2012 US Election thread - slowly going nowhere

**Grim** · 2012-01-05

Made a new thread so we wouldnt keep getting off topic in the Rick Perry thread.

To start off, I was listening to the radio on the drive home from work, and they had a thing about Santorum and how he has always stood for social issues. They played an interview from a few years ago where he basically says its the governments job to control the nations culture, keeping it pure, etc. Essentially pushing big government enforcement against gay marriage, gays raising kids, banning all abortions, etc. I never supported him before now, but anyone who believes its the government is the stewards of American culture loses my vote.

**Hilmar Keller** · 2012-01-05

That's personally what he believes. On the record, like Paul and Romney, he wants states to be able to limit (Federal) rights and lock up those damned dirty atheists if they so please.

But it's pretty clear that personally Santorum is a total fucking douchebag and probably a closeted power bottom.

**Lysander** · 2012-01-05

He also compared gay sex to "man-on-dog" sex and claimed that the constitution provides no protection for people involved in gay sex, meaning he believes it can and should be banned/punished. Fortunately, I don't think the moron will get the nomination. I guess you never know, but I think Romney's been the only serious contender for a while now.

**Some Market Dude** · 2012-01-05

Romney.

/thread

**Phey Onat** · 2012-01-06

Santorum is running on social issues at a time when tide is against the conservative social agenda for drugs, marriage, etc. and in favor of conservative fiscal policy. The man won't last long. Ron Paul needs campaign donors fast because internet fame can only get you so much.

**Grim** · 2012-01-06

Originally Posted by Phey Onat

Santorum is running on social issues at a time when tide is against the conservative social agenda for drugs, marriage, etc. and in favor of conservative fiscal policy. The man won't last long. Ron Paul needs campaign donors fast because internet fame can only get you so much.

I don't see Ron Paul as a viable candidate. He has some popular support, but if elected I don't see how he can turn it into actual results. Without a congress full of like minded people he won't be able to pass anything. Best case is nothing gets done and we continue to function on continuing resolutions for the next 4 years.

Romney will probably win, but I would love to see Huntsman be given a chance. Maybe he will get it after Santorum's bubble bursts and he is the last guy standing for the media to put up as Romney's arch-rival.

**Hilmar Keller** · 2012-01-06

It's just hard to imagine anybody else effectively running against Obama; in public, Mitt seems to be taking things with a sense of humor. People read that as confidence that he's already won, and while they'd like him to be wrong for lols, they look at everybody else and think "well fuck he's right." Santorum looks like he's two seconds from a panic attack; Perry practically has to be reminded to breathe regularly; Gingrich is madbro for his performance in the Iowa Caucus (which by the way is a totally irrelevant straw poll of a very conservative corner of the country) and Paul is really good at expressing his beliefs, some of which are batshit insane and are supported by neither the Republican nor Democratic parties, alienating moderates on both sides.

**Zakhodit** · 2012-01-06

Since 2008 there has been strong support for Mitt. The issue is that from the far nut job right he looks Liberal. And to those people that word may as well be SATAN! Since this year's presidentials started it's always been a race between Mitt and the Conservitive of the month. But once that "front runner" had enough attention they managed to say something (Several somethings) stupid and lose any support they had. (Well, Cain got the boot for being a pimp. Works for the Dems, but not in House Elephant.)

Santorum has been that "front runner" for 48 hours and he's already matched the stupidity of Perry and Bachmann signaling to voters that anyone who willingly puts on a sweater vest is, in fact, a fucking moron.

Ron Paul has a lot of support from 17-23 year olds and that alone tells us two things:

1) Our public education is failing us.
2) His crazy platform emulates the one dimensional political characters often found in games like MW3, Ghost Recon, and Animaniac's Bowling.

Eventually Mitt will get the bid, mostly because every poll that pits Mitt vs Obama has him edging out the President by almost 10 points. When you put any other canidate up against Obama he(she) loses(gets kicked in the Veejay) by quite a bit. Republicans want to win at all costs, even if they must put a so called "Moderate" on their ticket.

In an odd tiwst, Mitt could ask Huntsman to be his V.P. But that may lead to some calling Mormon Shenanigans. Maybe they could ride bikes and knock on doors...

Oh, from now on, I move that we call Gingrich "Madbro" for the remainder of the election season.

**Fartman** · 2012-01-06

Originally Posted by Zakhodit

I move that we call Gingrich "Madbro" for the remainder of the election season.

could call a lot of the (bad)posters in this thread that..

**Bill Schwartzski** · 2012-01-06

There was only one sane choice and that was Jon Huntsman. He got zero play because he isn't driving the crazy car in from crazy town and that makes for really bad television. It's sad because I actually wanted there to be a viable alternative to Obama.

Santorum has momentum for the same reason GWB did; they're hijacking the evangelical vote. This works very well when there is a lot of political static in the field.

Edit: Bachmann was viable in that realm too but I think her eyes are too crazy for crazy town.

**Raketefrau** · 2012-01-06

In all ways, at all times, Iowa doesn't matter at all. This is possibly the worst dog and pony show in politics.

**Grim** · 2012-01-06

Huntsman got the backing of one of the major Boston papers. Its a start, but it won't get him much until he gets a lot more airtime (since no one reads newspapers anymore).

**Internet Spaceships** · 2012-01-06

Of all the potential Republican candidates, Huntsman has my support. Despite being labeled as a conservative, his policies tend to be more moderate than the rest.

And the fact that he understands and appreciates science. That's huge.

**Grim** · 2012-01-06

I find it really sad that people give him shit for agreeing with a scientific majority that climate change is real. It always makes me angry when uninformed masses ridicule science they don't understand.

**Barry Zuckerkorn** · 2012-01-06

When I look at Huntsman's qualifications and his policies, then compare them to the rest of the candidates and see that fails to garner more than single digit support among republicans I feel like the GOP has gone 'bizzaro' or something.

**Arrador** · 2012-01-06

Originally Posted by Phey Onat

Ron Paul needs campaign donors fast because internet fame can only get you so much.

The irony of internet fame, is the demographic that makes it up, is also the same demographic that has the worse turnout for voting. http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot....and-votes.html

**Zakhodit** · 2012-01-06

GOP has been 'bizzaro' since they decided that Sarah Palin was a good choice for V.P.

Well I guess the same could be said about the Dems and Joe Biden.

**Mr Coloredshirt** · 2012-01-06

[s]ron paul[/s] obama 2012.

**Iseeyouseemeseeyou** · 2012-01-06

I get to vote this year. And as a Republican, I will force Bobby Jindal to run. Jindal 2012.

e: I forgot to mention, I live in the most Conservative county in the nation according to Newsweek / NYT.

**Aurora148** · 2012-01-06

If something miraculous happens then Jon Huntsman could get it this year, but his main aim seems to be laying the groundwork for a full blown run in 2016. He is concentrating on New Hampshire by going out to every town and meeting people face to face and building a grassroots relationship.

I like him.

**Lysander** · 2012-01-07

Originally Posted by Internet Spaceships

Of all the potential Republican candidates, Huntsman has my support. Despite being labeled as a conservative, his policies tend to be more moderate than the rest.

And the fact that he understands and appreciates science. That's huge.

Science may as well be black magic for most people (for certain evangelicals it is basically satanic). You'd be amazed how little about science the average American knows.

Somewhere around 50% of population believe that humans and dinosaurs lived on the Earth at the same time. About 25% believe sound travels faster than light. Around 50% believe that only genetically modified tomatoes have genes. A ridiculously large number of Americans don't even know that the earth orbits the sun... (Science and the Educated American)

I'd love to see a candidate champion science and be taken seriously but I don't think we'll be seeing it anytime soon, on either side of the party line.

Edit: My wife just finished a paper on Science Education so I'm rife with statistics, 43.67% of which are made up on the spot.

**Fartman** · 2012-01-07

Originally Posted by Lysander

Somewhere around 50% of population believe that humans and dinosaurs lived on the Earth at the same time. About 25% believe sound travels faster than light. Around 50% believe that only genetically modified tomatoes have genes. A ridiculously large number of Americans don't even know that the earth orbits the sun... (Science and the Educated American)

public education 4tw

**Hilmar Keller** · 2012-01-07

Truth. There's a cultishness about rejecting science; the best way it's been described to me is this:

God created science as a challenge to believers. Basically, the Bible says one thing, science says another. It's more or less the 'forbidden fruit' which is tasty and ripe and by all tangible means good, but we're not supposed to bite it because God said so. And if we do, we get judgementified.

TL;DR God is the most fucked-up father figure in history.

**Night** · 2012-01-07

Irony: the man with the best demonstrable family values in this campaign is Barack Obama.

**Rer** · 2012-01-07

I'll be voting for Obama (sorry folks), but out of all the candidates Huntsman has definitely earned my respect, and I do hope that he gets the nomination (competition breeds positive aftereffects afterall ;P). He's literally the only candidate that hasn't said anything retarded, and/or hasn't flipped his stance on an issue every two to three years (sup Romney).

**somedude76** · 2012-01-08

Originally Posted by Zakhodit

GOP has been 'bizzaro' since they decided that Sarah Palin was a good choice for V.P.

Well I guess the same could be said about the Dems and Joe Biden.

**Lysander** · 2012-01-08

Originally Posted by Fartman

public education 4tw

Last time I checked I was taught all those things in public school. Those facts are in textbooks from the freaking 40s and 50s.

Try home schooling, religious private schools and parents who disdain science raising the children to do the same and you'll be a lot closer to the mark.

**Fartman** · 2012-01-08

Originally Posted by Lysander

Try home schooling, religious private schools and parents who disdain science raising the children to do the same and you'll be a lot closer to the mark.

if you think the majority of people in the US were educated in those types of schools, you're an idiot (but we already knew that).

**Lysander** · 2012-01-08

Originally Posted by Fartman

if you think the majority of people in the US were educated in those types of schools, you're an idiot (but we already knew that).

Says the person who completely missed my point...

Anyway, No Child Left Behind and standardized curriculums play a big part in the lack of science in public school education but I still think (like I said if you'd bothered to read it) that it's religious parent's who dislike science who carry the majority of the blame.

How can you expect any teacher, even the best, to educate a group of religiously indoctrinated children in evolution or the scientific method? Parent's who have no respect for science do their very best to raise children who have no respect for it either.

**Hilmar Keller** · 2012-01-08

Lysander's right on this one, No Child Left Behind is a tremendous waste of classroom time and in more 'rural' areas you see a lot of biology curriculum getting compromised by teachers and students who all believe in creationism (I was in one of said biology classes).

**poaw** · 2012-01-09

Originally Posted by Lysander

Says the person who completely missed my point...

Anyway, No Child Left Behind and standardized curriculums play a big part in the lack of science in public school education but I still think (like I said if you'd bothered to read it) that it's religious parent's who dislike science who carry the majority of the blame.

How can you expect any teacher, even the best, to educate a group of religiously indoctrinated children in evolution or the scientific method? Parent's who have no respect for science do their very best to raise children who have no respect for it either.

The numbers don't match up. Only 3% of kids are home-schooled, and 7% go to private schools. Even ignoring that all of those won't involve religion based-instruction, that wouldn't explain the bulk of those individuals.

If poor academic performance in public schools could be explained by having overly religious parents than that would mean that a much larger portion of the population was raised with those views. It doesn't work when you compare your theory to reported church attendance, the census, or even looking at the voting power of Christians as a bloc. All those things point to a steadily more secular population in this country. For it to make sense, then an extraordinarily large number of Christians would have to spring up

That and you're gonna have to explain why mathematics, geography and history are also effected.

**Rer** · 2012-01-09

Americans are stupid and most of us don't give a fuck about it. New subject!

**Hilmar Keller** · 2012-01-09

Originally Posted by poaw

That and you're gonna have to explain why mathematics, geography and history are also effected.

American Christians are some of the most ignorant people I've ever met in this department. They also tend to avoid math like the plague for some reason.

**Zakhodit** · 2012-01-09

Originally Posted by Night

Irony: the man with the best demonstrable family values in this campaign is Barack Obama.

Look over Romney and Huntsman again and you'll see that there are three. Actually none since forcing your family into the public stage of politics is arguably the worst thing you can do if you want a "normal" All American "Rockwell" family. Whatever that is. Frankly I don't care. JFK got plenty of pussy outside of his marriage and he still handled the Cuban Missile Oh Noes just fine. (Bay of pigs was the CIA's fuck up.) We only White Knight him because he forgot to duck while in Dallas.

Even Bill managed to do his job ok while Monica was taking Dictation.

Originally Posted by Rer

I'll be voting for Obama... ...He's literally the only candidate that hasn't said anything retarded, and/or hasn't flipped his stance on an issue every two to three years (sup Romney).

Rer, buddy, he's done both. Really whom you vote for is your choice and you're entitled to it. No reason to get petty here and drum up a bunch of links to his retarded utterances and flip flops. But, hey, don't base your vote on if politian has said something retarded, or flipped his position to be more popular in the current poll. You'll end up never voting.

Originally Posted by Hilmar Keller

American Christians are some of the most ignorant people I've ever met in this department. They also tend to avoid math like the plague for some reason.

Math leads to the study of other science and that, in the end, will inevitably bring you to the conclusion that Religion is bunk. It is the "Gate-Way" drug of the science world.

**Lysander** · 2012-01-09

Originally Posted by poaw

The numbers don't match up. Only 3% of kids are home-schooled, and 7% go to private schools. Even ignoring that all of those won't involve religion based-instruction, that wouldn't explain the bulk of those individuals.

If poor academic performance in public schools could be explained by having overly religious parents than that would mean that a much larger portion of the population was raised with those views. It doesn't work when you compare your theory to reported church attendance, the census, or even looking at the voting power of Christians as a bloc. All those things point to a steadily more secular population in this country. For it to make sense, then an extraordinarily large number of Christians would have to spring up

That and you're gonna have to explain why mathematics, geography and history are also effected.

I'm not trying to explain poor academic performance. I'm talking strictly about scientific illiteracy and science education.

Children from very religious families often excel in school. I come from a very conservative religious background, most of the kids I grew up around were straight A students all through school. Everyone of them had (or continues to have, for the few I still know) an extreme mistrust of science and secular history in general. That mistrust and disdain was instilled in them by their parents in order to protect the irrational set of beliefs being passed on to them.

Maybe if parents spent more time teaching their children to respect science, mathematics, geography and history instead of ancient mythologies, mysticism and obscure pseudo-historical accounts we wouldn't have this problem.

There is a very interesting correlation between higher education and scientific literacy. The more education a person receives the deeper their understanding and trust of science becomes. For example, take a look at this poll.
Obviously, I accept that the education system itself holds some responsibility for this problem. But I think the lion's share of blame lays on the parent's heads for attempting to immunize their children against the truth.

Anyway, I'm completely derailing this thread. Apologies.

**Night** · 2012-01-10

Originally Posted by Zakhodit

Look over Romney and Huntsman again and you'll see that there are three.

While probably true, neither of them has made much of a point of it. Obama doesn't have a choice in the matter, but it does leave him the demonstrable front-runner on the subject either way.

As for JFK I think he was a goddamn retard stepping out on a wife like that but oh well. Man could have at least encouraged her to try threesomes.

**Zakhodit** · 2012-01-11

What I find most interesting about the poll Lysander linked is that no matter what level of education, ~10% of respondents got the answer wrong. Which proves that, Religious or not, there are always fools.

Originally Posted by Night

While probably true, neither of them has made much of a point of it. Obama doesn't have a choice in the matter, but it does leave him the demonstrable front-runner on the subject either way.

Huh? Obama is in the lead on the subject of family values because... he said he is? (This really doesn't matter but I'm just confused)

Originally Posted by Night

As for JFK I think he was a goddamn retard stepping out on a wife like that but oh well. Man could have at least encouraged her to try threesomes.

Why would he need to? Jackie knew what was going on, and at the time, it was expected that a wife would reman silent about such activites. On the other hand, she is the best looking first lady we've ever had. But if Marilyn Monroe is a 10, she's maybe an 8. After all, if you're going to cheat on your wife, you had better trade up. Otherwise people will think you're nuts.

**Zakhodit** · 2012-01-11

BACK ON TOPIC:

Current standings after yesterday's vote

Romney's win isn't surprising. Santorum's failure isn't either. (Sweater vests are only vogue in Iowa)

Promising is Huntsman's third place, since eventually People will realize that Paul is insane. However I don't think he'll do as well in the South. Romney, I don't think, will do as well either. He may still win but it will be another "squeaker." The Book fo Mormon doesn't sell so well below the Mason Dixon line, and that's bad for a book that's free.

The best part of this, in my eyes, is that Newt may finally be out.

In the end it may still be an Obama Vs Romney race. And honestly, if Obama wants to win that race, he should fire Joe and put Hillary on his ticket.

The race for the least of evils continues...

**Night** · 2012-01-11

Originally Posted by Zakhodit

Huh? Obama is in the lead on the subject of family values because... he said he is? (This really doesn't matter but I'm just confused)

He's in the lead because he has the default highest visibility. (And nobody cares to challenge it.)

Originally Posted by Zakhodit

Why would he need to? Jackie knew what was going on, and at the time, it was expected that a wife would reman silent about such activites. On the other hand, she is the best looking first lady we've ever had. But if Marilyn Monroe is a 10, she's maybe an 8. After all, if you're going to cheat on your wife, you had better trade up. Otherwise people will think you're nuts.

That sounds like it makes sense, but he spent most of his time trading down to his secretaries or random women who happened to be around, not trading up to Norma Jeane Baker. Besides, a composite of eighteen is better than a ten.

**Zakhodit** · 2012-01-11

Originally Posted by Night

He's in the lead because he has the default highest visibility. (And nobody cares to challenge it.)

Ah, okay. Agreed.

Originally Posted by Night

That sounds like it makes sense, but he spent most of his time trading down to his secretaries or random women who happened to be around, not trading up to Norma Jeane Baker. Besides, a composite of eighteen is better than a ten.

Meh, the idea of a threesome sounds great, but to me it seems like having a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. You can't drive both at the same time. And, who'd going to have both? Only really damn rich people. Composite of eighteen? Now it sounds like you have a Prius, an IROC, and a Beer truck. Each has it's indiviual value, but all together it's just an accident.

**Tyrael** · 2012-01-11

Omg I'm going to laugh so hard when Ron Paul is listed as Romney's arch-rival. Fox News can't ignore him forever... or can they?

**Zakhodit** · 2012-01-11

They can, and so far today, they have been.

Madbro Newt has gotten a lot of air time along with Hee Haw Perry.

I think Fox hopes that if they ignore him, he'll go away. Sort of like our current foreign policy on Iran.

EDIT: To clarify, I do not choose to watch Fox News. But the office I work in has it playing 24/7 and I cannot avoid it.

EDIT 2: I did manage to change the channel to ESPN for about 3 hours before someone noticed.

**Grath** · 2012-01-13

I find it amazing, that the Republican party, would rather keep Obama in office, than elect Ron Paul.

I'm a registered Independent, part of my deep seeded belief that both parties are literally the worlds most high class criminals, and if Paul was on the ticket, he would get my vote, as he seems to hold more of my personal views (im not in your stupid age bracket shit thats getting thrown around by the news, who seem to be categorically ignoring Paul as a candidate).

Its funny, because with out him, there won't even be a Presidential race, as there isn't one single other electable candidate in the Republican group, and to think that even one has a chance against Obama is laughable.

Paul however, is being shut out by the media, ignored by his own party, and this is making his popularity among the people in the country who are currently suffering sky rocket.

If the republicans really wanted a republican in office, they'd back him, but they won't, because he represents the belief that the government has been stealing our civil rights for the past 60 years, and he intends to give those rights back. The modern government has no desire for a freer people.

One post here said that without a congress behind him he couldn't achieve any of his ideas, but thats just it, most of his ideas don't need congressional support, eliminating the Income Tax, eliminating the IRS, those are things he can do by presidential acts on day one of his tenure, bringing the troops home, that doesn't require congressional support, the list of what he wants to do, and would be able to do, is humungous, and unlike the past 3-4 presidents who've been mired down in this bullshit we call a political system.

**xutech** · 2012-01-13

Ron Paul is anti-abortion, and I don't like that.

**Grath** · 2012-01-13

Originally Posted by xutech

Ron Paul is anti-abortion, and I don't like that.

I don't like that either, but the thing i do like is that he wouldn't have a federal mandate about it one way or another, it would be allowed to be decided at the state level. No one candidate has everything that I like, and after 4 years of doing nothing at all, I can't find it in me to give Obama another shot, and yet the prospect of having somebody like Romney or Santorum as president is more scarey than having Bush come back.

Of everybody talking right now, Paul makes the most sense, and has kept to his principles for a very long time, unlike people like Gingrich who led the drive against Clinton for getting blown in office, while at the same time getting blown in office. The hypocrisy from every body else, including the President himself, is just more than most people can stand right now, and Obama giving all that money to Wall Street while the rest of us burned pretty much sealed his fate if Paul can actually get on the ticket.

**Grim** · 2012-01-13

If elected Ron Paul would be hamstrung by a congress that will never support him. So if you want to go 4 years without anything getting done go for it. From some viewpoints that would be a good thing actually.

**Grath** · 2012-01-13

Originally Posted by Grim

If elected Ron Paul would be hamstrung by a congress that will never support him. So if you want to go 4 years without anything getting done go for it. From some viewpoints that would be a good thing actually.

Again, half of what he wants to do wouldn't need congress's approval at all. Most of his actions can be done simply because he's the president, or by the old faithful that Bush abused to death, the presidential act (eliminating the IRS, eliminating Income Tax, Department of Housing, and other departments, that shit he can just axe straight from the white house, ordering the troops home, ect.).

On a side note, the past 4 years, the only thing that the current president has done, is pass a shitty healthcare law thats wrapped up in court, and give all of our money to corporations who were robbing the American people blind from jump anyway, so it literally can't possibly be any worse.

**Arrador** · 2012-01-13

Originally Posted by xutech

Ron Paul is anti-abortion, and I don't like that.

Yea, but reversing roe vs wade is for all intents and purposes, is impossible. Honestly, the whole pro-life vs choice shit is an utter detraction from a plethora of other glaring issues that need to be addressed.