So... still liking Donald Trump as Republican Nominee?

[Eikon]

I don't think the religion plays much in the white house. I think we've had a lot of presidents play the religion card to get votes from the religious voters to get them into the white house, but once there.. I don't think their personal religious beliefs have much of an impact on how they run the office. Really, the only impact I think a Presidents religious beliefs make are on the nomination of judges based on roe v. wade issues. Past that, I don't think they impact war, economics, or other aspects of their work.

[R/T Hemi]

The Reps have a real dilemma. If they run a 2016 hopeful, and that person loses, then there's that stigma that attaches to having lost. If they run a mediocre or worse candidate, and lose, they drive more nails into the coffin of the Republican Party. Surely any Republican who might otherwise want to run realizes this. My bet is that all the big guns will refuse to declare prior to the 2016 contest and we'll see something not yet on the radar with a big bank account and a liking for tea.

[IBCoupe]

The Presidency is the weakest of the three branches, so to a certain extent you're right. But I think the judicial appointment thing is paramount. Aud was calling into question the separation of church and state just yesterday in a Christie O'Donnel fashion.

I don't want a President who's going to go searching for that kind of thing to put on the bench just because they don't like a precedent that's 20-years-old or 200-years-old, especially if we're using 2000-year-old arguments to get there.

[IBCoupe]

R/T, I don't think Republicans feel as weak in 2012 as you think they are. My guess is they're aiming to make 2016 a battle for reelection.

[Eikon]

The Reps have a real dilemma. If they run a 2016 hopeful, and that person loses, then there's that stigma that attaches to having lost. If they run a mediocre or worse candidate, and lose, they drive more nails into the coffin of the Republican Party. Surely any Republican who might otherwise want to run realizes this. My bet is that all the big guns will refuse to declare prior to the 2016 contest and we'll see something not yet on the radar with a big bank account and a liking for tea.

Why are we talking about the 2016 election? Why are you assuming that the Republicans will lose that election and have a stigma as being a loser?

Did you forget that we have an election in 2012? And based on the midterm elections, the republicans have some major momentum going...



*Edit - YES... what IBCoupe said above. While I'll admit that I've been happier with Obama in the past few months, overall, I still don't think he'll get re-elected.. It will depend on who the republicans field.. whether or not they divide their own party with tea-party vs. standard GOP, etc... If they can unite under a single strong nominee (Huckabee), then they should be able to win back the White House.

[IBCoupe]

I don't think their chances are all that great. President Obama has spent the past five months making himself look like the only grown-up in the room. That coincides with your improved perception of him - it's easy to look good when your opponents give you lots of opportunities to look better by comparison.

And Republicans have been more than happy to oblige that image by picking fights over meaningless crap, in direct contrast to the sentiment that got them into office. I imagine 2012 will be close, and as hard as it is to predict results a year-and-a-half in advance, I'd wager that the Republicans stand a good chance of blowing it, and if Obama is reelected, it will probably be due in large part to the record of the 112th Congress.

[AZhitman]

So, Greg, is it that you think there's an equivalence of circumstance to being black and being fat?

Silly Obama. Guy needs to spend more time in the shade, that's what he needs to do.

It could be argued that both are innate characteristics that (and I know I'm saying this wrong) "can't be helped".

My point was pretty clear - Blast the fattie, fine... but lay off a brotha's tone, that ain't cool.

No need for the "shade" snipe - don't be disingenuous.

[R/T Hemi]

@ Eikon. I was referring to the Reps running someone in 2012 that was otherwise a viable candidate in 2016, when Obama can no longer run. If they did run that candidate in 2012, and s/he lost, then the stigma would follow to 2016. This is a really critical time for the Republicans. They have to aim at 2016 through the 2012 election. Do you field your A team for 2012 and risk attaching a stigma of loss to it, or do you save it for 2016? Do you field a mediocre team just to have a horse in the race and hope for the best? They have a challenge ahead. Based on this, I don't expect a real challenge in 2012. I'd love to be wrong here.

As far as Republican momentum, I don't see it. The problem is that the current admin (the Dems) will get credit for anything positive that happens, and they will be able to point to the Republican house as being ineffective at getting anything done for much of the negative.

[AZhitman]

Huckabee, were he to ditch his Baptist-Minister-in-Chief vibe, would bug me less.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with excessive religiosity, or even that I think religious people are bad. But the more religious a person is, the more I fear the effect of that religion on public office.

^ This. Except the last sentence (I concur w Seth, I don't think it impacts the day-to-day, nor do I see historical evidence that it has).

[IBCoupe]

I've never seen a picture of Christie, so that's where I'm coming from. That he's overweight or obese is news to me.

But, Greg, unless we're arguing that he's got a thyroid problem, I think it's a huge stretch to equivocate being overweight and being black.

No amount of diet and exercise will make you white.

[AppleBonker]

Nor were people ever enslaved for being fat (as far as I know).

Huckabee, were he to ditch his Baptist-Minister-in-Chief vibe, would bug me less.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with excessive religiosity, or even that I think religious people are bad. But the more religious a person is, the more I fear the effect of that religion on public office.

^ This. Except the last sentence (I concur w Seth, I don't think it impacts the day-to-day, nor do I see historical evidence that it has).

I'm not sure, Greg. I've seen the "moral justification" far too often to believe that it will never impact a person's decisions in office. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it WILL affect the decisions. I'm saying I agree that it will more likely affect them (which is a concern of mine).

[AZhitman]

You're projecting "regular people" behavior onto the Presidency.

As much as I dislike Obama, I don't see his faith impacting his decisions. He claims to be a Christian, and I have no reason to disbelieve him.

I'll bet, however, that you perceive him as "less religious" because he doesn't wear it on his sleeve. That would be a mistake in judgment. Lots of people of VERY strong faith keep it to themselves.

Think back over history - The past is a good predictor of the future.

[AZhitman]

But, Greg, unless we're arguing that he's got a thyroid problem, I think it's a huge stretch to equivocate being overweight and being black.

No amount of diet and exercise will make you white.

I wasn't "equivocating". Stop trying to paint me on this one, it won't work - I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Lefties bagging on his weight.

Frankly, I don't care... I'm not a big fan of hypersensitivity in the first place. Just saying, be prepared to be "called out" if you do something hypocritical. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, let's also be clear: Trump's hair (and speech impediment) is fair game.

[AppleBonker]

You're projecting "regular people" behavior onto the Presidency.

I don't know that this is incorrect. The president should always have the people's best interests in mind. Some of this would require doing what they want.

Think back over history - The past is a good predictor of the future.

There have been plenty of politicians who have chosen a position based on their religion. Well, I suppose I can only assume it was their religion, as there are very few other reasons why one might oppose abortions, stem cell research, planned parenthood (specifically information on STIs and using protective measures), birth control, etc. And, given that they guy is very vocal now, I'm sure a portion of his constituency will be the religious right. So even if you claim that his personal religious beliefs wont impact his decisions (or at least his viewpoints), the beliefs of his supports almost certainly will or else he'll be out of office pretty quickly.

I'll bet, however, that you perceive him as "less religious" because he doesn't wear it on his sleeve. That would be a mistake in judgment. Lots of people of VERY strong faith keep it to themselves.

Actually, I do think he is less religious. In fact, a lot of people do. I know he received a lot of flack over his religion because he wasn't attending church enough. Then again, I don't really think he was ever that religious. I personally believe he made that claim knowing that it is a requirement to be elected in this country (yes, I am claiming that I believe Obama made a somewhat-false claim to improve his odds of being elected). You may disagree there, but honestly look back and think what would've happened if Barack had claimed to be an atheist (or, oh no, a Muslim). Would he have been elected if NOTHING else were different between my hypothetical scenario here and what actually transpired? I doubt it. Let's even go one step further and assume he openly believed in Zeus or Apollo. How would people react to that?

Side note: that is one of my major gripes with religion/faith. If I were to openly express a belief in Christianity, Judaism, Islam (to some extent), Mormonism, and so on people would completely understand and probably not think twice. How would I be perceived if I believed in ancient Greek mythology? Or if I believed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (look it up, it exists). The vast majority of the population would not have the same "understanding" opinion of me. Why is that?

[Eikon]

Why is this thread devolving into a religion conversation?

I mean, I see how it happened.. but have we not learned form the past? Let's get back to Donald Trump.

Apple... I'll offer you a little advice... Get off your "side-note" soapbox about how non-religious people are treated. You continue to bring it up on NICO in thread after thread, but it'll never get anywhere.. First off because it's not a topic that we want to discuss on NICO because we try to steer clear of religious conversation, and second, because it's a topic you won't find success in arguing with the world. People are set in their beliefs and judgmental.. It sucks, but it's just a fact of life.

[AZhitman]

None of that response counters my statement. There's no need for widespread panic because of your fear of POTUS's faith impacting you, just like I have no fear if POTUS's LACK of faith impacts me.

There were those who strongly opposed JFK's nomination and candidacy due to his strong RC background. He wasn't the first. He wasn't the last. And yet history reveals that it's never had a direct impact on you or I.

Your "gripe" is duly and respectfully noted. I'm not qualified to answer that question, and I don't think you'd like my answer even if I were. I recommend a collegiate-level religion course or two to explore your befuddlement.

But I will say this, and I'll stop here: Part of your difficulty stems from your fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts of faith and religion - The two are not interchangeable, they are very different... one is internal, one is outward.

As such, my best advice: Tuition's cheap, brotha - Getcha some of that knowledge.

[AppleBonker]

Why is this thread devolving into a religion conversation?

Sorry if you feel that was something I was responsible for. The thread devolved into a lot of things, including a fat vs. black discussion. Frankly, Trump has too much baggage to be considered a viable presidential candidate.

no need for widespread panic

Whoa there, killer. No one was panicking.

Part of your difficulty stems from your fundamental lack of understanding of things that are not tangible.

FTFY. And agreed 100%. Same as how this thread started, I don't get why the Trump is making a big deal out of this. If he cared so much he could easily investigate himself and have the answer he's looking for. Unless my interpretation of everything he is talking about is wrong (though if it were I'd think someone would've corrected it by now).

Getcha some of that knowledge.

The whole tangibility part really gets in the way. I never did well in english/art/etc. You give me something math/science-based and I'll study and crunch numbers until my head explodes.

Get off your "side-note" soapbox about how non-religious people are treated

Interesting advice, but I think you missed the point of my comment.

[AZhitman]

FTFY.

Not fixed. Changed. Don't change the meaning of my statement just because you can't / won't grasp it. You're smart. Challenge yourself.

The whole tangibility part really gets in the way.

How convenient.

Just because you think you don't have the capacity for something doesn't mean you shouldn't try - I think you'd be surprised. Besides, "tangible" isn't the proper word anyway.

I'm not forcing you to enter a nunnery, Sunshine. I'm encouraging you, if you really want to effect change, to learn about something you're presently ill-equipped to discuss (kinda like me and philosophy - yuck).

Taking a class on world religions or something of the sort doesn't mean you have to give up p0rn. Jeez.

[heliochrome85]

i have to say i agree with apple on this one. The reality is that Obama is a shift from previous presidents where he does not wear his religion on his sleeve. I find it amusing and sad that we as a nation care more about a persons religious affiliation than we do about their actual positions on the issues. the same can be said of their race.

[AppleBonker]

Not fixed. Changed. Don't change the meaning of my statement just because you can't / won't grasp it. You're smart. Challenge yourself.

Believe me, I have challenged myself to learn about lots of things that can't be explained with physical data. My levels of frustration are epic (emotional issues are some of the best). You should see it as it would probably give you a good laugh. My brain just doesn't work that way.

Taking a class on world religions or something of the sort doesn't mean you have to give up p0rn. Jeez.

I think having my arms severed, eyes gouged out and ears ripped off might be the only thing to get me over that addiction.

Nah, it's not the attempt that concerns me. It's how I analyze and interpret things. There is always an empirical analysis of things in my head. Some topics just don't work well with that. Things like this I end up trying to figure out why they were created, and what effect that has on people which really is trivial in the minds of most people. You should see how I have discussions with women when I'm in relationships. It's not arguments. It's more like me reciting a physics thesis explaining, sequentially, what has happened and why I reacted a certain way. I'm amazed there are women that can actually stand me...

[Eikon]

Why is this thread devolving into a religion conversation?

Sorry if you feel that was something I was responsible for. The thread devolved into a lot of things, including a fat vs. black discussion. Frankly, Trump has too much baggage to be considered a viable presidential candidate.

You weren't at fault for the initial tangent, that was IB and myself talking about Huckabee. But, your "side-note" threatened to take it way off course and directly into "religion topic" territory, which is why I commented.

[AZhitman]

I find it amusing and sad that we as a nation care more about a persons religious affiliation than we do about their actual positions on the issues.

That NEVER happens where we're from, does it....

[AppleBonker]

I find it amusing and sad that we as a nation care more about a persons religious affiliation than we do about their actual positions on the issues. the same can be said of their race.

Or weight, as Greg pointed out.

That NEVER happens where we're from, does it....

Flaw with the human race as a whole?

[IBCoupe]

Greg, I don't understand how you can claim that there's hypocrisy when liberals tease about Christie's weight but balk at people teasing Obama's race, while also maintaining that you're not saying the two are equivalent.

In order for there to be hypocrisy, they have to be equivalent. Because this isn't really an important point, and not one I want to clash swords on, I'm fine with dropping it and going back to making fun of Donald Trump. It just seemed like an odd inconsistency in your logic.

[AZhitman]

No, they don't need to be equivalent.

And the hypocrisy is the underlying "holier-than-thou" position of being the "party of acceptance" (as long as we're just being accepting of Blacks... not fatties and Jesus freaks and who-knows-what-else).

The position, the stance, is hypocritical.

Agreed, tho - not as important as The Donald.

[Eikon]

Sounds like the Don is going to announce his Pres candidacy on the next episode of Apprentice
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket ... apprentice

I'm starting to wonder if he might actually have a chance. First off, we all know you can practically buy your way into the office, and Trump's got plenty of money to do that job. Second, I think with all the budget problems our country is having, that issue will be the hot button and his successful business background might just make him a popular choice.

Either way, I think having him in the running will make things fun to watch. I can't wait to see him in a debate... . If you think he was awesome going off on Rosie.. wait til a heated debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32577Hom08

[stebo0728]

Well he may as well start his campaign, Obama started his yesterday with that egregious speech.

[IBCoupe]

Lolwut was so egregious about it?

[AppleBonker]

Lolwut was so egregious about it?

I'm gonna go with wanting to raise taxes?

Either way, I think having him in the running will make things fun to watch. I can't wait to see him in a debate...

This. He entertains me. I think he would make a terrible president, but I am sincerely hoping he runs so I can at least be provided with lulz for a while.

[bigbadberry3]

Didn't he run a casino into the ground?