Who do you want as president?
Even though I am English, I still take an interest in American politics. At the moment, I am despairing that all the main players in this election all seem to be anti-gay and anti-abortion. It sickens me that we live in a world where, despite everything, all people are not equal and two millenia old superstitions still have a tight grip in politics. So here is my question:
As an atheist, who do you want as president?
Tags: 2012, GOP, america, bachmann, candidates, election, gingrich, huntsman, paul, perry, More…
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stutz on -
Re. Nina's comment: This is what turns people off about the far left: hyperbole, borderline-conspiracy-theory ranting, and ad hominem demonization. The sad part is that there are real, valid, fair, and very serious criticisms to be made about these candidates.
The current president is not a liar. He did not promise results on every front. He is still working on many things and has been thwarted on others (by the do-nothing Congress, by the realities and limitations of the executive branch, by changing events and the passage of time, etc.). Everything that the United States government does cannot be attributed solely to this, or any, president. The executive is not a king, dictator, or even (contrary to common perception) the leader of the nation. The president is in charge of one branch of the government, with limited powers. He can use his prominence and influence to great effect, but even that has its limits.
-
Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on -
Hey Stutz,
borderline-conspiracy-theory ranting
Actually, I think it is more of an ad hominen approach when someone obliquely accuses someone of being a conspiracist, which is exactly the impression I got when I read that.
The current president is not a liar
Demonstrably false. Google and note the mainstream outlets reporting on an innumerable flood of lies from that man.
He did not promise results on every front.
No, just on several. He would have to be pretty simple-minded to make promises of advances on every single issue known to humankind.
As for the remainder of your post, there is great effort there to point out the ineptitude of "democracy", or the executive branch, but then the argument goes on to suggest that if someone says that none of these candidates, if elected, would really be in control of anything, and are having their strings pulled by someone else, that they are engaged in a conspiracy rant.
I think the ideas presented in that post are internally inconsistent and logically invalid.
- kk
- kk
-
Permalink Reply by Stutz on
-
When I mentioned borderline-conspiracy-theory ranting, I did not say that it made you a "conspiracist". Similarly, when one contradicts oneself, one does not become a "liar". There's a difference between doing something a few times and being pathological. I bet you told a lie once. Does that make it fair to describe you as a liar? Besides, to lie implies intent to deceive. To make a promise and then be unable to fulfill that promise does not make one a liar. Differences of opinion do not make one a liar, either, especially on enormously complex political issues. Neither do mistakes or errors or being misinformed. I would be willing to bet that 99% of his "lies" fall into one or more of these categories, just like anyone else's would.
He would indeed have to be pretty simple-minded to make promises on every single issue known to mankind. Excellent job knocking down that straw man. I think rational readers are able to discern that "every front" means every issue raised in the campaign, not every single issue known to mankind. He made some promises, and has not come through on all of them. That describes every president ever, as well as every other world leader, and also every other human being.
Then you go off the deep end somewhat. First, the word democracy did not appear in my post, so don't put it in quotes as if it did. I was not pointing out the "ineptitude" of the executive, I was explaining that it is one branch of government and is not the whole of the government. The Supreme Court is also one branch of government with limited powers; that does not make it any more inept than the Executive Branch. I've simply stated that the executive has limited powers because of the structure of our government, whereas you have suggested that presidents aren't in control because they're puppets. If Obama's just a puppet, why are you blaming him for all his supposed lies? That's the real contradiction.
I am indeed suggesting that someone saying the president is "having their strings pulled" is somewhat conspiratorial, because it implies some type of grand and ill-defined conspiracy. Feel free to describe that conspiracy and provide evidence. Be aware that it will be subject to Occam's Razor. If your evidence is poor, I will not believe it. Sound familiar? That's the same line of thought that makes us both atheists.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike on -
Nina
I am always impressed by how much more knowledgeable people around the world are about the US than the people here are. It is also very disappointing to be an American and realize how uninformed the people here are.
As a citizen of the world, and a very well informed one at that I have a question for you. At what point does the rest of the world see us as an out of control danger that we are quickly becoming. When that does happen what do you think the response will be?
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Karp on -
As far the republican candidates; Huntsman would be our best option because he is wants religion out of governement and accepts evolution and global warming. The rest are a joke. Yes, Obama has dissapointed but he has done a lot as well. I'm hoping if he gets re-elected he will go balls-out on issues because he not longer is trying to get accepted/re-elected.
-
Permalink Reply by Jason D. Johnson on -
I kind of like Ron Paul. I wish he had stronger beliefs towards Separation of Church and State, but I like his foreign policy (which the media trashes), and he is the only candidate who seems likely to protect the Constitution and the American people from our rogue self-governing government. John Huntsman .....no. I don't trust him at all. His foreign policy will fuck this country straight in the ass. And all the rest are just ...don't even deserve explanations, and I'll just leave it at that. Worst candidate in my opinion? Rick Perry. Screw that guy.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Karp on
-
As progressive as some of Ron Paul's stances are on war, drugs, etc...he doesn’t accept evolution,and he says he would “follow [Jesus] in all I do and in every position I advocate,” and he’s received the endorsement of Christian crazyman Chuck Norris. Check out the report card published by the Secular Coalition for America below to see how the candidates rate on issues important to us:
-
Permalink Reply by Sophie B on
-
A very clear, informative and helpful reply :) But everyone is raising some very good points that give someone much to think about..I also like Obama though he has plenty of room for improvement, but to be honest, I don't think he has much chance :(
-
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on -
In a word... we're F#$ked. :P Yep... welcome to america... land of christian nuts!
-
Permalink Reply by Danny Sanchez on -
I got an "A" all the way down the card. I should be president.
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony Sparks on -
"That government is best which governs least." -Thoreau
What's new today
Forum
The history of bibleland
Started by Matt Giwer in History, Archaeology, Paleontology 8 minutes ago. 0 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken
Posted by Cathy Cooper on May 17, 2013 at 10:00am 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
