Originally posted by sithsaber408
I didn't mean that they'd make the difference for him necessarily but just that there are other segments of society that will come out to vote (on BOTH sides, really) that aren't being accounted for in most polls.Though I'd disagree with your assessment that young evangelicals are uneducated and ignorant, as would most of the other young professional evangelicals at my church in Northern California that work for Hewlett Packard, AeroJet, the Police Department, and the Sacramento County Department of Health.
Yes, of course youth are often clueless and mixed up, you've got that right on. 😛 I was meaning more of the "college and career" type folks who are 18-25.
Robtard is correct.
Originally posted by Robtard
In Dadudemon's defense, he did say "ignorant and unducated" in regards to voting, not their professions or schooling.
You can be the worlds best Aerospace engineer and still be clueless come election time. You should start asking you youth about current issues and just listen to the drivel come out of their mouth.
There's a reason the Brits make fun of us when it comes to history and politics. 🙁
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm curious then: As a believer who works in ministry at the church, who are you voting for and why?
Prolly Obama. Things could change. I dunno.
I think you have legit reasons for voting McCain. Abortion, "sticking to it" in Iraq, his global warming policy, and immigration policies are your reasons. Even if others find fault in those policies, it is till YOUR reason to vote for him. It is your responsibility to search out those policies effectiveness, failures, and legitimacy. That is what I mean when I say "educated voter".
WHY is his foreign policy better than Obama's? WHY is his stance on women's rights (or lack thereof) better than Obama's?
etc. etc. etc.
If you can't answer most to all of those potential questions, you should not vote. The majority of the young people you refer to cannot answer those questions in a legit manner. Hell, I can't compare all the talking points and policies of the candidates myself. Right now, I would not feel completely comfortable casting my vote because there are still things I need to learn about each candidate. (Don't get me wrong...I will most likely NOT vote for McCain.)
I was not attacking you nor your "youth". I was saying that we don't need what amounts to a majority of ignorant votes. I also indicated that I was generalizing because there ARE exceptions. Strangelove would be an excellent example IF he fell under the young evangelical voting demographic.
I can be a cynic...so don't take my comments personally.
Still, their vote won't make that much of a difference in the election results. If they are active in politics, chances are they voted already in the primaries. Also, depending on the polling methods being employed, they may also end up in the polling data we see on "guessing who's gonna win" polls. One thing you will find in fanaticism and people who hold strong beliefs is a large turn out. They want to get their voice heard because they strongly believe in something. I disagreed on that point of yours because we really won't see a significant change in votes cast...unless something big happens or Jesus tells us to vote for McCain.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Robtard is correct.You can be the worlds best Aerospace engineer and still be clueless come election time. You should start asking you youth about current issues and just listen to the drivel come out of their mouth.
There's a reason the Brits make fun of us when it comes to history and politics. 🙁
Prolly Obama. Things could change. I dunno.
I think you have legit reasons for voting McCain. Abortion, "sticking to it" in Iraq, his global warming policy, and immigration policies are your reasons. Even if others find fault in those policies, it is till YOUR reason to vote for him. It is your responsibility to search out those policies effectiveness, failures, and legitimacy. That is what I mean when I say "educated voter".
WHY is his foreign policy better than Obama's? WHY is his stance on women's rights (or lack thereof) better than Obama's?
etc. etc. etc.
If you can't answer most to all of those potential questions, you should not vote. The majority of the young people you refer to cannot answer those questions in a legit manner. Hell, I can't compare all the talking points and policies of the candidates myself. Right now, I would not feel completely comfortable casting my vote because there are still things I need to learn about each candidate. (Don't get me wrong...I will most likely NOT vote for McCain.)
I was not attacking you nor your "youth". I was saying that we don't need what amounts to a majority of ignorant votes. I also indicated that I was generalizing because there ARE exceptions. Strangelove would be an excellent example IF he fell under the young evangelical voting demographic.
I can be a cynic...so don't take my comments personally.
Still, their vote won't make that much of a difference in the election results. If they are active in politics, chances are they voted already in the primaries. Also, depending on the polling methods being employed, they may also end up in the polling data we see on "guessing who's gonna win" polls. One thing you will find in fanaticism and people who hold strong beliefs is a large turn out. They want to get their voice heard because they strongly believe in something. I disagreed on that point of yours because we really won't see a significant change in votes cast...unless something big happens or Jesus tells us to vote for McCain.
Good response.
And no worries, I'd never take anything personally. You're not that much of cynic either, just passionate.
Personally yeah, I could tell you why I prefer McCain's policies over Obama's and again, you're right that few of the teens in our church youth group could. But again, I'm talking about young adults from Northern California in the professional world aged 18-25.
I don't know how it works in Oklahoma, but our young adults are pretty well informed and know what the issues are on both sides.
They just refuse to buy in the liberal propoganda that America sucks, we should do what the rest of the world wants us to, we should negotiate with terrorist states and dictators, we should allow babies to be aborted on a whim, and that the family (defined: father, mother, children) is somehow no longer the cornerstone of society as a whole and our country in particular but instead the individual is.
They don't buy it. (mostly because it's false)
They wouldn't necessarily want McCain (the Huck was the preferred choice) but at this point it's the lesser of two evils and they'll vote McCain.
I fail to see how this makes them "ignorant". It just means that they look at the candidates and the issues, and arrive at a different conclusion of what's "true" than you do.
(being that you're my age and into this discussion, I'd venture to say that you and yours in the same age group are well informed also. The original comment you made about people in our age group isn't that accurate, since we're both here discussing the issues)
Originally posted by sithsaber408
They just refuse to buy in the liberal propoganda that America sucks, we should do what the rest of the world wants us to, we should negotiate with terrorist states and dictators, we should allow babies to be aborted on a whim, and that the family (defined: father, mother, children) is somehow no longer the cornerstone of society as a whole and our country in particular but instead the individual is.
No, they've decied to buy into the neoconservative propoganda that America is the first, last and only real nation on the planet, that we can do what ever we want to whom ever we want any way we want, we need not enter an informed dialouge with our enemies in an effort to perhaps understand why they disagree with us, that we ignore the mental anguish that comes along with the consideration of an abortion and consider the bodies of another human being public property, embrace the lie that a one man and one woman marriage is the cornerstone of society because it allows us to think that we have the authority to grant or deny rights to those we consider lesser human beings unworthy of equality and deny that the founding fathers we so often tought as knee-bending christians remarkably managed to never mention christianity or religion in the founding documents except where it was guarenteed as a personal right or to expressly free the government from it's interference.
Originally posted by Devil King
No, they've decied to buy into the neoconservative propoganda that America is the first, last and only real nation on the planet, that we can do what ever we want to whom ever we want any way we want, we need not enter an informed dialouge with our enemies in an effort to perhaps understand why they disagree with us, that we ignore the mental anguish that comes along with the consideration of an abortion and consider the bodies of another human being public property, embrace the lie that a one man and one woman marriage is the cornerstone of society because it allows us to think that we have the authority to grant or deny rights to those we consider lesser human beings unworthy of equality and deny that the founding fathers we so often tought as knee-bending christians remarkably managed to never mention christianity or religion in the founding documents except where it was guarenteed as a personal right or to expressly free the government from it's interference.
See, he drinks the juice! 👆 😛
Originally posted by sithsaber408
They just refuse to buy in the liberal propoganda that America sucks
Bullshit. In no way is that the liberal view.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
We should do what the rest of the world wants us to.
Bullshit as well.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
we should negotiate with terrorist states and dictators.
Who wants that? Seriously? Who? What terrorist states? Have you heard Obama's speeech about Iran?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
we should allow babies to be aborted on a whim
Fair enough.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
and that the family (defined: father, mother, children) is somehow no longer the cornerstone of society as a whole and our country in particular but instead the individual is.
Nah. It's no longer the cornerstone because it never was. Not family and "traditional" values were what made the US great and special. It always was individualism. From the first moment of it's existance. Funnily enough the Republican party used to know it, too.
Originally posted by sithsaber408Not that liberals (who choose to live in America) believe this but...it does.
They just refuse to buy in the liberal propoganda that America sucks,
Originally posted by sithsaber408And by that you mean what, be peaceful and considerate?
we should do what the rest of the world wants us to,
Originally posted by sithsaber408Yes, because negotiation isn't what ended the Cuban Missle Crisis, the cold war, and many others. It's much more fun to blow shit up and saying "America, **** yeah!"
we should negotiate with terrorist states and dictators,
Originally posted by sithsaber408Not the sate's baby.
we should allow babies to be aborted on a whim,
Originally posted by sithsaber408Isn't individualism, how America started? Or have I been buying into the liberal propoganda of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and others?
and that the family (defined: father, mother, children) is somehow no longer the cornerstone of society as a whole and our country in particular but instead the individual is.
Originally posted by sithsaber408They don't mention it, mostly because they're retarded close minded spoon-fed ****wits who only believe mummy, daddy and georgie.
They don't buy it. (mostly because it's false)
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Personally yeah, I could tell you why I prefer McCain's policies over Obama's and again, you're right that few of the teens in our church youth group could. But again, I'm talking about young adults from Northern California in the professional world aged 18-25.
Despite how much crap you get on these boards from others, as long as you educate yourself on all parties involved (and don't fall into the typical American isolationism.
I was more or less referring to a slightly younger group....15-21. Yes, I know you stated already that you were referring to 18-25. (That's more applicable to voting discussion anyway.)
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I don't know how it works in Oklahoma, but our young adults are pretty well informed and know what the issues are on both sides.
Since I'm Mormon, they were yelping left and right "Mitt Romney". I know I shouldn't be like this, but it pissed me off. I would say a good portion were adequately informed on only Mitt Romney's policies/talking pints. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Kids their age latch onto a candidate like a rabid leech and don't educate themselves on the issues, only their favorite candidates talking points. 😬
Of course, this is not limited to 15-21 something Mormon youth, this is pretty much any young person...especially those who are religious. This is only my experience with people their age...so I could be grossly mistaken for, say, young people on the East Coast. However, you and I both know that young evangelicals are known for the blind political ignorance and their easily swooning for any politician who makes "Jesus" talk.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
They just refuse to buy in the liberal propoganda
I'm not too sure about the liberal propaganda part.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
that America sucks,
I agree that there are lame-o's toting "America" sucks....still, I'm not too sure its just liberals. I would say I hear it from the conservatives more than the liberals.
Does "America is going to hell because of f*gs" sound familiar?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
we should do what the rest of the world wants us to,
Yes..that's definitely note what we should do
Originally posted by sithsaber408
we should negotiate with terrorist states and dictators,
We SHOULD have some sort of dialogue. Politicians are great for talking...why shouldn't America at least attempt diplomacy? *cough*Jimmy Carter*cough*
Originally posted by sithsaber408
we should allow babies to be aborted on a whim,
Yes, we should. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. I don't think abortion is right, but that "think" should only be employed among my church and its members and not by the state. IF someone wants to be part of my church and be fully fellow-shipped, then they can do without aborting their babies. To enforce this principal on the state level would NOT be a separation of Church and State, imo.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
and that the family (defined: father, mother, children)
I agree that the best environment to raise children in is between a mother and father...however, that doesn't mean that a child cannot be raised, well, between a father and a father or a mother and a mother. It is most certainly better than just a mother or just a father, as fact. (Or grandmother...ad nauseum.)
Originally posted by sithsaber408
is somehow no longer the cornerstone of society as a whole and our country in particular but instead the individual is.
As a religious person, I feel that the American individual is lacking or suffering because their priorities are are out of order. The "family unit" is not what it used to be. It is not looked at with as high a regard as it used to or should be. Money, jobs, extra-curricular activities, prestige, etc. seem to have placed the Family Unit in the back seat.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
They wouldn't necessarily want McCain (the Huck was the preferred choice) but at this point it's the lesser of two evils and they'll vote McCain.
I agree that it will be a vote among the lesser of two evils. I knew that Huckabee was your/their original choice because of Huckabee's evangelical appeal. That guy had a lot of Jesus about him. (I don't mean that in a bad way.)
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I fail to see how this makes them "ignorant". It just means that they look at the candidates and the issues, and arrive at a different conclusion of what's "true" than you do.
(Since we weren't really on the same "age" page when I said I don't want ignorant voters to vote, what I am about to type may not be applicable.)
I can agree that what is true or "should be done" is in the eye of the voter. My point wasn't about that. My point was ignorant voters are seen more often among young evangelicals. They latch onto a religious candidate and basically do this -----> durr
Originally posted by sithsaber408
(being that you're my age and into this discussion, I'd venture to say that you and yours in the same age group are well informed also. The original comment you made about people in our age group isn't that accurate, since we're both here discussing the issues)
Your argument is a logical fallacy. My original generalized argument was also a logically fallacious as I can't use the hundreds or even thousands of young Christians I've had political discussions with as a meter for ALL young evangelicals in America.
I admit that. I'm just being a grumpy cynic again. 😐
I tried to allude to the fact that my assessment does not apply to all...but I still cannot be right without first showing a poll of "young evangelicals" vs. young non-evangelicals who are interested in politics.
I venture that we would probably see the young evangelicals more knowledgeable about evangelical politicians/candidates; but, overall, we would see that the non-evangelical youth to be more educated on the political issues as a whole. As you can tell from my previous post, I don't like this. You can't cast a vote for a person when you didn't put forth very much effort to "here the other guy".
One thing we both can agree on, though, is we should include prayer in our voting decision. (Seperation of Church and State FTL!!!! 😆 😆 😆 )
Anyway...
After reading this article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812050,00.html
It posed the question to me, while remaining aware of the dangers of characterizing blocs of people, is there a greater "sense of urgency" among "black voters" than there is among "women voters." Do more black people see this as a once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-a-generation moment, and if so are they more pessimistic about prospects for black people overall? Do they not see this as a true leveling of the playing field that apparently some women feminists do in the case of Clinton?
And if not, why not? Do they not see as much opportunity in the land of opportunity? E.g. there is still a large pay disparity between blacks and whites. Or is negativity unfounded? For an example, iirc, the pay disparity between males and females overall is greater than or about the same as the pay disparity between blacks and whites.
(And rather than start a new thread I thought I'd just tack onto this one.)