2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

ECO_Mental

Is calling someone a fruitcake against the charter?

ancapailldorcha

A standard of debate is expected here. This is a forum for serious discussion, not one liners and news dumping. We have a thread for discussing the rules here. Alternatively, you can PM me. Please do not continue this debate here.

lochderg

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can't believe you described the Republicans debating as 'democratic' in spirit.How can Americans want these people to represent their country? There is nothing democratic,fair or decent about them or their views.Their unrivalled skill at taking money from elites has become the norm and their idea of improving things is to give more to the extremely wealthy.It's a sorry picture that such a powerful nation would allow these neocon freaks any airtime whatsoever -whether it's to deny scientific fact or to invoke God for the benefit of their pockets they've become a walking talkin Pythonesque political circus -as Paul Krugman syas"The point is that we shouldn’t ask whether the G.O.P. will eventually nominate someone in the habit of saying things that are demonstrably untrue, and counting on political loyalists not to notice. The only question is what kind of scam it will be."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/springtime-for-grifters.html?ribbon-ad-idx=3&rref=collection/column/paul-krugman&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Paul%20Krugman&pgtype=article&_r=0

Overheal

InTheTrees

lochderg wrote: »

I can't believe you described the Republicans debating as 'democratic' in spirit.How can Americans want these people to represent their country? ]

I know. Its like "The emeperor has no clothes". To listen to the Republicans seriously discussing the pros and cons of Donald trump and ben Carson you just wonder what the F is up with these people.

Can they really not see?

Today Carson has restated a theory he described in 1998, that the pyramids were actually used for grain storage. I am seriously not kidding. He's the front runner for the republican party nomination for president. Its chilling.

Of course this is the same party that picked Sarah palin as a vice presidential candidate.

Overheal

eire4 wrote: »

If there is one thing Republicans agree on saying thats they want a smaller federal government. However their actions are very often all about big government. This so called small government party wants to get involved with how a woman makes decisions for her body or what adults do in their bedrooms. This so called small government party supports the denial of collective bargaining rights for public sector employess. They love bloated military budgets. They love the spying and militaization of police and turning of the country into a surveillence state. They crackdown on whistle blowers who expose government misconduct.
Reality is the Republicans love small government when it benefits big corporations such as fighting environment protection or pretty much any regulation on business as well of course as tax cuts for the wealthy. But equally they love big government especially when it involves peoples civil liberties and national security.

In reality they believe that government only exists as a co-protection agreement, which consists of the military and inevitably extends into economic security. Except when they refer to economic security, they don't mean "of the people" they mean the economic security of the companies and interests they themselves are heavily and financially invested in.

Black Swan

I am beginning to question Ben Carson's intelligence, knowledge, and competence to hold the highest public office in USA.

During a 1998 Andrews University commencement speech Carson stated "My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain," and not graves for pharaohs. Decades later on 4 November 2015 before CBS News Carson reaffirms his position that the pyramids were built for grain storage not tombs: "It's still my belief, yes."

I cannot picture Carson in the Oval Office making high level knowledge-based decisions that impact both domestic and international policies with such an unscientific, nonsensical, and superstitious interpretation of history.

Wompa1

Black Swan wrote: »

I am beginning to question Ben Carson's intelligence, knowledge, and competence to hold the highest public office in USA.

During a 1998 Andrews University commencement speech Carson stated "My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain," and not graves for pharaohs. Decades later on 4 November 2015 before CBS News Carson reaffirms his position that the pyramids were built for grain storage not tombs: "It's still my belief, yes."

I cannot picture Carson in the Oval Office making high level knowledge-based decisions that impact both domestic and international policies with such an unscientific, nonsensical, and superstitious interpretation of history.

He's insane. For a while I thought he was just saying dumb sh1t to hop on the Trump bandwagon. If you can't beat him, join him. Prison turns straight men gay. The pyramids were used by Joseph to store grain, he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, said a Muslim person should never be President, was not familiar with the dry foot, wet foot law in Florida.

ancapailldorcha

Is there a reason that these people ascend to such positions of power in the US? It's not too often that you hear this sort of tripe in Europe.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really? They've all publicly professed all of these things? Even the known Unitarians and likely Deists? Perhaps we might allow you to skip those when you source this incredibly strong claim, as doubtless you were about to do.

Jimmy Carter was passionately in favor of the Intelligent Design theory, writing that "the awe-inspiring beauty of starlit sky or sunset, the emergence of a butterfly from a chrysalis, the industry of an ant, or the sprouting of a seed are adequate proofs of God's hand in our lives and in creation."

Generously, you're either completely misunderstanding what ID is, or haven't any other information on Carter's position on religion and science teaching beyond the above quote.

Carter, one whole page later wrote:

The existence of millions of distant galaxies, the evolution of species, and the big bang theory cannot be rejected because they are not described in the Bible, and neither does confidence in them cast doubt on the Creator of it all.

ID is an effort to teach Creationism in the science curriculum, by pretending it's not religious. Carter is a religious man that doesn't want any truck with woo replacing science. The two are as precisely opposite as is possible in this imprecise world.

I don't think it's possible to find a president who has not held an array of "unscientific, nonsensical, and superstitious" beliefs, tbh.

If you're setting that bar low enough to be able to justify this assertion, Carson is plainly pole-vaulting over it, clear by a distance that would put Bubka in his prime to shame.

Hande hoche!

Seems like the next Republican debate will have eight in the main debate and four at the junior debate. While Lindsey Graham has been cut. Should hopefully be a better performance as a result, at the least more time per candidate.

http://news.yahoo.com/down-polls-christie-risk-missing-debate-main-stage-193835451--election.html

lochderg

Black Swan wrote: »

ObamaCare essentially copied RomneyCare, except that ObamaCare applied to the nation, and RomneyCare only affected the State of Massachusetts when Romney was Governor. I dislike both. Both plans force citizens to enroll in private-sector-for-profit corporate medical insurance plans, both punish their citizens if they don't enroll, and both are dysfunctional. Massachusetts may scrap RomneyCare.

In 2012 the voting rate was 63.7 percent for women, compared to 59.7 for men. I would like to see more qualified women in USA government, especially in the 3 branches of Fed government, but I find Hillary Clinton (Democrat) a complete bore, and Sarah Palin (Republican) was an embarrassment. Is it going to take a 100 years or more for the strategic shift in USA college and university enrollments (with more women than men enrolling and graduating now) before a few more of them become qualified and experienced to hold high office in USA?

Obama Care is dysfunctional?But isn't it worth the effort to get millions of citizens not facing bankruptcy if they get sick? Private US Healthcare is despised throughout the world as grossly unfair ,utterly disfunctional andhas nothing to do with the wellbeing of its citizens yet still there are some who think it's okay-would that be wealthy ,well-off individuals with Jesus badges on their suits whilst not giving a single solitary **** about members of the same species?

20Cent

Big difference between being a Christian and taking the bible literally. I'd prefer a president who took rational decisions based on science than consulting the bible or "talking" to god like George Bush junior did.

Manach

20Cent wrote: »

Big difference between being a Christian and taking the bible literally. I'd prefer a president who took rational decisions based on science than consulting the bible or "talking" to god like George Bush junior did.

Perhaps you could clarify where the majority of policy decisions can be broken down into scientific chucked bites. For this would instead be trying to judge apples on the basis of oranges : as human polities do not lean themselves to the cleanness of lab results and thus ignores the conceptual hurdles. For instance Sunstei in a recent book (Simplier) tried to implement the same strategy at the WH but the volume of data required to crunch the models and the decisions pointed to a vast information gatthering bureacry what would be paralysed by inertia.

alaimacerc

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps you could clarify where the majority of policy decisions can be broken down into scientific chucked bites.

The majority, and broken down into? That's a much stronger claim. But there are clearly some areas where there's very strong scientific evidence indeed (that several of the candidates would merrily fly in the face of). Even where it's much fuzzier and deeply overlain with the need for higher-level judgement calls, such poor evidence that is available from the dismal science surely still beats "here's a hilarious notion on economics I got from the Old Testament".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's within 10,000 years. Don't be upsetting the poor Masoretics and Ussherites by equating them with those favouring a relatively more laid-back pace of YEC history.

alaimacerc

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Is there a reason that these people ascend to such positions of power in the US? It's not too often that you hear this sort of tripe in Europe.

Perhaps, in part, long-term fallout from repopulating a continent with stocks of Puritans and Conquistadors.

20Cent

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps you could clarify where the majority of policy decisions can be broken down into scientific chucked bites. For this would instead be trying to judge apples on the basis of oranges : as human polities do not lean themselves to the cleanness of lab results and thus ignores the conceptual hurdles. For instance Sunstei in a recent book (Simplier) tried to implement the same strategy at the WH but the volume of data required to crunch the models and the decisions pointed to a vast information gatthering bureacry what would be paralysed by inertia.

How about rational analysis of information besides what the invisible man in the sky says when making decisions.

FactCheck

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This doesn't really retract from your main point, which is about modern-day politics, but I just wanted to chime in here to say that this isn't actually the case. Several of the early Presidents and founding fathers rejected some or all of the above.

John Adams was a Unitarian who considered the divinity of Jesus absurd. Thomas Jefferson explicitly rejected the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus. James Madison was infamously entirely silent about his own religious beliefs and defended the separation of church and state to an at times bizarre extent. George Washington was by modern standards unelectably unconventional.

I only raise it because it's alarming how freedom of thought in this area has been so restricted. Modern-day politicians must conform to an incredibly narrow religious viewpoint or be condemned. To the mostly atheist and liberal boards.ie, that means that Ben Carson is to be ridiculed for his obviously ridiculous opinions about Joseph and the pyramids.

But the flipside of that is that the deeply socially conservative Bible belt feel equally entitled to condemn Obama's spotty church attendance and his early religious education in Indonesia. Boardsies can see that whether Obama attends church in Washington DC or spends time with his family is utterly irrelevant to his political performance. But if you want Obama to be left in peace to choose his own level of religious activity, you have to extend the same courtesy to the bible-thumpers.

As with many things, it would be nice if we could return to the original freedoms the deist/Anglican/syncretic founding fathers attempted to guarantee, and try to judge politicians on their policies, not their religion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think we've since disposed of that rather comprehensively -- unless your conclusion is that the GOP actually agrees on nothing at all. But actually, I think what they do most of all is what the RNC literally puts first in its list of "important principles" -- American exceptionalism. (Not that they get any serious argument from the Democrats on that, of course.)

That's key, I think, not least as once one is willing to dispense with any pretence at equality and fairness on a global scale, all else can follow at will.

Manach

alaimacerc wrote: »

The majority, and broken down into? That's a much stronger claim. But there are clearly some areas where there's very strong scientific evidence indeed (that several of the candidates would merrily fly in the face of). Even where it's much fuzzier and deeply overlain with the need for higher-level judgement calls, such poor evidence that is available from the dismal science surely still beats "here's a hilarious notion on economics I got from the Old Testament".

So no direct answer then. I presume, I'm skimming your post here, that you are referring to the mad notion that government taxes be fixed as some figure (10%) instead of being an ever increasing portion of expendure to milk the general populace.

Manach

20Cent wrote: »

How about rational analysis of information besides what the invisible man in the sky says when making decisions.

Nice evasionary tactics there and so utterly ignoring the centuries of religious doctrine and shared community of believer who share the same mental space. That is a sophisic argument which is a fair cry from the scientific authority you claim to champion but sadly without the requisite toolkit of at least reading about how such descisons were taken.

20Cent

Manach wrote: »

Nice evasionary tactics there and so utterly ignoring the centuries of religious doctrine and shared community of believer who share the same mental space. That is a sophisic argument which is a fair cry from the scientific authority you claim to champion but sadly without the requisite toolkit of at least reading about how such descisons were taken.

Trying to make out what you mean.

So for example climate change should science be listened to or God?

The Randy Riverbeast

Amerika wrote: »

Most of the democrats WILL cover their ears and say nah-nah-nah as the scandals mount and her policies run short, but independents will listen and learn, and it’s them that will decide this election.

Scandals mounting? Its the same scandals being dragged out for so long it starts to backfire.

It is quite clear that this would have ended by now if it was anyone else other than their biggest competition. Unfortunately for them it is a long way until the election and Trump and Carson have plenty more stupid things to say any time they are near a mic. They'll need some new material before Carson starts claiming he was abducted by aliens (the non earth kind, not Mexicans)

alaimacerc

Manach wrote: »

So no direct answer then.

Why would I "directly" answer an exercise in moving the goalposts? It somehow dirty pool to point out you're not answering the original point?

I presume, I'm skimming your post here, that you are referring to the mad notion that government taxes be fixed as some figure (10%) instead of being an ever increasing portion of expendure to milk the general populace.

I'm referring to the practice of getting economic ideas from millenia-old Holy Writ rather than from... well, economics, just as a wild for-instance.

And setting aside the liberal use of snarl words, who says it has to be an "ever-increasing portion"? GOP Congressbeings are free to stop voting for shameless amounts of pork and feather-bedding of the defence budget any time they like...

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

More aptly: from the raging theocrats, to the slightly-libertarian-leaning fiscal conservative.

But is that diversity a weakness or a strength?

The diversity per se could be either. What matters is whether it manifests as a gentlefolksy but vigorous intellectual debate, with everyone loyally rallying behind the eventual winner with renewed energy; or, an exploding clown car, with the principals tearing embittered lumps out of each other and pulling the whole treehouse down.

Clearly there's also plenty of diversity in the Democratic party, too. Just not just quite such a... generous Overton window of what's considered a prudent range of public debate and viable candidature.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ouch some very scary numbers there particuarly that 42% of Americans believe that god created humans 10,000 years ago.