2012-01-04, 10:21 | Link #18841 |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Who Supported Whom in the Iowa Caucuses
A couple of the demographic results are interesting. Younger (17-29) caucus-goers gave nearly a majority of their votes to Ron Paul; Romney polled best among people over 44, while Santorum and Paul split the 30-44 demographic. Paul's support declines across income groups; Romney's support, not surprisingly, increases with income. Only one percent called Romney a "true conservative" giving Paul and Santorum the nod. Almost half the caucus-goers see Romney as someone who can default Obama, with a deluded twenty percent picking Gingrich for this role. Paul's supporters generally decided to support him weeks ago; Santorum, rather obviously, drew most of his support from late deciders. Romney received about the same levels of support from late deciders as he did from voters who claimed to have chosen him before December.
__________________
|
2012-01-04, 12:10 | Link #18842 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 36
|
Quote:
4 states account for the vast majority of Jewish residents: New York, California, New Jersey and Florida. Most of the Jews in Florida are seniors though. But anyway, how often do those states vote anything other then Democrat these days? There are 12 Jewish Senators (a really huge number if you think about it). How many of them are republican? 0. There are 26 Jewish Congressmen, how many of them are are republican? 1. You could say, however, that jews have a fairly large effect on the democratic party, they've always been one of their key constituencies, along with blacks and other minorities, since the 60s. But their influence is really restricted to one party. And Jews probably vote democrat because a lot of american jews are social liberals, not due to support for the state of Israel. Though I'd say if a democrat came out against Israel, they would probably lose a fair number of those Jewish voters. They'd probably find another democrat to vote for though, not a republican. I have jewish family in the US, they pretty much all vote Democrat every ... single ... election. I think my Grandpa only voted Republican once, for Eisenhower. |
|
2012-01-04, 12:37 | Link #18843 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
In major blow, EU agrees embargo on Iranian crude
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8031DI20120104
__________________
|
2012-01-04, 13:22 | Link #18846 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
The Repubs aren't cratering to the Jewish vote but to the Evangelical vote.
__________________
|
|
2012-01-04, 13:38 | Link #18848 | ||
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2012-01-04, 14:54 | Link #18852 | |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Quote:
The Establishment clause in the US Bill of Rights bars the creation of a state-sanctioned religion and blocks legislation that would discriminate in favor of one set of beliefs over another. Note that none of this has anything to do with individuals expressing their moral or religious principles at the ballot box. What's frightening to me is the apparently large number of Americans who would prefer to live in a theocracy based on what they think of as "Christian" principles. Luckily the Founders realized what a horrible future that would mean for our country.
__________________
|
|
2012-01-04, 15:08 | Link #18854 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
how is that different form Sharia Law?
Quote:
2. most of those people were protestants.
__________________
|
|
2012-01-04, 15:15 | Link #18855 |
'אין ייאוש בעולם כלל
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Age: 39
|
I'd assume the argument could be made that Christian ideals are more in line with what exists in your average modern democracy than Sharia law (especially in regards to law and order). Of course that depends on the interpretation.
|
2012-01-04, 15:29 | Link #18856 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 47
|
Most common laws are based on Biblical laws to one degree or another. The difference is using ideals...the concept of something, rather than the law of something. One takes the basic intent of a law and uses it as an ideal, while writing a more pratical law that suits the world as it is today.
Sharia law, from what I understand, takes the religious context as literal and thus doesn't even attempt to be an ideal of something, but the something as written directly (sometimes losing the intent of the words in place for the words themselves). It would be if you made the Torah the legal code for everything (it is the basis of the two major monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam). That doesn't work (fuctionally) in today's multicultural world. It works as a background (since a lot of Common Law is based on the Torah in some respects), but not as direct law. Especially since it was written for a specific people in a specific region, at a specific time. Things change. Even things in the Constitution change. That is why we have Amendments. At such time as our species leaves this planet, the laws will again need to be changed to fit the situation. The old laws can be used as ideals to follow, but the new words need to reflect the times and locations.
__________________
|
2012-01-04, 15:29 | Link #18857 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
Religious extremists always tend to think THEIR interpretation is what would fly in a theocracy.... a natural result of thinking their special magic unicorn is the One True Way. And common laws *tend* to be based on rules common to all religions.. because those rules also apply to the survivability of any social grouping religious or secular -- basically "treat other people like you'd like to be treated" and "cooperation tends to be a win-win in the long term"
__________________
|
2012-01-04, 15:30 | Link #18858 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 38
|
I'm not talking about the voters. I'm talking about those who put policies into practice or attempt to make them as such. You know, like a presidential candidate or congressional candidate who follows that same line of thinking, thus not separating church and state?
|
2012-01-04, 15:45 | Link #18859 |
Um-Shmum
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 40
|
the general rule seems to be that basing laws on religious text are often ok when the behavior that is meant to be made illegal is something that is Mala In Se (bad, in and of itself) while forbidding the stuff that is Mala Prohibita (bad because the rules say its bad) leads to trouble.
__________________
|
2012-01-04, 15:52 | Link #18860 | |
Shadow of Effilisi
Join Date: Oct 2011
|
Quote:
You should look at SeijiSensei's post above on separation of church and state. |
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|