General Republican Party/Primary Discussion

[Stratos]

The problem is, it wouldn't appear that either in their current state are capable of defeating Obama.

there was a survey in which Santorum and Obama were statistically tied; of the sample, Santorum would have come out 1% on top. I mean, one study isn't much at all, and Romney has taken the brunt of Obama's negative ads and the media's attention as of so far, but there's no saying Obama is a shoe-in.

 

[Surgo]

i don't think santorum actually wants to prevent schools from talking about condoms or whatever, but rather he wants them to also present the advantages of abstinence realistically to compliment that, and just let the kids make up their minds themselves

If the study had those three components, another perfectly valid method of satisfying it would be having schools present the advantages of getting an abortion instead of giving birth pre-marriage. Of course that would violate his narrative so we can't have that!

 

[Deck Knight]

Deck Knight I think you should know that if it were my decision all religious institutions would be banned from the United States so I don't really feel any empathy for any of them, sorry :) (Don't worry, little buddy, I'm never gonna run for president!)

Religious liberty is the reason America was founded. People being forced to act against their consciences by government fiat is intrinsically a bad thing. Still not sure why anyone would want to ban religious institutions given the bloody history of that very policy in the 20th century.

There's a reason Catholic hospitals and schools generally cater to the poorest communities: secularists as a general population value profit more than altruism, have no strong moral conviction to help others without benefiting in the process, and thus they don't tend to set up in those locations.

My concerns aren't based on ignorance, they're based on a CNN debate where he said explicitly (as explicitly as a politician can say) that he would legally enforce abstinence. He said that since there are studies (obviously by biased religious institutions) that say that those that do not have sex until they are married are 90% more likely to succeed and have an income over 200 thousand dollars per year he would be hard pressed to seriously consider legally obligating abstinence. (or something along those lines at least - I don't have a photographic memory or anything)

I'm happy to go to bat for Santorum since every one of his social positions is completely in alignment with mainstream Catholic intellectual thought - and as Catholics make up about 40% of the consistently voting electorate, he's in very good company. If you have a problem with Santorum for being factually accurate, that's your choice. But for someone who doesn't have a moral problem with banning things you don't like, I don't see why you'd have any objection to Santorum as you envision him - save you don't like his targets.

Incidentally, Obama cannot win re-election after enraging basically every organized religious institution that has ever sponsored a school or hospital.

This HHS mandate is his Waterloo. He basically just enraged the largest single reliable voting block, including some people who stuck their neck out for him previously. He's a dead duck electorally. There are a lot of very active, very angry, very driven voters and voter groups who now have his office in their sights. He made the critical mistake of mandating via executive fiat. Catholics have difficulty in fighting hostile activist courts. They know how to replace a hostile activist president.

 

[kittenmay]

There's a reason Catholic hospitals and schools generally cater to the poorest communities: secularists as a general population value profit more than altruism, have no strong moral conviction to help others without benefiting in the process, and thus they don't tend to set up in those locations.

I am sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.
You are saying that secularists or non Catholic people SPECIFICALLY, are morally deficient and cannot or will not do anything to help society because they see no benefit from it.

First of all, you've insulted not only every secularist/freethinker/atheist/whatever label you wish to give, but also every person who is not a Catholic.

I'd like to show this picture as an example of how wrong you can be. Due to its large size, I put it in hide tags.

Hide

God has nothing to do with morality. Perhaps at one point, the idea of a god, deity or higher power motivated or kickstarted morality. (I personally disagree with that argument, but there are plenty of people who believe that.) Even if that was true, any sort of god is no longer a factor of morality. We are civilized, social beings. In order for social order to be kept, there must be some sort of civil and moral code that dictates the way society runs. Otherwise, there would be no society and we could not live in such large groups. Just a point.

Also, as to the reason why this statement was made by the OP. You are right, religious freedom was the reason this country was established and I do agree that it would be difficult, nearly impossible to rid this country of freedom at this stage. However, not only is the country about freedom of religion, it is also about freedom FROM religion. Something which many people forget. By making laws based on your religious views and beliefs, and then attempting to impose them on the country, where many people do not agree with them, you are infringing on that right.

This is what I feel is the major problem with the Republican candidates. They cater to a certain majority, and all the rest be damned. Perhaps we are not the majority, but that does not make us have less rights than you do, does not make us any less human.

 

[Stratos]

pshaw, atheists oppressed? that's such a GOOD ONE.

what many people seem to think is that the Constitution does mean freedom from religion. Here's a hint: it doesn't! We have just as much a right to practice our religion right in front of your face as you have to post "god doesn't exist" in all caps wherever you want. Atheists do not get to eliminate religion, just as religion cannot eliminate atheism. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem at all if the Congress only dealt with the sectors it is supposed to, but I really don't think this is happening.

"Something which many people forget. By making laws based on your LACK OF religious views and beliefs, and then attempting to impose them on the country, where many people do not agree with them, you are infringing on that right." what does this sound like? if you guessed the HHS mandate then by golly you're correct. We have just as much of a right to practice all our Christian beliefs as atheists do to not practice them, but Obama doesn't seem to get that.

 

[kittenmay]

pshaw, atheists oppressed? that's such a GOOD ONE.

what many people seem to think is that the Constitution does mean freedom from religion. Here's a hint: it doesn't! We have just as much a right to practice our religion right in front of your face as you have to post "god doesn't exist" in all caps wherever you want. Atheists do not get to eliminate religion, just as religion cannot eliminate atheism. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem at all if the Congress only dealt with the sectors it is supposed to, but I really don't think this is happening.

"Something which many people forget. By making laws based on your LACK OF religious views and beliefs, and then attempting to impose them on the country, where many people do not agree with them, you are infringing on that right." what does this sound like? if you guessed the HHS mandate then by golly you're correct. We have just as much of a right to practice all our Christian beliefs as atheists do to not practice them, but Obama doesn't seem to get that.

First of all, yes. Atheists were up until very recently, the most hated minority in America. Yes. More hated then blacks, Jews or gays. Recently, the Tea Party has beaten us. (Which gives me some sort of hope)
I'm not sure if you read my post correctly. I said, I do NOT believe that religion can or will be eliminated in America any time soon, and any attempt to do so is an exercise in futility.
How exactly is Obama infringing on your rights to be practicing Christians? I haven't seen any evidence for that, but I'd love it if you could show me some.
However, infringing on the rights of the secular portion of society is being preached by the Republican candidates. Things such as laws banning abortion, laws banning gay marriage, etc. That is infringing on the right of the secular minority to do what they wish. I can't speak for everyone, but I'd say a good portion of the secular minority would be fine if you practice your religion in peace and quiet, and we will not practice religion in peace and quiet. The issue arises when religion is being shoved into the faces of those who don't believe it. And then, when we get sick of it and decide to fight back, it is US who are being ridiculous, radical, rude, annoying, etc.

But I don't think this topic is about religion, so lets keep to the topic.

 

[DM]

Yes. Let's.

I honestly believe, as a left-leaning Libertarian, that a Romney-Paul ticket would have a great shot to beat Obama. I can't foresee any other variations of the Republican nominees having a fighting chance. Thoughts?

 

[mattj]

I'd say I'm very socially conservative. Neither I, nor many of my very socially conservative friends could vote for Romney. Period. He's not an option for us. If he gets enough delegates he's going to have to hope to make it without us. I'd rather give Obama 4 more years than let the Republican party fool itself into thinking I'll give them my vote simply because he's the "Republican" nominee.

I can't speak for all social conservatives everywhere, but at least here in my corner of the midwest, I know so many people who just simply cannot vote for that man. Maybe he could get enough votes from other groups, moderate Republicans, independents, frustrated Democrats, etc, but I don't see him getting much, if any, of the staunchly conservative vote. I think this Tuesday proved that.

 

[Stratos]

matty boy, i hate to be the guy to ruin your day, but Mitt Romney is like Pokemon Gray - you don't want to buy it, but you sort of have to. Not in the primaries, of course, but in the general election, if he does secure the nom, conservatives will (and should!) still show up in huge numbers to vote against Obama. I'd take that 70s game show host over Obama any day.

 

[iDunno]

Well I for one am voting for Obama :)


I would have considered voting Republican this time, but I would prefer Rick Santorum go back in his little christhole. I mean, as I type this, I am hearing him say on the news, explicitly, that he will try and make it so women in the army cannot go into combat. I mean I don't know if he CAN do that, but the fact that he wants to and that he is so open about it... yeah no thanks. In Mitt Romney's case, I would prefer not to live (even moreso) in the American government from the 1850s again, so I won't vote for him.

 

[capefeather]

Actually, in a sense, American government from the 1850s doesn't sound like a bad idea...

 

[Yuki [old]]

Well I for one am voting for Obama :)

I mean, as I type this, I am hearing him say on the news, explicitly, that he will try and make it so women in the army cannot go into combat. I mean I don't know if he CAN do that, but the fact that he wants to and that he is so open about it... yeah no thanks.

do you have like a youtube video of this or anything like that

reason i ask is because currently the us army does not allow women on the frontlines anyway, but if he's wanting to remove women from positions like helicopter/tank pilots and non-combat roles like medics, then yeah we have a problem lol

 

[Ice-eyes]

I think the Republican party needs to reconcile fiscal-conservative / libertarian policy with social-conservative / absurd policy if it is going to avoid the current mess - which benefits no-one except Obama (and, by extension, America). If nothing else, it's eroding Romney's only real selling point - his electability - because swing voters are starting to wonder whether he is actually going to be prepared to go back on the ridiculous things he has been forced to say in order to win over staunch Republicans.

 

[Wildfire]

do you have like a youtube video of this or anything like that

reason i ask is because currently the us army does not allow women on the frontlines anyway, but if he's wanting to remove women from positions like helicopter/tank pilots and non-combat roles like medics, then yeah we have a problem lol

I think this is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLIZCuSlL8E&feature=g-logo&context=G2b74553FOAAAAAAAGAA

 

[Nastyjungle]

what a slimy piece of shit, heard it on the radio this afternoon

i feel sick even thinking that there is a possibility that someday santorum might be president
and it makes me even more ill that there exist people who actually want to call this backwards man their leader

 

[Umbreon Dan]

rick santorum is a cutie

 

[mattj]

dang it
i thought he was against that too
now i can't vote for anybody

 

[Deck Knight]

kittenmay:

I was simply making a statement of fact about a general population. Using a 3 person example (which includes two of the most exceptionally rich people in the world and a ridiculous assertion about Pat Robertson to boot) is a ludicrous appeal to emotions and you know it. I could just as easily put up Mitt Romney vs. Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong and conclude that those who give mightily to charity because of their religious convictions are better than people who want to eradicate religion from the public square.

Still wouldn't have used Buffett though on account of Buffett's problems with back taxes.

In any case, your average run of the mill secularist has no force to daily or weekly remind him his solemn duty as a member of humanity is to help his fellow men. This isn't even a debatable point. Behaviors arise because of reinforcement, and unless they are set on a path to self-reinforcement at an early age, altruism to outsiders is not the natural disposition of every human being. Most people go through their lives trying to make money and provide for their immediate family. Nothing wrong with that, but living that life doesn't tend to drive people to invest large amounts of capital and time helping complete strangers - the thing that Catholic (and other) institutions affected by the HHS mandate do as their purpose.

Atheists are still the most hated, least trusted minority in America - but it's because their loudest representatives are wanna-be-totalitarian assholes who attack the religious beliefs of the overwhelming majority of their peers. The kind of people who say they'd love to ban religion and that society would be so much better if the practice that gives guidance to the lives of most of their American peers were to be permanently abolished.

America at large doesn't trust atheists because the most public atheists available have never given them any reason to believe there's a difference between a Stalinist (or a Maoist if you prefer) and an atheist.

Ice-eyes: Socially conservative positions are neither electorally irrelevant not inherently absurd. They tend to be held by the population furthest away from your average Smogon poster - parents with children, jobs, and mortgages to worry about. I hold them because I've seen the wimpy intellectual thought behind socially liberal positions, and I can't support any position that uses character assassination as its primary means of combating opposition. I cannot countenance any "right" that cannot meet the standard of being inherent to humanity, intangible and thus unlimited in availability, and whose application does not compel others to give up their unalienable rights. Abortion (tangible product or service, violates right to life), gay marriage (gay relationships are not conducive to human continuance and thus cannot be inherent to humanity in the absolute, benefits are tangible and require a legal definition for access, putting it in the realm of general public policy), and health care (tangible product or service, compels the labor of physicians) do not pass those tests.

 

[iDunno]

Deck Knight, what you are saying is that people who are religious are inherently good because they follow god's law and you can't believe that anyone who doesn't follow god's law can do anything good because they have nobody telling them to be good, correct?

Well in my eyes, this is what makes athiests morally stronger than religious people then, since one group needs something in return to do something good to others when the other group does good just because doing good things makes them feel good.

But this thread is about Republicans - not religion :(

 

[Codraroll]

^I've heard a saying that goes:
"Christians help people to please their God, to help them getting into Heaven and to follow the teachings of Christ. Atheists help people because they're nice."

Read into that whatever you want. Copypaste it anywhere on the Internet, though, and you'll see the real problem. Deck Knight makes a very valid point about that. I'm going to paraphrase him to get mine across:

"Atheists at large doesn't trust Christians because the most public [vocal] Christians available have never given them any reason to believe there's a difference between a Spanish Inquisitor (or a Westboro Baptist if you prefer) and a regular Christian."

Short-sightedness on behalf of both parties in the debate polarize the discussion to the point we see today. Republicans bash Democrats, Democrats bash Republicans. And the media hypes it all up, amplifies the critizising voices and throws some fuel on the fire now and then because that's what sells. Everything is boiled down to a simple "us vs. them" situation where only one side can be correct, and you know very well what side that is, don't you?

Go to any YouTube video with more than a million views. Scroll down to the comments section. Somewhere, a guy is calling somebody else a nazi, and a bunch of people have an argument of evolution vs. creationism, the existence of God, or both (regardless of what the video is about).

People love a good fight. Both reading something that you agree with and reading something you strongly disagree with trigger the same place in the brain. And it's really easy when it's a matter of black and white, with one side absolutely right and one absolutely wrong. You pick a side, jump into the nearest trench and start defending your views/attacking the views of others. Just have a look at the news, or the Internet in general and see how glaringly often a debate is portrayed as a question of A or B. Be it abortion, gay rights, rights to bear arms, rights to arm bears, evolution or creationism, Excadrill for OU or Ubers, legalization of marijuana, the actions in Libya, universal healthcare, Democrat or Republican president for 2013.

I think this is what makes American politics what it is today. Traditionally, there have been two parties. People pick a side, and start flinging poop at the others. Nobody focuses attention in any other directions, apart from the times when some comedian makes a funny point on how both happen to be wrong. Society is forcing everybody to pick a side, and fight for it, because if the other side won, it would be devastating for the country.

Every now and then, look at the shades of grey. Or gray, whatever you want to call it. If everybody just tried to look at things from each other's point of view, the world would arguably be a lot better place.

 

[Ice-eyes]

I'm going to start with this - GODDAMNIT ATHEISTS WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOURSELVES INTO STRAWMEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN THAT

The atheism thing is irrelevant because religion has no place in politics anyway (moral values, I will admit, necessarily do - and these are based on religion for many people - but arguing for social policy from religious doctrine is ridiculous).

That said, I can now properly reply to Deck's post.

In what way does a religious person have a force to 'daily or weekly remind him of his solemn duty'? What does a religious person have keeping them in line? The threat of punishment on their dying day is largely irrelevant when everyone feels immortal until then anyway. This argument also spectacularly fails to explain why crime rates are lower in developed countries with fewer religious people. There are also studies, for example, showing that vows of chastity don't reduce the amount of sex teens have - and increase the rate of teen pregnancy because contraceptives are less likely to be used. So let's stop using the 'religion grants better moral values' argument.

Deck - your post seems to suggest that tangible benefit is a policy disadvantage? The problem comes when you try to use conflicting ideology to justify different aspects of your social conservatism - state healthcare is a terrible infringement on doctors' rights (how?) but its okay to ban gay marriage, contrary to the extreme libertarian principles you previously espoused, because you've decided that homosexuality is 'not condusive to human continuance' (these are interesting grounds, are we going to censure childless people now? Are people who can't have children for medical reasons going to be banned from marrying?).

Basically, politics is - or rather should be - about doing what works. America's traditional, libertarian healthcare policy isn't working. Banning abortion doesn't work (abortion rates are falling in America, abortion is much higher in countries where abortion is legal, and illegal abortions are all-too-often lethal). Banning gay marriage is just ridiculously pointless - what does it matter to anyone else whether gay couples want to call themselves married and make a romantic / religious / legal commitment to each other?

Why the GOP is spending so much time debating social ideology when most of the candidates believe roughly the same thing and other areas (most notably fiscal / economic policy) are so, so much more important.

 

[iDunno]

Yes. Let's.

I honestly believe, as a left-leaning Libertarian, that a Romney-Paul ticket would have a great shot to beat Obama. I can't foresee any other variations of the Republican nominees having a fighting chance. Thoughts?

The problem with Romney is that he isn't radical enough for most republicans. He doesn't take ridiculous views and he doesn't try to force them down the throats of anybody. The problem with Romney is that he is too sensible. While most tough Republicans are busy being angry at Obama and taking stubborn contrary viewpoints, Mitt Romney dares to take more diplomatic approaches and tries harder to please more than the influential minority. While I would consider voting for him, I'm afraid I will never get the chance since there is a big chance he won't get nominated. Santorum is the perfect Republican candidate. He is radical, but he is SO QUIET in the way he speaks that he could just as easily come across as the nicest guy ever. If someone were to take him based on how he talks and how he looks, more often than not they would like him, and based on how people choose their favored candidates nowadays, someone is very likely to do just that - especially if they are the common conservative man. Santorum takes hostile ideals and repackages them in a way that suddenly makes it ok to have those ideals. He is the perfect candidate for Republicans.

While Romney and Paul have the chance to appeal to liberals and independents, Santorum just might as well be a fish floundering out by the side of a pool, gasping for air while his life leaks slowly out of his body like tendrils that crawl over to Obama and give him political superpowers.

Atheists are still the most hated, least trusted minority in America - but it's because their loudest representatives are wanna-be-totalitarian assholes who attack the religious beliefs of the overwhelming majority of their peers. The kind of people who say they'd love to ban religion and that society would be so much better if the practice that gives guidance to the lives of most of their American peers were to be permanently abolished.

Just want to say that when I said I wanted to ban all religion I didn't really mean it. All I was saying was that if every radical Evangelical Christian and Catholic were to, say, accidentally all fall off a cliff and suffer from spinal injuries that rendered them all vocally disabled and with crippled fingers, I would very likely just continue my day as usual. :)

Hey I'm just being honest.

(Yes, Deck Knight, I am aware that you believe I am probably going to go to hell. Also, before you bring up the fact that a religious man would never think like that, just think about how Christian settlers massacred Native americans in the 1700s, how Catholic Settlers also massacred Native Americans in the 1700s, how the average white christian male in the South lynched and burned black, catholic, and jewish men in the 1900s, how white christian men murdered thousands with differing religious beliefs in the Crusades, etc. There are so many examples of Christian/Catholic/Poopylick violence in history that to type them all would cause my fingers to bleed)

 

[capefeather]

Ice-eyes's post, basically. Can we please stop demonizing people we disagree with? It's well-established that there's a natural code of human nature that's fairly consistent with most of the human species. We behave in similar ways, we have similar "morals", etc. Religion or no religion, we're more similar than people like to pretend.

I don't have to have a god telling me to be nice to people and otherwise behave in ways that aren't optimal with respect to selfish goals. It literally feels good to help people. And if you believe in a god, I'd hope to that god that it's not because he/she forces you to be moral.

 

[billymills]

I honestly believe, as a left-leaning Libertarian, that a Romney-Paul ticket would have a great shot to beat Obama. I can't foresee any other variations of the Republican nominees having a fighting chance. Thoughts?

I can not see Romney picking Paul on any condition, unless Paul threatens a third-party bid. As far as I know that is still on the table, and Romney may well have his hand forced.

I don't think anything other than Romney / _ has a chance. Santorum and Gingrich don't have any chance of picking up independents or disenfranchised democrats. Paul probably has some chance of picking up some left-libertarians and right-conservatives, but has other larger problems: racist allegations, Israel, and the media blackout. I could see, in the unlikely event that Paul wins the nomination, even Fox News siding with Obama.

Assuming Romney wins, and he probably will eventually, he will pick a very conservative running mate, probably from outside the race. I don't know who else he would pick, but I strongly doubt he'll chose from Gingrich and Santorum.

Romney / baptist guy probably stands a good chance, no matter how ridiculous I think it would be.

 

[Ice-eyes]

I can not see Romney picking Paul on any condition, unless Paul threatens a third-party bid. As far as I know that is still on the table, and Romney may well have his hand forced.

I don't think anything other than Romney / _ has a chance. Santorum and Gingrich don't have any chance of picking up independents or disenfranchised democrats. Paul probably has some chance of picking up some left-libertarians and right-conservatives, but has other larger problems: racist allegations, Israel, and the media blackout. I could see, in the unlikely event that Paul wins the nomination, even Fox News siding with Obama.

Assuming Romney wins, and he probably will eventually, he will pick a very conservative running mate, probably from outside the race. I don't know who else he would pick, but I strongly doubt he'll chose from Gingrich and Santorum.

Romney / baptist guy probably stands a good chance, no matter how ridiculous I think it would be.

This is a good point, actually; Romney's running mate is likely going to have to provide compensation for his Mormonism and perceived indecision - a strong, socially and fiscally conservative Protestant. I don't know if he'd be willing to take the risk of picking either someone like Ron Paul or a more moderate figure, boosting his appeal outside the central Republican base but threatening to alienate traditional Republican voters who don't like or trust Romney himself.