Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

The Mad Hatter

From Robin's BBC story:

A leading Republican, who was in Congress for more than 10 years, answered my question: "Who can beat Obama?" with a casual, "a mammal". Then he added sadly: "But they are all reptiles."

Sindri

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, but I would probably vote for him

/runs

Ron Paul is a doctor.

Sindri

RichieC wrote: »

Obama seems to have it sewn up... A pillar of sanity.

Well supposedly the feel good factor is back in America so that will help him and since Romney will be the candidate, Obama just has to recall all the flip-flops Romney has made during his political career, (he lies to get elected):eek:. He's lying right now to appeal to the more conservative members of the GOP. Not to mention Romney-care.

Penn

In a way, I think if the most religious of these candidates wins, and becomes President, religion will die out quicker, because people will finally start to think "Actually, maybe we've gone too far..."

Penn

Don't know how accurate Twitter can be for these things, but:

Trending in Ireland: Ron Paul, Romney, Santorum, Iowa.
Trending in US: Hey Arnold, The Nanny, Robot Chicken, Barry White.

Wow...

fitz0

So the results are out. Romney first, Santorum second with only 8 votes in it.

Santorum.

A bigger nut than Bachmann even. This man actually wants to start a war with Iran. He thinks that black people have no right to participate in the abortion debate. Needless to say that's because Obama doesn't agree with him. I won't even get atarted on his stance on homosexuality.

Ron Paul came third. He may be as much of a nut as the rest but he's the only one I'd actually vote for. At least he doesn't pander to the Jewish lobby in America like all the rest.

Link

RichieC

fitz0 wrote: »

Ron Paul came third. He may be as much of a nut as the rest but he's the only one I'd actually vote for. At least he doesn't pander to the Jewish lobby in America like all the rest.

Link

If he gets voted in he will pander or die.

Plautus

I would have thought that Ron Paul was the 'safest' bet for his libertarian credentials (even though I'm not a libertarian.)

Then I found the Ron Paul Newsletter twitter feed. I don't think the leopard has changed his spots, he's just become ... quieter.

http://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter

fisgon

I find all these guys bizarrely fascinating, like some kind of horror movie. It is truly scary how the Republican party, which would be some kind of wacko fringe party in most other developed countries, is a mainstream political movement in the US, with a decent chance of providing the next president.

What I find so horribly compelling about them is that they seem to all hold these views that would not be out of place in medieval Europe, and they are proud of this fact. They in fact seem to be competing to see who can be the most medieval, the most enslaved by dogmatic religion, the most ignorant, the most bitter and hate-filled.

Santorum is a good case in point. I didn't know much about him until I read the entry on Wikipedia. Among all of the usual nonsense that wouldn't be out of place in the thirteenth century was his assertion that the sex abuse among Catholic clergy was caused by an increasing liberalism in society.

"In 2005, a controversy developed over an article Santorum wrote in 2002 to a Catholic publication. In it, he said that liberalism and moral relativism in American society, particularly within seminaries, contributed to the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. He wrote, "...it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.""

Despicable stuff, trying to use child abuse to further his twisted political crusade against liberals. Would be interested to see him explain all of our clerical sex abuse in the 50s and 60s in what was then the most illiberal country in the Western world.

These guys truly are batsh1t crazy, though people will vote for them in their tens of millions. Terrifying.

amacachi

Penn wrote: »

Don't know how accurate Twitter can be for these things, but:

Trending in Ireland: Ron Paul, Romney, Santorum, Iowa.
Trending in US: Hey Arnold, The Nanny, Robot Chicken, Barry White.

Wow...

It was 4/5am when those things were trending in Ireland, don't think there was much else for us to be talking about. :pac:

Penn

fisgon wrote: »

I find all these guys bizarrely fascinating, like some kind of horror movie. It is truly scary how the Republican party, which would be some kind of wacko fringe party in most other developed countries, is a mainstream political movement in the US, with a decent chance of providing the next president.

What I find so horribly compelling about them is that they seem to all hold these views that would not be out of place in medieval Europe, and they are proud of this fact. They in fact seem to be competing to see who can be the most medieval, the most enslaved by dogmatic religion, the most ignorant, the most bitter and hate-filled.

Santorum is a good case in point. I didn't know much about him until I read the entry on Wikipedia. Among all of the usual nonsense that wouldn't be out of place in the thirteenth century was his assertion that the sex abuse among Catholic clergy was caused by an increasing liberalism in society.

"In 2005, a controversy developed over an article Santorum wrote in 2002 to a Catholic publication. In it, he said that liberalism and moral relativism in American society, particularly within seminaries, contributed to the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. He wrote, "...it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.""

Despicable stuff, trying to use child abuse to further his twisted political crusade against liberals. Would be interested to see him explain all of our clerical sex abuse in the 50s and 60s in what was then the most illiberal country in the Western world.

These guys truly are batsh1t crazy, though people will vote for them in their tens of millions. Terrifying.

Exactly. These candidates are crazy, and this race to get the nomination to run as President could be more interesting than our own Presidential race a few months ago, where we had someone who wrote letters to the Israeli government asking for clemency for someone who had sex with a minor, we had someone who was heavily involved in an organisation which committed terrorist attacks and other atrocities, we had a former Eurovision winner who seemed to be a conspiracy theorist about Europe, and we also had Bilbo Baggins. And Bilbo won ours.

Some of the stuff these guys are saying is just craziness, yet people will vote for them just because they talk about God.

sensibleken

fisgon wrote: »

"In 2005, a controversy developed over an article Santorum wrote in 2002 to a Catholic publication. In it, he said that liberalism and moral relativism in American society, particularly within seminaries, contributed to the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. He wrote, "...it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.""

.

Well you can't spell Santorum without Sanitarium...misspelt.

The worst once was when Bachmann said the eathquake in washington was gods way of telling congress to balance the budget.

fitz0

RichieC wrote: »

If he gets voted in he will pander or die.

I have high hopes that he won't though. He didn't attend the Jewish American thing that was on a while back where Gingrich dissed Palestinians and the rest pledged their financial and military support to Israel if they got elected.

What I can't understand though is why the Jewish lobby is so influential. They make up a grand total of 1.4% of the electorate yet they are the group that Republicans court most frequently after the evangelicals. The amount of shameless pandering is ridiculous. I really have never understood America's worship of the Jewish.

In the Guardian yesterday there was an article by Dan Savage (the man who reassociated the word santorum.) In it he outlined the electoral impact of the LGBT community in America. They make up (at an estimate) 3.8% of the electorate, 9 million people. Yet it's ok for them to be constantly bashed by most of the candidates, Santorum being the worst. As Savage points out, family and friends of LGBT folk are hardly going to vote for a candidate that hates their friend/family member. So if even one person for every LGBT voter votes elsewhere that's 18million votes lost, given a full turnout.

I really can't wrap my head around this madness. The Jewish lobby may have power and money (if stereotypes are to be believed) but how can any candidate with a shred of honour or respect for the system marginalise such a huge portion of their people while going to great lengths for a much smaller segment. The mind truly boggles.

Dades

fitz0 wrote: »

I really can't wrap my head around this madness. The Jewish lobby may have power and money (if stereotypes are to be believed) but how can any candidate with a shred of honour or respect for the system marginalise such a huge portion of their people while going to great lengths for a much smaller segment. The mind truly boggles.

They may be marginalising a large portion of their people, but they are potentially galvanising a larger portion who like to have elected representatives who share their prejudices.

sensibleken

fitz0 wrote: »

I have high hopes that he won't though. He didn't attend the Jewish American thing that was on a while back where Gingrich dissed Palestinians and the rest pledged their financial and military support to Israel if they got elected.

What I can't understand though is why the Jewish lobby is so influential. They make up a grand total of 1.4% of the electorate yet they are the group that Republicans court most frequently after the evangelicals. The amount of shameless pandering is ridiculous. I really have never understood America's worship of the Jewish.

In the Guardian yesterday there was an article by Dan Savage (the man who reassociated the word santorum.) In it he outlined the electoral impact of the LGBT community in America. They make up (at an estimate) 3.8% of the electorate, 9 million people. Yet it's ok for them to be constantly bashed by most of the candidates, Santorum being the worst. As Savage points out, family and friends of LGBT folk are hardly going to vote for a candidate that hates their friend/family member. So if even one person for every LGBT voter votes elsewhere that's 18million votes lost, given a full turnout.

I really can't wrap my head around this madness. The Jewish lobby may have power and money (if stereotypes are to be believed) but how can any candidate with a shred of honour or respect for the system marginalise such a huge portion of their people while going to great lengths for a much smaller segment. The mind truly boggles.

The israel lobby is huge with evangelical Christians though. There is a sixable movement of evangenicals who urge the rebuilding of solomons temple on the temple mount in order to usher in the rapture. not to mention the whole anti arab prejudice

sponsoredwalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9YMYOG7xVQ

bnt

Would it be harsh of me to describe Bachmann's campaign as a Bibilcal disaster?

fitz0

^ Biblically speaking wouldn't she still have to defer to her husband?:pac:

sensibleken wrote: »

The israel lobby is huge with evangelical Christians though. There is a sixable movement of evangenicals who urge the rebuilding of solomons temple on the temple mount in order to usher in the rapture. not to mention the whole anti arab prejudice

This is what I don't get, why are they fawning all over Israel, land of the people who demanded the execution of their messiah? Doesn't their Bible say "an eye for an eye"? Like all things religious, I just don't get it. America just confuses me in general.

robindch

fitz0 wrote: »

why are they fawning all over Israel

A bunch of reasons, amongst which, I suspect, are: (a) Israel is the US's only long-term political ally in the region; (b) a lot of traffic back and forth from Israel before, during and following the second world war; (c) heavy support by religious leaders (hence much talk of "judeo-christian" stuff); (d) a lot of good politicking by the Israeli political class and (e) the baleful influence of AIPAC.

Sindri

fitz0 wrote: »

So the results are out. Romney first, Santorum second with only 8 votes in it.

Santorum.

A bigger nut than Bachmann even. This man actually wants to start a war with Iran. He thinks that black people have no right to participate in the abortion debate. Needless to say that's because Obama doesn't agree with him. I won't even get atarted on his stance on homosexuality.

Ron Paul came third. He may be as much of a nut as the rest but he's the only one I'd actually vote for. At least he doesn't pander to the Jewish lobby in America like all the rest.

Link

You should take a look at Huntsman. He's a 5th cousin of Romney, and he's on record of saying he believes in evolution and climate change. Have a look at his policies.

Thomas Eshuis

fitz0 wrote: »

This is what I don't get, why are they fawning all over Israel, land of the people who demanded the execution of their messiah? Doesn't their Bible say "an eye for an eye"?

Those people that want to rebuilt the temple and appease Isreal are pursuing biblical prophecies which predict that the end of the world and consequently the rapture, will happen when the temple is rebuild and Israel will fight a war against the Antichrist.

In essence they yearn for war to break out in Israel so that jesus can take them into heaven.
Nice huh?

fitz0

^People that genuinely believe stuff like that scare me. How could you look forward to war? ****ing nutters.

robindch wrote: »

A bunch of reasons, amongst which, I suspect, are: (a) Israel is the US's only long-term political ally in the region; (b) a lot of traffic back and forth from Israel before, during and following the second world war; (c) heavy support by religious leaders (hence much talk of "judeo-christian" stuff); (d) a lot of good politicking by the Israeli political class and (e) the baleful influence of AIPAC.

Yeah, that makes more sense now. More political than religious, even with the evas weighing in.

As for Huntsman, I know very little about him except that he appears to have marginally more than 0% chance of winning. A quick look at google shows him to be fairly moderate with some attitudes that might do the US good. But again, he has little to no chance. The way he dismissed Iowa in favour of New Hampshire "They make corn in Iowa, presidents in New Hampshire" just came across as condescending and arrogant. But then thats the only time I've heard him speak, I didn't even know he was running for a long time.

Oh, and Mormon.

amacachi

Pity Huntsman has no chance, came across well on The Colbert Report and seems not to be too much of a mental.

Galvasean

amacachi wrote: »

Pity Huntsman has no chance, came across well on The Colbert Report and seems not to be too much of a mental.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPbIiLrNGZo

Delirium

Rick Santorum Quotes As New Yorker Cartoons (more cartoons on the linked page)

stucass

Ron Paul is the only one who has a good record, the rest are typical groomed politicians with their perma-grins and rhetoric.

sponsoredwalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNSUWxeb7EE

I'm telling you, when Newt Gingrich used the phrase "death tax"
it sent a message to Rick Santorum's brain that influenced his
class warfare response, & it all comes from the Frank Luntz
focus groups!

LOL

RichieC

magicbastarder wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear has loads of money so it matters not that the plebs cant afford it. Americaw has the best medical care in the world!211

robindch

New Gingrich, the man who pledged not to run any negative ads, runs a negative ad about Mitt Romney, showing him speaking French, no less:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16549624

You'd wonder what political archaeologists would make of this in two centuries time, were they ever to bother looking.

amacachi

Nowhere near as bad as what was run about Huntsman in fairness. That was just sad.