Export thread

Pretty much as the Question and title say. Not 'who do you want to win', or 'who should enter the thread because I don't like the field'. I've got my own ideas on where the current field is trending, but I'd like to see where everyone else is seeing in their areas.

As the polling only allows 10 options and there are officially 15 candidates still running as of December 15th, I had to leave out 5 of the candidates still in the running (sort of). If you know who these guys are and want to include one of them, just click other and explain in the thread.

No matter which of them wins, Obama gets re-elected.

That's not what I'm asking, or even speculating.

Oh it's not speculation. Look at the options, look at how badly split the entire GOP is across the board. Do you really think they'll all rally behind one nominee after all is said and done?

You are right though, way too soon to derail this. Carry on.

They will fight it, and they will cry, and they will scream, but eventually the GOP will have to give in and nominate Romney. He's the only one who has even a chance at beating Obama.

It's going to be Romney, most likely because he's the only guy who could possibly bring in the moderates and independents. He's still going to lose though.

Shegokigo said:

look at how badly split the entire GOP is across the board. Do you really think they'll all rally behind one nominee after all is said and done?

Click to expand...

In the last several elections the field and political dynamics changed dramatically 5-8 months prior to the election. It may be hard to imagine now, but things will be quite different next summer.

Not to say it will be *better* but it will certainly be different and I'm skeptical of anyone who says they can predict how a party or an election will fare this far ahead.

Great. A Muslim against a Mormon. What's a God-fearing Republican (PRAISE HIS NAME!!!) to do?!?

I am really bad at guessing. A few months ago, I was pretty convinced Rick Perry would win the nomination and Presidency. I'll just stab in the dark and say "Romney" for now.

No matter who wins, we all lose.

Romney is most likely to win the nomination, in my opinion. That doesn't mean he's a lock - he just can't seem to break 25% in most polls. But often enough coming in second all the time is better than coming in first once and last the rest.

That said, "he's the only one that can sway the moderates/independents" is entirely incorrect. The middle follows firm confidence, not spineless flipfloppery. Remember, the middle voted for Reagan. Twice. Hell, so did many Democrats.

To say that Obama can't be beaten is also incorrect. He's not unassailable, nor is he already out to pasture as some others would have you believe.

Basically, much like last time, it'll probably all boil down to whatever happens in October. It usually does.

On a related note, I don't know why people always make such a fuss over the Iowa caucus. That shit accurately predicts the nominee barely 3 out of 7 times. It's a bad year for the Florida straw poll, however. Until now, it had a 100% accurate prediction rate of the nominee for more than 30 years... but this year, it went to Hermain Cain.

Where's my Sarah Palin? She should be on this list!

Oh, shes on a list alright.

I voted Romney but I was really tempted to vote Gingrich. I think he still has a decent chance.

Romney is ultimately a bad choice for the Republican's though. Yes, you capture the middle (or some of it), but you trade the Nazzerine/Evangelical Christian vote to get it. I have heard more than one person say they wouldn't vote if he is the nominee, for that exact reason.

The best result of a Romney vs Obama election is that religious right and the racists wouldn't show up to vote. Now if only we could figure out a way to keep that trend going.

stienman said:

Oh, shes on a list alright.

Click to expand...

Didn't Nixon have one of those lists?

sixpackshaker said:

Didn't Nixon have one of those lists?

Click to expand...

So did Hoover, but he used it to better effect than Nixon.

I think the race has been very interesting so far. Not sure how many meteoric rises and falls are left in this season, though.

Krisken said:

I think the race has been very interesting so far. Not sure how many meteoric rises and falls are left in this season, though.

Click to expand...

Like the guy said on "Wait wait don't tell me" the other day, "This week's winner gets to be the GOP primary's frontrunner for a day."

GasBandit said:

Like the guy said on "Wait wait don't tell me" the other day, "This week's winner gets to be the GOP primary's frontrunner for a day."

Click to expand...

While I think that is absolutely true, I have to wonder, though, who is left? I mean, we've seen this a lot so far in the GOP road show. Will Buddy Roemer suddenly become a front runner? I have a hard time believing it.

Krisken said:

While I think that is absolutely true, I have to wonder, though, who is left? I mean, we've seen this a lot so far in the GOP road show. Will Buddy Roemer suddenly become a front runner? I have a hard time believing it.

Click to expand...

If Ron freakin' Paul can be a frontrunner, anything is possible.

And by "this week's winner," he meant on WWDTM, not of any poll or caucus.

lol, and I thought that Ron Paul as frotrunner would be your wet dream.

Krisken said:

lol, and I thought that Ron Paul as frotrunner would be your wet dream.

Click to expand...

I'm sure GB thinks Ron Paul is too liberal.

Tress said:

I'm sure GB thinks Ron Paul is too liberal.

Click to expand...

Heh, I guess so.

The Republicans are feeling now what the Democrats felt in 2004. I have a feeling Obama's going to win by default thanks to Republican divisiveness rather than anything positive he does in 2012.

Quotemander Prime said:

The Republicans are feeling now what the Democrats felt in 2004. I have a feeling Obama's going to win by default thanks to Republican divisiveness rather than anything positive he does in 2012.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the other liberal leaning folks in the land, but for me he's about 50/50. Which is a shame since I was expecting a little more.

Krisken said:

I don't know about the other liberal leaning folks in the land, but for me he's about 50/50. Which is a shame since I was expecting a little more.

Click to expand...

I think it'd be nice if someone could be a good candidate and a good president. Obama was a great celebrity for 2008, but I've been disappointed with him for the most part. To be fair, nobody was going to do a great job with the mess Bush left behind, but I don't feel Obama has been focusing on what's important, and Congress is acting like a... I don't have a literary or movie reference. I see them as well-dressed, carnivorous troglodytes, hooting and laughing and making asses of themselves at the expense of the rest of the nation, because there isn't a strong President to keep the circus in line.

Quotemander Prime said:

I think it'd be nice if someone could be a good candidate and a good president.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, I was young in 1992/96, but I thought Clinton was a pretty good candidate? Didn't he destroy Bush/Dole?

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Admittedly, I was young in 1992/96, but I thought Clinton was a pretty good candidate? Didn't he destroy Bush/Dole?

Click to expand...

I don't know; I was 7.

He did destroy them indeed. I've been around since 1965. Clinton is the best president we've had in that time. By far.

Dave said:

He did destroy them indeed. I've been around since 1965 B.C.. Clinton is the best president we've had in that time. By far.

Click to expand...

Fixed.

Dave said:

He did destroy them indeed. I've been around since 1965. Clinton is the best president we've had in that time. By far.

Click to expand...

Clinton's first term was mediocre at best and he damn near lost his second term. People forget that he didn't really find his stride until the second term, when it seemed like everything went his way (sex scandal not withstanding). Will it be the same story for Obama? I have no idea, but it's certainly possible.

Generally speaking, most presidents seem to use their first term to set up the things they want to do in their second term, which they can then do without repercussion because they don't need to worry about re-election. This is why most of the interesting stuff happens in 2nd terms.

Shegokigo said:

No matter which of them wins, Obama gets re-elected.

Click to expand...

This, unfortunately, is the truth.
Added at: 23:34

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Admittedly, I was young in 1992/96, but I thought Clinton was a pretty good candidate? Didn't he destroy Bush/Dole?

Click to expand...

You mean Bush/Quayle and Dole/Kemp.

I can't be sure until after we get the results from the swimsuit competition.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

I can't be sure until after we get the results from the swimsuit competition.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

DO. NOT. WANT.

Well that's what I get for not reading. I thought this poll was for Iowa. Now I'm that idiot that voted for Ron Paul.

Covar said:

Well that's what I get for not reading. I thought this poll was for Iowa. Now I'm that idiot that voted for Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

If it's any consolation, you won't be the only one this primary season

I think if the GOP wants to pretend they have a shot, they'll go Romney. They still won't have a shot, but they can live in their pretend world until Election Day is over.

And, if they want to guarantee they won't win, they'll go Romney/Bachmann.

But having a looney way too right wing female on the ballet is sure to lock in those extreme right wingers and win us the election RIGHT?!

No candidate would ever dream of putting Bachmann on their ticket. They actually discussed this on NPR a bit ago and they said everyone knows she's only in this for herself and would stab anyone in the back so she has zero chance of getting a vp nod. I'm inclined to agree with that.

I picked Backmann. Simply for kicks and giggles. She's pretty looney toons.

Bowielee said:

I picked Backmann. Simply for kicks and giggles. She's pretty looney toons.

Click to expand...

I so wanted to see the national commercials showing her as completely nucking futs.

I don't know why your guys' elections go on so long. Aren't you tired of it yet?

Elections haven't even started yet. These are just picking the nominees. It's like the Ms. America Pagent, but even more retarded.

I know. That's what I mean. Its ridiculuous.

checkeredhat said:

I don't know why your guys' elections go on so long. Aren't you tired of it yet?

Click to expand...

Yeah. A little (a lot).

checkeredhat said:

I know. That's what I mean. Its ridiculuous.

Click to expand...

There may be alternatives.

Now, don't take this as a support of Ron Paul's presidency. However, I did like this ad that probably won't ever run on TV:

Yes, there's way too much pre-election hullaballoo for my taste. In fact I hate the whole "primary" system. We should switch to instant runoff. Yeah, I know, and ponies and chocolate air for everybody.

Krisken - No, Paul is not my dream candidate. He's got some good ideas, but he's wackier than anybody on some other things - especially foreign policy. He's said we "kinda deserved" 9/11 and said if Iran wants nukes we should just let em have em and oh well. Also he believes in anthropogenic global warming - which directly torpedoes his stance against regulation if taken to its logical conclusion.

Really, the least unpalatable of the bunch was Herman Cain. Now that he's out there's absolutely nobody of any redeeming value on the republican ticket whatsoever. They're ALMOST as bad as Obama

I have no issues with somebody saying 9/11 was primarily about blowback from our foreign policy. It's less of a "deserved" thing and more of a "it's a risk of this kind of foreign policy" which was more what Ron Paul seems to be saying.

Espy said:

I have no issues with somebody saying 9/11 was primarily about blowback from our foreign policy. It's less of a "deserved" thing and more of a "it's a risk of this kind of foreign policy" which was more what Ron Paul seems to be saying.

Click to expand...

And what did you expect, going out there dressed like that, young lady?

GasBandit said:

Really, the least unpalatable of the bunch was Herman Cain. Now that he's out there's absolutely nobody of any redeeming value on the republican ticket whatsoever. They're ALMOST as bad as Obama

Click to expand...

You're forgetting the fact that he was a black republican. Electing him would have led to a robot genocide as they tried to understand the paradox.
Added at: 20:38
Added at: 20:42
The problem with the "chickens coming home to roost" argument is that, while it has some truth in it, defining the US culpability in the problems in the middle east is a complex train of political logic that requires a relatively deep understanding of history and international politics.

And then the argument requires that a bunch of dudes that can't tell the difference between Americans and Russians follow this same thought process.

The other option is that this is a group of downtrodden and opressed people that are manipulated into acts of extreme violence by some truly terrible political and religious dictators.

Necronic said:

And then the argument requires that a bunch of dudes that can't tell the difference between Americans and Russians follow this same thought process.

Click to expand...

I think Russia gets let off the hook a lot by that region because they basically destroyed their economy with their foreign policy and they are still recovering from it, where as America basically came out of the Cold War unscathed.

AshburnerX said:

I think Russia gets let off the hook a lot by that region because they basically destroyed their economy with their foreign policy and they are still recovering from it, where as America basically came out of the Cold War unscathed.

Click to expand...

That's not what he means, I think... he means Afghanistanis consider Russians and Americans to be interchangable because they're both foreign, non-muslim occupiers, and that you can't lead someone down a complex, nuanced path when the alternative is a simple, self-affirming "kill the heathens" dogma.

GasBandit said:

That's not what he means, I think... he means Afghanistanis consider Russians and Americans to be interchangable because they're both foreign, non-muslim occupiers, and that you can't lead someone down a complex, nuanced path when the alternative is a simple, self-affirming "kill the heathens" dogma.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I just re-read that line. I didn't read it correctly the first time through.

GasBandit said:

And what did you expect, going out there dressed like that, young lady?

Click to expand...

Sorry, what I really mean was, "THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM AND OUR MTV AND OUR JESUS!" That much saner than saying our foreign policy and actions over seas in the past had any impact on things.

Espy said:

Sorry, what I really mean was, "THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM AND OUR MTV AND OUR JESUS!" That much saner than saying our foreign policy and actions over seas in the past had any impact on things.

Click to expand...

It takes a certain, strange mind to equate decades of foreign policy and secret CIA wars with a rape victim and her attacker.

Espy said:

Sorry, what I really mean was, "THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM AND OUR MTV AND OUR JESUS!" That much saner than saying our foreign policy and actions over seas in the past had any impact on things.

Click to expand...

And I said they had the same effect as choosing to dress attractively and going out does on getting sexually assaulted. If she'd dressed in a burkha, might she have been passed over? Perhaps, but it doesn't mean she is to blame, nor was she in the wrong. The blame for 9/11 rests completely on the shoulders of third world islamist despots - political and theocratical both - who exploit the hopeless with overzealous dogma. Not because we continue to enable Israel to exist.

Wait, I thought Osama secured reelection by killing Obama. Or was it the other way around?

Krisken said:

It takes a certain, strange mind to equate decades of foreign policy and secret CIA wars with a rape victim and her attacker.

Click to expand...

Again with the overcomplicated, nuanced stuff. The people who perpetrated 9/11 were not political science majors, and they certainly were not privy to CIA secrets. Their motivations were simple - their life sucked, we're the great satan who enables israel to exist, and this is their ticket to eternity in paradise.

It's sad how often someone implies every suicide bomber has a post-graduate level grasp of international politics while lampooning the american layman with a south park quote in the same breath (or agreeing with it in the same breath as the case may be).

Yes, because oversimplification is always preferable to what is really going on.

If you were to say that 911 was fallout from american activities I think there's only 2 things you could really argue:

1) We should have taken serious interest in rebuilding Afghanistan after the soviet invasion.

2) We shouldn't have allowed the Shah of Iran to fall in the Iranian revolution.

Other than that the effects you are talking about are far to intricate and complex for most of the duders that end up as militants to even begin to appreciate.

But several of the 9/11 attackers were firmly middle-class with decent university level educations. AND they still flew planes into the buildings.

sixpackshaker said:

But several of the 9/11 attackers were firmly middle-class with decent university level educations. AND they still flew planes into the buildings.

Click to expand...

They were also Saudis, but no one seems to care about that, as long as the oil keeps flowing.

The guys who put planes into buildings are really a small part of a much larger canvas, one that involves an entire culture of anti-western rhetoric and hate. This culture has outliers, like these duders, but you have to see the forest, not the trees.

Think of the KKK or Aryan nation. Yes, there are some seriously educated people in those organizations, but they are definitely the minority. The real power of those organizations comes from the ignorant masses who support the rest of the operation.

Necronic said:

... ignorant masses...

Click to expand...

Feel free to drop the "m" and be more truthful.

Can we make a new thread on this? I find this particular conversation to be uninteresting (and frankly, pointless). At least the GOP road show has been funny.

Krisken said:

Yes, because oversimplification is always preferable to what is really going on.

Click to expand...

Occam's razor says for you to shut up. I told him to be nice, but he's been drinking pine sol again.

GasBandit said:

And I said they had the same effect as choosing to dress attractively and going out does on getting sexually assaulted. If she'd dressed in a burkha, might she have been passed over? Perhaps, but it doesn't mean she is to blame, nor was she in the wrong. The blame for 9/11 rests completely on the shoulders of third world islamist despots - political and theocratical both - who exploit the hopeless with overzealous dogma. Not because we continue to enable Israel to exist.

Click to expand...

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.

Espy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

... 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.

AshburnerX said:

... 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.

Click to expand...

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

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

@Li3n said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

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.

sixpackshaker said:

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

Click to expand...

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

GasBandit said:

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

Click to expand...

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...

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

@Li3n said:

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

Click to expand...

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

AshburnerX said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sixpackshaker said:

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

Click to expand...

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

stienman said:

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

Click to expand...

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

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AshburnerX said:

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

Click to expand...

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

sixpackshaker said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

And he deserved it.

sixpackshaker said:

And he deserved it.

Click to expand...

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.

sixpackshaker said:

And he deserved it.

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Krisken said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AshburnerX said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Krisken said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

AshburnerX said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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

Shakey said:

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.

Click to expand...

Fixed.

DarkAudit said:

Fixed.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Obama has been plenty centrist the entire time; by basically accomplishing nothing and/or following existing Bush policies to the letter.

Adammon said:

Obama has been plenty centrist the entire time; by basically accomplishing nothing and/or following existing Bush policies to the letter.

Click to expand...

See, that's the thing that is going to bite him in the butt a bit, and why he should only focus on the center. No matter what he does for the far left they will only focus on the negatives. Just for reference here's a list of his fairly left policy initiatives:

-Hate Crime Legislation
-Repeal of Dont Ask Don't Tell (mostly congress of course, but still)
-Lobby reform (although the waiver issue is a bit meh)
-Revoked Executive Order 12333 (which restricted access to government files)
-Removed troops from Iraq (although it took a while, but only an idiot would think it would be quick)
-Started the closing of Gitmo (taking forever because no-one wants them, but he started it on teh first day)
-Stated flat out that waterboarding etc was not acceptable
-Repealed Bush Stem Cell bans
-Federalized Student Loans
-Consumer Protection Act/Forming the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

....I feel like I'm missing one

OH YEAH THE HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL AND THE STIMULUS PACKAGE WHICH ARE TWO OF THE MOST LIBERAL THINGS TO COME OUT OF GOVERNMENT SINCE THE NEW DEAL.

He is one of the most active liberal presidents of all time. Hell he may BE the most activist liberal president of all time. Comparing him to bush because he has a harsh anti-whistle blower policy and because he expanded the extraordinary rendition to assassinations is completely myopic and self-serving.

I always have a hearty chortle when anyone says Obama is a liberal or too liberal.

Frankly it is a huge mark against the left to not appreciate what they have in Obama. It shows a childishly myopic set of goals that mirrors the far right.

Necronic said:

OH YEAH THE HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL AND THE STIMULUS PACKAGE WHICH ARE TWO OF THE MOST LIBERAL THINGS TO COME OUT OF GOVERNMENT SINCE THE NEW DEAL.

He is one of the most active liberal presidents of all time. Hell he may BE the most activist liberal president of all time. Comparing him to bush because he has a harsh anti-whistle blower policy and because he expanded the extraordinary rendition to assassinations is completely myopic and self-serving.

Click to expand...

The Stimulus Package which Bush originally implemented and consisted of tax breaks to the wealthy, TARP funds to the banks and a tax credit? Or the Health Care Overhaul which forces you to buy insurance (from big insurance companies no less) and penalizes you if you don't? Liberal I don't see.

Necronic said:

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.

Click to expand...

While I'm disappointed (but not surprised) the republicans are going the "social conservative FTW" route, I would also point out this was the first caucus, and as I've said at least twice before, not a reliable indicator of the eventual nominee. Santorum will probably feel his poll numbers slip as soon as the media starts focusing on him, just as has happened with every other not-Romney who pulled out in front.

As for the Liberalism of Obama, he wants to be more liberal but there's only so fast one can move in a given time. Yes, the ultra-left wackos are disappointed they didn't get single payer health care, but most of Obama's accomplishments have been in the area of increasing the size and power of the federal government. If you keep striving to make the federal government big enough, and make it the solution of first resort for any given problem, you wake up one morning in socialism without a revolution - and it's the kind of gradual change that is like pulling teeth to reverse.

I don't think anyone is saying the very first caucus is an indicator of who will be the nominee. However, it does cause certain people lagging from dropping, which influences later caucuses. Bachmann has already dropped out of the race. Where will her supporters go now? Will it boost Newt to compete with the top 3, or will they throw their vote behind one of the other candidates.

Also, keep in mind that a very small number of voters voted in the caucus (I think someone said something like 6% of voters).

Krisken said:

I don't think anyone is saying the very first caucus is an indicator of who will be the nominee. However, it does cause certain people lagging from dropping, which influences later caucuses. Bachmann has already dropped out of the race. Where will her supporters go now? Will it boost Newt to compete with the top 3, or will they throw their vote behind one of the other candidates.

Also, keep in mind that a very small number of voters voted in the caucus (I think someone said something like 6% of voters).

Click to expand...

Well, I have to say I think the only person who really thought Bachmann could win (or that it would be a good thing) was Laura Ingraham. Heh.

Adammon said:

The Stimulus Package which Bush originally implemented and consisted of tax breaks to the wealthy, TARP funds to the banks and a tax credit? Or the Health Care Overhaul which forces you to buy insurance (from big insurance companies no less) and penalizes you if you don't? Liberal I don't see.

Click to expand...

TARP != the Stimulus package, not even close. The American Recovery/Reinvestment act was Obama. Maybe I am missing something, did the Bush administration put it together? (not a troll question)

And yes, the health care bill forces people to buy health insurance, which is a pretty dumb way of doing things, but you weren't going to get single payer, period. If you are going to criticize Obama for not achieving single payer then you might as well criticize him for not miraculously ending world hunger with the wave of his wand (powered by the magical and fanciful desires of the unreasonable left)

-----------

Anyways, this run doesn't decide things of course, but it was a HUGE blow to Gingrich's campaign and likewise showed that the religious right are quite likely more interested in Santorum than Perry, which means that the Perry campaign is grasping at straws.

---------

Also Laura Inghram is a piece of human trash.

GasBandit said:

Well, I have to say I think the only person who really thought Bachmann could win (or that it would be a good thing) was Laura Ingraham. Heh.

Click to expand...

And, you know, her supporters. Otherwise they would have voted for someone else.

It's hilarious how effective the right wing is at moving the goalposts on political discourse, and making anything that isn't lock-step republican crazy wacky unable to ever happen liberal pipe dreams.

It's less how effective the right wing is than how impotent, ineffectual and limp-wristed the left wing is. The same thing in reverse could have been said of Canada for decades before our current Conservative government. In my opinion, societal change comes about not because of strong proponents, but of weak opponents.

That's true in some senses, I mean the health care bill that is currently considered by republicans to be the work of the devil was pretty close to what the republican's put out just about a decade ago. However, Charlie's case the goalposts are actually antenna sticking off of an alien's head over in the delta quadrant.

Truth is if you actually cared about the situation you would take the time to understand what realistic goals are and shoot for those. The greatest and most important advances in American history have been single point events that were lead up to by a long series of seemingly minor and conilliatory gains.

Adammon said:

It's less how effective the right wing is than how impotent, ineffectual and limp-wristed the left wing is.

Click to expand...

Many on the right say the exact same thing with "right" and "left" reversed. Same goes for Charlie's "moving the goalposts" comment.

Exactly, same thing with saying that media has a liberal/conservative bias. I remember sitting in a rhetoric class in college and someone made a comment about there being a bias. I stopped and had everyone vote on whether they thought there was a liberal or conservative bias. Every conservative in the class said there was a liberal bias. Every liberal in the class said there was a conservative bias. And almost none of them understood the significance of that.

If they had been capable of understanding it wouldn't have come up in the 1st place...
Added at: 15:15

Necronic said:

The greatest and most important advances in American history have been single point events that were lead up to by a long series of seemingly minor and conciliatory gains.

Click to expand...

Yes, like revolution and civil war...

When Newt said that "decent people" would not run for president when the media is so harsh... I would pay Ron Paul $300 to say...

"Decent people? Newt, I've worked with decent people, and you are not decent people."

Well he is running for President.