US elections

[Peter]

1. I see in dutch newspapers often something about american elections. Becouse of this, it got a little of my interest.

2. I am a little bored.

3. I just found the poll option, and now I want to use it.
gh[strike][/strike]

So what party would you choose.

The elections for the final president is overall just between democrats and republicans. But I decided to just put in the rest.

There are possible some missing, I just took these off the dutch wiki.

[EricL]

It's an unfortunate reality in the US that you cannot get elected unless you:

1) Are the nominee of either the democratic or republican party.  The way campaign funding, the press and the special interests work here, any one else has bascially no chance of being heard above the noise.  So voting for anyone else is usually wasted effort.  In the US, we vote for the lessor of two evils.

2) At least profess to be a fairly fundemental Christian which includes catering to the creationist ID crowd.  Sadly, publically embracing evolution would be viewed as a negative thing in the eyes of most of the US voting public .  There has never been a non-christian US president, at least no president has ever professed otherwise.  Similarly no president to my knowledge has ever publically embraced evolution.  They may do so privately and through policy, but there is little to gain by doing so publically so the topic is avoided.  Given the sad and sorry of education, rationality and open mindedness in this nation, a candidate that does not visably attend church on Sundays and conclude every speech with "God Bless the USA" is viewed as suspect and immoral.   Jews, Hindus, and other religions don't have the population base but members of any theist sect are still viewed by the public as better than atheists.  Publically stating that you are atheist is the best way not to get elected in this country, to any office.   Even specific christian sects like the Mormons are generally viewed as unacceptable candidates.

[Peter]

I hope you're exaggerating at this. I can't really believe there would be that much people not voting at someone becouse he/she doesn't believe in god?
I know there are some in the Netherlands that vote for a party becouse it is christian. I know more christen that would vote for any party then those who would vote only for a christian party.

Our current premier is a christen. But many before him where atheist.
I don't know the number of christen people that are in the dutch chambers. I haven't seen any polician widely announcing that he/she is a christen and proud to be one.  

No, you're really hard to believe.

[EricL]

I am not exaggerating.   Not even a little bit.    Richard Dawkins and others have written and spoken extensibly about this and how it is impossible for someone publicly atheist to be elected.  

Only 28% of Americans "believe" humans evolved through natural processes.    42% believe humans have always existed in their current form and another 18% believe in deity-directed evolution.  The balance don't know.

44% of Americans take the bible literally and think the world was created in 6 days.

Americans are the most religious (and IMHO, ignorant, self-centered, sheltered and gullible) people in the first world by any measure.   As you might imagine, I am greatly embarrassed by this.  IMHO, it is one reason (perhaps the primary reason) this country is in steep decline.

Poll Data.

[Numsgil]

The US is more religiously minded than other countries.  I'm not so sure about the whole evolution topic (while some hard liners might care, I can't imagine the vast majority of Americans would).  But believing in God is a big one (note that believing in God and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive like Dawkins and other hardliners on the other side would have you believe).  America was founded by a bunch of religious nuts who got kicked out of Europe for not partying enough.  That's bound to color our politics.

Ironically, though, you almost never hear politicians actually quote the Bible.  Using the parable about the vineyard owner to support amnesty for illegal immigrants would be a powerful argument, but I've never even heard a hint of it.  Most probably can't even name more than a few of the ten commandments (there was a Stephen Colbert interview where he tried to get the politician who wanted the ten commandments in from of courthouses to name 'em all.  He got like 3 )

My guess is that while most of Americans say they're Christian, none of 'em actually pick up a Bible and read it, because they just don't really care.  Might as well be illiterate.  Just believe in Jesus and you're saved, sort of mentality.  No effort required!  Most just latch on to a charismatic preacher and have him tell them what to believe.  Far less effort that way.

On to actual politicks, McCain was my choice on the Republican side.  I liked him before, and I like him more during the republican debates.  Everyone else was having a pissing contest to see who wanted to torture the most detainees.  McCain says flatly "no torture", and he has a good perspective on it since he was, you know, tortured.  He's principled, which I like.  And I think he was shrewd to name Palin as his VP.  Old white guy + Old white guy would have been sooooo 20th century.  All that said, I think I'm leaning Obama.  A thin majority of the country also seems to be leaning that way.  Obama's a better speaker, and I think on economic terms Obama will cause less deficit than McCain.  Republicans haven't been the party of fiscal responsibility for decades.  The way Bush is throwing money at the housing market you'd think he was a New Dealer!

[EricL]

But believing in God is a big one (note that believing in God and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive...

True, but one can say the same thing about believing the world is flat or the Earth is the center of the Universe.  I have more respect in some ways for the literalists who however ignorant, at least stand firm on their beliefs however silly and contrary to evidence they may be.   Those who embrace a wishy-washy version of their religion, continually modifying it  over time as science and knowledge advance are half pregnant IMHO.  I say either believe in fairy tales all the way or follow the evidence.      

America was founded by a bunch of religious nuts who got kicked out of Europe for not partying enough.  That's bound to color our politics.

Even were this true (I won't go down that rat hole here) it is no excuse for willful ignorance in this day and age.   History alone is not the cause, otherwise one could claim that Europe, with it's deep-seated religious history, should be more religious than the US but Europe has in fact had a renaissance of sorts in this area.  No, the reason Americans believe what they do today in this age of knowledge is probably (as you elude to below) because powerful interests have taken advantage of an apathetic public that wants nothing more that to sit on the couch and believe what they see on TV.

Ironically, though, you almost never hear politicians actually quote the Bible.

Politicians play the percentages and walk the middle road to garner as many votes as possible.   They say (or don;t say) whatever gets them (re)elected.   There is a small population of atheists in this country as well as Christian moderates and non-Christians.  Why piss them off if you can avoid it?

My guess is that while most of Americans say they're Christian, none of 'em actually pick up a Bible and read it, because they just don't really care.  Might as well be illiterate.  Just believe in Jesus and you're saved, sort of mentality.  No effort required!  Most just latch on to a charismatic preacher and have him tell them what to believe.  Far less effort that way.

You got it.  If Christians actually read their book, they might think twice about purporting to believe it.  Yeah, right.

On to actual politicks, McCain was my choice on the Republican side.  I liked him before, and I like him more during the republican debates.  Everyone else was having a pissing contest to see who wanted to torture the most detainees.  McCain says flatly "no torture", and he has a good perspective on it since he was, you know, tortured.  He's principled, which I like.  And I think he was shrewd to name Palin as his VP.  Old white guy + Old white guy would have been sooooo 20th century.  All that said, I think I'm leaning Obama.  A thin majority of the country also seems to be leaning that way.  Obama's a better speaker, and I think on economic terms Obama will cause less deficit than McCain.  Republicans haven't been the party of fiscal responsibility for decades.  The way Bush is throwing money at the housing market you'd think he was a New Dealer!

McCain was the best of the Republican field I agree and he had to do something innovative in his VP pick.  I would have preferred Carli Fiorina.   Palin was a shallow choice, designed to woo the Hillary crowd.  She has no experience, she lied about opposing the "Bridge to nowhere", she's a creationist and she is irresponsible in her reproduction.  Having 5 children in this day and age is irresponsible.    

[Numsgil]

Ironically, though, you almost never hear politicians actually quote the Bible.

Politicians play the percentages and walk the middle road to garner as many votes as possible.   They say (or don;t say) whatever gets them (re)elected.   There is a small population of atheists in this country as well as Christian moderates and non-Christians.  Why piss them off if you can avoid it?

If that were the case you'd expect 'em to avoid all overt signs of protestantism.  Never mention Jesus, for instance.  Yet you get lots of Jesus talk in lots of political circles.  I still contend it's from ignorance.  Both the electorate and politician give lip service to the ideas of Christianity without properly understanding the underlying theology.  When was the last time you saw a Christian priest having dinner with the prostitutes?  I rest my case.  

Most Christians, in the US anyway, are what I'd categorize as Christmas and Easter Christians.  Even if they go to church every week, they really only know the stories for Christmas and Easter.  And maybe the first page of Genesis, which I guess tells you that some of 'em at least try to open their Bibles from time to time.  Probably the get stuck in Leviticus and give up.

... Having 5 children in this day and age is irresponsible.

You won't be thinking that when her 2000 great x8 grandchildren out compete your offspring during the apocalyptic famine due to overpopulation   Also 5 is nothing.  I grew up with families where the parents needed toes to finish counting their kids.

True, but one can say the same thing about believing the world is flat or the Earth is the center of the Universe. I have more respect in some ways for the literalists who however ignorant, at least stand firm on their beliefs however silly and contrary to evidence they may be. Those who embrace a wishy-washy version of their religion, continually modifying it over time as science and knowledge advance are half pregnant IMHO. I say either believe in fairy tales all the way or follow the evidence.

Not at all.  It would be very Darwinian

[Peter]

Politicians play the percentages and walk the middle road to garner as many votes as possible.   They say (or don;t say) whatever gets them (re)elected.   There is a small population of atheists in this country as well as Christian moderates and non-Christians.  Why piss them off if you can avoid it?

Walk the middele road. I gues that is the blame for a two-party system. Two partys that try to get votes from everybody. Here a party that really tries to get votes from every site won't be taken very seriously. You can't be progresive, conservative, left and right.

McCain was the best of the Republican field I agree and he had to do something innovative in his VP pick.  I would have preferred Carli Fiorina.   Palin was a shallow choice, designed to woo the Hillary crowd.  She has no experience, she lied about opposing the "Bridge to nowhere", she's a creationist and she is irresponsible in her reproduction.  Having 5 children in this day and age is irresponsible.

Becouse she is a creationist?, why would that be bad in the eyes of the choosers. You just said most of the american voters where mindless christen(you said it). Why would it be bad at all. All the american-presidents had a religion. Even the current premier of the netherlands has a religion. Or are you pointing at the way how actively she has a religion.

No, the reason Americans believe what they do today in this age of knowledge is probably (as you elude to below) because powerful interests have taken advantage of an apathetic public that wants nothing more that to sit on the couch and believe what they see on TV.

You really believe there are only televisions in America. That stereotype exists everywhere on the world.

[EricL]

Becouse she is a creationist?, why would that be bad in the eyes of the choosers. You just said most of the american voters where mindless christen(you said it).

Unfortunately, it's not bad in the eyes of most of the US public.  That is why McCain could choose her.  But it is very bad in my eyes and sufficient reason for me not to vote for her and her running mate.  Creationists by definition are irrational.   Their beliefs and world view are not the product of evidence and rational thought.  Creationists by definition have already demonstrated that they are willing to believe things and make decisions contrary to overwhelming evidence.  That matters little if your just another person but it's extremely dangerous in someone seeking power, particularly the office of US VP when their running mate is 72 years old and has a history of cancer.  The world does not need another person in power who believes Armageddon is inevitable or desirable or that invading other countries is God's will (as Palin does).

I think most people on the planet fail to realize how truly dangerous the combination of the US political system, the power of special interests (many of whom are or pretend to be religious groups) and the stupidity/apathy of the US public really are and that that system is self perpetuating.   Special interests are able to steamroll an apathetic populace and place irrational, often unintelligent puppets in charge of the largest arsenal on the planet by appealing to an uneducated public whose candidate litmus test is solely whether a candidate believes in the same imaginary friends in the same way that they do.  Be very afraid.

[Numsgil]

To be fair I imagine you'd probably never vote for any Republican candidate.  I doubt this was the straw that broke the camel's back   And really, a VP can be as little or as much involved in the political process as the POTUS wants.  There have been VPs that have ranged from quite literally do nothings to ones like Gore or Cheney.  

And to the danger of McCain keeling over and Palin taking his place-- McCain's mom is still around.  He has good genes.  Plus his current health is "excellent"..  I think the chances of him dying in the next 4 years are slim.

My main beef with the McCain campaign are the dirty tactics.  I would've assumed that someone as apparently principled as he is wouldn't stoop to negative campaigning.  Plus, on purely practical grounds, I really only care about two issues: 1.  Stop throwing rocks at the bees nest that is the Middle East and Eastern Europe.  Make kissee face with whoever you need to to make America well liked in the Arab world.  2.  Get the budget in to a surplus to start paying off the Iraq War.  Neither come close to either ideal, but Obama is at least closer.

[Peter]

....The world does not need another person in power who believes Armageddon is inevitable or desirable or that invading other countries is God's will (as Palin does).

If you state it like that, it sounds like it won't take long before WW3 breaks out, it is time to ally up with Russia.

I think most people on the planet fail to realize how truly dangerous the combination of the US political system, the power of special interests (many of whom are or pretend to be religious groups) and the stupidity/apathy of the US public really are and that that system is self perpetuating.   Special interests are able to steamroll an apathetic populace and place irrational, often unintelligent puppets in charge of the largest arsenal on the planet by appealing to an uneducated public whose candidate litmus test is solely whether a candidate believes in the same imaginary friends in the same way that they do.  Be very afraid.

If someone would like to completely bash america that would be a pretty good start.
Slowly I see a picture appearing of a big fat man drinking bear on the couch before the television watching football. An american bashing americans, I don't know how deep this country has come..

[EricL]

There are many things to admire about the US (fewer today than in years past) but often, the US public and the government they have allowed embarrass me greatly.  Perhaps I am more travelled than most or consider my membership in homo sapian sapians more important than the fact that I happen to have been born in the middle part of North America.   Perhaps I simply aspire to an unrealistic Star Trek world and should wise up.

I think it's mostly the squandering of so much potential.  To those to whom much is given, much is expected.  It grieves me to see a country and people with so much potential squander it so foolishly.      

I voted for Reagan and Bush I.   I'm fiscally conservative and worry about big government, higher taxes and huge entitlement programs.  But I'm socially liberal and hold strong views on such things as privacy rights and personal freedoms, not that either candidate particularly meets my specific criteria in any area.   As I said, it's a choice between the lessor of two evils.