US Election (2012)

[~Darkseeker~]

Well, I know there are alot of yanks (:P) here, So i figured I'd ask. I can't really work out why Ron Paul has such a large supportive following. I mean, he doesn't even believe in separation of church and state, and hand over a lot more control to state governments; which would be a bad thing I would say, since i could see a lot of deep south states renewing the anti-sodomy laws or something.

Thought i'd ask some 'mericans, since being British; american politics confuses me.

[celegorm]

Originally Posted by ~Darkseeker~

he doesn't even believe in separation of church and state, and hand over a lot more control to state governments; which would be a bad thing I would say

Being an atheist, the separation of church and state is the reason I wouldn't vote for him. Taking control away from the federal (national) government and giving it to local (state and city) governments is actually one of the main ideas of the republican party. One that I personally like.

[~Darkseeker~]

Originally Posted by celegorm

Being an atheist, the separation of church and state is the reason I wouldn't vote for him. Taking control away from the federal (national) government and giving it to local (state and city) governments is actually one of the main ideas of the republican party. One that I personally like.

I think in the modern western world, state governments would be too biased because of the beliefs of that state. I mean, if the entire state government of say, Texas; is fundamentalist christian, then they're going to make the word of the bible law, which would be quite hellish for any atheists in Texas (although there probably aren't that many in that part of the deep south really)

And the alternative, Obama/Democrats; I think people have misunderstood the whole thing about healthcare lol; like in the UK there's the NHS and still private healthcare associations as well. Surely if people still want to pay they could, but poor people who couldnt afford to pay for hospital treatment could get the state sanctioned healthcare?

[celegorm]

Originally Posted by ~Darkseeker~

I think in the modern western world, state governments would be too biased because of the beliefs of that state. I mean, if the entire state government of say, Texas; is fundamentalist christian, then they're going to make the word of the bible law, which would be quite hellish for any atheists in Texas (although there probably aren't that many in that part of the deep south really)

First, I'm ignoring the second part because of strong opinions on it and how it is currently being enacted.

As to what I quoted (and to continue using your example), Texas couldn't. States cannot over-ride federal laws and the Constitution already prohibits that. It's not a view of no centralized government, just one that does the essentials to make the nation work seamlessly.

[foothead]

Originally Posted by celegorm

Texas couldn't. States cannot over-ride federal laws and the Constitution already prohibits that.

Heh. That's how it should be, but not exactly how it works. Texas actually has a ban on nonreligious people holding public office, and I recall them using it about a year ago. They also still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, though there's no way they could convict just for that. In Louisiana (where I live), they found a loophole so they can convict under certain circumstances. They actually put people on the sex offender registry for "crimes against nature" for things like prostitution if it was with someone of the same sex.


Ron Paul isn't against the separation of church and state, he just has a different interpretation of it, which is probably more accurate to what the establishment clause was intended to mean. The point wasn't to completely eradicate religion from anything the government does, it was intended to prevent them from creating a state church, like England did. I mean, I don't like religion at all, and I think it has no place in today's society, but he's technically right there. Besides, he cannot realistically take it very far. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a more strict separation, so he'd need a Constitutional amendment to change that. No way he'd ever get enough support for it.

Oh, and Darkseeker, there actually are a lot of atheists in Texas. Probably as many as other areas. The difference is that the Christians there tend to be more extreme, so they are less likely to admit it. The ones that do typically get drowned out. I live in Louisiana, and pretty much everyone I know is atheist or agnostic. They'll usually define themselves as Christian if you ask, but that's either because they always have or because they're trying not to get into an argument.


Anyway, from watching the debates, the only candidates I like are Hunstman, Johnson, and Paul. The rest just seem completely insane, especially Bachmann and Santorum. Herman Cain just seems like some sort of joke to me, constantly referring to his "9-9-9 plan." Running the country is a lot more complicated than running a pizza place (Yes, I know he used to run a pizza place, which makes it seem all the more ridiculous to me.)

[superman22x]

At this point I am for Ron Paul, except I don't think he has a great chance anymore. If the Republicans don't nominate him and he runs on his own, he will loose, and I can garuntee Obama will be re-elected. The Republicans know this as well, and aren't sure what to do at this point. The media is trying to put Ron Paul aside and ignore him, make it seem like he's not very popular, and they are very sucessful at this so far. Essentially, the media is screwing RP.

[foothead]

It's still way too early to tell whether or not he has a chance. Being ignored by the media is probably better for now though, because they at least aren't making up all kinds of things to discredit him, like they're doing to Rick Perry.

[superman22x]

He was center of attention for awhile, and has now been pushed aside like he's not even a contender.

[foothead]

Originally Posted by superman22x

He was center of attention for awhile, and has now been pushed aside like he's not even a contender.

The media only focuses on the candidates who a) they think have a good chance of winning, b) they can scrutinize, or c) they are trying to influence. Others are polling better and do/say more crazy things, so why would they focus on the boring candidates?

It sucks, but that's just how the media works nowadays. Right now, they've picked Perry and Romney. In a month, they'll be focusing on someone else.

[celegorm]

Originally Posted by foothead

Heh. That's how it should be, but not exactly how it works. Texas actually has a ban on nonreligious people holding public office, and I recall them using it about a year ago. They also still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, though there's no way they could convict just for that. In Louisiana (where I live), they found a loophole so they can convict under certain circumstances. They actually put people on the sex offender registry for "crimes against nature" for things like prostitution if it was with someone of the same sex.

Lol true, but the main idea of my point would still hold true (for the most part) as they would never be able to get away with stoning people who steal a loaf of bread or selling people into slavery (in the current era anyways).

As an aside, they have anti-sodomy laws here in Wisconsin and we're pretty much the opposite of Texas