# Skeptics vote as a group.....



## JB0704 (Dec 9, 2012)

Seems as if y'all are causing trouble for everybody. 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...as-winning-coalition-religiously-unaffiliated



> The religiously unaffiliated voters are almost as strongly Democratic as white evangelicals are Republican, polls show.
> 
> Their overwhelming support of Obama proved crucial in a number of swing states where the president lost both the Catholic and Protestant vote by single and low-double digits, but won the "nones" by capturing 70-plus percent of their votes.



Seems there's some block voting going on here, that could bring up some interesting conversation relevant to free thinkers.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

Nobody polled me.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Nobody polled me.





Any theories on why the unaffiliated seem to vote as a group?  I have one, but am kind-of hoping to hear what y'all think.

What is said of Christians in similar scenarios?  Seems we are accused of not thinking for ourselves.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

From the article you provided:

"Young people just now entering adulthood are not only significantly more religiously unaffiliated compared with their elders today," he says, but they are also more religiously unaffiliated than previous generations of young people.

He cautions, however, against conflating the "nones" with nonbelievers.

"Those two things are not the same," Smith says. The "nones' are certainly less religious than those who say they belong to a religious group, but many are also believers.

"The absence of a connection to an organized religion is not the same as the absence of a religious belief or practice," he says.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> "The absence of a connection to an organized religion is not the same as the absence of a religious belief or practice," he says.



Wouldn't that be descriptive of agnostic more than anything else?

A person can not adhere to a particular "religion" but still be Christian.  The way I read it, this is lumping atheists and agnostics together....which is why I used the term "skeptic."


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

When I read the article I pictured my 23yrd old niece. She attends Catholic church on occasion, would tell you she is a Catholic Christian,  is actually very religiously and socially Liberal. She voted for Obama because he "helps the poor".
Her group of friends are all the same way.
I think that was the majority of the votes/voters. Young people that do not really know who they are yet voting for the person that is portrayed in the best light by the media because these young voters do not take 15 minutes to actually research all candidates other than what is bombarded to us all by the major networks.
"Republicans are for Old People" was her comment.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> "Republicans are for Old People" was her comment.



It drives me insane when I hear folks say stuff like that.



bullethead said:


> When I read the article I pictured my 23yrd old niece. She attends Catholic church on occasion, would tell you she is a Catholic Christian,  is actually very religiously and socially Liberal.



But, she would be affiliated as a Christian. There are plenty of socially liberal Christians out there (I am kind-of liberal socially, except for abortion).  The black church is quite liberal fiscally. But, all branches are affiliated.

What % of the population is truly agnostic or athesist?  This might be a better approach.....

I have said it before on this forum, but the skeptics on here are, as a whole, much more conservative than the skeptics I know personally.




bullethead said:


> I think that was the majority of the votes/voters. Young people that do not really know who they are yet voting for the person that is portrayed in the best light by the media because these young voters do not take 15 minutes to actually research all candidates other than what is bombarded to us all by the major networks.



Agreed.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It drives me insane when I hear folks say stuff like that.



Agreed



JB0704 said:


> But, she would be affiliated as a Christian. There are plenty of socially liberal Christians out there (I am kind-of liberal socially, except for abortion).  The black church is quite liberal fiscally. But, all branches are affiliated.
> 
> What % of the population is truly agnostic or athesist?  This might be a better approach.....
> 
> I have said it before on this forum, but the skeptics on here are, as a whole, much more conservative than the skeptics I know personally.



The article never said just how many people they asked or never gave any precise numbers about anything. Polls are very skewed as a very small minority polled is used to cover the majority.
I was never called nor was I asked when I entered or left the voting hall. Yet I am included.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

Bullethead said:
			
		

> Polls are very skewed as a very small minority polled is used to cover the majority.



I have never been polled for anything in my life.  But, most polls get within a few points one way or the other.  A lot of us convinced ourselves that most major polls were incorrect leading into the election, and instead chose to hang onto Rasmussen for "hope," and, it turns out, the polls were very close to correct.

I'm gonna look for something a little more reliable than this article.  I believe I have read similar statements elsewhere.....just gotta spend some time on google.....


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 10, 2012)

What do a bible thumping, republican-voting, ultra-conservative christian, and a bleeding heart, environut, so far left leaning they walk on their side voting democrat athiest have in common?


----------



## pnome (Dec 10, 2012)

The problem isn't with the skeptics.  It's with the Republican party.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I have never been polled for anything in my life.  But, most polls get within a few points one way or the other.  A lot of us convinced ourselves that most major polls were incorrect leading into the election, and instead chose to hang onto Rasmussen for "hope," and, it turns out, the polls were very close to correct.
> 
> I'm gonna look for something a little more reliable than this article.  I believe I have read similar statements elsewhere.....just gotta spend some time on google.....



I gotta hand it to you, you will at least take the time to research something and then provide your results no matter if they back your views or not. I wish others would take that time instead of post from the heart and mind on what they want or think is true and refuse to let facts get in the way.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> What do a bible thumping, republican-voting, ultra-conservative christian, and a bleeding heart, environut, so far left leaning they walk on their side voting democrat athiest have in common?



What? 



BTW, welcome back.

Want to argue about morality?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

pnome said:


> It's with the Republican party.



I agree.

I wrote somebody in this time.

But.....if the article is correct, and skeptics went 70% for Obama....then they are part of the problem as well.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What?



They both will readily use the state to advance their agenda. They both are statist and responsible for the destruction of the great experiment in self-governance.  



> BTW, welcome back.


Thanks been floatin around, just not in the mood to post.



> Want to argue about morality?:rofl


Sure lets begin with the morals listed in the bible and their absolute nature.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> They both will readily use the state to advance their agenda. They both are statist and responsible for the destruction of the great experiment in self-governance.


Ah, I'm an ultra-conservative Christian and I voted for Ron Paul. So, I can't totally agree with you there.  



> Sure lets begin with the morals listed in the bible and their absolute nature.



I don't want to get JB's thread off track. We can wait till around post 150 or so, I'm sure the thread will be on morals by then, right after some origin talk.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ah, I'm an ultra-conservative Christian and I voted for Ron Paul. So, I can't totally agree with you there.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to get JB's thread off track. We can wait till around post 150 or so, I'm sure the thread will be on morals by then, right after some origin talk.



I have read your posts in the pf.  You are decidingly not ultra conservative, or else you would not like Ron Paul.  You might be a fiscal conservative, but were do you stand on the drug war, war, blue laws, the 10th amendment, gay marriage, Ect.... 

I am fiscally conservative, but more properly labeled an anarcho-capitalistic liberatarian.  I believe as Thomas Paine, said "There is very little government can do for society, that society cannot do for itself."


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I agree.
> 
> I wrote somebody in this time.
> 
> But.....if the article is correct, and skeptics went 70% for Obama....then they are part of the problem as well.



The article could very well be correct with the 70% figure. What it does not tell is the number of people polled. Was it 7/10, 70/100, 700/1000, etc?????


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't want to get JB's thread off track.



No worries, man.  It wasn't gettin' much traction anyway.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I have read your posts in the pf.  You are decidingly not ultra conservative, or else you would not like Ron Paul.


I consider Paul to be ultra conservative, obviously you do not define his political ideolgy the same as me. Definitions really don't matter to me anyway, the end game is more important.



> You might be a fiscal conservative, but were do you stand on the drug war, war, blue laws, the 10th amendment, gay marriage, Ect....


I think _all_ drugs should be legal, from mary jane all the way up to the hard stuff. I think war should be declared by congressional approval. I think blue laws shouldn't be pushed on people that do not want to abide by them. I'm not sure what you are asking on the 10th amendment, but I agree the majority of the power should first be in the hands of the people, then the state, then the federal government. I don't care if gay people want to get married, and I don't care if they want to be gay, but I do not think it is natural nor do I agree with it.



> I am fiscally conservative, but more properly labeled an anarcho-capitalistic liberatarian.  I believe as Thomas Paine, said "There is very little government can do for society, that society cannot do for itself."





I very much agree with Thomas Paine.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No worries, man.  It wasn't gettin' much traction anyway.



"They" don't want to admit to what happened Nov 6th..


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> "They" don't want to admit to what happened Nov 6th..





It seems just a handful of votes, in a handful of states, swung this thing a certain direction.

If the article is correct (have yet to verify with other sources) 70% of 20% total votes, would have been all Mr. Obama needed.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't care if gay people want to get married, and I don't care if they want to be gay, but I do not think it is natural nor do I agree with it.



I thought you were one of the folks who rushed Chik-fil-A???? Maybe I was mistaken.  Didn't know there were mroe of "us" who thought the gov't should stay out of the marriage business.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I thought you were one of the folks who rushed Chik-fil-A???? Maybe I was mistaken.  Didn't know there were mroe of "us" who thought the gov't should stay out of the marriage business.



LOL, na man, I wasn't standing in those long lines, that chicken sammich ain't that good. I think my mom bought us some lunch on that Wednesday when everybody went, but I didn't really care if I ate it on that particular day or not.

I support CFA in their stance(and agree with it), and their right to say what they think marriage should be, and I support people to eat, or not eat there because of that stance. CFA knows the implications of making such statements. 

And yes, I agree with you that .gov should stay out of almost _everything_, protect me from foreign invaders and enforce laws that protect me from others infringing on my personal rights and liberty, thats about it.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I think _all_ drugs should be legal, from mary jane all the way up to the hard stuff. I think war should be declared by congressional approval. I think blue laws shouldn't be pushed on people that do not want to abide by them. I'm not sure what you are asking on the 10th amendment, but I agree the majority of the power should first be in the hands of the people, then the state, then the federal government. I don't care if gay people want to get married, and I don't care if they want to be gay, but I do not think it is natural nor do I agree with it.



All this disqualifies you from being an Ultra-Con. You should should refrain from using such term to describe yourself and stick to the liberatarian label its definetly more suiting.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> All this disqualifies you from being an Ultra-Con. You should should refrain from using such term to describe yourself and stick to the liberatarian label its definetly more suiting.



ah, like I said earlier, the end game and the ideology is more important to me than definitions.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> ah, like I said earlier, the end game and the ideology is more important to me than definitions.



True. But if you tell someone you a ulra conservative, they believe you are something your not.  Atleast when you tell them your a liberatarian they just think your messed up in the head.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Atleast when you tell them your a liberatarian they just think your messed up in the head.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> But if you tell someone you a ulra conservative, they believe you are something your not.


According to how that particular person defines ultra-conservative.

Unlike some morals, conservative is a relative term.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> According to how that particular person defines ultra-conservative.
> 
> Unlike some morals, conservative is a relative term.



Don't you mean that the term conservative AND morals are both relative to your time and place?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> But if you tell someone you a ulra conservative, they believe you are something your not.



Labels, man.  I tend to believe libertarianism is what conservatism claims to be in many ways.


----------



## Four (Dec 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It drives me insane when I hear folks say stuff like that.



But its true... The Republican party is defined by its old white male base..

The nonbelievers end up voting Democrat because christianity is completely embedded into the Republican party, so anyone that has secularist humanitarian beliefs will naturally gravitate away from the repubs.

That being said i'm ultra libertarian and I never vote for either party because they're both freaking evil.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

Four said:


> But its true... The Republican party is defined by its old white male base..



Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio, and many others might take issue with such a definition.  That is a label put there to aid in a narrative which is intended to paint the GOP in a negative light.



Four said:


> The nonbelievers end up voting Democrat because christianity is completely embedded into the Republican party, so anyone that has secularist humanitarian beliefs will naturally gravitate away from the repubs.



So, they place more emphasis on social issues than fiscal ones?



Four said:


> they're both freaking evil.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Don't you mean that the term conservative AND morals are both relative to your time and place?



No.


----------



## Four (Dec 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio, and many others might take issue with such a definition.  That is a label put there to aid in a narrative which is intended to paint the GOP in a negative light.



I said it's defined by its old white male base.. which it is. Naturally not all republicans are old white men. 

It is a label, I don't necessarily see old white men as bad.... 

This is the party that brings you people that think women can prevent pregnancies caused by rape, and that gay people cause hurricanes.



JB0704 said:


> So, they place more emphasis on social issues than fiscal ones?



Both parties have nearly the identical fiscal & war policies, so the small social difference is nearly the only separation there is.

Borrow, spend, kill people...


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> And yes, I agree with you that .gov should stay out of almost _everything_, protect me from foreign invaders and enforce laws that protect me from others infringing on my personal rights and liberty, thats about it.





This reminds me of some good debates I used to have with huntinfool and RJcruiser.  Haven't seen either of them posting up here for a while.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 10, 2012)

Four said:


> and that gay people cause hurricanes.



They do.  Pat Robertson said it, I believe it, that settles it.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 10, 2012)

Four said:


> Borrow, spend, kill people...



Add tax and you would have the only things government is actually good at.


----------



## Four (Dec 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Add tax and you would have the only things government is actually good at.



ahh yes, stealing, spending, killing.. because the borrowing is really just a form of theft


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 10, 2012)

Four said:


> ahh yes, stealing, spending, killing.. because the borrowing is really just a form of theft



The Tax is a form of theft, the borrowing is just stupidity.  It not being able to manage what you have already stolen.


----------

