Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Ok, normally I'd be content to just let this slide, but this is too stupid to. Let me do this point by point.
Ohio
: So what he's saying here is that Cleveland, a big city, swung Obama, therefore... voter fraud? Don't big cities usually swing toward the Democrats?
Pennsylvania
: Again with looking at an Obama lead in a big city (this time Philly) and declaring fraud. Does this guy no NOTHING about demographics?
Viginia
: I'm sensing a theme here. Cities swung Obama, therefore fraud. However, it's even worse here. He's counting the suburbs of DC as voter fraud. DC had over 80% vote Obama, so OF COURSE THE SUBURBS WOULD LEAN TOWARD OBAMA!
Florida
: This time no city, but, unfortunately, it feels like he just pulled a county that happened to swing Obama out of a hat, and declared fraud.
Carter
: Really? You're gonna bring up Carter? Ok. So, first off, you're saying Carter could've done voter fraud, therefore Obama did? Do you understand how much that fails? However, this gets worse. He said "Ronald Reagan won a landslide in 1980 by winning 489 electoral votes and 50.71 percent of the popular vote to Carter's 49 electoral votes and 49.98 percent of the popular vote. That means Reagan won the popular vote by 9.73 percent or about 8.4 million votes." Carter got 40.98% of the vote, not 49.98% of the vote, and 50.71 + 49.98 is equal to OVER 100%. I knew that was wrong from a casual glance, and only had to look up the figures to know exactly why it was wrong.
Voter turnout
: I don't get what he's saying here. Less people voted, therefore voter suppression? Has it occurred to him that, I don't know, LESS PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE VOTED? Also, you used stats from Nate Silver who you have said is wrong many times. BE CONSISTENT. (Also, on a side note, I read in the article that he accused Nate Silver of being gay, which a look at his Wikipedia page will tell you to not only be true, but something that he's very open about... And I'm not sure how this would affect his statistics, either.)
Article on 2008 fraud
: Did you not read that article? It said that Obama would've won even without that fraud, which is why it was never pursued.
Also, the website has an inefficient use of space, and looks bad. Finally, if you really wanted to show that he committed voter fraud with that picture, why didn't you show a black bit of the bar thingy between Obama and Romney that would've been comprised of the electoral votes that were stolen? When I'm lied to, I expect better than that! Seriously.
Ok, back, skimmed the discussion, replying to a few of the more substantial posts. Forgive any misstypes, it's a bit much to proofread.
Radical Taoist: Rape Culture and Conservatism
I entirely agree that misogyny (misandry too, but that's another issue) and "rape culture" (though there are probably less charged terms to use for it) are pervasive in our society.
What I find totally baseless and false is the idea that conservative Christianity and the pro-life movement in particular are things that stem from or are supportive of this harmful part of our culture. In my experience, the conservative Christians like myself who tend to be strongly pro-life are also some of the first to be offended when people around them treat women like objects.
Radical Taoist: Implicit Assumptions
These are both positions you can support or oppose, but since neither are related to misogyny or rape culture they are irrelevant to the point I am making here, which is that a vile and false accusation has been made, not that Mourdock is a candidate you would ever like to see in office.
Radical Taoist: God's Intentions
First, a short theology tangent, because this is important if you want to understand how someone like me (and evidently Mourdock) view God:
Being a Christian and living in God's will comes with no guarantee of safety. Quite the contrary. The Bible does not teach that God wants us to be in fair situations. It teaches that every Christian should "take up their cross as Jesus did", expecting hardships in this life, and living to be a witness to others. The idea of God as a benevolent uncle who you butter up with praise in order to get blessings has no place in Christian theology. When God does bless you, that is a call to use the resources your have been blessed with to do all the more good. Likewise, when you experience hardship, you should also find a way to use that for good.
All this does not mean being a Christian is unpleasant, but that relates to the other half of the deal, the peace that comes from knowing God, which is itself difficult subject and isn't the point here.
Your problem here is related to the previous issue: you are still fixated on the horrible event that occurred, and the idea that the baby is somehow given to the women "for being raped". The actual train of thought, as was instantly clear to me and which ought would be clear to anyone who understands Mourdock as a devout Christian rather than a misogynist caricature, is as follows:
Everyone should agree with the above statement. If you don't believe in God, you derive this sense of value for life from somewhere else, but unless you are a sociopath you do possess this value.
The obvious difficulty is that some lives cause grief to other people. I think a lot of people have been completely ignoring Mourdock's statement "I struggled with it myself for a long time". It's a very hard issue, and Mourdock is not ignoring or belittling it. However, if you believe in the value of human life (and particularly in the Christian principle that every person is special and put on earth for a purpose), then you have to conclude, difficult though it is, that when God allows a life to begin existence, He loves that person and considers them precious, and we should do the same.
In summary, the "gift" is God's gift of a precious person to humanity, who may be destined to do some great good in the world, not a gift of a cute toy to "cheer up" the rape victim or some despicable notion like that. To interpret Mourdock as meaning something like the latter is to show an extremely assumptions about the kind of person Mourdock is, assumptions which are permitted to remain and which I am here trying to dispel.
Radical Taoist: Framing and Interpretation
The difference between those two statements is essentially "the woman's rights do not override the child's rights" versus "the woman doesn't matter", and there is no reason to place Mourdock in the latter category other than a preconceived idea that people like him are anti-women.
Yes, and I think that those statements are only different in that they are less fundamentalist in nature, and are in no way more or less misogynistic or supportive of rape culture.
TD;DR: Mourdock is clearly a person whose religious views guide his policy views. It is perfectly honest for you to dislike him and want him nowhere near elected office for that reason. It is dishonest, reprehensible, and simply wrong to portray him or his beliefs as anti-women or to act like that is the reason you oppose him.
Now, to reply to a few points from Best Of:
This is perfectly correct and honest, and has nothing to do with the question of misogyny. Were you to come to agree with those two premises (or even just the second one), your views would change to be similar to Mourdock's without your attitude toward women changing at all.
[[quoteblock]]Mourdock explicitly stated that in cases where rape results in a pregnancy (that isn't fatal to the mother) God wants rape to happen.
You appear to be parsing his sentence wrong, or at least not in the way that seems obvious to me. Therefore, a syntactical excursion:
If, in the phrase "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen", "it" refers to the rape, then yes, he would be saying that God wanted rape to happen. However, in context, he is not making a distinction between "rapes where life is created" and "rapes where no life is created", he is making a distinction between "life created by rape" and "life not created by rape". "It" refers to the life: "even when a person's life begins in the horrible situation of rape, God still intended that person to exist and that person's life is still a gift from God (which to Christians means 'a thing to be cherished')".
This seems to me to be the only reasonable way to interpret his statement, especially as it is preceded by "even". A phrase of the form "even when X, Y" is stating that X is an extreme case in a larger pool where the general principle Y which applies to the whole pool might be in doubt, yet even in the case of X, Y holds.
Parsing his statement like I did, X is the extreme case "life beginning in rape" of the general pool "all life", and Y is the general principle "when a life begins, God intended it to begin". This makes perfect sense.
Parsing his statement like you did, X is the extreme case "rapes which create life" of the pool "all rapes" and Y is the general principle "when a rape occurs, God intended it to occur". This makes no sense at all, and only a really horrible person following a really horrible God would make such a statement.
TL;DR again: As before, Mourdock is undoubtedly a religious person and those of you who dislike religious people are justified in disliking him on that basis. You are not justified in selectively interpreting his statements as anti-women or pro-rape when that is not a reasonable understanding of his words.
I hope some of that made sense. *sigh* There's a reason I don't normally engage the subject of abortion in the case of rape. I wouldn't be doing so now, did I not feel a need to address the kind of horrible treatment people with similar values to me are getting in this thread.
<><Oh, and right before I left, there was somebody saying that the mods tend to ban extreme conservatives but not extreme liberals, thus pushing the forum left. I just wanted to say that I don't see that. They ban people who are abusive, whatever their views. If more extreme conservatives than liberals have been banned, I suspect that is due merely to extreme conservative positions being much more fun for trolls on a predominantly liberal forum.
<><![]()
In short: don't try saying something that won't parse to people who don't share your belief in God in the way you meant, as they don't have the patterns to ascribe to the word blocks in the ways you're used to.
They won't read what you meant in what you said... but. the other meanings that could be in the sentence you used... intended or not.
Can we, please, move along? It's getting tedious: the old "abortion shouldn't be a forum topic" rule is... a good one.
All we get is a lot of unhappy people complaining that other people don't read what other people meant in what they said, and it winds up in circles.
To deathpigoen: I'm surprised you left out the name of the site and domain name, mate.
edited 21st Nov '12 10:02:34 PM by Euodiachloris
Eh, more liberals tend to get banned here on account of there being more of us on this board. Also bans tend only to come after extreme offenses. *shrug* The mods here are pretty patient with us.
![]()
In regards to whether or not something is a reasonable interpretation, I think interpreting current Republican policy as anti-women is quite fair. For one, all these abortion debates disproportionately affect women. Any idea that we *absolutely have to* bear the children of our rapists is going to negatively affect us. And it's not even just the abortion thing, because this particular idea comes hand in hand with denial of health care services and blocking of laws to protect women from sexual assault because it'll also protect illegal immigrants (who are already more at risk than the average woman) and transexuals.
This is a specific law that was blocked, by the way. Violence Against Women... something or other. I forget the exact acronym. But for me, it's not just the abortion thing that makes me see or interpret all this abortion debate as anti-women. It's every thing else Republican lawmakers are doing.
So yeah. It's actually pretty reasonable to interpret them as anti-women, because these statements they got raked over the coals for are not flukes or slips of the tongue. They're continuances of a systemic issue and policies that Republicans are pushing.
Please calm down, deathpigeon. All Caps and incoherent rage do not suit you.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI don't mind religious people. If I did, I'd be pretty out of luck considering how hard to come by atheists are in politics.
There are some things said and done in the name of religion within politics that I absolutely detest but that is not quite the same thing. Even though I don't like Murdouck's statement, it's not really that significant to me.
Now, when Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq because the biblical demons Gog and Mogag were there... that to me was infinitely more crazy and offensive than anything Murdouck and co. have ever said. That's an example of what sets off red flags for me, personally.
edited 21st Nov '12 9:23:59 PM by HilarityEnsues
@Hilarity: Speaking of, American Atheists filed a petition for their suit against the state of Kentucky to get heard by the SCOTUS.
" On August 17, 2012, the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to hear a motion for discretionary review, brought by American Atheists and local plaintiffs, to a state law that makes it mandatory that the Commonwealth and its citizens give credit to Almighty God for its safety and security. "
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian![]()
According to Wikipedia:
Four states in the United States (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) officially designate themselves as "commonwealths". All four were original colonies (Kentucky was originally a part of the land grant of the Colony of Virginia) and share a strong influence of colonial common law in some of their laws and institutions.
However "Commonwealth" is also used in the U.S. to describe the political relationship between the United States and the overseas unincorporated territories (such as Puerto Rico).
edited 21st Nov '12 10:04:33 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016![]()
![]()
It means that if Puerto Rico is admitted as a U.S. State, it has precedent to still be called a commonwealth.
Rice Rejects Criticism of Her Remarks on Benghazi Attack

so in good ol fashion conspiracy theory land, the fine people over at Daily Beast had fun poking fun at Dean Chambers, whose latest idea is to set up a website claiming Obama only won because MASSUVE VOTER FRAUD IN ERRY SWING STATE
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/20/barack-o-fraudo.html