Who do you think will win the GOP nomination?

[GasBandit]

See, I'm not saying "America is to blame" here. I just happen to believe that our governments foreign policy/wars/involvement with other countries, etc, has had an impact on the world that has good and bad results. I think many Americans dislike the idea that our actions have caused "blowback" and would rather pretend the reason people attack us is because we like short-shorts and baptists and freedom fries. While I can agree there are factions that ideologically oppose us it's hardly the only reason.

I guess you could say the ones that dislike us for complicated foreign policy reasons abuse and exploit the ones who dislike us for simple reasons, but at the end of the day they still both express their disdain in the same manner and it ends up with the same results. Without the simpleminded Jihadi to be the footsoldier, the puppetmaster with the "bigger picture" doesn't get his way.

And really, let's not kid ourselves - it's the "civil war wasn't about slavery" argument all over again. It's really about what it's obviously really about. This whole argument is really about israel. Everything else stems from that or is just pseudointellectual window dressing.

Of course, it doesn't help matters, that there is, pretty much, a completely insurmountable cultural divide between the middle east and the west. Just look at the so-called "Arab Spring" that ousted old dictators and ushered in new, democratically representative theocrats.

 

[Krisken]

I think most interesting is that nobody has said Rick Santorum. As of this time he and Mitt Romney are in a dead heat for the lead in Iowa, with 99.5% reporting they are separated by 4 votes. This leaves me to wonder who will drop (looks like Rick Perry is considering it) and will their supporters grudgingly shift toward Mitt or will they choose one of the other candidates who are doing fairly well in Iowa.

 

[AshburnerX]

... And it looks like Mitt Romney, by 8 votes. Let's be honest: The only reason Santorum got that many votes is because he was neither Mitt or Ron Paul.

Also, Ron Paul did REALLY well this primary.

 

[Krisken]

... And it looks like Mitt Romney, by 8 votes. Let's be honest: The only reason Santorum got that many votes is because he was neither Mitt or Ron Paul.

Also, Ron Paul did REALLY well this primary.

Santorum has also been campaigning really heavily in Iowa for over a month.

 

[@Li3n]

I'll just leave this here: http://spreadingsantorum.com/

 

[sixpackshaker]

I'll just leave this here: http://spreadingsantorum.com/

Does that need a NSFW tag? I'm not clicking it...

 

[GasBandit]

As I've said before, I'm still mystified at the significance placed on the Iowa Caucus. It's been an accurate indicator of the eventual nominee less than half the time. Hell, last time Huckabee won it.

 

[Covar]

But it's first, and since when has the media or politicians been concerned with accuracy?

 

[AshburnerX]

American Media has been ruined by the 24 hour news cycle. This shouldn't be news to anyone. It's especially bad because you could at least fill the 24-hour news cycle with news if Americans cared at all about international news, but since most don't, we instead fill it with hours and hours of commentary, full of pointless speculation.

But then again, those channels aren't about giving people news anymore... they are entirely about manipulating how people see the world until lies become true.

 

[@Li3n]

Does that need a NSFW tag? I'm not clicking it...

Only if your boss finds coffee stains morally repulsive...
Added at: 18:14

As I've said before, I'm still mystified at the significance placed on the Iowa Caucus.

Same reason why they keep talking up this week's not-romney, even though it's obvious people are not actually voting for them, just against romney...

 

[Shakey]

And Bachmann is the latest to drop out. I was hoping for her to stick around longer for some comic relief.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Only if your boss finds coffee stains morally repulsive...

Santourm is shorthand for something pretty disgusting. I don't recommend doing an image search of Santourm with safe search off.

 

[strawman]

But then again, those channels aren't about giving people news anymore... they are entirely about manipulating how people see the world until lies become true.

Are you merely cynical, or do you honestly believe that the major news organizations are more than 50% dedicated to manipulation of the masses? I'm not talking about the fringe or severely partisan "news media" but the major networks and publications.

 

[@Li3n]

Santourm is shorthand for something pretty disgusting. I don't recommend doing an image search of Santourm with safe search off.

And you correctly assumed that that's what that site is about... it's actually the official site that started it... i was implying there's no nsfw pics on it... it's just a front page with what looks like a coffee stain as a logo then a blog...
Added at: 18:20

Are you merely cynical, or do you honestly believe that the major news organizations are more than 50% dedicated to manipulation of the masses?

Wait, how can you be cynical without actually believing the world sucks?

 

[strawman]

 

[AshburnerX]

Are you merely cynical, or do you honestly believe that the major news organizations are more than 50% dedicated to manipulation of the masses? I'm not talking about the fringe or severely partisan "news media" but the major networks and publications.

I'm mainly talking about the 24-hour news channels.

Fox"News", MSNBC, and CNN (the American version anyway) are all opinion networks now, masquerading themselves off as news channels. This is to influence people into accepting the certain reality they present, not reality as it actually is (which is usually somewhere in the middle of all three's portrayal). This a blatant and undeniable.

If you want REAL news, you basically have three choices:

- Al Jazeera, which is only availible in certain markets and on certain providers if you live in the States... which is a shame because it's the only way to get current events in the Middle East.
- CNN International, which doesn't have all the political opinion pieces that the American version has and which doesn't cut away from important international events to show reruns of a show that was on less than 4 hours ago.
- BBC, which is basically a better version of CNN.

Your local news broadcasts about local stuff in your city/state is usually okay too, though you tend to see a lot of police praise where it's undeserved in some cities (like mine, which is rife with corruption and negligence), mainly because it makes getting crime reports easier.

 

[strawman]

I'm mainly talking about the 24-hour news channels.

Oh, well sure - they appeal to the news junkies.

 

[GasBandit]

Santourm is shorthand for something pretty disgusting. I don't recommend doing an image search of Santourm with safe search off.

More like, it's a forced neologism (not even a meme) created by an affronted gay activist when Santorum likened homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality.

 

[sixpackshaker]

More like, it's a forced neologism (not even a meme) created by an affronted gay activist when Santorum likened homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality.

And he deserved it.

 

[AshburnerX]

And he deserved it.

Basically this. Rick Santorum was an unapologetic homophobic asshole until Dan Savage did that to him. He still kinda is, as he's only been willing to apologize to try and get that definition removed.

 

[GasBandit]

And he deserved it.

It was a childish thing that cheapened the sentiment. It was barely a step above a toddler yelling "doo doo head", and it did nothing to address the issue, much less further his cause.

 

[Krisken]

It was a childish thing that cheapened the sentiment. It was barely a step above a toddler yelling "doo doo head", and it did nothing to address the issue, much less further his cause.

So Savage responded in kind to Santorum? Boo-fucking-hoo.

 

[GasBandit]

So Savage responded in kind to Santorum? Boo-fucking-hoo.

Not in the least. What Santorum did was repugnant and stupid, but it was not a childish tantrum. His position was diminished solely by his position's merit (or lack thereof in this case), whereas Savage's position was diminished by responding in the manner of a preschooler.

 

[Krisken]

And I think that is a load of crap. You're making excuses for Santorum.

 

[AshburnerX]

It was a childish thing that cheapened the sentiment. It was barely a step above a toddler yelling "doo doo head", and it did nothing to address the issue, much less further his cause.

What issue needed to be addressed? That homosexuals and people who fuck animals aren't the same thing? Any reasonable person could have already told you that. The problem is that the people who DO believe it aren't reasonable people. You can't sway unreasonable people.

 

[GasBandit]

What issue needed to be addressed? That homosexuals and people who fuck animals aren't the same thing? Any reasonable person could have already told you that. The problem is that the people who DO believe it aren't reasonable people. You can't sway unreasonable people.

The issue at the time that needed to be addressed was Gay Marriage, and in 2002 it was still a cause struggling for legitimacy. There were any number of responses that could have been made that further underlined Santorum's terrible stance without making the gay rights movement look like an easily marginalized/ignored fringe nutball fest. In fact, it would even have been better to say nothing, because at least then he wouldn't have been causing people who ARE reasonable to roll their eyes and turn the page.
Added at: 14:10

And I think that is a load of crap. You're making excuses for Santorum.

I have made no excuses for santorum. What he said was indefensible - but what Savage did was to "interrupt the enemy while they were making a mistake," and did so in a way that marginalized his own position.

 

[strawman]

homosexuals and people who fuck animals aren't the same thing?

Human sexual response is a complex subject. Are you saying that there is a fundamental difference between arousal response to intra-species and inter-species attraction, arousal, and sex? Further are you defending the idea that love and partnership can be so easily defined and categorized to exclude one form of attraction, but not differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual attraction? Homosexuality and interracial attraction used to be considered as taboo as we bestiality, pedophilia, and many other things we continue to declare are "sexual dysfunctions".

So are you drawing a line, and are you able and willing to defend that line as an absolute (applies to all human beings of any time, anywhere), not relative morality?

I'm not trying to say anything is right or wrong.

I'm pointing out that he is speaking his beliefs, and that his line is not "wrong" so much as it's merely in a different location than your line. If you truly believe that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction as he does, then comparing it to any other sexual dysfunction may be an issue of magnitude, but you can't say it's wrong in the same way you can't say jello is a dessert. For some people it's a salad, for others it's a dessert. It may not be as dessert-ish as cake, but that doesn't mean it's not a dessert for some subset of the population.

Therefore the subsequent name calling and ad-hominen attacks are not necessarily the same as the statements he has made.

He may be offending people with his beliefs, but attacking him as a person rather than attacking the issue is overall a net win for him, and a net loss for those attempting to discredit him.

 

[strawman]

I'm throwing out the term "sexual dysfunction" but that has a very specific meaning and does not necessarily fitmy argument if you are a psychologist or doctor. It might be more correct to use "sexual disorder," for instance, although in this discussion "taboo sexuality" might be an even better fit if you accept the idea that morality is relative.

 

[@Li3n]

Yeah man, who are you to judge someone for thinking having sex with a partner that's incapable of giving consent is on the same continuum as two consenting people engaging in a sexual act you dislike...

 

[Hailey Knight]

All I'm getting out of this is that steinman likes giraffes.

 

[@Li3n]

Who can blame him, with their long necks, so slender...

 

[Terrik]

I prefer elephant trunks. Imagine my delight when I found that Mammoth trunks in Skyrim were lootable.

 

[DarkAudit]

And Bachmann is the latest to drop out. I was hoping for her to stick around longer for some comic relief long enough to miss out on running for her congressional district.

Fixed.

 

[Shakey]

Fixed.

Her district may be getting redrawn, so if she does run again she's going to have a real tough time getting re-elected.

 

[Necronic]

I guess Santorum ended up being what we expected Perry to be, the candidate that drew the social conservatives/religious right. I don't think he has a real chance. His views are too extreme and his rhetoric is pretty nasty.

As it stands I don't think that the republican party has any real chance in the coming election. Obama has to play it right of course, he needs to stop acting like the victim in what's going on and stop putting forward straw man legislation like the Jobs Bill that he knows will not pass.

The far left may or may not vote for him, he alienated a lot of them with his extraordinary rendition MK 2 as well as other policies, but frankly the far left are a capricious bunch of babies that are looking for any excuse to get out the bullhorn and placard, and it's probably a waste of time to cow-tow to them.

His real challenge will be capturing the middle. If Santorum comes in as the Rep nominee the middle will vote for Obama or not show up. If Romney is the nominee (more likely), the far right will be disenfranchised, so Obama and Romney will be duking it out over the middle.

To win the middle Obama needs to start putting forwards more reasonable/centrist legislation/actions, like his recent appointment of Richard Cordray to the consumer protection agency, and force the republican congress to either accept his choice which shows him as someone who can compromise, or they push back against it, which shows him as a reasonable centrist candidate who can't get anything done due to the ridiculous ideological zealotry of the right.

Creating negative focus on a ridiculous zealotry in congress by pushing centrist legislation will force Romney to either back the Republican congressional actions, which will alienate the middle, or he will have to also condemn the do-nothing congress, which will make him even more of a party traitor than he is currently considered, which will guarantee that the far right will not show up to the polls.

TLDR, regardless of whether the nominee is Romney or Santorum Obama needs to be fighting for the middle now, and he is in a better position to do so than Romney is as he is already in office and sacrifices little in doing so. Some centrist action by him will go a long way to securing his re-election.