2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 30, 2015.

  1. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    That's OK: He expects the poor to pay more taxes to offset that while he shrinks government and strikes ever more statesmanlike poses.

    Did you ever notice that he looks like another famous member of congress?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Except, this isn’t a physics forum, I suggest you read the name of the forum. It’s called Sciforums and the subforum is politics…oops. Before you go calling other people dullards, I suggest you take a long and serious look at yourself.

    Additionally, there is nothing emotional about fact, evidence and reason. Just because you find reality burdensome, it doesn’t mean reality is “emotional”. Your accusation of “emotions” is just an excuse you use to avoid facts, evidence and rational thoughts you find unpleasant. The fact is Republicans (i.e. Birthers) have been for more than 7 years now been pounding on the Constitution and falsely claiming Obama wasn’t born in the United States and therefore not qualified to be POTUS. Now we have a Republican senator who unlike Obama really was born outside the United States and was as recently as a year ago a Canadian citizen, and who is now running for POTUS. Where are those Birthers (i.e. Republicans) now? Where is that Constitution now? It hasn’t changed. Why are those same Birthers now not opposing Ted Cruz on the same grounds they have opposed President Obama’s presidency for 7 plus years now?

    I am sad too. Because we have too many people like you. We have too many misinformed ideologues. We have too many Michelle Bachmans and folks like Ted Cruz and the people who blindly and ignorantly follow them. Back in the day, when the Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land, we had a much better informed populace. But guess who terminated the Fairness Doctrine and has steadfastly opposed its reinstatement? Guess which political party’s existence is wholly dependent upon a misinformed electorate? It’s your party LittleBang. It’s the Republican Party.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,268
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    The Birthers are the "courageous conservatives" who support Cruz. I'm kind of loving it, because I don't think the American population as a whole is that batshit crazy. It will certainly be entertaining.

    As for being natural born, that is up for interpretation. Traditionally, it has meant being born inside the territorial limits of the US. Cruz is operating under the theory that he is a natural citizen by virtue of the fact his mother was an American citizen, even though he was born in Canada. So Cruz didn't have to go through a naturalization process to attain his citizenship. Funny, his "courageous conservative Birthers", didn't feel same principal applied to Obama.

    Obama was born it the US and there is overwhelming evidence to support that fact. But for years now, Birthers (i.e. Cruz supporters) have been claiming Obama wasn't born in the US though he did have an American mother and therefore wasn't constitutionally qualified to be POTUS. It's funny to see this about face. But unfortunately, it is all too typical.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2015
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,558
    Ted Cruz and (ahem!) "Liberty"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    "They make you come. If you don't come, you get punished." Ana Delgado↱

    This is something I just don't get about, well, yeah, in this case, it's fair to say it's something I don't get about Republicans. I mean, sure, maybe there is particular salience in Ted Cruz being the example, but still ....

    Sen. Ted Cruz took the stage to declare his presidential candidacy at Liberty University Monday, surrounded by upwards of 10,000 cheering students. They weren't all here by choice.

    Attendance at convocation at Liberty is mandatory, and a group of students clad in "Stand With Rand" shirts sat center stage—directly in view of the cameras—to log their displeasure with having to be here.

    "Of course, you want it to appear as if you have a large audience," said Eli McGowan, who organized the not-so-subtle protest. "We felt like if we didn't wear shirts showing our true political preference then the media might think we all supported Cruz."

    "They make you come. If you don't come, you get punished," said Ana Delgado, a sophomore, who said students face a $10 fine for not showing up at convocation. Delgado wasn't among those wearing Paul gear. She is undecided about who she'll support in 2016, but she didn't like being forced to be part of Cruz's announcement.


    (Goldmacher↱)

    Okay, really. Show of hands: Who here is actually surprised by this particular information?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Goldmacher, Shane. "These Students 'Stand With Rand' at Ted Cruz's 2016 Announcement". National Journal. 23 March 2015. NationalJournal.com. 23 March 2015. http://bit.ly/18TBM2W
     
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    That... is actually kind of sad... they have to use a captive audience to appear impressive...
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,677
    Well, to be fair, a captive audience is better than a silent or booing audience.

    That being said, Peter King may be scoping out bridges.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2015
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,558
    Liberty as a Symbol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I'm not certain Steve Benen is without a point:

    Sometimes, where a presidential candidate launches his or her campaign is every bit as significant as what's said in the campaign kick-off. In February 2007, for example, Barack Obama began his journey to the White House where Abraham Lincoln denounced slavery a century and a half earlier.

    "In the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for president of the United States," Obama said.

    The literal, physical place carried its own significance, and was intended to convey a thematic message to the country about what kind of candidate Obama wanted to be.

    Similarly, eight years later, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) launched his presidential campaign this morning at Liberty University, an evangelical school in Lynchburg, Virginia, created by the late TV preacher Jerry Falwell. And this, too, carries its own significance, conveying a specific message about the Republican senator.

    As longtime readers may recall, Liberty University is burdened with an ironic name. The restrictions placed on Liberty's students are the stuff of legend – its code of conduct dictates that students are prohibited from seeing R-rated movies, listening to music that is not "in harmony with God's word," drinking alcohol, dancing, or kissing. Women on campus are prohibited from wearing dresses or skirts "shorter than the top of the knee."

    At one point, Liberty even banned students who wanted to form an on-campus Democratic Party group.

    A couple of years ago, however, Liberty announced that students would be allowed to carry loaded firearms on campus.

    So this is how evangelicals define "liberty". While that is hardly surprising, is it really the sort of symbol one hopes to ride to the presidency? Or is this one of those insurgency trips intended to flame out in order to build a direct-marketing database and set up a future career hawking all sorts of sketchy goods, services, ideas, and awards?

    Why not?

    It's a living.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Benen, Steve. "The political salience of Liberty U". msnbc. 23 March 2015. msnbc.com. 23 March 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1EJzezx
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,677
    Isn't his father an evangelical pastor or something?

    I find the whole appeal to a higher power, in a religious evangelical university, especially to announce one's Presidential campaign, to be disturbing. Especially given the demand of separation of Church and State. And especially given that Tea Party activists like Cruz are so vocal about Constitutional rights.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Yes, he is a Southern Baptist preacher. In 2005 he became a naturalized US citizen. And in his youth, he fought for Castro for a time.

    I share your concerns over the separation of church and state. Conservatives have a very selective reading of the Constitution.
     
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    One has to look at the separation of church and state, in a historical context, to see why this amendment was added in the first place. From about 400AD to about the mid 1500's AD, the Catholic Church controlled a wide range of countries in a vast empire; Holy Roman Empire. This monopoly changed with Martin Luther leading to the Protestant movement. This lead to a chain reaction, leading to baby bell churches, where each country/state had more control; Church of England.

    The Church of England was controlled by the King or the state. The King wanted to divorce his wife, but the Catholic Church would not allow it. The King/state defied the Catholic Church and changed the rules to accommodate himself. This led to a trend of the state controlling the church. This led to religious persecution, condoned by the state, and the Pilgrim coming to America, so they could be free from state controlled religion; early 1600's. There were also the Quakers who expanded on this.

    The Constitution saw the need for the separation of church and state, in the context of countries, like England, who controlled their Church, and used it as a tool. They did not what the US government using its power to control religion. They wanted religious freedom. Philadelphia was named after one of the seven churches in the bible Prophesies and became the center of the movement toward freedom. It was the most blessed of the seven churches with no complaints from God.

    It would be far more difficult for the diversity of religion and faith, to control the government, compared to a centralized government, trying to control a church; Church of England forced religion.

    If you look at the trend, if one atheist complains of a Nativity Scene, they can override the rest of the community, because the state has the ability to control religion, more the local religion can control a corrupt state, that ignores the will of the majority.

    How many victories has religion won had that change the status quo? Most of the victories of the church are due to the liberalism stealing, via the state, and religion not wanting to be robbed. The state will force Gay Marriage, and blame religion for defending itself. This justifies more control? This is the corruption of power for which the Amendment was added. The gays are allowed to start their own church. Only the state can break in and steal.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2015
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    If that is your view (regarding gay marriage)... the how about we remove ALL mention of the word "marriage" from state-sponsored items (taxes, marriage licenses, et al) and instead have Civil Unions for everyone? Then, if someone wants to "get married", they go to their church and get married. If they want to be recognized as a legitimate couple in the eyes of the state, they go and get a "civil union" instead.

    After all, fair is only fair, right?
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,677
    Religion, or more to the point, the personal religious beliefs of politicians have led them to enact laws which curtail people's freedoms and deny them their rights, not to mention infringe on the education of children in various areas. Here are some examples of how "religion has won" through the enactment of laws and policies within the public and private sphere:

    Reduced access to birth control for women
    Reduced access to reproductive health care, even in public hospitals
    Reduced access to and restricted access to comprehensive sex education classes in public schools
    Reduced access to and restricted access to comprehensive science education and instead, religious individuals try to enforce their creationism in science education in public schools
    Attempts to refuse marriage equality
    Attempts to refuse and deny healthcare to women and LGBT
    Attempts to refuse and deny employment to women and members of the LGBT community
    Religious organisations firing pregnant women if they are not married
    Teaching religion in schools, even public schools and it only represents one religion or religious group, which discriminates against everyone else.

    That is to name just a few off the top of my head.

    The result of this is unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, women being denied reproductive health care - from abortions through to being denied medical care when something goes wrong with the pregnancy or when they miscarry, through to children not understanding or having been taught about sex, the use of contraception and safe sex practices and the consequences of sex, children in public schools are often taught creationism and sometimes even young earth creationism. Marriage equality - the fight against this is abhorrent. As is the denial of healthcare and employment to women and members of the LGBT community.

    There is a reason why there is meant to be a separation between Church and State.

    Having a Presidential candidate launch his campaign in an overtly religious and evangelical school and frankly, preaching, before launching said campaign is very very disturbing.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,558
    What Killed the Dog

    Our neighbor is no more about fairness than making sense. Notice how he reviewed a thumbnail sketch of history before postulating the strangest of theses: "It would be far more difficult for the diversity of religion and faith, to control the government, compared to a centralized government, trying to control a church ...."

    There's a reason he only went with the thumbnail sketch; it makes the omissions less egregious.

    Fair has no place in his book. Here we have a history of churches dominating civil society, even declaring and deposing emperors, and that has no place in his thesis. In contemporary America, we have religious sentiments tailoring law and justice, and this has no place in his thesis. Nor does the fact that liberalism is the reason for the diversity of religion and faith he cites.

    Remember, all that thumbnailing is just to bury his usual nonsensical complaints about liberalism.

    An honest consideration of history would look much different. Then again, honesty is just a matter of priorities, and it has nothing, among the religious throngs, on pretenses of piety.

    Think of it this way: The guy can't even discuss Republican presidential candidates without making shit up in order to try to change the subject and complain about liberalism.

    No news, there.
     
  18. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Indeed... it is terrifying how these people think. While I have my religious beliefs, and I hold them dear, I do not allow them to interfere with basic human dignities and rights... and I have, time and again, stood in challenge of so-called "Christians" who would deny people fundamental rights based on their interpretation of what the Bible says.

    I have, I am ashamed to say, been the one who had to be stood against, more than once... and every time it has helped me to grow, both as a Christian and as a person, to learn and see where I have let my own ideals blind me to simple truths.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    And you think that makes sense? Religious persecution existed long before King Henry VIII. In an historical context, North America and in particular what became the US was founded by individuals seeking religious freedom, the freedom to believe as they wish. That is one of the things you omit from your "history" lesson. What you and your Republican fellows are doing is holding one religion above all others. That puts the state right back where our founding fathers never wanted it to be; holding one religion or belief system above another. It goes against that notion of religious freedom when the state favors one religion over others. What you and your Republican fellows are doing is holding one religion over another and that is unconstitutional.

    You like state sanctioned Christian religious monuments and displays. But if a witch, agnostic, or a Muslim, or any other religion wanted to make a similar monument, well that is a horse of an entirely different color. Hell you guys didn’t even want to allow a Mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan. And worst of it all, you and your Republican brethren are completely oblivious to your hypocrisy.

    Contrary to your assertion, the separation of church and state wasn't about state control of religion but about the right of individuals to believe as they will and to practice their religion as they will within certain constraints. That is why the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Nowhere in that clause does it say anything about controlling religion as you have asserted. Because clearly, our laws do control to some degree what can and cannot happen inside religious establishments and what religions can do. For example, religions are not allowed to practice human sacrifice, enslavement, or violate any of the many laws which govern our society. What you and your conservative brethren have and continue to advocate is the First Amendment allows certain religions to be exempt from the law (e.g. the ability to discriminate).

    "The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government." https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
     
  20. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    And let's hope the conservatives play the race card as much as the liberals did for Obama.

    Anyhoo, Cruz is a natural born citizen by law. Obama's birther problems weren't helped by his family members and the dust jacket of his own book claiming he was born in Kenya.
     
  21. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    I like this game!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,268
    Not sure about that. You are natural born if you are born outside the US and both your parents are US citizens. His father was a Cuban national. (In fact he claims he fought alongside Fidel Castro.)
     
  23. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    I've read that only one parent has to be a citizen. But I'd be okay with both parents being the rule if it means we can impeach Obama and disqualify every piece of legislation he's signed into law.
     

Share This Page