Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[DawnOfJustice16]

Well the narrative they like to tell us was everything in America was great, then all of a sudden Obama takes office in 2009 then it all went to hell.

It did .

 

[souvlaki]

It did .

Lol. Were you in a coma throughout 2008?

 

[moviedoors]

Like others said, if they wanted to ask a relevant question, they should have asked about textbooks.

But doesn't that kinda go hand-in-hand with evolution?

 

[Kelly]

I think it's fair to say why couldn't Walker take a side on such a simple question. He could have given the I believe in God and evolution together answer(which the majority of Americans believe in) and nothing would been made out of it.

If somebody is going to fumble on such a simple question then I ask how will he react to tougher ones

Let me just give my apologies for my rude post to you, and leave it at that.

 

[DawnOfJustice16]

Lol. Were you in a coma throughout 2008?

No .

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No .

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_in_September_2008

 

[chaseter]

I don't remember Obama punting on a question about evolution and if you referring to gay marriage at least he gave an answer without being wishy washy about it(albeit one that I could easily see as BS, but at least he was willing to take a side that could offend somebody)

He punted gay marriage until last year, he punted immigration until this year. It's all politics and timing.

 

[chaseter]

Oh c'mon. Any honest person will immediately tell you what they think about evolution.

If you need to calculate your response to that, you're a coward with no convictions.

What about Obama and gay marriage in 08?

 

[Kelly]

To me, it is simply the media's go to questions.

1. They already know where they stand, it is a "gotcha" question....
2. Many like myself can live with both quite comfortably, but as soon as you lean one way or the other there is a a group to pounce on you.
3. It is a "hot topic" among the fringe groups, therefore the media loves it.
4. Why do they not ask liberals where they stand on evolution, because they know the answer there as well.

To see it as anything more than a "gotcha" question is to look at it after drinking the kool-aid, wearing the rose colored "media only wants the answers" glasses, and smokin' the good stuff.

Much the same way as we will continue to see stupid questions asked of women in politics....that are never asked of men.

As I said before, who cares? We know what their answer is going to be, and answering it to either sides liking is not going to change one vote.

Those of you saying it is an important question that needs answers, are throwing ******** at the fan...you will NEVER vote for a conservative or a republican, so why does it matter?

Independent voters could care less, they want to know about jobs, tax reform, and why the hell their health care premiums and co-pays are increasing...evolution is no where near the top.

 

[SV Fan]

What about Obama and gay marriage in 08?

As I said Obama was at least willing to give an answer that potentially could piss off some of his base. That is more then Walker.

1. They already know where they stand, it is a "gotcha" question....

To be honest I don't know where Walker stands on evolution. I have a clue, but I would like to know personally.

 

[Kelly]

As I said Obama was at least willing to give an answer that potentially could piss off some of his base. That is more then Walker.

Obama answered in order to key in to a specific demographic of black voters in the South that have been known to be very conservative, and somewhat of a swing vote. That is the ONLY reason, and it was as clear as day.

Is he the only politician to ever do that? Of course not, both sides do it all the time, but to not see it, just as his CHANGE was right at the time that he needed the rich donors that are very pro gay marriage were also pinpointed when needed.

It happens, its politics, and it is what it is....but it ISN'T anything real, cool, up front, and transparent....by any means.

HE WOULD HAVE NEVER done an interview, debate or anything else with a Baptist preacher, except to key in on a specific demographic that he and his campaign felt they would need. It wasn't a surprise question, he knew it was coming. It wasn't like he was at an Economic Summit/debate, or whatever and suddenly the question came up. It was calculated and did what he wanted it to do.

Bush did the same thing when it came to immigration....when he needed the Hispanic vote he spoke Spanish, and began talking about the beginnings of the Dream Act....when he needed the conservative vote, he threw the Hispanic vote under the bus, at the time he needed one more than the other. The Hispanic vote got him into office along with the Supreme Court the first time, and he needed the Conservative vote to come back because they were upset about his Immigration policies being too soft, so he threw the Hispanic vote under the bus. It happens all the time.

If I were a candidate and I KNEW a question was being asked for ******** purposes, I wouldn't answer it, I would call them on it. I would say, you know the answer, now ask something that the voters actually want to know about. It's just like celebrities that do not sign the pics for people pretending to be fans, but holding 50 celeb pics to be signed and sold they know they aren't fans. Or when Clint Eastwood was ambushed by paparazzi wanting a nice juicy piece of crap to chew on for awhile, and they asked him what he thought of those (specific names were given) that were talking **** about "American Sniper"...he smiled and said "I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THEY SAID" got in his car and left, and the paparazzi and everyone knew that he had just given them the finger . I wouldn't answer the question either....when I know damn good and well what the motive is behind it.

 

[SV Fan]

It happens, its politics, and it is what it is....but it ISN'T anything real, cool, up front, and transparent....by any means.

Put it this way I know politicians BS alot, but it's nice to see on some questions if a politicians can have some kind of backbone that they willing to take a stance to piss off somebody. That's basically where do you stand on evolution or creationism is for Republicans. It's a question not what the candidate truly believes in it's do they have a backbone that they can answer a simple question that is bound to make them look bad to some group of voters.

 

[Kelly]

Put it this way I know politicians BS alot, but it's nice to see on some questions if a politicians can have some kind of backbone that they willing to take a stance to piss off somebody. That's basically where do you stand on evolution or creationism is for Republicans. It's a question not what the candidate truly believes in it's do they have a backbone that they can answer a simple question that is bound to make them look bad to some group of voters.

Oh, good grief, that wasn't backbone. He knew the question was coming, he knew what he needed to do.

It isn't backbone when you are willing to lie about something to get a vote, and you take somewhat of a calculated risk. It is called politics, and it is sleazy, and you see the liars for who they are.

If Walker had answered the question and flat out didn't tell the truth in order to get a certain vote, I would have called ******** on him as well.


And had he answered it, you would have put that article right in here talking about how stupid he was because he did not believe in scientific fact. YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER....everyone does, so again....who cares? It will not change a vote either way. It certainly would not have changed your view of him.

You can either embrace the ********, or scrape it off your feet. I prefer to not walk in it in the first place. If you know its there, step over it and move on. PEOPLE KNOW THE ANSWER, what they want answered are those questions that they aren't sure on as of yet. It would be nice if the media figured that one out. They are not here to push a Conservative or Liberal agenda, though that is exactly what they are doing. They are here to get the answers to questions that WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO.....

I don't have the time, for it to be wasted...

 

[Thundercrack85]

What about Obama and gay marriage in 08?

I think I'm on record saying Obama is an empty suit.

 

[Kelly]

I think I'm on record saying Obama is an empty suit.

I don't know that he is an "empty suit"....I just don't think he had any clue what he was getting into, and he has hit the "reality of the job" at every turn, with no experience in how to get through it, and he has put people around him that are "just like him."

So, if that is an "empty suit"? then ok. I just think he is a smart College Professor that had absolutely no business being President. But hey, I was willing to give something else a chance, and it just did not work out.

To me Bush was more of an "empty suit" at times and his VP was the one actually calling the shots, BUT HE had people in his administration that he could have/and should have listened to....ie Colin Powell in the beginning, and Condie Rice who knew from her experience with Russia that Putin WAS NOT A FRIEND, and that Afghanistan was a hell hole that would never change.

Obama has only idiots around him.

 

[Tech]

As I said Obama was at least willing to give an answer that potentially could piss off some of his base. That is more then Walker.

Wasn't President Obama forced to give the answer after Joe Biden volunteered that information? It's not like he volunteered that tidbit until press pointed out the inconsistency during election year. President Obama opposed gay marriage in 08 but transformed his position 11-12. The reality is he's been a feminist long time and shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone.

 

[Thundercrack85]

As much as I detest Bush, he struck me as a puppet. A spoiled kid who never had to fight for anything. From champagne unit, to being let into an Ivy League school with a C average. He was essentially made a president by his father's powerful allies.

Obama I actually felt had some real desire to be president, but once he got there... there's the old expression the chase is better than the catch. But he did strike me as a chameleon from early on. The stuff with Reverend Wright, and that video of him doing a Southern accent. Not to mention re-evolving on gay marriage.

As president he has been particularly uninspiring, and he's really the only president I have seen who seems to be annoyed at having to be president, which sort of makes me wonder why he didn't just pull an LBJ in 2012.

 

[SV Fan]

Wasn't President Obama forced to give the answer after Joe Biden volunteered that information? It's not like he volunteered that tidbit until press pointed out the inconsistency during election year. President Obama opposed gay marriage in 08 but transformed his position 11-12. The reality is he's been a feminist long time and shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone.

I am talking about when he was asked in 2008, he gave an answer. In terms of 2012 I personally believe Biden blurting it out a month before Obama sided with it was just a case they wanted to put out feelers first to see how people would react. Biden basically was used as Cannon Fodder. The whole "Obama evolved on Gay Marriage" was a huge pile of BS

 

[Tech]

The whole evolution question is silly, President of the United States shouldn't be micromanaging school public curriculum and he's not a scientist. It's hypocritical to suggest that you want politicians to keep personal beliefs out of office but then you ask them question like that. I suppose its fair game to ask anything politics-related, but media should be criticized for steering conversation to be a huge priority.
I suppose presidential candidates should be prepared to answer it at this point.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I would hope a president, who presumably has some of the best education in the land (last four went to Ivy League schools) would have a basic understanding of science. So, I hardly consider that silly. Though this is more about personal conviction than a basic science education.

Actually, I found out today that Scott Walker is a college drop out so... Actually, that kind of makes me wonder now.

 

[Tech]

Going to Kelly's point, I do notice that conservative pundits don't seem to ask GOP presidential candidates what their vews are on evolution, even though it varies (they don't all have same opinion) It's just the left-of-center CNN/MSNBC types who obsess over this question. Real conservatives don't seem to care about crap like that. It's taxes, property rights, views on gay marriage, military and domestic spending. The GOP nominated a Mormon, for Christ's sakes..no pun intended. Conservatives aren't that rigid on this requirement as media likes to make you believe.

To be frank, whether you are an expert on science or theology, I'd prefer presidential candidates have more humility on issue instead of declaring they know every detail of origin of man with such certainty. You have a model in your head, ok...but reality that your model is pin point accurate in explaining what happened thousands or eons ago with pin point accuracy seems silly.

 

[SV Fan]

he's not a scientist......

Problem is they aren't a bunch of other things that their job needs them to be as well(farmers, economists, doctors, infrastructure experts, generals, etc) so to say well they aren't scientists is a stupid argument since a lot of the stuff they doing in the job involves having some scientific importance. If they going to hide behind not being scientist I want them to hide behind every other thing they not qualified for as well(which basically leaves them with very little to talk about).

Real conservatives don't seem to care about crap like that. It's taxes, property rights, views on gay marriage, military and domestic spending.

See my post last page(#872) to see how much they truly care about property rights.

 

[Tech]

Problem is they aren't a bunch of other things that their job needs them to be as well(farmers, economists, doctors, infrastructure experts, generals, etc) so to say well they aren't scientists is a stupid argument since a lot of the stuff they doing in the job involves having some scientific importance. If they going to hide behind not being scientist I want them to hide behind every other thing they not qualified for as well(which basically leaves them with very little to talk about).



See my post last page(#872) to see how much they truly care about property rights.

The thing is I probably think President of United States should not intervene in many domestic issues as some of the Left so its not a problem for me to accept a President showing humility on these type of questions. It's the Left who seems adamant on proclaiming to know things with certainty and then justifying that to push through agenda micromanaging other institutions.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Going to Kelly's point, I do notice that conservative pundits don't seem to ask GOP presidential candidates what their vews are on evolution, even though it varies (they don't all have same opinion) It's just the left-of-center CNN/MSNBC types who obsess over this question. Real conservatives don't seem to care about crap like that. It's taxes, property rights, views on gay marriage, military and domestic spending. The GOP nominated a Mormon, for Christ's sakes..no pun intended. Conservatives aren't that rigid on this requirement as media likes to make you believe.

To be frank, whether you are an expert on science or theology, I'd prefer presidential candidates have more humility on issue instead of declaring they know every detail of origin of man with such certainty. You have a model in your head, ok...but reality that your model is pin point accurate in explaining what happened thousands or eons ago with pin point accuracy seems silly.

I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Saying you accept a basic scientific fact isn't the same as saying you know every detail about the origin of man.

It's like saying you accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You don't have to be a cosmologist to understand a basic concept, that even a laymen can observe. No one would accuse you of acting like an astronomer.

 

[Tech]

Hmm...that's not really how I take it...I feel lot on Left are convinced they have origin of man figured out and that leaves some politicians who are moderate or apathetic about in issue uncomfortable. Some on the religious right act similar as well, sure...but can't have it both ways...you want a religious litmus test or do you not. I don't really care if a school board wants to teach it, but I think a school board should decide that and not have federal government intervening at all levels. The people who are most obsessed about this issue have a chip on their shoulder, in my opinion. Your views on evolution don't have much day to day relevance to most people outside religious doctrine...maybe to scientists, but not everyday tax payers.