Americans still believe that Obama is a Muslim

[Vic]

Originally posted by: magomago
Doesn't mean he is Muslim, but I'm finding it hard to see the validity this whole "death to the apostate" argument Of course I'm sure they'll come back with a cherry picked quote of the Quran that has a dubious translation out of text to say "SEEEE they must kill him if they are true Muslims!"

That's because they can't. While the Quran condemns apostasy, unlike the Bible it outlines no punishment for it.

Still, the kool-aid is strong in these email forwarding types. First, Obama is the Muslim Manchurian Candidate. Then, he's not a Muslim, but an apostate because of his atheist father, and we must not upset the Muslims by electing him. And so forth, I could give a dozen similar examples. The silliness knows no bounds...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So 12%-39% of American voters are woefully ignorant and completely uninformed? Color me surprised.

Take into account some of that may be distrust of politicians. Once that perception of him being educated in a madrassa and having a Muslim father got started, I bet a lot are sceptical of stories to the contrary.

He's an unknown guy, associations with Wright/Farakan and that sort of stuff don't help. Bottom line, a lot of people are distrustful and sceptical of politicians these days.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So 12%-39% of American voters are woefully ignorant and completely uninformed? Color me surprised.

Take into account some of that may be distrust of politicians. Once that perception of him being educated in a madrassa and having a Muslim father got started, I bet a lot are sceptical of stories to the contrary.

He's an unknown guy, associations with Wright/Farakan and that sort of stuff don't help. Bottom line, a lot of people are distrustful and sceptical of politicians these days.

Fern

So why then do they believe every single email forward that comes their way? That doesn't sound very skeptical to me.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So 12%-39% of American voters are woefully ignorant and completely uninformed? Color me surprised.

Take into account some of that may be distrust of politicians. Once that perception of him being educated in a madrassa and having a Muslim father got started, I bet a lot are sceptical of stories to the contrary.

He's an unknown guy, associations with Wright/Farakan and that sort of stuff don't help. Bottom line, a lot of people are distrustful and sceptical of politicians these days.

Fern

So why then do they believe every single email forward that comes their way? That doesn't sound very skeptical to me.

First, people are more likely to believe the bad, or at least be cautious about it.

Second. It's far more than an email. The madrassa and his father being a Muslim etc got out for a while being being debunked. And the Wright stuff is no help.

Nor does it help that the emails keep coming, keep reinforcing that stuff.

We all know how it works, keep repeating the same thing over and over enough and for many it becomes real.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So 12%-39% of American voters are woefully ignorant and completely uninformed? Color me surprised.

Take into account some of that may be distrust of politicians. Once that perception of him being educated in a madrassa and having a Muslim father got started, I bet a lot are sceptical of stories to the contrary.

He's an unknown guy, associations with Wright/Farakan and that sort of stuff don't help. Bottom line, a lot of people are distrustful and sceptical of politicians these days.

Fern

I suppose that skepticism got started because some people repeat the idea over and over and over that all politicians are scum. What always amuses me about this is that the idea almost always comes from OTHER politicians, usually ones who are trying to sell you on their point of view. Conservative commentators in particular love this technique when their guys are out of power, but every time I hear Bill O'Reilly telling me not to trust politicians, I find myself wondering if he thinks he's an aerospace engineer or something.

 

[AnnonUSA]

So now Obama is the Anti-Christ? LMFAO.

Please, this is America and as conspiracy theorists will tell you, if the Military Machine and the Country overlords think for one minute Obama is not serving their interests correctly, they will have a Dallas Motorcade with his name on it......

 

[lupi]

It's probably cause of that prayer rug he keeps.

 

[1prophet]

If people were educated and brought up to think for themselves how could we possibly sell them houses they couldn't afford, credit cards that enslave them, things they don't need but want because their neighbor Mr. Jones has one, tell them cigarettes are no good for them but use actors to make them look cool and have them fall for it, and then we tell them these failings are due to their poor choices.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If there is a problem with democracy, this is it right here.

Concur, it's a real problem and it's why democracy clearly needs to be improved compared to how it's being exercised. I really believe there should be some basic competency test to demonstrate an elementary knowledge of the issues and candidates.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If there is a problem with democracy, this is it right here. Not that some people don't like Obama, or even the particular view these people hold. It's that the vote of someone who bases their decisions on completely wrong information and willful ignorance is counted EXACTLY equal to the vote of someone who is informed and intelligent in their judgement. This isn't a left vs right thing, I think smart, informed people who disagree is the very foundation of democracy. The problem is the people who make no attempt to be either, and still manage to stumble their way to the voting booth on election day.

Anyone ever wonder what kind of changes we'd see in our system if we instituted the most basic of political quizzes before allowing people to vote? Nothing too strenuous, but I don't think you're doing any favors hitting up the voting booth if the average 8th grade civics student knows politics better than you do.

One of the most basic foundations and tenets of our society is the famous principle that "all men are created equal." It seems as if some of you are forgetting that. This seems like a pretty slippery slope. First you start by not letting people vote who fail your little test. But wait a minute , my IQ is 165. I am smarter than you. Maybe I don't think you should vote..........:roll:

What makes you think having an IQ of 165 makes you smarter than me?

I did not make the "quiz" suggestion seriously, I was trying to illustrate what I think is an important question about democracy. I agree that the principle that "all men are created equal" is a good one, but how does that work in a world where that is obviously not always the case? I don't think any system other than each person getting a vote would work, but not all politics is subjective, and on objective issues, it's unrealistic to value every individual equally. You don't get a second opinion after a doctor's visit by asking the checkout girl at Macy's about your injured knee, do you?

Of course there is a problem with the other option as well. If not everyone gets an equal vote, who decides who DOES get a vote? If we're all potentially a bunch of idiots, how can we select the best among us to hand out the political power...and if we have the means to do THAT, why not just elect them as our leaders?

There doesn't seem like an obvious answer, but I think ANY debate of the issue should start with admitting that not everyone makes equally valuable decisions at the voting booth. I admit that reasonable people can differ, but if Gomer McRacist votes for McCain because he thinks Obama is a Muslim, how is that good for democracy?

You bring up some interesting points. There is a certain section of the population is simply to lazy/stupid/ignorant etc to make any kind of informed decision, but if that section is roughly evenly divided between candidates it should not have a significant impact on the outcome. For every "Gomer McRacist" (I like that term ) that votes for McCain because Obama is a muslim, there's some racist black person who votes for Obama simply because he's black and McCain is white.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Last time I questioned the intelligence of voters, I was deemed an "elitist." *shrug*

When Ron Paul gets 5% in the polls, voters are intelligent. When they think Obama is a Muslim, they're retarded.

Questioning the intelligence of voters simply based on which candidate they selected is elitist, it assumes that the candidate you support is the "correct" one and everyone who votes for someone else is somehow stupid. Questioning the intelligence of voters who vote for / against a candidate for a certain reason, especially a factually incorrect one, is not elitist. Those voting against Obama because "he's a muslim" are simply ignorant, while those voting against Obama because (for example) he's inexperienced are not (necessarily).

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: bamacre
Last time I questioned the intelligence of voters, I was deemed an "elitist." *shrug*

When Ron Paul gets 5% in the polls, voters are intelligent. When they think Obama is a Muslim, they're retarded.

Questioning the intelligence of voters simply based on which candidate they selected is elitist,

Ahhh, but that's not what I did.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I admit that reasonable people can differ, but if Gomer McRacist votes for McCain because he thinks Obama is a Muslim, how is that good for democracy?

If Gomer votes for McCain because he looks more like his father or his mental image of a POTUS, then he's well within his rights to vote as such, and I don't think that there is any sound basis in terms of general process which can be used to deny him that right. We can attempt to inform and educate him otherwise, to reasonably convey our own particular likes and dislikes and to tell him where just looking like his father, etc., is not really a reliable indicator for his own best interests, but if you don't attribute to him the right to choose as he will, according to his own criteria, then you're not really letting him exercise his full right of choice. In this, we have no choice -- we either grant him the full right to vote or we don't, and the slippery slope is in the latter, not in the former.

Where I think democracy and Gomer go wrong is where they claim that their reason for voting McCain is that Obama is a Muslim. The previous reason for voting anti-Obama has the great distinction of being honest. Racism has to come out into the open, for us to see the odious notions for what they are, not to be driven underground and further hidden in a climate where racism is deemed politically incorrect and simply imagined to be absent, but is still widely prevalent.

Those who hold that Obama is a Muslim are liars and propagators of lies, and have the audacity to claim that their position is the truth; that Obama is the liar. So the question to granny is not why she's a racist, but why is she listening to those who are lying to her, going along with those misleading her for their personal gain? Or if granny is a liar here, shouldn't she try to be more honest about her perspective?

If there's a real challenge to democracy, it's from the liars and manipulators who make it into a sham by manipulating elections by deception. Countries like Kenya, Zimbabwe, and even Russia are as they are at least in part because their form of democracy is a sham -- not because the ordinary man or woman gets to vote, but because their vote doesn't mean anything.

 

[gevorg]

Even if Obama was a Muslim, admitting it would be a failure to his presidential campaign (unfortunately).