is why many Christians oppose this, or at least do not support it. They actively push for the government banning abortion (which is a corollary of Christian values, as they interpret it) or mandating the teaching of religious values or their corollaries (creationism, school prayer, etc). And yet, charity is much more prominent theme in the Bible than either the rights of children (much less the unborn) or religious education. So these minor issues have to be mandated by the state, but as prominent an issue as charity should not be? I hope you see my point.

Personally, I find several messages in Christianity that are fairly left-wing oriented, and remain surprised that left-wing churches are either not that numerous or not that prominent in the US.

 

Well, I didn't want to sound like a complete jerk by saying what am am about to say now -- what I mean is I didn't have time to express myself clearly. I now have that time.

Unions (and I'm a member of one, so please don't accuse me of being anti-union!) are seen by many as leftist entities. Certainly here in Canada, our party that is the furthest to the left (the NDP) is in very tight with the unions. Now when many people, particularly older people, hear the word "left", they immediately think "commie!" -- it comes from living through the 50s, I think. I know that such an association isn't really based in fact but it is the emotional response many people have. Now one of the tenets of Communism is the denial of the existence of God and the state suppression of religion. At least, that's how most older people see Communism and given the attitude of the former USSR and present day China toward religion it is not indefensible. With me?

I think the leap, illogical though it is, is:

unions = commies = anti-religion.

I re-iterate, this is not MY opinion, but it is one I think exists in the minds of many people. Again, in my own country, the NDP is a bastion of atheists and also has an official relationship with the trade unions.

To continue my idea, I have read in years past some articles that argued that the Democratic party has embraced a lot of groups that advocate radical change, and that embrace of radical revolution against established societal norms has certainly scared off the religious right and may also have scared off some middle of the road types.

 

Remember this one?

"Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day."

Or

"Sell a man a fish and he can eat for a day; teach him to fish and you lose a great business opportunity."


...And which scripture are you quoting anyway? Where is that in the Bible? Don't bother to look in the NT because it's a Chinese proverb (and hardly Christian). There's a great scene in the NT where Jesus is asked how he is going to feed everyone after a sermon (with a basket of fish and bread). I don't recall him saying: "Teach them to fish."

 

Interesting direction the thread has morphed into -- I would say that the whole fish and bread thing illustrates a principle that is found in the NT, though I am well aware that the quote is not Biblical.

The point that I see Christ as having taught is this: Give people the help they need, and teach them proper priorities. That will make them happy.

The whole fish proverb merely states the logical principle that short term help does not solve the underlying problems that the person has. If you give the person education and a job, then you are well on your way to solving the long term problem.

Jesus looked at a different priority when he taught Mary and Martha -- Mary took the time to listen to Jesus' teachings about God, and Martha was busy working in the kitchen. When she asked Jesus to make her sister help with the housework, he basically told her that she was a good person, but Mary had chosen to do something more important than housework. He complimented Mary on thinking about the long term rather than the short term.

I think that most Evangelicals and other right wing religious people are very charitable, despite their portrayal in the popular media as vicious bastards hiding behind a cloak of piety. They simply believe that some help and education for the less fortunate is good, but that the said help should have a moral component and should not be forever -- in other words, they expect people to make an effort to help and improve themselves in the long term by making good and moral choices, not to simply roll over and expect other people to work twice as hard to support them. Some may call that callous but I would venture to guess that a lot of good is done by right wing Christians despite the attempts of some to ignore it or diminish it.

Of course, the right wing Christians also believe that you should be held accountable for your actions, which is why they advocate tough anti-crime measures and sometimes overly draconian social policies.

 

The Evangelical Movement happens every so often in American history, and even Ben Franklin was fascinated by the "movement" of his own time without ever becoming a member. But this time it has some very powerful media outlets to hold on to its audience for a somewhat longer period, and its become a very lucrative business model for many. Most evangelical "leaders," such as Copeland, Haggie, Robertson, etc., are basically businessmen and authoritarians who have given up selling cars and found a new line of "sales" and are making themselves fortunes at the expense of those who are mostly far less fortunate than themselves. They are largely parasites. It is little wonder that Pat Robertson has declared that he is a "businessman first" before he is a Christian minister.

They are mostly war mongers because they believe that such events scares people into believing that we are all living in the "Last Days," (which, btw, they have been declaring for my entire life), and this increases their power and hold over their ignorant followers. Fear makes people willing to do things they normally would not (like give away their last dollar to someone who claims to speak for God). But make no mistake, as every salesman knows, there is lots of wealth to made off of the ignorant and uneducated masses. In the case of evangelicals, "what you don't know, will certainly hurt you." What a great sales pitch: "Send me your money, and God will pay you back ten times over!" Gotta love it.

 

I need an explanation of this post. Was that sarcasm? I don't think Michelle Obama is in Cindy McCain or Palins league

 

I don't think it was sarcastic. Physical attractiveness is largely a matter of opinion. Palin was the runner-up for Miss Alaska 20 something years ago, so I don't think anyone would say she is UNattractive, but by the same token, I don't think Michelle Obama is unattractive either.

Personally, I'm not really into women in the 40s (or in the case of Cindy McCain 50s) so I really wouldn't classify any of them as hotties, but on the other hand, if that's the age group you're into, I'd say all of them are above average in looks.

 

McCain will win, though I'm ambivalent about it. I don't like his VP being a religious fundamentalist; sure sure, there's no way she'll get much accomplished with Congress being uncooperative, and we shouldn't be afraid of someone with radical views but moderate, result-oriented policy decisions...but, I'm still uneasy about it.

I don't like Obama at all, and I was very unhappy he's made it this far. He's a git and I doubt he'll get anything accomplished. Biden is a tide-and-true liberal, but the Democrats are so heterogeneous that just means he's a tiger fighting hyenas, bears, lions, cougars, and other predators for the same barrel of pork. Nothing will get done if those two are in charge.

Horrible election. Why can't we have something like 1996 again?

 

Who is this DCD? I like what he has to say

 

While they can do quite a bit with plastic and lifts these days, Cindy still appears to be quite the hag to me. I guess it depends on how you feel about plastic surgery....