Atheist Penn Jillette on the 2012 President Candidates

Which is basically irrelevant.

I don’t vote based on people’s religion, I vote on how I think they will act once in office.

Strictly speaking, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Barack Obama are identical — all three will say whatever they think people want to hear, and then go and enact whatever horrifying Orwellian militaristic corporatist policy is desired by the very large corporations to whom they really answer.

Did you see the latest? Congress is working on a bill which will make it lawful for American citizens on U.S. soil to be detained, without benefit of legal counsel, at the whim of the president, using the military rather than civil courts. Obama’s representatives have hinted that he may veto this — but not because it is a direct contradiction to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth amendments, but because making such things lawful would potentially expose the executive branch to regulation when they do these things, and they’re happier just doing them without any sort of oversight (as in fact they are already doing).

If Obama is our best choice at this point, then “the lesser of two evils” has now sunk to such a low point that nobody can possibly accept it in good conscience. I have always and consistently argued that Libertarians are idiots, but I’m actually thinking that I will vote for Ron Paul — by write-in if necessary, even if it gets my vote for president discounted — just because Obama has pretty consistently kicked anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh in the teeth and embraced policies which even Bush didn’t attempt.

Everything Jilette says is brilliant and thoughtful.

“Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil.” – Penn Jillette

That seems ridiculous on the face of it. If you want things to get more evil, vote for the *greater* of two evils. Penn seems to be positing a dilemma, in the literal sense, where there is no third choice.

Well this is the quote of the day.

“Mitt Romney…uh…is wearing….crazy underwear. He’s wearing magic underwear. He is! I mean…under his pants he is wearing magic underwear. Magic. Underwear.”

“I don’t vote based on people’s religion, I vote on how I think they will act once in office.”

Well there’s a problem. Most of the Republican candidates have indicated that, if elected, they will lead us toward theocracy; so their religion and their political behaviour are difficult to distinguish. Even Ron Paul has revealed his theocratic side.
Ron Paul’s Speech at the Value Voters Summit

Hope you know that Ron Paul is a creationist. ‘Nuff said?

The candidates’ religion is very important if it’s part of 
their platform, “family values” and all that.

I do.

For many reasons.

Essentially, based on almost 116 studies I have read (actual studies, not magazine articles or rehashings) the overwhelming consensus is that we as humans have crossed the rubicon vis-a-vis sustaining an environment we will be able to live in.

As such, any effort now is nothing more than masturbatory feel-good bullshit.

Yes, there are some climate scientists who say that it is too late to stop some of the warming, but the consensus is not “do nothing”. We can still greatly influence the climate of the future in either direction depending on what we do. Same goes for other types of environmental choices.

Even my friend, when he was running for Board of Supervisors, started talking in politician speech to me (giving me the answer in a way he thought I would like it rather than a balanced pros and cons answer). The truth is that all politicians do this because Americans like when they do it. We love to have politicians tell us what we want to hear. Obama is the same as every other president in that respect.

What matters is not what a politician says, but what they do. Obama has worked to pass every progressive bill that could be passed. Anyone who thought he could just force everything to go the Progressives way doesn’t understand how the US government works. The Tea Party (despite what I had hoped) was not stupid enough to run third party candidates in 2010 or to stay home to protest the Republicans not being conservative enough. If there are  Progressives voters who vote for third party candidates or stay home on election day, that would just prove those voters dumber than the Tea Party, which is saddening. 

He will also do everything within his power to eliminate FEMA, the FDA, public education, OSHA, and many, many other federal programs, all under the crazy idea that they aren’t needed. He’s a nut-job, just as much as the other GOP candidates. Sorry, he’ll never get my vote.

Why do you think Libertarians are idiots? Why am I an idiot for wanting a country that has a small, constitutional government.  A country where I can be free to live my life the way I want to, and not be required to abide by irrational, unconstitutional laws created based on the flawed “moral values” of someone else.  Is it wrong that I want to live in a country that still values the intentions of its founding fathers?

Am I an idiot because I don’t think a politician should be allowed to make laws that force me to abide by their moral code?  Am I an idiot because I don’t believe the government should be allowed to tell me how I can spend all of my money?  Am I an idiot for not wanting my tax dollars to go towards supporting and enforcing these unconstitutional policies?

If the founding fathers were alive today, I would wager most of them would consider themselves Libertarian.

I seriously would like to know why you think Libertarians are idiots, because I don’t think you know what we’re all about.

Voting for someone just because they’re atheists is not a particularly rational thing to do. It rests on the error that atheists (even if just high-profile, well-educated, politically connected ones) de facto are better qualified for public office.

I point out that our contemporary politicians (and their constituents) have simply supplemented or supplanted their belief in a supernatural god with faith in a natural god (e.g., the polar ice caps; “sustainability,” environmentalism) or in the collective god (e.g., the “Greater Good,” social justice, the wisdom of the majority).

Suggesting that the current administration, the very statists that is bent on shoving environmentalism down our throats, that perpetuates an unsustainable and immoral entitlement State, and that seeks to back the needy’s moral claim on the rich with force, is “still” our best choice is an insult to reason, and is prime example of how non-belief does not make us automatically better. A free and active mind by necessity demands a rational and cohesive philosophy based on reason.

I agree, from the economic perspective.

(and nice point to add!)

Why can’t someone use google? Do you think that everyone has scientific papers for every topic saved on their computer just in case they might have a particular conversation?

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1857/2053.short

Here is one paper that talks about the strengths and limitations of climate predictions and the fact that different scenarios are possible in the future depending on our actions.

Ah, but what is “within his power” if he gets elected? Paul would be limited by the same forces anyone else would experience.

Stopping the military would be one thing, because the military is no longer terribly popular and we’d get a lot of money back while no longer being hated worldwide. Stop the military and there would be an attempt at impeachment, but there is no guarantee it would work.

Stopping, say, food inspections is another thing entirely. People are not fond of e. coli outbreaks. Shutting down the FDA would pretty much gaurantee a successful impeachment.

That isn’t what the quotation said. It didn’t say “if you want things to get more evil, keep voting for the lesser of two evils.” It said “keep voting for the lesser of two evils, and things will just keep getting more evil.” That is, regardless of your intentions, voting for the lesser of two evils will still make things more evil.

Ed-words: Hope you know that Ron Paul is a creationist. ‘Nuff said?

foolie: No, it isn’t enough to say.  Would you stand for the same thing being said about an atheist?

There are not a lot of atheist Creationists, for some reason.

I disagree that his observation is astute that Obama is either a liar or a christian. You mean, he might be a christian??? OH NO!!! Seriously? That’s such a horrible option? Is it possible that we can talk about christians without imagining them to be bogeymen? And can we just be happy that he was raised by atheists, and that he seems to acknowledge our existence on a regular basis? It just blows my mind how comfortable atheists have become with their prejudice against the mainstream.

Further, overall. Bush’s failures made it less and less likely that the rest of us will stand for his brand — i.e. Evangelical — of Christianity taking over the country, and his supporters will keep the nasty Catholics at bay (to say nothing of the Mormons) even if we don’t.

The insidious thing is the way Obama has pretty much done the same stuff — right wing homophobe preacher at the inauguration, continuing the “faith-based initiatives” funding, etc. — but nobody ever calls him on it, and in fact the Democrats have collectively gone from defending against it to championing it.

Obama is progressive  – – -( compared to the debate clowns)

(That’s snarky. I do it,too.)

A lot of non wealthy people have to pay capital gains taxes.

If Obama is a Christian, it’s because he has  tried so hard to integrate into a community he actually convinced himself of his expressed faith.

If you read Dreams from My Father, the book he wrote BEFORE he had a career in politics, you can see why he “converted”. He was brought up nonreligious. During his time as a community organizer in Chicago he collaborated closely with many historically black churches. In the book he writes that though he felt he was making headway, he knew that as long as he was external to the community, he could never be as effective as he wanted to be. He doesn’t come out and say it explicitly, but its fairly clear that he became a Christian as a strategy to fully integrate into the community. This not only made him more effective as a community organizer, but it also gives him something he expresses he was desperately looking for his entire life (a place to belong).Now, humans are remarkably good at self-delusion, and being very intelligent does not make you immune from this, so it’s possible Obama has managed over time to convince himself that he truly does believe. Though I would honestly like to count him as one of us, for me its enough that his religious faith, real or feigned, does not appear to affect his decision making in any way. That’s enough for me for now.

Jon Huntsman is not an Atheist. But he accepts the science-based conclusions on evolution and climate change. He adapts to the information he has at hand, and has foreign policy experience. And if he were to receive the nomination, he would be a better choice.

You’re either an idiot or you were living under a rock when a lack of government oversight reared its head in the gulf of mexico, in the housing market, or the global economy (including free trade agreements) in general.

I’m a civil libertarian. I admire Jefferson, and many other founders. But the founders of your country are not living in the world you live in today. And if they were alive today many of their sentiments (and actions) would be considered socialist as well as libertarian. 

Benjamin Franklin, for instance, founded the US Postal Service even though there were private postal services in operation. Franklin and Jefferson both founded state-financed universities because education was seen as being very important and the private schools were too expensive for any but the very few. 

Depleted uranium was used in Libya.  This is a WMD.  Obama is indded a christian, because christians come from a tradition of speaking semi nice words and acting like vultures and beasts

He’s continued Bush’s faith-based initiatives with little oversight,
which no one has “standing” to challenge.
He goes to evangie prayer breakfasts, but won’t meet personally
with skeptic groups.
He has opposed,in court, efforts to remove “God”
from the Pledge and from our new Cold War motto.

FFRF(.org) sure doesn’t consider him “one of theirs”,
and they’re in the trenches.

your right.  that is the true danger.  at least when bush did these things half the country was fighting agaisnt it.  Now that Obama is doing the same things.  it is just swept under the rug…  or cheered on by 90% of the country.  and that is much more dangerous.  when neocon policies are put into practive by democratic presidents the world is in trouble becuase there is no one with sufficient power that is willing to stop them.
i have even thought about voting for a republican just to make the democrats return to fighting for the things i believe in (like they used to.)
i would vote for a religous zealot if they promised to respect habeus corpus. 

removing a citizens right to public trial allows the government to dissapear people for reasons they don’t feel like revealing. <– super scary

let me explain why this is so dangerous.  lets imagine that Obama is a saint.  That he will only use his powers to fight big scary bad guys.  and becuase of that you allow him to remove our right to public trials in criminal courts. (that is a pretty major assumption)

now imagine the next president or the one after him, etc (who inherents all these vast executive powers) is a religous zealot who believes that you are either with us or against us.  according to this president, since your an athiest your not one of "us" (it says so in our national motto)  Have you watched Fox news?  they call people terrorists for not believing in jesus all the time (the ground zero mosque) or for exorcising free speech (assange) or for saying happy holidays. (war on christmas) but what about public outrage?  what public outrage, no public trials, nobody knows where you are.

secret police and secret trials (or no trials) are the first step down a very dangerous road.  i would perfer prayer in school and Unitelligent design to be taught to my children then to allow my coutnry to to take that step. (though i would perfer neither)

He’s quite obviously not a secularist, but then I didn’t expect him to be. His record on “our” issues has been mixed, but it’s not too hard to predict how he’ll swing since it’s based firmly on voter opinion. So he opposes removing God from the pledge because this is widely unpopular but removed funding from abstinence only sex “education” programs because this was much more a pet project on the religious right, who wouldn’t vote for him if he grew wings and a halo.

In short, on our issues, he’s very much a politician. Sure I’d love it if he were a convinced secularist, but the things he does in the other direction have never risen to the level of deal-breaker for me. When I consider the possibility of President Romney (who said secularism was a religion that was trying to take over the US) or President Gingrich (who said it shouldn’t matter how you worship God, but you better worship him somehow and warned of a secular atheist government run by Islamists) the choice becomes clear to me.

I’m not exactly happy with Anarchism, either, and for reasons which are similar to those you have enumerated: an Anarchist state would be massively unstable, and eventually turn into something really unpleasant.

But we have now swung so far into authoritarian territory that we need to elect a bunch of anti-authoritarians, disastrous as that would normally be, before the country turns into The Bush-Obama Players Present: The Ultimate Kafka/Orwell Mashup.

A piece of text I once saved, but for whose source I am once again too lazy to look:

“I’ve been a criminal defense lawyer for ten years now and my favorite quote, which serves as an answer to the common question “How can you defend those people?” is that “bureaucracy and justice are like oil and water: if they’re not constantly agitated, they naturally separate.”

What people don’t understand, when they ask how I can defend those people- is that if the people, whom the government is currently targeting, are not upheld during the prosecution, the rights of not only those people but of all of us are lost.

I once lightheartedly dared a banker friend, who wondered how I could defend those people, to test his theory that the police always respected the rights of the innocent and upheld the Constitution, to drive his BMW through a bad part of town with me. I assured him that he wouldn’t be in danger but also predicted that he would be stopped “pretextually,” or for a fabricated reason (in violation of the Fourth Amendment) as the police broke the law in attempting to enforce it.

I told him that this was the norm in the “bad area” of the city, as the people’s lack of political power made the essentially powerless to fight back individually against police’s willingness to go beyond the law in attempting to enforce it.

He didn’t take me up on it, either out of fear or out of awareness that I was right, that the rights he enjoyed as a citizen in the suburbs didn’t extend into the ghetto (which is itself a word with interesting historical connotations)

My life’s work as a criminal defense lawyer in modern America is essentially a fool’s errand and a losing battle. I used to feel as if I was, like the unappreciated keeper of flood control measures in the city, working to keep the Fourth Amendment safe so, when the political waters occasionally rose, the safeguard of the Fourth Amendment, (brilliantly crafted by Framers who understood the risks that unrestrained governmental power inevitably carry) would still be present to prevent a catastrophe.

Now, having witnessed the appetite of the American people for torture and their willingness to be controlled by fear, I feel it’s only a matter of time until we realize, too late, that the rights of people the government brands as “terrorists” are in fact the rights we all enjoy, and unfortunately take for granted.

While many are speaking up and warning against the unintended consequences of abandoning our core principles, embodied in our Constitution, when confronting so-called “terrorists,” I fear it’s only a matter of time before that label is placed on those we now think of as criminals and eventually on those few who are speaking up and warning against this dangerous willingness, so prevalent in America, to allow the government to suspend the principles that restrain it, when confronting Really Bad People.

In short, the fact is that when too few of us speak up in favor of enforcing human and Due Process rights for those the government labels as Really Bad, the definition eventually gets expanded until it includes us.

While I used to think those of us who are fighting against this trend could, (via Hope and Change!) eventually turn it back, the truth is we’re only holding our fingers in the dike and crying out to an audience that doesn’t hear us over the fear mongering of the government.

We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Uh, Ron Paul?