2012 Conventions; Tampa & Charlotte

[INDY500]

This is patently absurd. The goal is not a Godless society. The goal is a government that doesn't sponsor religion. You know the difference, but you don't agree that it exists because you are trying to accuse the left of the dog whistles, without a hint of irony.

See the post after yours. I respect Trojanchick for at least being honest.

 

[INDY500]

the superstitious folk in flyover country do realize Hussein Obama told the party to put those things back in, right?

He approved it's removal and then scurried to repair the damage. If he wins he'll have "more flexibility" after the election to thumb his nose at God-fearing and pro-Israel Democrats.

 

[U2DMfan]

Flyover country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is coming from someone who lives in "flyover country", too, thank you.

Me three...I think most people that care about such things were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

 

[Diemen]

See the post after yours. I respect Trojanchick for at least being honest.

And somehow Trojanchick is more representative of democrats because... ?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I really wish people would stop getting so obsessed over how much God is mentioned in politics. You can talk about him all you want and invoke his name as often as you please, doesn't automatically prove you're more religious than someone else or that you're more equipped to run things or whatever.

Besides that, didn't Jesus have some thoughts on not being showy with one's faith?

 

[trojanchick99]

Yeah, one registered Democrat does not a party make. I recognize that I am in the minority in this country. I stand by my belief that religion should be kept out of government, but I have no issue with people practicing whatever religion they believe. Hell, I don't care if there's a Christmas/Holiday tree in the White House as that particular holiday has become very secular.

I also think the people who booed the inclusion of God and Jerusalem into the platform were disrespectful.

The Democratic party is extremely diverse. There are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Pagans, and well probably many other religions as well. I embrace that diversity. I just don't want the religious beliefs of one group to infringe on my rights. How upset would you be if a Hindu decided to ban beef? Or a Jew banned pork for everyone? This is how I feel when the religious right try to legislate my uterus and forbid people I love from marrying the people they love.

 

[Irvine511]

He approved it's removal and then scurried to repair the damage. If he wins he'll have "more flexibility" after the election to thumb his nose at God-fearing and pro-Israel Democrats.

 

[iron yuppie]

Yeah, one registered Democrat does not a party make. I recognize that I am in the minority in this country. I stand by my belief that religion should be kept out of government, but I have no issue with people practicing whatever religion they believe.

I think that this is the perspective of most on the left, or at least those on the left with whom I regularly speak. I do not know a single person who identifies as liberal who also has said that he or she wants religion abolished or removed from American culture life. Yet somehow there are circles in the right who for whatever reason see the left like this:

Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

The problem to me is when "freedom of religion" becomes equated with everyone needing to celebrate that religion or acquiesce to its moral precepts.

 

[indra]

See the post after yours. I respect Trojanchick for at least being honest.

As a truly godless heathen from New Sodom AKA Los Angeles, I was happy they initially took the word God out of the platform. I dream of the day the US is a secularly governed country where people's religious beliefs aren't foisted upon me.

A "secularly governed country where people's religious beliefs aren't foisted upon me" is not a "godless society" it is merely a secularly governed country. Nothing in that says no one can believe in god...just that the nation is governed in a secular as opposed to a religious manner. That isn't really that hard to comprehend, is it?

 

[cobl04]

A "secularly governed country where people's religious beliefs aren't foisted upon me" is not a "godless society" it is merely a secularly governed country. Nothing in that says no one can believe in god...just that the nation is governed in a secular as opposed to a religious manner. That isn't really that hard to comprehend, is it?

and nothing is going to isolate atheist voters quicker than bible bashing. Thank goodness I live in a secular country. Now if only we could get rid of our pesky British overlords, I'd be happy.

 

[PhilsFan]

See the post after yours. I respect Trojanchick for at least being honest.

She agreed with me! She dreams of a day with a secularly governed country, not an exclusively secular society. Again, there is a huge difference. Society is not just its government. I figure you of all people would appreciate that notion.

 

[cobl04]

Hey quick question... I see there is also a Greens candidate, and a Libertarian candidate running for election. Would the more left of you here consider voting for either one of them? How many votes do they usually get? Is it pointless?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Many people do say it's often pointless, because they mess with the voting of one of the two main candidates often or something like that.

But I don't really care about that. If I like what I hear from a candidate in one of those third parties, sure, yeah, I'd vote for them-even if their chances are small, it never hurts to throw your support out there and see what happens.

The big problem with the third party candidates here in the States is that they hardly ever get any airtime on TV. They're never invited to be part of the main debates with the Democratic and Republican candidates, either, which I think is kind of bullshit. So in order to find out they're even running, let alone find out what their stances are on various issues, you generally pretty much have to check out their websites or catch them if they happen to pass through your area.

 

[cobl04]

That's a shame. Would be good to see them have big televised conferences too.

 

[Axver]

Hey quick question... I see there is also a Greens candidate, and a Libertarian candidate running for election. Would the more left of you here consider voting for either one of them? How many votes do they usually get? Is it pointless?

This is why I like voting in Australia and New Zealand: it's not winner-take-all, and third parties matter. You actually have to make a real effort to waste your vote, especially for the Australian Senate or on the New Zealand party list.

So glad I don't get to "enjoy" voting in the US. I'd hate to have a choice of just centre-right versus far-right.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

This is why I like voting in Australia and New Zealand: it's not winner-take-all, and third parties matter. You actually have to make a real effort to waste your vote, especially for the Australian Senate or on the New Zealand party list.

Every time you tell me something new about that area of the world, you just increase my interest in it that much more.

So glad I don't get to "enjoy" voting in the US. I'd hate to have a choice of just centre-right versus far-right.

Oh, but we don't have that now, remember? With Obama in office we've officially turned into a socialist pinko commie tyrannical nation, and stuff!

Seriously, though, yeah, our Democrats really need to start acting like, well, proper Democrats. Or the third parties who are more liberal need to get more attention. Whichever.

That's a shame. Would be good to see them have big televised conferences too.

It is, and agreed. If they're a legitimate candidate, they deserve just as much proper airtime as anyone else.

Course, then we start getting into how messed up the media often is with politics nowadays here, and that's a whole other can of worms/discussion unto itself.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Yeah, one registered Democrat does not a party make. I recognize that I am in the minority in this country. I stand by my belief that religion should be kept out of government, but I have no issue with people practicing whatever religion they believe. Hell, I don't care if there's a Christmas/Holiday tree in the White House as that particular holiday has become very secular.

I also think the people who booed the inclusion of God and Jerusalem into the platform were disrespectful.

The Democratic party is extremely diverse. There are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Pagans, and well probably many other religions as well. I embrace that diversity. I just don't want the religious beliefs of one group to infringe on my rights. How upset would you be if a Hindu decided to ban beef? Or a Jew banned pork for everyone? This is how I feel when the religious right try to legislate my uterus and forbid people I love from marrying the people they love.

Well said tc
as well as ML's post#446

(and you had another good one, ML in #415 -different topic)

this is how I put it to INDY [who never answered anything from that (my) reply post to his questions re my first pos]

i hope i got that right

And I still stand by the larger issue of Uber-Rightwing Religious Christians trying to shove their version of God (and equivalents in Catholicism etc) down other Religeous, Spiritual, or Atheisit people's throats and try to turn America into a Theocracy.

I also added in that post that I am a spiritual person not an atheist... but i will choose how i acknowledge, honor my version of something "bigger than ourselves" and possible other planes of existence that may or may not tie in (it's complicated) that science says doesn't exist.

Let it also be noted that I love science from a young age and try to keep checking out my favorite fields.


I don't think i minded that booing (theorectically as i did not see that porrtion of convention) so much.... i mean some of this is going to be messy as so many people try to work things out.

two sources...i think....the Aetheists, Secular Humanists and then those who object to the whole of Jeruselum being the capitol of Israel.

 

[dazzledbylight]

This is why I like voting in Australia and New Zealand: it's not winner-take-all, and third parties matter. You actually have to make a real effort to waste your vote, especially for the Australian Senate or on the New Zealand party list.

So glad I don't get to "enjoy" voting in the US. I'd hate to have a choice of just centre-right versus far-right.

there are a fairly good portion of Democrats who are center-left (federal, state and local) but they are -considering how much of our Bbig Media (not independent & usually smaller news sourses)you don't hear that much about them .....

Around 90% of media in this country is center-right to Rght.

Liberal and prgressive media esp radio, some TV and growing presence on-line are beginning to make a modest dent.

It was around the defeat of Barry Goldwater... 1964 that the Republicans -- then the center-right to very Right Republicans ( there used to be more *moderate to liberal repubplicans who've gotten shoved out of the party partically after Pres Reagen and way accelrated push under Gingrich and later W) - that they vowed to do the long view and build the party up aain esop over time taking more rightward.

So it's become quite a strugle here....again.

* like Rep. Teddy Roosevelt wanted a good wage for workers - to have a deccent home, deccent education, good health care and money to keep them in ood shape after retirement.

ANd Pres ( Former WW2 Gen) Eisenhower who warned the USA of the miltary =-indutrial complex!

another time for &USAthird party discussions Axver and was it tj or ML?

I vote in a local third party Working Families when they carry thre same candidates as the dem that I would vote for. I'm still proud to be a Demoncrat even if my party sometimes is not what i wsnt it to be or that it needs to retuen to.

 

[Axver]

Every time you tell me something new about that area of the world, you just increase my interest in it that much more.

Not to derail the thread but ...

There really is something to be said for our voting systems. Our politics are largely dominated by two parties, but the way we vote means that third parties compete meaningfully and can achieve representation. Under MMP in New Zealand, any party that receives at least 5% of the national vote for its party list gets a percentage of seats in parliament equivalent to its percentage of the vote (and the threshhold may be lowered to 4% soon). Even if a party doesn't get 5% of the vote, it can still enter parliament if a candidate for a local electorate is popular and wins the seat - though the local electorates remain contested on first-past-the-post. So to waste your party list vote, you have to vote for a really minor party. In Australia, preferential voting means that you can vote for whoever you actually want to vote for and basically indicate who you prefer out of the two major parties ... so, for instance, I'm a Green voter, but the last thing I want is for the Liberals to be elected, so I make sure my preferences flow to Labour in the event the Greens don't achieve election.

Lest I make things sound too rosy down here, New Zealand is currently led by possibly its least charismatic Prime Minister ever, the right-wing faction of Australia's nominally centre-left Labour Party is currently trying to kill off a gay marriage bill, next year Australia will probably elect a Prime Minister who's all extremist bluster and no policy, and Queensland is currently ruled by a bafflingly vile state government.

Oh, but we don't have that now, remember? With Obama in office we've officially turned into a socialist pinko commie tyrannical nation, and stuff!

Oh shit, sorry, I forgot that he's a fascist communist Muslim terrorist born in Kenya-Indonesia-Mars!

 

[Irvine511]

There are myriad pluses and minuses to having a two-party system as well as a president, who is the head of a branch of government, vs a prime minister. You'll find in Congress and the Senate a much wider array of the political spectrum represented even if they mostly tend to have a D or R by their name. It's when it comes to nominating a president that the parties go for the candidate who has the greatest chance of mass appeal.

 

[iron yuppie]

Hey quick question... I see there is also a Greens candidate, and a Libertarian candidate running for election. Would the more left of you here consider voting for either one of them? How many votes do they usually get? Is it pointless?

I would add the Libertarians in the US are actually quite far right, and, in some cases, extremely far right. Especially so in economic matters.

 

[BoMac]

While I abhor Canada's first-past-the-post system, having a prime minister who sits in Parliament means that he has to face questions on his policies from opponents on a daily basis.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Talk about a convention bounce. Bruce needs the $

Bruce Springsteen is riding a post-convention bounce any politician would envy: Sales of "We Take Care of Our Own" jumped 409 percent after the song played at the end of President Obama's speech September 6th at the DNC, Billboard reports.

The track sold 2,000 downloads in the week ending September 9th, for its best sales week since March. The tune leads off Springsteen's latest album, Wrecking Ball, which also saw a sales increase, of 3,000 copies, a 37-percent jump.

Wrecking Ball was Springsteen's 10th Number One album, pulling him into a third-place tie with Elvis Presley for the most chart-topping albums. The Beatles have the most, with 19; followed by Jay-Z with 12

 

[digitize]

I would add the Libertarians in the US are actually quite far right, and, in some cases, extremely far right. Especially so in economic matters.

Well, being far-right on economic issues is part of the definition of being libertarian. Libertarians in the US are historically more liberal on social issues, though "liberty" has been used to justify a bunch of different positions of social issues lately.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Hey quick question... I see there is also a Greens candidate, and a Libertarian candidate running for election. Would the more left of you here consider voting for either one of them? How many votes do they usually get? Is it pointless?

basically what angela said. i'd love to vote for a green candidate, but only sometimes on a local level do they actually get elected. but when they get 1-2% of my state's vote, there really is no point. i mean if i'm only voting so i feel like i'm having my say then yes there is a point, but if i'm being strategic (trying to keep a democrat or a republican out of power) then the vote's obviously a waste.

though i do take political surveys (yeah, so sometimes when you hear those "35% of those americans surveyed thought..."it could've been me! hey, it's free money.) and whenever they ask where i think various politicians lie. the political spectrum, i take great pleasure in placing obama as a centrist.

 

[iron yuppie]

Well, being far-right on economic issues is part of the definition of being libertarian. Libertarians in the US are historically more liberal on social issues, though "liberty" has been used to justify a bunch of different positions of social issues lately.

Something I've noticed from talking to a lot of Libertarians is that the movement has a tendency to attract religious people, especially Mormons. I think it's something to do with the old gospel of wealth mentality, that economic success is an indicator of god showing you favor and that good people will not need to be rewarded by the government (I've heard this openly expressed several times). Then again, I've met Libertarians who are militant atheists as well.

At the end of the day, though, I find it hard for anyone who believes in completely eradicating social safety nets, as Libertarians do, to have any claim to being socially liberal. While some Libertarians might be more open than Republicans on gay rights, for example, they have next to no sympathy for the poor.

 

[Irvine511]

Talk about a convention bounce. Bruce needs the $

Bruce Springsteen is riding a post-convention bounce any politician would envy: Sales of "We Take Care of Our Own" jumped 409 percent after the song played at the end of President Obama's speech September 6th at the DNC, Billboard reports.

The track sold 2,000 downloads in the week ending September 9th, for its best sales week since March. The tune leads off Springsteen's latest album, Wrecking Ball, which also saw a sales increase, of 3,000 copies, a 37-percent jump.

Wrecking Ball was Springsteen's 10th Number One album, pulling him into a third-place tie with Elvis Presley for the most chart-topping albums. The Beatles have the most, with 19; followed by Jay-Z with 12

i hope this means a pumped-up Bruce for tomorrow's DC show.

 

[deep]

I hope your seats are not behind this guy.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

There was a guy sitting (well standing) next to me when I saw Bruce last month who looked like Tim Tebow. True story. He was even nice enough to move to the outside of the aisle to stand, because on the field everyone stands and he was so tall that he was blocking the view of the women behind him. He was really cute, not as cute as Tim.

That has nothing to do with the conventions but I'm bored.

 

[Jeannieco]

Speaking of Bruce, I would love to have Bruce himself play "Death to Our Hometown" with Mitt in the crowd!! Or better yet, ambush one of his rallies and play it! The sad thing is that they probably wouldn't even recognize that song is about him , ie, Bain Capitol outsourcing jobs overseas. Love that song! You guys should check it out ifyou haven't! They lyrics are great!