Maybe if the prognosticators had paid attention to this . .

Sis · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm **Posts:** 8837

Anna1111 wrote:

Perhaps they would have had a better idea of what is going on!

Here's a slideshow on the most religious & least religious states
http://www.wlwt.com/article/most-religi ... es/8253652

I wrote them down and marked which ones went to whom.

Of the 25 "least religious" states & DC, 17 went to Clinton.

Of the 25 "most religious" states, 4 went to Clinton

The 3 "too close to call" states are all in the "less religious" half - which means it's not a perfect dichotomy - but it approaches one.

Coincidence?

(I realize the polling for "how religious" is based on a flawed method, which is self-reporting, but it still seems to paint quite the picture!)

I think there are other ways to view the way things fall that are not taken into consideration. I don't think you could ever get a truly accurate view of "who" votes how because i'm sure there were "uneducated white males" that voted for Hillary, and i know there were blacks and WOMEN that voted for Trump. Then there were those that voted for a third party and are they uneducated deplorables?

How did the medical profession vote, in general? Or the military? How did the teachers vote? How did the small business owners vote?

Did they vote that way because of their job or their color or their gender or their religion?

Hmmm. :ugeek:

Anna1111 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm **Posts:** 8115

The way I see it is this.

One person is female, educated, middle class, white, a doctor.

Another is male, "uneducated" (which, I think in modern media terms means high school graduate?), lower class, a truck driver and Hispanic.

BUT - they both vote the same way. WHY? because those factors don't have much to do with the "why's" in our lives. Our RELIGION DOES influence the why's in our lives - and the media pretty much ignores it as a predictor or a factor.

Sis · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm **Posts:** 8837

Anna1111 wrote:

The way I see it is this.

One person is female, educated, middle class, white, a doctor.

Another is male, "uneducated" (which, I think in modern media terms means high school graduate?), lower class, a truck driver and Hispanic.

BUT - they both vote the same way. WHY? because those factors don't have much to do with the "why's" in our lives. Our RELIGION DOES influence the why's in our lives - and the media pretty much ignores it as a predictor or a factor.

Well, that might be true of you and i and those in our inner circles but i doubt that is true for most of that 81%. I think how the policies affect them in their daily lives is what most people go by and that would have a lot to do with the arena they work in.

??

Anna1111 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm **Posts:** 8115

You may be right. And, if a person is nominally religious, but not practicing, then you probably ARE right!

I'm cynical enuf to think that those who endorse an immoral candidate do so because they like that candidate endorsing their sin. And that, too, goes back to religion.

Sis · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm **Posts:** 8837

Anna1111 wrote:

You may be right. And, if a person is nominally religious, but not practicing, then you probably ARE right!

I'm cynical enuf to think that those who endorse an immoral candidate do so because they like that candidate endorsing their sin. And that, too, goes back to religion.

Well, yes. Some of it is certainly about endorsing their sin.

I talked with my dgd (19yo) yesterday and she had watched all the debates and read up on many issues. She didn't like Hillary or Trump but felt Trump was such a big buffoon that he would start wars around the world with his lack of discretion in speaking. (That may well be true!) She was going to vote for HILLARY mostly for that reason!

She didn't get to vote because she hadn't lived in WA state long enuf and by that time it was too late to do absentee in VA. I'm still proud of her for getting knowledgeable about all of it and she was rather passionate about parts.

I agree Trump can be embarrassing but he has surrounded himself with good people. (As far as i know.)

I told her that and she said NOT PENCE! Now, *I* know nothing of Pence except that he is an outspoken Christian. Of what variety, i don't know. She said he is for "torturing" gays by doing the therapy to convince them they are not gay, or maybe that's transgendering? I'm afraid she's way up on the study of the faults of the Republicans and i don't have the knowledge to refute her. (I'm thinking about Thanksgiving which we are doing on the 20th.)

Ugh.

Anna1111 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm **Posts:** 8115

How is it torture to encourage someone to stop a life of sin and turn to righteous living?

Having worked in a psychiatrist's office (briefly) that offered help to those in that situation, I can say that the folks who came for treatment came willingly and enthusiastically because their life of sin was making them miserable.

Sis · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm **Posts:** 8837

Anna1111 wrote:

How is it torture to encourage someone to stop a life of sin and turn to righteous living?

Having worked in a psychiatrist's office (briefly) that offered help to those in that situation, I can say that the folks who came for treatment came willingly and enthusiastically because their life of sin was making them miserable.

It's either "torture" to those not ready to change or to those that don't believe it's a lifestyle that needs to be changed - it's who/how they are. I think dgd falls into the "that's who/how they are" camp? Why not just love them for who they are?

Anna1111 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm **Posts:** 8115

Does it matter what a 3rd party thinks about medical treatment that a person chooses to undergo?

Isn't it rather the opposite of the freedom of choice that the left so CLAIMS to love?

They say that even if you choose for yourself a certain medical treatment, and you feel it is helping you, that a 3rd party who has no interest (and has never even met you) will step in and say, "That's bad for you, I insist you stop! In fact, I will make it against the law, even tho I cannot demonstrate that it does any harm to anyone!"

It seems totalitarian to me.

Ironically, the folks who promote this are nearly always the same ones who say Abortion (which kills 1/2 of its patients) and Euthanasia (which kills all of its patients) should be "between a patient and her doctor" while this treatment which kills no one and many appreciate having access to, is made illegal.

Strange, huh?

Sis · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm **Posts:** 8837

One of the things i like about Pence is how many times i've heard him say "that should be decided at state level, not federal". I don't know the ins and outs but i am all for smaller government intervention.

Anna1111 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm **Posts:** 8115

That's a standard Republican & or Independent line. It's the 10th amendment to the Constitution.

Forum rules

Maybe if the prognosticators had paid attention to this . .

Who is online