This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

They have the federal government funding those now.

I don't know about RRs being overly engaged in pushing poverty programs in churches. I think the RRs focus is moral issues and when religious conservatives talk about moral issues, they are talking about sex.

That seems to be the main thrust of their family values. I don't think they should use politics to push their moral agenda. I can understand protesting some types of legislation but not planting themselves in a political party. Basically they appear to have positioned themselves on a higher moral ground than everyone else and to some extent other religions.

That seems to be the main thrust of their family values. I don't think they should use politics to push their moral agenda. I can understand protesting some types of legislation but not planting themselves in a political party. Basically they appear to have positioned themselves on a higher moral ground than everyone else and to some extent other religions.

Whoa, we could open up a whole can of worms with this one, Wales!! Are there other groups who use politics to push THEIR moral agendas?

I think to some degree, one could argue that moral agendas can often be equated even to civil rights issues. For example, the moralty (or lack thereof) of not extending equal rights to blacks. What about the issue of gay rights, ie: gay marriage, etc.? One could argue that both sides of gay rights issues push forth a moral agenda of their own... the religious right, who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds, and the proponents of gay marriage who feel it is a civil rights issue. Of course the abortion issue is laced with moral undertones.

I can here you, Wales, already arguing that there is a difference between morality and civil rights... I personally think they are connected. I think there is a moral undertone to every action we take, whether positive or punitive. Does one who discriminates against another lacking a certain moral fiber?

Ick... this is complicated. But morals are, indeed, a subjective thing.

Whoa, we could open up a whole can of worms with this one, Wales!! Are there other groups who use politics to push THEIR moral agendas?

I think to some degree, one could argue that moral agendas can often be equated even to civil rights issues. For example, the moralty (or lack thereof) of not extending equal rights to blacks. What about the issue of gay rights, ie: gay marriage, etc.? One could argue that both sides of gay rights issues push forth a moral agenda of their own... the religious right, who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds, and the proponents of gay marriage who feel it is a civil rights issue. Of course the abortion issue is laced with moral undertones.

I can here you, Wales, already arguing that there is a difference between morality and civil rights... I personally think they are connected. I think there is a moral undertone to every action we take, whether positive or punitive. Does one who discriminates against another lacking a certain moral fiber?

Ick... this is complicated. But morals are, indeed, a subjective thing.

By now you probably know that what I said about the Keating Five was not a lie or lies.

To simplify the whole thing I should have said that separation of church and state is a good thing. It's up for interpretation but I believe that when Jesus said to render under Caesar (the representative of the government) what is Caesar's that he drew a distinction akin to what could be termed the separation of church and state.

Morality is indeed subjective.

While issues of civil rights can spill over into moral issues, I think moral issues tend to be more extensive since they're not restricted to rights that are afforded under the law. Adultery, for instance, is a moral issue not a civil rights issue.

When you're talking about an individual discriminating against a person for any reason (gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation) then it's a moral issue, as far as I'm concerned. If an entity that can be legaly held liable for discriminatory practices does it then the legal basis is going to be violation of civil rights, which is also morally wrong, imo.

The main difference I see in your examples is that while it's morally wrong to discriminate against a person because he/she is black or because he/she is gay or maybe he/she is both black and gay, the discrimination against a person for being black is generally rooted in the non-acceptance of black people as human beings and not a question of someone thinking it's morally wrong to be black. Discrimination against gay people is commonly viewed as an attack on a lifestyle and basically on morality, and not on whether or not a gay person is considered a human being. If a person can be both things then I can't compare both without feeling that I'm excluding some people. The same gpes for comparisons between women and black people, as if there aren't any black women.

When people spar over who has it worst....maybe it's the black lesbian who can be discriminated against for three different reasons.

I think it might be a toss up as to what gets noticed first....race or gender. Does someone see black or does someone see a woman or is it just lumped into one visual? For the most part, most people won't conclude she's a lesbian on first glance.

Anyway.....I seriously digress.....the religious right might do well to take the separation of church and state to heart and if their faith is based on the Bible then that's a whole other issue as in how much filtering they have to do to arrive at their present day state.

Edited September 20, 200817 yr by Wales2004

This is an interesting read, showing some of the stereotypes and issues some voters have with Obama and/or black people.

------

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-p...ulse-obama-race

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.

Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes — including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

You know what is pissing me off?

Reading posts saying I am ignoring certain posters.

I am annoyed having to wade though a shitload of posts that say that when there really is good arguments from both sides here. What the hell ever happened to respecting everyone

Thank you for that Tishy. You are very respectful to everyone. I'm not sure what I have done to be the turned into the Republican "martyr" (as Jess respectfully refers to me) but I have.

I guess my points are too hard to refute, so I am either ignored or called names. I think I have proven Jess to be wrong, too many times (just for example: yesterday she said Karl Rove's study was the only survey showing McCain in the lead in FL)

(I posted all of the polls for FL) Jess was wrong...So instead of admiting her mistake she began to say I was offended by everything (referring to a joke I made the night before), then a few posts later she said she was "ignoring" me.

Wales has ignored me for a long time...not sure what happened there...

But with all of the silliness aside, I've missed some great discussion. I like the point being brought up about the founding fathers not knowing that a profession of politicians would be born under the new government...

I have to disagree wholeheartedly. The founding father's based our government after a Roman model. Anyone that has studied the government of Rome even just a little, will understand the role "politicians" played in the Roman Senate.

The founding fathers were very well read and studious men. They understood the role of "politicians" in their new government. John Adams could arguably be called our nation's first politician. He was selected as VP at the same time George Washington was selected as president.

Our nation has had political parties from the very beginning. Starting with the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Thomas Jefferson opposed the first administration by calling himself a Democratic-Republican. Washington and Adams were Federalists.

Political parties haved served a very useful purpose for over 200 years. The problem with today's political parties is the unwillingness to work together.

I think John McCain is the only candidate that has a proven track record of working with the other party..

Edited September 20, 200817 yr by Casey008

This is an interesting read, showing some of the stereotypes and issues some voters have with Obama and/or black people.

------

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-p...ulse-obama-race

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

I've been saying this all along. I've been trying to get everyone's take on the Bradley Effect. I'm glad you posted this Ryan. I think race will play a large role in this election. Even though it shouldn't.

Some experts are saying that Obama's numbers are inflated due to the Bradley Effect and the unwillingness of white persons that are polled to admit they are not supporting the non-white candidate.

I just read the article a few minutes ago on my home page. I don't doubt at all that there are people who feel this way and are motivated by these feelings. I do have the same problem with the results that I do with all polls. I don't care to believe that a poll of roughly 2300 people is indicative of how the same percentage of millions of people feel and think.

To add to the topic though, I read this shortly after:

Rush Limbaugh Hates Mexicans (But in a Funny Way)!

John Ridley

No, Rush didn't put one of those delightful "Just Hang in There" kitty- cat posters up in his "heavily fortified bunker." But according to a rather weepy piece in the Wall Street Journal, Rush is upset that the Obama camp is portraying him as being a bigot.

By quoting a bigoted statement he's made.

The Obama campaign is running new Spanish language ads in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico which quote Limbaugh as using the phrase "stupid and unskilled Mexicans" and telling Mexicans to "shut your mouth, or get out" of America.

In his WSJ piece Limbaugh doesn't deny making the statements. His issue is that the statements are taken out of context.

Context?

What is it with bigots that makes them think there is a context for bigotry? When much was made of that paragon of virtue Bill Bennett's assertion "if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country,"

Bill and his supporters claimed that statement was taken out of context.

No one who wasn't wearing a white hood has ever fully explained to me what the context is for positing the extermination of black children to lower the crime rate.

And as with Trent Lott extolling the virtues of Strom Thurmond, or George Allen and his Macaca moment, or Lynn Westmoreland tossing aside euphemisms in favor of simply getting to it and calling Barack Obama "uppity," there is seemingly always some unspoken but acceptable frame of reference for race baiters to bait race.

So when Limbaugh speaks of "stupid and unskilled Mexicans" and tells them to "shut your mouth, or get out" what's missed by the chattering classes is that these are actually -- according to Rush -- "humorous monologue(s)" or "parody."

Yeah. You know, the way Amos and Andy was penetrating social satire.

My problem with Rush is not that he's a bigot. Bigots are actually funny to me in the way that people who still wear parachute pants give me a chuckle. What bothers me about Rush's ilk is that they don't actually have the stones to be real racists or women haters or anti- Semites. Though they irresponsibly fan the flames of hatred, they don't own the strength of their convictions. When they are called on their stuff they run back to their bunker, which is heavily fortified for a reason, crying "but it was only a joke!"

Like when Rush joked that Obama was a "haf-rican," or when he jested that Obama was a "magical negro."

Oh, the hilarity.

Be a man, Rush. Be a hateful man, but be a man instead of a pasty- lookin' crackhead drug addict whose wives keep ditching him 'cause he's impotent.

That last bit was just satire, of course, so please don't take it out of context.

dp

Edited September 20, 200817 yr by Casey008

I just read the article a few minutes ago on my home page. I don't doubt at all that there are people who feel this way and are motivated by these feelings. I do have the same problem with the results that I do with all polls. I don't care to believe that a poll of roughly 2300 people is indicative of how the same percentage of millions of people feel and think.

On Polls:

I am a strong believer in polls. They tend to be correct much more often than not. Campaigns realize the importance of polls. Campaigns actually have pollsters that work directly for each candidate.

If polls did not mean anything, you probably would not hear about them very often. Reality shows quite the opposite, polls are referenced in the media and studied by campaigns on a daily basis!

To add to the topic though, I read this shortly after:

Rush Limbaugh Hates Mexicans (But in a Funny Way)!

John Ridley[/b

I wonder why McCain's name is not mentioned once in this article...John McCain is running against Obama, not Rush Limbaugh. I would hope Mexicans realize this...

Edited September 20, 200817 yr by Casey008

You know what is pissing me off?

Reading posts saying I am ignoring certain posters.

I am annoyed having to wade though a shitload of posts that say that when there really is good arguments from both sides here. What the hell ever happened to respecting everyone

When I saw this yesterday I kind of debated whether or not I should respond in any way because even though I think I get where you're coming from on this, we see things differently not just because we think differently but also because we have different vantage points and tolerance levels.

I hope you will agree that is far better for someone to ignore another person's posts than to engage in any type of conflict that might result in too many complaints and cause the board to be shut down. I have never complained to any moderator/administrator about my interaction with any other poster nor do I intend to. When someone complains to me about something on which I think I can compromise then I make an attempt to do it. If a person then complains about something else and it's going to become a pattern that will have an effect on my ability to enjoy posting then I won't go any further.

My decision not to post with Casey has nothing to do with respect, since I respect everyone's right to his/her opinion. Casey took issue with me more than once and told me I should be a moderator since I like telling people what to do.....which I am sure wasn't a compliment. Despite my better judgment I still made another attempt to post with Casey. I learned my lesson and Im not interested so I stopped. I prefer to participate indirectly in some discussions now since it helps ensure that Casey won't have a need to complain about me anymore. And all remains well.

My decision not to post with Casey has nothing to do with respect, since I respect everyone's right to his/her opinion. Casey took issue with me more than once and told me I should be a moderator since I like telling people what to do.....which I am sure wasn't a compliment.

I would hope that at some point all of the personal feelings on this board will be done with and for the purpose of fairness, I am going to copy the conversation that transpired between myself and Wales so that those who did not see it are aware of what happened.

Hopefully, we can get back to the issues and not refer to anyone's personal feelings about other posters any longer...

from page 187 of this thread...from wales...

You have no intention of voting for Obama so wouldn't it be better for you to enlighten the posters on McCain's plan instead of trying to force them into this game of what is Obama's plan? It seems that if you provided them with food for thought that would be more positive than this back and forth over he has no plan or how will his plan work? Maybe they'd disagree with his plan but at least you would have put it out there instead of trying to put them on the defensive about Obama

my reply..

Respectfully, Wales2004, I don't think it is your place to try to manage the way that I approach my comments.

I tried to be nice.....

Again...a similar conversation from page 194

My post...

Personally, I would rather compare Obama/McCain and Palin/Biden. I think it becomes more balanced in this respect.

It happens again.....

Wales' reply...

Go right ahead but remember you said that in case you decide to go back to your other comparison.

I was a little more forceful this time....

My reply...

You should become a moderator on this board. I have noticed that you like to dictate the way the conversation should go. Because I said I would rather compare Obama to McCain, I can no longer compare Obama/Palin?

Now that everyone understands why Wales ingores my posts....Can we please revert back to the issues and no longer call each other out personally???

Edited September 20, 200817 yr by Casey008

The main difference I see in your examples is that while it's morally wrong to discriminate against a person because he/she is black or because he/she is gay or maybe he/she is both black and gay, the discrimination against a person for being black is generally rooted in the non-acceptance of black people as human beings and not a question of someone thinking it's morally wrong to be black. Discrimination against gay people is commonly viewed as an attack on a lifestyle and basically on morality, and not on whether or not a gay person is considered a human being.

Wow, thanks Wales. That was a thoughtful, intelligent discourse and I really appreciate it as it gives me a lot to think about. It is all so complicated and, as we agree, very subjective.

One thing I will take issue with is the idea that discrimination against gay people is basically an attack on lifestyle... I actually believe that the discrimination goes beyond that, attacking individuals and their right to exist as they are. Killing another human being based on color is, to me, no different than killing someone based on their sexual preference -- it is denying another the right to exist based on a "human condition", for lack of a better description. Either way it is a hate crime, which is against someone moral code. I do believe in these cases, the legality of something is in close proximity to our morality... I firmly and solidly agree with separation of church and state, but I also believe that in many cases, what is legal and what is moral march to a similar beat -- or should.

This is interesting to me...

I would hope that at some point all of the personal feelings on this board will be done with and for the purpose of fairness, I am going to copy the conversation that transpired between myself and Wales so that those who did not see it are aware of what happened.

Hopefully, we can get back to the issues and not refer to anyone's personal feelings about other posters any longer...

from page 187 of this thread...from wales...

my reply..

I tried to be nice.....

Again...a similar conversation from page 194

My post...

It happens again.....

Wales' reply...

I was a little more forceful this time....

My reply...

Now that everyone understands why Wales ingores my posts....Can we please revert back to the issues and no longer call each other out personally???

I read your post since I figured that you would have a response and I will say that you did an excellent job slicing the posts to make it seem as if this were some personal issue. I don't know you and I have no personal feelings about you one way or another. I have opinions on your posts period.

If it makes you feel better to give the impression that you are a victim and I'm the problem then have a field day with it. It still doesn't indicate why I ignore your posts but if you think it does then fine. Obviously, you need to be right all the time and everyone who else has the problem. It works for you.

Explain how the fact that I don't want to post with you consittutes personal issues and people calling each other out. Find me the post where I called you any name whatsoever.

Find the post where I attempted to post with you again and because I made a statement about how people should try to be sensitive, you decided to be snide with me and tried to make me a part of a conflict which you were having with Jess. That's when I bowed out from posting with you.

I firmly and solidly agree with separation of church and state, but I also believe that in many cases, what is legal and what is moral march to a similar beat -- or should.

This is interesting to me...

You are exactly right Brian! Moral codes, religious belief, and law are undoubtably intertwined and connected. The very basis of law and government has, in history, been based on the moralities of the religious teachings for the respected land...

Just take the 10 commandments...these religious doctrines are the basis for every legal system in the christian world..Thou shall not kill, steal...etc..

I read your post since I figured that you would have a response and I will say that you did an excellent job slicing the posts to make it seem as if this were some personal issue. I don't know you and I have no personal feelings about you one way or another. I have opinions on your posts period..

I figured you would read my reply, because I saw your comment as a way to goad me back into this personal argument. I provided the page numbers for anyone that wants to read the entirety of the conversation for themselves...I copied the posts that related directly to the "moderator" comment that you referenced as your reason for not reading my posts..If you want to have opinions on people's posts instead of the points brought up in their posts, then fine, but I think you are missing the purpose of a meaningful debate..

If it makes you feel better to give the impression that you are a victim and I'm the problem then have a field day with it. It still doesn't indicate why I ignore your posts but if you think it does then fine. Obviously, you need to be right all the time and everyone who else has the problem. It works for you.

I put it up exactly as it happened. So you think I was the victim? Thanks I guess..

Explain how the fact that I don't want to post with you consittutes personal issues and people calling each other out. Find me the post where I called you any name whatsoever.

You have been calling me out by name..several times...lately...proudly displaying the fact that you no longer post replies to me...Who cares? I feel everyone should stick to the issues..But if you want to continue to talk about me...or how you no longer reply to my posts..fine..you do that..

Find the post where I attempted to post with you again and because I made a statement about how people should try to be sensitive, you decided to be snide with me and tried to make me a part of a conflict which you were having with Jess. That's when I bowed out from posting with you.

Is that the reason? I lost count...

I was merely trying to make everyone aware of the context of my "moderator" comment. I am tired of going back and forth with you. I have no personal feelings about you either..I was trying to put an end to all of the personal back and forths...

Edited September 20, 200817 yr by Casey008