Topic: 2012 Presidential Election

[metaldams]

Oh, there is also the whole "I don't believe in Evolution" BS. I would prefer that the man running the country knows the difference between the normal usage of the word "theory" and the scientific one.

Ron Paul is a Christian, but he's open to evolution, though it doesn't make a difference.  The whole point of being a Libertarian is you can believe one thing personally but respect the rights of others to believe what they want as long as it's not forced upon others.

Rick Santorum is a Christian who openly admits he will force his religion into law.  Ron Paul is also a Christian, but it will have no bearing on anyone's life whatsoever if he is in office.  It's his personal belief, which he is entitled to, and he'll leave it at that.

[metaldams]

If Paul were to come from behind and leapfrog the other turd sandwiches and get the Republicrat (Democan?) nomination I would have to wait for his decision on a VP running mate before I could cast my vote. The man is 76 years old after all, and it was the thought of Sarah Palin taking over for McCain that scared the shit out of me four years ago.

Sadly, i have to agree here in the sense that at 77 by the time he'd take office, you can't guarantee he'd be alive and healthy in 4 years, so a strong VP is important.  Still considering the alternatives, I'll take the risk.

[shemps#1]

Ron Paul is a Christian, but he's open to evolution, though it doesn't make a difference.  The whole point of being a Libertarian is you can believe one thing personally but respect the rights of others to believe what they want as long as it's not forced upon others.

Rick Santorum is a Christian who openly admits he will force his religion into law.  Ron Paul is also a Christian, but it will have no bearing on anyone's life whatsoever if he is in office.  It's his personal belief, which he is entitled to, and he'll leave it at that.

I'm not saying being a Christian has any bearing as far as Ron Paul is concerned, not all Christians are Evolution Deniers. All I was saying is I can't vote for someone who would ignorantly deny the scientific theory. We had an Evolution Denier from 01-09 and that was enough. I looked it up however and it seems Dr. Paul has since recanted his Evolution Denial.

[metaldams]

All I was saying is I can't vote for someone who would ignorantly deny the scientific theory.

Even if it were only his personal belief and his idea of government would not involve imposing it on you or anybody else?

[shemps#1]

Right, because Science is not about "beliefs". Science is about what is real, meaning what can be tested. Science is not a religion nor is it actively against a religion. Just because certain scientific findings clash with religious beliefs doesn't mean they should be denied.

[metaldams]

Right, because Science is not about "beliefs". Science is about what is real, meaning what can be tested. Science is not a religion nor is it actively against a religion. Just because certain scientific findings clash with religious beliefs doesn't mean they should be denied.

The point is, for me at least, even if the guy is 100% wrong, even if he did hypothetically believe in Genesis creationism, or if he believed a pink rabbit shit out planet Earth 13,000 years ago, or whatever; the man has a right to be right or wrong about whatever he likes as long as he doesn't make it public policy.  Ron Paul's version of government is you have a right to belief what you want, even deny science, as long as the science denier in no way tries to prevent others from believing in science.  If Ron Paul wants to believe in the pink rabbit theory or anything else that does not involve government, I could care less.

Now a candidate like Rick Santorum, I DO care what he believes with issues like creationnism vs. evolution because if he were in charge, I think he would use his power to try to implement his beliefs on others. 

[metaldams]

I believe that the only reason Ron Paul hasn't won any of the "beauty contest" votes in the primaries and caucuses so far is that the GOP establishment is blatantly rigging the votes.  They literally cancelled the voting in Maine towns that were Ron Paul strongholds to keep him from taking the state from Romney, there were shenanigans with the voting in Iowa and Nevada, and frankly I'm extremely suspicious of these electronic voting machines (which are demonstrably hackable) that they've fobbed off on us over the past few years.

Here's just one recent example of the crap the GOP establishment has been pulling.

Reality Check: North Dakota Caucus railroaded to give majority of delegates to Romney?

I have to be honest and say I'm still learning about the process for selecting the nominee, which is a bit confusing (probably on purpose), but yeah, I have no doubt the whole is process is anything but 100% fair, and the North Dakota video is quite disturbing.  I too have heard stories about Maine as well.  I plan to vote in the primaries on April 24th (I am officially registered Republican though until this election never practiced), so I'll keep my eyes open.

[shemps#1]

The point is, for me at least, even if the guy is 100% wrong, even if he did hypothetically believe in Genesis creationism, or if he believed a pink rabbit shit out planet Earth 13,000 years ago, or whatever; the man has a right to be right or wrong about whatever he likes as long as he doesn't make it public policy.  Ron Paul's version of government is you have a right to belief what you want, even deny science, as long as the science denier in no way tries to prevent others from believing in science.  If Ron Paul wants to believe in the pink rabbit theory or anything else that does not involve government, I could care less.

Now a candidate like Rick Santorum, I DO care what he believes with issues like creationnism vs. evolution because if he were in charge, I think he would use his power to try to implement his beliefs on others. 

I think it matters because it's a matter of intelligence. Would you vote for a guy who denied the scientific theory of gravity? I think the person who is Commander In Chief should have the ability to be able to think rationally. I'm not saying everyone who denies evolution is an idiot. They could be ignorant or misinformed about the theory (which so many people are) or (worst of all in my opinion) they could be lying about it to pander for votes. Dr. Paul in 1997 said he did not "accept evolution" but in his latest book recanted. That makes me tend to believe he realized just who was his main demographic: young people/college students, people who socially lean liberal and fiscally lean conservative because both mean less govt, 9/11 Truthers which might have hurt his campaign more than helped it, etc. With the exception of 9/11 Truthers these groups are typically Democrat or Libertarian or another third party and are not typical Republicans and definitely not Tag Bagging far-right Bible banging wackadoos.  (not so sure about Truther religious demographics). In other words I think he might have been lying back in 1997 to try to get a slice of the Republican pie.

[metaldams]

I think it matters because it's a matter of intelligence. Would you vote for a guy who denied the scientific theory of gravity? I think the person who is Commander In Chief should have the ability to be able to think rationally. I'm not saying everyone who denies evolution is an idiot. They could be ignorant or misinformed about the theory (which so many people are) or (worst of all in my opinion) they could be lying about it to pander for votes. Dr. Paul in 1997 said he did not "accept evolution" but in his latest book recanted. That makes me tend to believe he realized just who was his main demographic: young people/college students, people who socially lean liberal and fiscally lean conservative because both mean less govt, 9/11 Truthers which might have hurt his campaign more than helped it, etc. With the exception of 9/11 Truthers these groups are typically Democrat or Libertarian or another third party and are not typical Republicans and definitely not Tag Bagging far-right Bible banging wackadoos.  (not so sure about Truther religious demographics). In other words I think he might have been lying back in 1997 to try to get a slice of the Republican pie.

I wouldn't accuse Ron Paul of pandering to any crowd, he's the last politician I'd accuse of that.  For one, he's personally pro-life, not exactly a popular opinion among socially liberal college students who he's popular with.  He feels state laws should handle abortion, not the federal government.  Secondly, I've been reading and watching tons of stuff on Dr. Paul, and the only thing he's changed his mind on over the years of political importance is the death penalty, a change of mind he's publicly admitted to and also given a reason as to why he's changed his mind.  Other than that, he's incredibly consistent on civil liberties, the economy, and foreign policy, and when he does state his cases, he usually has some historical or constitutional basis to back up what he's saying.

As far as intelligence, his ideas of running the country, or NOT running the country and letting the country run itself, are the only ideas of his I care about.  Trading with nations instead of bombing them, understanding we're attacked because of blowback instead of them hating us for our freedoms, his belief in Austrian Economics and auditing and ending the Federal Reserve, the idea of not pandering to groups and recognizing people as individuals, this is the intelligence this country and world need now in a leader, and Dr. Paul succeeds in spades.  Above are his credentials, above are important issues in this world right now, while an issue like creationism vs. evolution is personal in nature, no matter how factual you and I may believe one side to be.  I'll take a creationist who has ideas that will restore the economy and end the wars over an evolutionist who is in bed with the new world order any day of the week, and since Dr. Paul seems to be the only man running who has ideas that will help us, I think he's the best choice.  There's nobody else saying the things Dr. Paul is saying who's running for office.

[metaldams]

....and by the way, who voted for Obama?  Your thoughts would make this thread more interesting.

[Seamus]

I'll take a creationist who has ideas that will restore the economy and end the wars over an evolutionist who is in bed with the new world order any day of the week.

This sounds like a reasonable position on the surface, but I think a person's views on evolution are a reasonably good indicator of their critical thinking skills in general.  Or at least, anyone who chooses to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution is not someone I would trust to think coherently in other areas.  If a guy who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old starts telling me about his economic "theories," I'm going to be much more inclined to suspect that his economic theories are horseshit, and with good reason.

And given the Religious Right's war on science education, I don't think it's realistic to claim that a politician's views on evolution (or climate science for that matter) don't matter as long as it doesn't affect their policy-making.  It is affecting their policy making, very explicitly.   There are Republican-led efforts going on every day to get creationism taught in our schools, and at the same time cast unwarranted doubt on the truth of evolutionary theory and its importance in understanding of how the world works.  We need out schools to produce smarter citizens, not more scientific illiterates.

[metaldams]

There are Republican-led efforts going on every day to get creationism taught in our schools, and at the same time cast unwarranted doubt on the truth of evolutionary theory and its importance in understanding of how the world works.  We need out schools to produce smarter citizens, not more scientific illiterates.

Ron Paul wants to abolish the Department of Education.  He believes in homeschooling and private education, keeping the federal governemnt completely out of schools.

So whether Ron Paul does or does not believe in creationism is a moot point about what is taught in our schools, the whole point is he doesn't believe it's the governemnt's job to teach what is in school.

[Dunrobin]

This sounds like a reasonable position on the surface, but I think a person's views on evolution are a reasonably good indicator of their critical thinking skills in general.  Or at least, anyone who chooses to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution is not someone I would trust to think coherently in other areas.  If a guy who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old starts telling me about his economic "theories," I'm going to be much more inclined to suspect that his economic theories are horseshit, and with good reason.

This crap is starting to annoy me, although I realize that it is because people are woefully miseducated by the government school system.

1) Contrary to Jim's assertion earlier in the thread, evolution is a theory, not a proven, demonstrable fact.  We have certainly seen random mutation and speciation in the natural world, but we do not see new and unique genetic information occurring in nature but rather sorting and loss of information over time.  No one has demonstrated an ability to mutate an amoeba into a human being or even a mouse.

2) Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists are skeptical about evolution.  These include people with science degrees and professorships at schools such as Yale, Princeton, UCLA, etc., not just graduates from Podunk Community College.  That isn't a reason to claim that evolution is necessarily false, but it should give any thinking person a reason to remain skeptical and to very carefully examine the alleged evidence.  Accepting that "Evolution is  a fact" simply because your teachers told you so is just as ridiculous as fundamentalists who think the Creation story in Genesis is literal fact rather than an allegorical tale simply because their preacher said so.

As Doug has pointed out, Dr. Paul's views on evolution - whatever they may be - are totally irrelevant.  He is the only candidate who will not try to force you or your children to accept those views, unlike Obama, Santorum, Romney or Gingrich, and that is what really matters.

The choice boils down to whether you prefer to remain a slave to the State or to live as a free man.  If you want to be free to think for yourself, the only rational choice is Ron Paul.

[Seamus]

This crap is starting to annoy me, although I realize that it is because people are woefully miseducated by the government school system.

1) Contrary to Jim's assertion earlier in the thread, evolution is a theory, not a proven, demonstrable fact.  We have certainly seen random mutation and speciation in the natural world, but we do not see new and unique genetic information occurring in nature but rather sorting and loss of information over time.  No one has demonstrated an ability to mutate an amoeba into a human being or even a mouse.

2) Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists are skeptical about evolution.  These include people with science degrees and professorships at schools such as Yale, Princeton, UCLA, etc., not just graduates from Podunk Community College.  That isn't a reason to claim that evolution is necessarily false, but it should give any thinking person a reason to remain skeptical and to very carefully examine the alleged evidence.  Accepting that "Evolution is  a fact" simply because your teachers told you so is just as ridiculous as fundamentalists who think the Creation story in Genesis is literal fact rather than an allegorical tale simply because their preacher said so.

As Doug has pointed out, Dr. Paul's views on evolution - whatever they may be - are totally irrelevant.  He is the only candidate who will not try to force you or your children to accept those views, unlike Obama, Santorum, Romney or Gingrich, and that is what really matters.

The choice boils down to whether you prefer to remain a slave to the State or to live as a free man.  If you want to be free to think for yourself, the only rational choice is Ron Paul.

Gonna have to ask you for a source as to the "hundreds if not thousands of scientists" who are "skeptical of evolution."  Michael Behe is the only prominent biologist I'm aware of in the creationist camp, and even he doesn't deny that the mountains of cross-disciplinary evidence make it virtually impossible to deny that evolution happened (even though you can tell he REALLY WISHES that evolution wasn't true). 

There are always going to be disagreements in the details, as in all the scientific disciplines, but the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that evolution is a fact of life (and I'm not accepting that because "my government-funded education system" told me, I do my own reading).  If you're gonna reserve judgment till you actually see an amoeba evolve into a wolf in real-time you're gonna be waiting a long time.  And it isn't necessary anyway.  The fossil and genetic records paint a compelling story.  Not nearly complete, but complete enough for a solid understanding of the basics.

Don't want to derail this political thread into a philosophy of science discussion, so I won't get into the annoying false equivalency of accusing people who accept the truth of something based on a preponderance of compelling evidence as being "just as fundamentalist" as people who believe in fairy tails that are based on zero evidence.  That's just silly.

[metaldams]

This is all I'll say about evolution - I have NOT read up on it, so whether to say it's true or not would be wrong of me.  All I know is the universe itself is much, much, much bigger than any of us realize, and it was only in the past five hundred years or so where all continents on this planet have contacted each other, so I view humanity as a young species that still has a lot of learning to do, and most of this learning will probably not happen in our lifetime.  Just my two cents.

My brother is the nerd when it comes to space and alien theories, so he'd be better equipped with our evolution than I, but even he admits there's so much out there it's impossible to imagine.

[Bruckman]

The way this topic has gone is an accurate reflection of how political debate has gone so far - the derailment into non-issues such as "what does this candidate really believe about abortion/prayer/evolution/creationism" etc. Of course Santorum and to a slightly lesser extent Romney prefer debate conducted along these lines because it spares them the job of addressing more thorny problems such as job creation (should gov't be in charge of this or should it be left to private sector?) and harsh economics (face it, numbers are boring). Also it allows them to mount a moral high horse and wrap themselves in the flag when necessary to opt out of unpopular commitments. It's far easier to attack an individual on basis of beliefs than ideas. And that's just fuckin sad, to me.

[Dunrobin]

The way this topic has gone is an accurate reflection of how political debate has gone so far - the derailment into non-issues such as "what does this candidate really believe about abortion/prayer/evolution/creationism" etc. Of course Sanoturm and to a slightly lesser extent Romney prefer debate conducted along these lines because it spares them the job of addressing more thorny problems such as job creation (should gov't be in charge of this or should it be left to private sector?) and harsh economics (face it, numbers are boring). It's far easier to attack an individual on basis of beliefs than ideas. And that's just fuckin sad, to me.

You are absolutely right, Bruckman, and I apologize for getting myself sidetracked into an unimportant non-issue.  I really should know better by now.   

[metaldams]

It's far easier to attack an individual on basis of beliefs than ideas. And that's just fuckin sad, to me.

I agree Bobby.  The problem is we've been conditioned for so long with politicians who try to force their beliefs upon us that it's expected their beliefs should be important since it would somehow impact us.  Ron Paul is a politician who believes in the motto "live and let live" and it's a breath of fresh air.

[shemps#1]

Ok, I KNOW people want to drop the evolution issue, but I just can't leave it that (besides, I think Rob took a shot at me ).

The word Theory has more than one definition, but for the sake of this conversation two are important:

1. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate (layperson's definition).

2. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine (scientific definition).

Two very different, contrasting definitions. In fact, the science-y word for what layfolks call "theory" is in the list of synonyms: hypothesis. Evolution has been given the scientific title of "Theory" because it has been tested...a lot. As Seamus said there is a metric fuckton of evidence in favor of evolution which has withstood scientific inquiry and the false evidence has been sifted out and disregarded (Piltdown Man, which took 40 years to disprove among others: science does not work quickly).

And no, I don't "accept Evolution is a fact simply because my teachers told me so", Rob. In fact, through my public schooling Evolution was only lightly covered. I actually studied and researched it on my own and came to that conclusion on my own. We cannot see major evolutionary changes such as an amoeba transforming into a human or something along those lines because we don't live long enough. Evolution took place over many, many years...millions of them.

As for the "hundreds, if not thousands" of scientists who do not accept evolution, you are misleadingly right. The Discovery Institute (which is a creationist group whose agenda is to make it so Creationism is taught in Science Class alongside or in place of Evolution) has a "scientific dissent from Darwinism list" which since 2007 has gained 600 signatures. There are roughly half a million Life and Earth Scientists in the US. So even if we were to bump that number to 1000 that would still be far less than 1% of Earth and Life Scientists. Did I mention that most of the scientists who disregard evolutionary theory are not in the Earth and Life Sciences (where Evolution falls)?

The notion that I am some mindless, unwitting dupe of Public School Overlords is repugnant. Sure I went through the system, but my education didn't stop there. I know more at 34, even about academics, than I did at 18. When I wanted to learn something that wasn't being covered or only glossed over in school I educated my damn self and I still do so today.

PS: As far as Behe goes, not only did he fail miserably in court trying to defend "Intelligent Design" (Creationism) as a legit science and Kitzmiller v. Dover Public Schools (he tried to claim ID was not religious in nature to allow Creationist text books in public schools) but his own university has a disclaimer on its website in regards to him. His hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity has been rejected by the Scientific Community at large and even disproven by laypeople.

[shemps#1]

The way this topic has gone is an accurate reflection of how political debate has gone so far - the derailment into non-issues such as "what does this candidate really believe about abortion/prayer/evolution/creationism" etc. Of course Santorum and to a slightly lesser extent Romney prefer debate conducted along these lines because it spares them the job of addressing more thorny problems such as job creation (should gov't be in charge of this or should it be left to private sector?) and harsh economics (face it, numbers are boring). Also it allows them to mount a moral high horse and wrap themselves in the flag when necessary to opt out of unpopular commitments. It's far easier to attack an individual on basis of beliefs than ideas. And that's just fuckin sad, to me.

You can blame me since I broke up the Ron Paul Love Fest by bringing up the issue as a reason I'm not quite so sure about him. Are job creation and economics more pertinent issues to job? Of course they are. With that said while it might not be important it is very telling and it sets of red alarms. I think the country as a whole is still licking its wounds after Dubya and I sure as shit don't want another Dubya in the Oval Office.

Ron Paul has some great ideas that I agree whole-heartedly with (legalizing drugs, less government intrusion) and he is the "best option" we have at the moment. From the looks of it (thanks to media indoctrination for the most part) he isn't going to even sniff the Republican nomination, but if he did win he would most likely get my vote (even if his would most likely be a lame duck Presidency, after all he has to work with Congress: which is full of establishment Democans and Republicrats who would probably vote against anything he is for out of spite. Hell a lame duck would be better than most Presidents we've had). With that said the good doctor is not some perfect political messiah that I am going to blindly swear my allegiance to.

[metaldams]

It appears Rick Santorum has dropped out of the race.  While I wish his young daughter well, I can't say I'm upset Santorum's gone.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/04/rick-santorum-suspends-campaign.html?mbid=gnep

[Bruckman]

Yes, just heard the news. "Suspended", not "dropped out", but that's a matter of semantics.

Hope this doesn't rejuvenate the Gingrich faction.

Far as Dr. Paul, i am going to write him in if he isn't on the ballot. If that's throwing away a vote (and it is according to the Romney backers) so be it. The only other time I voted was in 1992 and I cast a vote for H. Ross Perot and in hindsight I am not too sorry I didn't vote for George HW Bush, and not at all sorry I didn't vote for HillBilly Clinton (having lived in southern Missouri I heard far too much about Clinton's wonderful policies, enough that I was immediately suspicious although - who knew?  - he did get us a budget surplus, the one thing I will credit him for).

[Lefty]

Obviously, Rick "of the Outer" Sanctorum (and waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy out in space) "suspended" his shampaign because he probably figured out that his former home state would give him such a beating in the primary that he would want to move to a country he would be happier in -- any Arab country.  Of course, once again our primary has nothing to vote for or against.

Poissonally, I think there should be one national primary day -- the Tuesday after May Day, where anyone can vote for any of the shmendricks running in whatever party the voter is registered with.  The top vote-getter among the Demorats and Republirats, and maybe a legitimate party, can then battle it out in Novonder -- I didn't say vhat year.   

[Liz]

About the evolution thing...I am a deeply religious Catholic, so obviously I think evolution is false.  HOWEVER, I am open to theories.  I'm not one of those Catholics who is so self-absorbed that they can't listen to anyone else.  I'm open to anything.  But I do believe that God created me and all of us.

And Lefty, I'm glad Sanctorum dropped out.  He probably figured out, too, that he needs to reconsider his BS ideals.

[metaldams]

About the evolution thing...I am a deeply religious Catholic, so obviously I think evolution is false.  HOWEVER, I am open to theories.  I'm not one of those Catholics who is so self-absorbed that they can't listen to anyone else.  I'm open to anything.  But I do believe that God created me and all of us.

That's interesting you say this Liz, because I went to a Catholic high school and we were taught evolution.  My father, who is more Catholic than the Pope, also believes in evolution.