Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Wow. When I think I've seen it all from you, ace, you surprise me again.

Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, was sworn in using a copy of the Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300075.html

If you have seen reports questioning the constitutionality of a Muslim pledging an oath to the Constitution, you are looking at sites that promote ignorance and intolerance.

BTW, the highest ranking Muslim in the Obama administration, an Asst Secretary in Dept of Homeland Security (former deputy mayor of Los Angeles), has been accused of being a Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator. More intolerance and ignorance from the right.

 

Perhaps we do need a Muslim to help us with this.
My understanding of Judasim is that they follow the Torah, Jewish law. Christians follow the 10 Comandments (as a Christian, this is the best I can come up with now). Some Muslims follow Sharia Law.

Aren't they all rules in how we govern our individual lives and not how we run a country or State?

We here in the west are feed news feeds that tell us the horrors of Sharia Law. I'm thinking that if we were majority Muslin, we'd be being feed the horrors of Jewish Law or Christian Law.

Let's pull our heads out of our asses people. We are not, or better I should say we should not veiw ourselves as fighting a religion, but fighting factions of PEOPLE using religion as an excuse to engage in attacks.

The Muslims I know are pissed that we have poked our nose in their bussiness and set up rulers that they didn't like or didn't serve them, instead serving the interest of the west. Their positions strike me as countrymen and not zelots.

As for Cain not being willing to appoint a Muslin in his cabinet, wellI just don't know how to respond to something like that

words like stupid come too mind
someone explain to me how a man or woman's religion keeps them from doing any job, aside from one their religion expressly forbids them

Obama 39%
Romney 31%
Ron Paul 17%

 

Tell that to the Values Voter Summit ( http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/ ) taking place in DC this weekend where the theme is to:

* bash gay rights and womens rights as anti-family​

* bash Muslims (and Obama as a Muslim sympathizer and Romney's religion as a cult) and immigration (not just illegals) as threats to national security​

* declare Obama and the Wall Street protesters as socialists out to destroy the country​

And all the Republican candidates are there pandering to these extremists.
--- merged: Oct 8, 2011 3:33 PM ---

Percentages really dont matter. Remember, Gore won the popular vote over Bush in 2000 (48+% - 47+%)

The only number that matters is 270 electoral votes.

I can see several scenarios where either Obama or the Republican can reach that number. Given that he will almost certainly lose 3 states he won in 08 (IN, NC, VA), the three states that will make the difference again - FL, OH, PA. If Obama wins 2 out of 3, he wins. If he can only win 1 of the three, he loses, unless he can hold NH (he won in 08 and would win against any candidate other than Romney).

I even see a scenario where the electoral vote is a tie - 269-269.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=cDx

 

I'd give the republicans a better than even chance at winning next election. Not because of any particular merits or good ideas, but because elections are notoriously determined by economic conditions.

Obama's biggest failing is that by adopting his "adult in the room who wants to compromise" shtick he both emboldened the republicans and helped delegitimize more progressive alternatives as radical or unserious, making any sort of much needed additional economic stimulus unlikely.

 

you're right it is the electorial votes that count. I tend to forget every four years that the Presidential election is different in that way.
Let me revise
Obama Just over 285
--- merged: Oct 9, 2011 1:23 AM ---

You are also right, if he had taken a more agressive position with his opposition (Republicans) he wouldn't come off as soft as he does on domestic issues. On the other hand the Republican made the mistake of announcing, soon after he got into office that they would work for his ouster.

I woould think that even those hardfast idealouges might take issue with legislatures playing politics (BLATANTLY) instead of taking care of the nations bussiness. Being the party of no will revisit the repulicans.

 

This is not a new issue.

I am not sure what your response is suppose to mean to me, but I will say this in the context of current world conflicts I am not naive and some people do in fact have a greater burden to bear based on how they identify themselves. I look at people as individuals. If I were selecting people for high level government positions each would have their own unique set of issues to address. The "one size fits all" approach would not work with me. If a person is a true Muslim based on my understanding they can not put the Constitution ahead of their religious teachings, they can not put the interests of the US ahead of the interests of their faith. Some religions are silent on this issue - Islam is not. I want to see how Muslim leaders, within their own faith and teachings to their own people, address these potential conflicts. I am not an expert, I admit ignorance but have not seen consistent and unified responses. I ask questions, and openly and honestly share my thoughts. If this makes me a bigot in the minds of some, so be it - I know better.
--- merged: Oct 10, 2011 4:12 PM ---

Our Constitutional law is based on and derived from Judeo-Christian values. We can not separate this from how we govern ourselves. This is a compelling issue and I think in our current state of being overly PC - some want to pretend Judeo-Christian values have no role in our governance and that some how religion has no role in the public space.

This is a question of point of view. A woman having the right to drive can be viewed as a horror or it can be viewed as a right. If people in other places, in other nations choose to live a certain way, that is their choice. I think a person like Cain and me personally make it clear that we would not live under Sharia Law. It surprises me that a simple position like this is controversial.

 

maybe this will at least situate the racist idiocy that's still percolating out in conservative-land---the repetition of which is---unaccountably----not reason on its own to exclude someone from being taken seriously as a presidential candidate. unbelievable. just unbelievable.

 

The inference of being called a racist and an idiot aside, I will say that there are degrees of concern within the groups of people who have questions and concerns. And I will continue to repeat the point that labeling those who truly hate the same as everyone else is not helpful and I would argue detrimental to understand. The process of understanding is not new, we know how it works because others have gone through it.

 

they concerns are not legitimate simply because conservativeland operates within a generally racist framework. the framework is not legitimate simply because it exists. that's like saying anti-semitism is ok because there are anti-semites.

you just don't want to own the implications of what you're saying. i get that. it's how you roll. it's ok to repeat whatever and then resort to some vague relativizing thing to justify it.

 

I live in Europe. I was somewhat surprised when Cain said that I live under Sharia Law.

 

Obama will win. Romney and Cain would be the biggest challenge, but I think too many people will sit it out for one reason or another to vote for those two...

I was most worried about a Christie run (walk?), he would have won. But if he runs against Hillary in 2016, he won't win.

 

The problem of religious interference in civic governance is not restricted to the Islamic faith. The current state of Israel exists because of the religious notion that God had promised it to them. The Christian influence in the Constitution is apparent though I wouldn't call it prevalent, considering that it was written at a time when the idea of entirely separating the secular from the religious was unthinkable. The founding fathers tried to keep the two separate within the boundaries of what was acceptable back then. Yet Christians continue to interfere with that level of separation, as if to simply acknowledge that there are Christian influences entitles them to keep attempting to lessen the divide.

Due to the sheer number of Christians who would like Christian doctrine to play a bigger role in US governance, I consider this to be the bigger threat when I start getting all paranoid about theocratic rule.

The fear mongering around Sharia law is just that. If millions of US Christian's haven't been able to get their way in over 200 years, what logic is there to believe that the small number of Muslims here in the US who might actually desire Sharia law, would have any success whatsoever?

Can you solve that riddle, Ace?

 

I am not anti-Muslim, nothing I have written is anti-Muslim.

I perfectly understand and own the implications of what I write, I don't own your purposeful perversion of what I write.

We will move to solve problems, inform, and resolve potential conflict or we don't. I have made my choice clear.
--- merged: Oct 10, 2011 6:09 PM ---

For example does Britain allow Sharia Tribunals to oversee marriage, divorce and inheritance when disputes involve consenting Muslims? Do you support what can amount to multiple judicial systems within a country by various religious groups?
--- merged: Oct 10, 2011 6:19 PM ---

I know. I have been raised under our current system and I can live with it. I understand how religion has played a role and in some cases overstepped its boundaries. When those boundaries are not honored I find that unacceptable. On a question like gay rights, I don't care what traditional religious values say about it, I think the law in this regard should be blind.

I have no interest in living in Israel or under Israeli law but I have no objection to the people of Israel choosing to live the way they want.

I don't think many here understand what I am saying. I have absolutely nothing against Islam. I just won't live under Islamic law. I have no problem with Hinduism, but I will not live under Hindu law. I have no problem with Christianity, I will not live under Christian law, however I do choose to live under US Constitutional law which is rooted in Judea-Christian values.

 

I haven't read the Thread comments others have provided, but I thought I'd just throw in what I think would be the ramifications of the possible presidents that may result from next year's election:

1. Democratic president (Obama): I see him as a charismatic guy, but I'm not sure how he's perceived in the US right now. Regardless, the current bullshitery in this region of the world would reverse drastically in my opinion. All this talk about leaving Afghanistan would likely be thrown out and he'd push really hard to cleanse Afghanistan of the Taliban and other insurgents; possibly by increasing troop numbers again. He'd do this to cement America's regional counteraction to China's growing influence. He'd in my opinion also reconcile with Pakistan rather than risk conflict.

2. Republican president: Would likely subscribe to an extreme military agenda in this region. Would likely increase troop numbers in Afghanistan and drive really hard against the enemy. If Pakistan doesn't stop their games of Russian Roulette in this region, especially with their support and funding of Taliban, al Qaeda and Haqqani, the Republican president (thinking specifically of Rick Perry here) may take a very hard line (which you can#t take with the peoples of this region, because we automatically react aggressively rather than attempt to be diplomatic) and the situation may deteriorate so much that the US may very possibly find itself at war with Pakistan before 2014.

 

You are kidding, right? That isn't a judicial system! The only law that applies is our national law. Under that law, the Arbitration Act exists, which enables the setting up of tribunals for "alternative dispute resolution". These tribunals, if people elect to use them, can have their decisions enforced by law. A few of these tribunals are muslim.

This is a far cry from being "under sharia law"!

We have had Jewish Beth Din tribunals for over 100 years now operating in the same way. Does that mean I live under Jewish law, too? Why is that less an issue?

 

Yet you'd vote for a candidate who finds homosexuality so morally and religiously reprehensible they would stifle those rights.

This response is so out of left field I had to wonder if my statement was unduly obtuse. Nope, it wasn't. I clearly pointed out the fact that a religious notion of supernatural entitlement is the Israeli rationale for why they consider the land to be theirs. What you were responding to is anyone's guess. Why bother quoting me if you are going to respond with unrelated comments?

Interestingly though, your response does reveal that you have either little interest or no knowledge of the conflict that exists as a product of that rationale.

I won't live under Islamic law either but that doesn't answer the question, Ace. What are the chances that will happen? Your unreasonably high level of fear and paranoia that it could happen has absolutely nothing to do with the actual reality. I suppose I can't really blame you, though. The right wing fear campaign has been relentless. The enemy defined in no uncertain terms - evil with super powers heretofore unseen - capable of co-opting our Constitution and way of life within a few hours with nothing more than a foot in the door.

Mind control. Geez.

 

Just an example of something I remember reading a while ago. But I do see this type of thing as the proverbial "nose under the tent" so to speak - I have a problem with a judicial system that tries to cater to various religions. The law should apply to everyone the same way, even in a matter like in the example.

I am clearly not informed you your laws - but I see potential problems with what you describe. If you are comfortable with it, that is o.k.

If that is what he said, I agree. If he was saying that Sharia Law is being integrated into your system, I think that is different.

In the US there is the law of the land - but if a person lives in certain areas there is what is know as "street justice". Normal law abiding citizens, including me, find this unacceptable. Civilized people can not have dual systems of law, formal or informal. I suspect some people in the country you live in are subject to a set of laws you may know little about. In this country the irony is that in our nation's capital Washington DC there have been periods of time when "street justice" was the only form of justice available to large numbers of people. If only some of our law makers spent a few hours here and there actually talking to some of the people they pretend to represent!

I would not support this system, regardless of the religion. How is segregating people in the law a good thing?

 

ace, dear, "reaching understanding" does not mean accepting the racist elements of conservative-land's bizarre-o construction of islam. if you want to reach an understanding, that is if you want to do something more than your usual later-rinse-repeat thing, then.....the fact that you obviously know nothing about islam should on its own be enough to cause you to put aside the idiotic, offensive characterizations that are particular to conservative-land. and stop trying to legitimate this idiotic, offensive, racist nonsense by claiming they are "legitimate concerns"--they aren't. to say otherwise is to loop back into a position that justifies anti-semitism by pointing to the fact that there are anti-semites--whose paranoia about the Other constitutes "legitimate concerns" amongst the anti-semite community. because that's what you're doing.

as to the question in the thread, i don't see any republican candidate as viable for election.
i rather wish there was a left alternative to obama, whose centrism is a very considerable disappointment. but there isn't. there won't be, if things move in a straight line.

i'm much more interested in the continued unfolding of the occupation movement than i am in the dominant media sporting-event of speculating about a campaign that's only barely underway.

 

I have not decided who I would vote for. I said I would have a few follow-up questions for Cain based on what I have read here. Cain is a relative unknown, it is a process.

Also, I think you mis-characterize his view on homosexuality. to this point all I know is that in his opinion being gay is a choice.

I don't understand your point. They consider the land theirs, others disagree. The basis of the dispute may be grounded in what God may have or may not have said - but in my tradition of law, this is clearly a legal land dispute. If I were appointed to ajudicate the issue, I would, not based on religion but based on the governing law.

There will be no changes to our basis of law.

I doubt we share the same definition of "fear". I am not paranoid, don't know where that comes from.

So, within the last few posts, I am: Racist, idiot, obtuse, paranoid, anti-Muslim, and inferred anti-gay rights - but who is keeping score. And all I do is share my honest concerns and questions while readily admiring a level of ignorance. You folks think I have a problem???