EPTRepublican nominations - Page 42
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
| ||
|
Supert0fu
United States499 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On August 22 2011 04:51 TOloseGT wrote: The more I look at Huntsman, the more I like him. Too bad the Republican base can't see that. He believes in evolution. How could the Republican party possibly nominate him? | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On August 22 2011 14:44 synapse wrote: He believes in evolution. How could the Republican party possibly nominate him? That is the #1 issue among TL users apparently, whether or not the candidate believes in evolution. Who gives a damn their stance on the economy, foreign policy, immigration... I just want my candidate to be likable, and relatable! | ||
|
Kiwifruit
New Zealand130 Posts
On August 22 2011 15:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: That is the #1 issue among TL users apparently, whether or not the candidate believes in evolution. Who gives a damn their stance on the economy, foreign policy, immigration... I just want my candidate to be likable, and relatable! I believe he was taking the piss out of American Republicans. Not to mention other important factors in determining a Republican candidate: * Belief in guns. * Belief in fetuses. * Belief in heterosexualism. * Belief in GOD. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On August 22 2011 15:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: That is the #1 issue among TL users apparently, whether or not the candidate believes in evolution. Who gives a damn their stance on the economy, foreign policy, immigration... I just want my candidate to be likable, and relatable! Let's look at these issues then. Mitt Romney has no idea what he's going to do with spending cuts, except that he's pledged he will "cut spending". Cool, where. It's not exactly easy when you're president to guide congress into cutting where you want them to cut, especially if a hostile congress pops up. I foresee the same fiasco happening that went on recently. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have even less of an idea how to combat the deficit, except for the often touted "spending cuts" bullshit. But at least these two we all know are willfully ignorant. Not one complex thought in their campaign so far. Mitt Romney would have been a candidate I liked if he kept his view from the early 2000s, now he's just pandering to the neo-cons. Rick Perry wants to make an amendment on marriage in the constitution. That's absolutely ridiculous, especially considering his stance on States' rights. I would never consider him as fit for Presidency while holding those views. Michele Bachmann is an anti-intellectual hack. She's bred from the same tree as Sarah Palin and the likes, throwing around trigger words to appease her constituents without actually having to produce any coherent thoughts. She's shown how little she knows about the global economy recently by spewing this awful promise of bringing gas prices down to below $2. Basically, all her views are either based on ignorance or brainwashing from religion. It's disgusting to see. All three of them pledged not to raise taxes, which wouldn't exactly help lessen the deficit any. Frankly, the leading Republican candidates will not help the U.S. solve, or even reduce, any of its issues. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On August 22 2011 15:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: That is the #1 issue among TL users apparently, whether or not the candidate believes in evolution. Who gives a damn their stance on the economy, foreign policy, immigration... I just want my candidate to be likable, and relatable! I think you miss the point. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On August 22 2011 15:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: That is the #1 issue among TL users apparently, whether or not the candidate believes in evolution. Who gives a damn their stance on the economy, foreign policy, immigration... I just want my candidate to be likable, and relatable! For me the point is that if someone consider his own opinions on a scientific topic to hold more weight than 100 years of scientific development he is presumably a lot more likely not to listen to expert advice or opinions conflicting to his own on any other topic either. | ||
|
Bubble-T
Australia105 Posts
On August 22 2011 17:39 BlackFlag wrote: People who blatantly refuse to acknowledge at least basic science are idiots. That's why it's important if they believe in evolution. Someone who rejects science because in his 2000 year old book stands something different shouldn't have any responsibility, especially they should not be president of a country. I don't think that's exactly fair - I have a number of Christian friends who put in a lot of work helping their community either through the church, their jobs, or other charitable work. Unless their acts involve science teaching directly I'm not sure why it matters, they are otherwise upstanding and responsible people. Obviously I agree when it comes to the presidency of the US but lets not dehumanise people so broadly just because they believe in creationism, ok? | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On August 22 2011 18:06 Bubble-T wrote: I don't think that's exactly fair - I have a number of Christian friends who put in a lot of work helping their community either through the church, their jobs, or other charitable work. Unless their acts involve science teaching directly I'm not sure why it matters, they are otherwise upstanding and responsible people. Obviously I agree when it comes to the presidency of the US but lets not dehumanise people so broadly just because they believe in creationism, ok? Politics should be based on science, Natural Science and Arts (History and that stuff, I don't really know the common english expression for that type of studies). They can be supernice people I bet, but they shouldn't then work in a field that directly needs science (E.g. Politics). On a personal level, I don't think I could hang out with people who believe in creationism and the likes. I have religious friends too, none of them believe in that stuff. I think not even the priest of our church believes in creationism. No one does in Europe, and people wouldn't be taken seriously, on no level. They may believe that god kickstarted evolution (or something like that)... | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
| ||
|
hoob
Sweden69 Posts
Ron Paul wont win mostly because he has run a number of times and he's just not crazy enough. He actually stands for what he believes in and he wants to stop all the senseless wars which a lot of people (republican donors) are making a lot of money from. Unless America becomes a little less filled with bible humping gun toting rednecks then I really cant see the republicans support a non-crazy candidate | ||
|
jcarlson08
United States267 Posts
On August 22 2011 18:42 Uncultured wrote: Why do people keep saying they don't thin Ron Paul can win? He's winning polls, and has the backing. Because he won polls and had backing in the last 2 elections too, and he always putters out. | ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
On August 22 2011 18:19 BlackFlag wrote: Politics should be based on science, Natural Science and Arts (History and that stuff, I don't really know the common english expression for that type of studies). They can be supernice people I bet, but they shouldn't then work in a field that directly needs science (E.g. Politics). On a personal level, I don't think I could hang out with people who believe in creationism and the likes. I have religious friends too, none of them believe in that stuff. I think not even the priest of our church believes in creationism. No one does in Europe, and people wouldn't be taken seriously, on no level. They may believe that god kickstarted evolution (or something like that)... Wait, seriously? I thought many people in Europe(or at least in places like Italy) believe in creationism. I live in the US and have only been to Europe once but is this actually true? | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
On August 22 2011 20:03 Josealtron wrote: Wait, seriously? I thought many people in Europe(or at least in places like Italy) believe in creationism. I live in the US and have only been to Europe once but is this actually true? The Vatican endorses theistic evolution so it could be | ||
|
RoyW
Ireland270 Posts
| ||
|
Klaca
318 Posts
On August 22 2011 18:19 BlackFlag wrote: Politics should be based on science, Natural Science and Arts (History and that stuff, I don't really know the common english expression for that type of studies). They can be supernice people I bet, but they shouldn't then work in a field that directly needs science (E.g. Politics). On a personal level, I don't think I could hang out with people who believe in creationism and the likes. I have religious friends too, none of them believe in that stuff. I think not even the priest of our church believes in creationism. No one does in Europe, and people wouldn't be taken seriously, on no level. They may believe that god kickstarted evolution (or something like that)... Political science is a scam on the grandest scale. Any science that makes normative statements is blatantly fallacious from the get-go. You cant take something like that seriously. | ||
|
RoyW
Ireland270 Posts
On August 22 2011 20:03 Josealtron wrote: Wait, seriously? I thought many people in Europe(or at least in places like Italy) believe in creationism. I live in the US and have only been to Europe once but is this actually true? Basically, yes. Even here in Ireland, religious people believe in an Evolution facilitated by god. There are an incredibly small number of people who are creationists in the man was created 4-6 thousand years ago sense. And those are all ridiculed in mainstream culture. | ||
|
Klaca
318 Posts
On August 22 2011 20:20 RoyW wrote: Because he's very crazy, albeit a different type of crazy to the other Republican candidates. Thats the crazy argument. Its an ad-hom, strawman, what ever way you take it. You cant address his arguments so instead you attack his person. Its the same old shit everywhere, its almost ridiculous how analogous people's rationalizations are: never are his arguments addressed, and because he doesnt have any skeletons in his closet to use as justification of dislike, a blanket statement like calling him crazy is used. Because in the kingdom of lies, talking about truth is heresy and nuttery. | ||
| ||
