Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

The Mad Hatter · 03-01-2012 9:29pm

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 · 04-01-2012 3:15am

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

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

/runs

Ron Paul is a doctor.

Sindri · 04-01-2012 3:35am

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 · 04-01-2012 9:48am

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 · 04-01-2012 9:53am

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 · 04-01-2012 10:02am

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 · 04-01-2012 6:56pm

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 · 04-01-2012 7:36pm

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 · 05-01-2012 1:02am

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 · 05-01-2012 6:50am

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 · 05-01-2012 9:41am

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 · 05-01-2012 10:35am

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 · 05-01-2012 12:39pm

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 · 05-01-2012 1:23pm

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 · 05-01-2012 2:06pm

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 · 05-01-2012 2:11pm

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

bnt · 05-01-2012 2:12pm

scaled.php?tn=0&server=878&filename=6nja.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

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

fitz0 · 05-01-2012 3:56pm

^ 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 · 05-01-2012 4:33pm

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 · 06-01-2012 2:23am

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 · 06-01-2012 10:57am

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 · 06-01-2012 1:51pm

^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 · 06-01-2012 1:58pm

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

Galvasean · 06-01-2012 3:02pm

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 · 09-01-2012 10:55am

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

stucass · 09-01-2012 10:58am

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

sponsoredwalk · 09-01-2012 11:04am

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 · 09-01-2012 9:04pm

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 · 14-01-2012 1:45am

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 · 14-01-2012 7:18am

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

Beruthiel · 14-01-2012 11:13am

robindch wrote: »

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.

I find is pretty shocking that the fact he speaks French is actually being held against him.
A new low in American politics. Let's celebrate ignorance.

daithi1970 · 14-01-2012 12:05pm

..it reminds me of the "whatcha readin' for?" line that Bill Hicks used in one of his routines..he would have had a field day with this buch of morons...

daithi

goose2005 · 14-01-2012 2:04pm

Nick Clegg got the same treatment from some of the British press:

the mail wrote:

Despite his Anglo-Saxon name, Nick Clegg is by blood the least British leader of a British political party, the son of a Dutch mother and a half-Russian merchant banker father.

wait till they hear that William of Orange was a gay Dutchman.

goose2005 · 14-01-2012 2:27pm

Nick Clegg got the same treatment from some of the British press:

the mail wrote:

Despite his Anglo-Saxon name, Nick Clegg is by blood the least British leader of a British political party, the son of a Dutch mother and a half-Russian merchant banker father.

wait till they hear that William of Orange was a gay Dutchman.

Dades · 14-01-2012 3:53pm

Anyone remember Freedom Fries? :pac:

Sarky · 14-01-2012 4:05pm

That was probably my favourite part of the whole "how much can America embarrass itself in front of the grown ups" debacle.

irishh_bob · 14-01-2012 8:03pm

Beruthiel wrote: »

I find is pretty shocking that the fact he speaks French is actually being held against him.
A new low in American politics. Let's celebrate ignorance.

ever been to france , they have a remarkabley low percentage of people who can speak english compared to thier neighbours in germany , netherlands etc , not being able to speak english is often seen as a badge of honour in la france

amacachi · 14-01-2012 8:42pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

ever been to france , they have a remarkabley low percentage of people who can speak english compared to thier neighbours in germany , netherlands etc , not being able to speak english is often seen as a badge of honour in la france

They just say they can't speak English.

The Mad Hatter · 14-01-2012 9:10pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

ever been to france , they have a remarkabley low percentage of people who can speak english compared to thier neighbours in germany , netherlands etc , not being able to speak english is often seen as a badge of honour in la france

36% of France speaks English, which puts them ahead of a sizeable chunk of Europe, per capita.

In any case, can you seriously imagine a French leader's ability to speak a second language (which is really what this is about) being used against him in a smear campaign?

sponsoredwalk · 14-01-2012 9:17pm

I really hope Newt Gingrich stays in the race for a while yet, who knows to
what depths he'll sink to?

irishh_bob · 14-01-2012 9:37pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

36% of France speaks English, which puts them ahead of a sizeable chunk of Europe, per capita.

In any case, can you seriously imagine a French leader's ability to speak a second language (which is really what this is about) being used against him in a smear campaign?

sarkozy cant speak english or at least not well

CiaranMT · 14-01-2012 9:48pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

ever been to france , they have a remarkabley low percentage of people who can speak english compared to thier neighbours in germany , netherlands etc , not being able to speak english is often seen as a badge of honour in la france

irishh_bob wrote: »

sarkozy cant speak english or at least not well

What's your point?

qrrgprgua · 14-01-2012 10:00pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

sarkozy cant speak english or at least not well

Sarkozy speaks both English and German fluently/// Also he knows Hungarian (he says he dosen't but his father did teach him)

goose2005 · 14-01-2012 11:54pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

ever been to france , they have a remarkabley low percentage of people who can speak english compared to thier neighbours in germany , netherlands etc , not being able to speak english is often seen as a badge of honour in la france

Not really. Some of the elite academics get sniffy about overuse of English words in French, but in general English is seen as trendy.

Beruthiel · 15-01-2012 10:04am

irishh_bob wrote: »

ever been to france , they have a remarkabley low percentage of people who can speak english compared to thier neighbours in germany , netherlands etc , not being able to speak english is often seen as a badge of honour in la france

My husband is French, he has perfect English.
All his French friends also have fantastic English and though I can speak a smattering of French, we converse in English because they have such a great grasp of the English language.
Even his mother has attempted to learn English.
His French cousin now lives in Boston, so he and his 75 year old mother have perfect English.
My sister lives in France, so I have been going to France on a yearly basis for 15 years now and most of the people I encounter always make an attempt to talk to me in English so they can practice.

The French as a nation, do not want to loose their language. I understand that. It's who they are and why should they have to?
That does not mean they do not speak other languages, from my personal experience, an awful lot of them do.

sponsoredwalk · 15-01-2012 10:27am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2afIxOqRJcA

In a 2007 interview, Romney essentially laughed off the concern of Fox
News' Chris Wallace, who asked, "what were you thinking?" But Maddow
thought the story could be very dangerous for the GOP frontrunner as he
tries to sew up his party's nomination and defeat President Obama.

She [Maddow] noted that there are now anti-Romney websites purporting
to be from dogs popping up all over the place, and that the new verb "to
Romney" (meaning "to defecate in terror") is making its way into the lexicon.
link

robindch · 16-01-2012 11:57am

Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdBF56ahgLw

Delirium · 19-01-2012 11:58am

See this attack video?

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Comments