I still maintain a lot of Americans--not all of them, but a lot--don't like the idea of a Catholic sitting in the oval office, even today. The track record isn't stellar: the only Catholic finished his term, quite early, with a giant section of his head missing.
There was or is a large creepy subculture of Protestants that would block another Catholic getting that far again. Not sure what organization they were called but they were in a documentary by Pelosi's niece.
We can blame a lot of things on the Pope--the banishment of Liberation Theology, scandals, etc.,--but I think this one isn't his fault. Catholics represent almost a quarter of all Americans--and one president in the last 44! We've had a Quaker as a president, come on!
America still has a long way to go with minorities being presidents and in high ranking positions in society in general. Latin America, Germany, Britain and Australia have already elected female president counter-parts before it has.
Women in office is a whole other issue--I don't think it's helped by the fact that the American President is both Head of Government and Head of State, which is seriously a sort of "big cojones" office usually reserved for military dictatorships or colonial administrations. Even Belarus has a Prime Minister. Unfortunately, vesting that amount of power in a single individual office can have the unintended effect of really limiting what kind of otherwise entirely competent people can be elected to it (and there have been female dictators--look at Catherine II. Or Indira Ghandi.)
The religious aspect is more uinquely American (though not completely), I guess smacking of this sort of latent idea of the country being a "Protestant" one--in this giant camp of Protestants--and that a Catholic president is directly in opposition to that. I would have thought this would have vanished by the 21st century, with the rise of non-Christian faiths in America along with an awareness of faiths even more foreign than dastardly Catholicism, but apparently not.
The funniest part of it is that, as far as I've ever seen, it's entirely one-sided.
Like, the Catholics just don't seem to give a shit about protestants one way or the other.
Funny thing about that reference... it shows Republicans have been fantasizing about bombing Iran for over five years.
Why are they obsessed with bombing Iran?
They looked at Iraq, and decided the problem with it was that it wasn't big enough, and didn't have enough people.
To speak seriously after two jokes. The Republican party has defined themselves as a Hawkish war party for the last at least 3 or 4 decades. As such, they say this kind of thing to play into their image.
Don't mistake that as just pandering to their image. They are crazy enough to do it too.
Funny thing about that reference... it shows Republicans have been fantasizing about bombing Iran for over five years.
Why are they obsessed with bombing Iran?
They looked at Iraq, and decided the problem with it was that it wasn't big enough, and didn't have enough people.
To speak seriously after two jokes. The Republican party has defined themselves as a Hawkish war party for the last at least 3 or 4 decades. As such, they say this kind of thing to play into their image.
Don't mistake that as just pandering to their image. They are crazy enough to do it too.
The problem isn't what the Republicans are saying these days, the problem is they've forgetten which things they're supposed to say and which things they're actually supposed to do
Funny thing about that reference... it shows Republicans have been fantasizing about bombing Iran for over five years.
Why are they obsessed with bombing Iran?
They looked at Iraq, and decided the problem with it was that it wasn't big enough, and didn't have enough people.
To speak seriously after two jokes. The Republican party has defined themselves as a Hawkish war party for the last at least 3 or 4 decades. As such, they say this kind of thing to play into their image.
Don't mistake that as just pandering to their image. They are crazy enough to do it too.
Closer to six decades, ever since Truman lost China.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The problem isn't what the Republicans are saying these days, the problem is they've forgetten which things they're supposed to say and which things they're actually supposed to do
That's got to be the side effect Dubya's regime had by "molding" the 20% er's. Now they can't put a leash back on the monster they created.
Funny thing about that reference... it shows Republicans have been fantasizing about bombing Iran for over five years.
Why are they obsessed with bombing Iran?
They looked at Iraq, and decided the problem with it was that it wasn't big enough, and didn't have enough people.
To speak seriously after two jokes. The Republican party has defined themselves as a Hawkish war party for the last at least 3 or 4 decades. As such, they say this kind of thing to play into their image.
Don't mistake that as just pandering to their image. They are crazy enough to do it too.
The problem isn't what the Republicans are saying these days, the problem is they've forgetten which things they're supposed to say and which things they're actually supposed to do
I don't think there has been a difference between what they publicly say and privately think (except on Gay Marriage, I am convinced that all the people who are against that are just in the closet) for decades now.
The funniest part of it is that, as far as I've ever seen, it's entirely one-sided.
Like, the Catholics just don't seem to give a shit about protestants one way or the other.
The "catholic answers tract" my catholic friend gave me that went on a LONG diatribe about the evils of non-catholicism and why every church but the Pope's was wrong suggest otherwise.
Of course that was back in the late 90s, maybe they've mellowed out since they switched to Pope Palpatine the first.
Funny thing about that reference... it shows Republicans have been fantasizing about bombing Iran for over five years.
Why are they obsessed with bombing Iran?
Israel fetish combined with nuclear paranoia fetish topped with the remaining neoconservative pundits needing some place they can talk about bombing.
Also: The US simply can't stop thinking of ways to fuck with them.
They've been wanting to bomb Iran since the Islamic Revolution. Just like the fact that there were "intelligence reports that prove Iran is 5 years away from a nuclear bomb" in 1985. It's not new, we just forget sometimes, for a while.
But this is all tangential, the good news is that Gingrick, filthy pig-beast that he is, seems to have finally slipped off the radar. This is a good thing because I find him disgusting and reprehensible on multiple levels. And I am aware of the irony of my bringing him up just now.
Funny thing about that reference... it shows Republicans have been fantasizing about bombing Iran for over five years.
Why are they obsessed with bombing Iran?
They looked at Iraq, and decided the problem with it was that it wasn't big enough, and didn't have enough people.
To speak seriously after two jokes. The Republican party has defined themselves as a Hawkish war party for the last at least 3 or 4 decades. As such, they say this kind of thing to play into their image.
Don't mistake that as just pandering to their image. They are crazy enough to do it too.
The problem isn't what the Republicans are saying these days, the problem is they've forgetten which things they're supposed to say and which things they're actually supposed to do
I don't think there has been a difference between what they publicly say and privately think (except on Gay Marriage, I am convinced that all the people who are against that are just in the closet) for decades now.
They used realize that 0% taxes wasn't actually an achievable or desirable goal
The funniest part of it is that, as far as I've ever seen, it's entirely one-sided.
Like, the Catholics just don't seem to give a shit about protestants one way or the other.
The "catholic answers tract" my catholic friend gave me that went on a LONG diatribe about the evils of non-catholicism and why every church but the Pope's was wrong suggest otherwise.
Of course that was back in the late 90s, maybe they've mellowed out since they switched to Pope Palpatine the first.
Every church says the others are wrong, but that's not at all what's being referred to.
I've never seen a Catholic movement of "You can't trust those damn Protestants with the Presidency/Prime Ministers office/etc". Meanwhile, the opposite of this was apparently a big deal for Kennedy and is still a thing now in some circles.
How can a .8% difference in projected range result in such a huge difference in chance of winning?
I think it has something to do with the fact that Ron Paul ALWAYS polls around there before the actual vote and has never ever ever won. His polling isn't good, exactly, it's just consistent.
How can a .8% difference in projected range result in such a huge difference in chance of winning?
Nate's model takes "momentum" into account, and the polls suggest that Paul has slipped a couple points over the last week, while Romney has gained a point or two.
I'm not sure if the model takes "second choices" into account, but that would also swing in Romney's favor -- Ron Paul is the second choice of very few Bachmann/Perry/Gingrich/etc. supporters.
I don't think there has been a difference between what they publicly say and privately think (except on Gay Marriage, I am convinced that all the people who are against that are just in the closet) for decades now.
This is a very weird thing to think they're lying about. The key to understanding is that they tend to focus on the primary issues and ignore any secondary. The primary for them is that marriage, to them, is mainly about raising kids the way "it has always been done." The secondary issues, the host of legal effects and societal recognition of the relationship, never enter their head.
Well, that last bit enters the heads of the more nasty of the 20%-ers but they wouldn't phrase it that way.
I guess money really talks, Romney wasn't doing so well last time I checked in on these shenanigans
When the primary started they all signed an agreement that anyone except Romney would only get 3-6 weeks in the spotlight, and Gingrich's were up.
Except for the 'signed an agreement' thing.
not that any of these candidates would ever win, but I thought Ging was better than Romney who seems like a Republican John Kerry.
I mean they're both from Taxacheussetts, both belong to politically undesirable religions, both flip flop and both have an obscene amount of money.
Gingrich shutdown the government over being snubbed on a plane ride. This is not a human being you allow the ability to deploy the military. Hell the first time the Iranian government released a press release would cause him to nuke Tehran.
So the GOP theme seems to be states' rights trump human rights?
It's been the right wing line in this country since its founding, so it's not like it should be surprising.
In other news, I find myself agreeing with Newt motherfucking Gingrich today, which is how we know things have gone completely around the bend.
Newt has just called Romney a liar, to the shocked reaction of Norah O'Donnell and Bob Schieffer:
“Which part of what I just said to you is false?” he asked the surprised hosts. “Why is it that if I’m candid in person and I wanted to be honest in person, that’s shocking? If [Romney’s] PAC buys millions of dollars in ads to say things that are false, that’s somehow the way Washington plays the game. Isn’t that exactly what’s sick about this country right now? Isn’t that what the American people are tired of?”
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
• All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival. Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.
• The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.
• After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.
• Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.
• All votes are then collected.
• Every vote is counted. The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.
• A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.
• RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media. To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.
So it doesn't look like there's going to be the horse trading, second ballots etc.
And just like the states righters in the 1850s who wanted a federal slave code enforceable in all states, even ones that fucking hated slavery, they don't have any problem with a strong federal government doing shit they like.
A Pizza Ranch manager in Boone, Iowa, has renamed the restaurant’s chicken salad “Santorum Salad,” after Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
Posts
They looked at Iraq, and decided the problem with it was that it wasn't big enough, and didn't have enough people.
Ahem- Hellsing....
I think we just like Hot Persian women.
To speak seriously after two jokes. The Republican party has defined themselves as a Hawkish war party for the last at least 3 or 4 decades. As such, they say this kind of thing to play into their image.
Don't mistake that as just pandering to their image. They are crazy enough to do it too.
The problem isn't what the Republicans are saying these days, the problem is they've forgetten which things they're supposed to say and which things they're actually supposed to do
Closer to six decades, ever since Truman lost China.
I don't think there has been a difference between what they publicly say and privately think (except on Gay Marriage, I am convinced that all the people who are against that are just in the closet) for decades now.
The "catholic answers tract" my catholic friend gave me that went on a LONG diatribe about the evils of non-catholicism and why every church but the Pope's was wrong suggest otherwise.
Of course that was back in the late 90s, maybe they've mellowed out since they switched to Pope Palpatine the first.
They've been wanting to bomb Iran since the Islamic Revolution. Just like the fact that there were "intelligence reports that prove Iran is 5 years away from a nuclear bomb" in 1985. It's not new, we just forget sometimes, for a while.
But this is all tangential, the good news is that Gingrick, filthy pig-beast that he is, seems to have finally slipped off the radar. This is a good thing because I find him disgusting and reprehensible on multiple levels. And I am aware of the irony of my bringing him up just now.
They used realize that 0% taxes wasn't actually an achievable or desirable goal
Nate Silver's projection as of midday Monday
Romney is up to a 90% chance in NH according to the model btw.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Every church says the others are wrong, but that's not at all what's being referred to.
I've never seen a Catholic movement of "You can't trust those damn Protestants with the Presidency/Prime Ministers office/etc". Meanwhile, the opposite of this was apparently a big deal for Kennedy and is still a thing now in some circles.
I think it has something to do with the fact that Ron Paul ALWAYS polls around there before the actual vote and has never ever ever won. His polling isn't good, exactly, it's just consistent.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Nate's model takes "momentum" into account, and the polls suggest that Paul has slipped a couple points over the last week, while Romney has gained a point or two.
I'm not sure if the model takes "second choices" into account, but that would also swing in Romney's favor -- Ron Paul is the second choice of very few Bachmann/Perry/Gingrich/etc. supporters.
Oh, CNN, have you ever even used Google?
EDIT: Also, is it too much to hope for Romney to lose and give a Dean Scream?
wasn't gingrich winning this thing?
how is he below Paul
I guess money really talks, Romney wasn't doing so well last time I checked in on these shenanigans
When the primary started they all signed an agreement that anyone except Romney would only get 3-6 weeks in the spotlight, and Gingrich's were up.
Except for the 'signed an agreement' thing.
Alrighty, you crazy farmers, whatcha got in store for the country?
This is a very weird thing to think they're lying about. The key to understanding is that they tend to focus on the primary issues and ignore any secondary. The primary for them is that marriage, to them, is mainly about raising kids the way "it has always been done." The secondary issues, the host of legal effects and societal recognition of the relationship, never enter their head.
Well, that last bit enters the heads of the more nasty of the 20%-ers but they wouldn't phrase it that way.
not that any of these candidates would ever win, but I thought Ging was better than Romney who seems like a Republican John Kerry.
I mean they're both from Taxacheussetts, both belong to politically undesirable religions, both flip flop and both have an obscene amount of money.
Santorum surging from behinds?
Gingrich shutdown the government over being snubbed on a plane ride. This is not a human being you allow the ability to deploy the military. Hell the first time the Iranian government released a press release would cause him to nuke Tehran.
If I'd made the new thread, that would have basically been the title.
[Primary 2012] Santorum emerges from the rear of the pack, will he pull it out in the end?
Then I would have made you all look at it for two months.
But this time, there's corn in it.
Like the combination of words was hilarious the first hundred times. But it is getting old, stale and smelly.
Santorum should launch a national ad campaign talking about how he's just an average joe. He could call it "Everybody is Santorum."
"Will support for Santorum dry up and flake off before tonight, and if so, how much of a stain will it leave behind?"
"There's a little Santorum in all of us"?
Fuck this guy. Contraception is one of the most important medical developments in the last seventy years.
Yep. States' Rights trump everything. They seem to forget that we tried having a very weak federal government once. It didn't work out.
It's been the right wing line in this country since its founding, so it's not like it should be surprising.
In other news, I find myself agreeing with Newt motherfucking Gingrich today, which is how we know things have gone completely around the bend.
Newt has just called Romney a liar, to the shocked reaction of Norah O'Donnell and Bob Schieffer:
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Click the link, look at the picture.
Do it.
Seriously.
IOKIYAR