Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Republican Primary Thread
subbie
Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(6)
Message 751 of 1485 (654751)
03-03-2012 5:32 PM



Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Replies to this message:
 Message 762 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 7:47 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 752 of 1485 (654831)
03-05-2012 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 655 by Straggler
02-06-2012 3:00 PM


Don't misunderestimate them....
I have been reading this thread with interest, much in the same way one watches a bus crash in to a child care centre with interest.
Straggler writes:
Could a bunch of Democrats have signed up to vote in this caucas in order to make a different Republican candidate win and thus throw the cat amongst the pigeons?
Read this in a news article over here in oz:
quote:
...but this week's US Republican presidential primary in Michigan may point to some unintended consequences.
Exit polls show that 10 per cent of those voting were actually Democrat supporters, 50 per cent of whom voted for the right wing Rick Santorum with just 15 per cent for Mitt Romney.
CNN reported that close to 40 per cent of those who labelled themselves "liberal" Democrats cast a ballot for Santorum.
This was strategic or "mischief" voting at its worst, designed to undermine the Republicans' chances of winning the presidency rather than to endorse the person the voters in question thought was the best candidate on the day
I wonder how accurate these figures are? If true a 10% voting bloc could have significant sway in some of the closer elections.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Straggler, posted 02-06-2012 3:00 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by nwr, posted 03-05-2012 12:17 PM Boof has not replied
 Message 754 by Perdition, posted 03-05-2012 4:20 PM Boof has not replied
 Message 756 by onifre, posted 03-05-2012 8:08 PM Boof has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 753 of 1485 (654903)
03-05-2012 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by Boof
03-05-2012 12:07 AM


Re: Don't misunderestimate them....
I wonder how accurate these figures are?
I'm a bit skeptical.
To put this is perspective, in the 2008 Democratic primaries, some Republicans were calling on their membership to do similar "mischief" voting.
The turnout in primaries is often small enough, that a small determined group can get enough votes to have some impact. If there really were 10%, that might mean that many Republicans chose to sit out the primaries, perhaps because they are disgusted with all of their candidates.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Boof, posted 03-05-2012 12:07 AM Boof has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 754 of 1485 (654923)
03-05-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by Boof
03-05-2012 12:07 AM


Re: Don't misunderestimate them....
If true a 10% voting bloc could have significant sway in some of the closer elections.
This would only be possible in an "open" primary, where people can vote in either (but not both) of the primaries being run (the Democratic and the Republican). In "closed" primaries and caucases, you have to be registered with the party in order to vote. So, in theory, a Democrat could register as a Republican in order to vote in the Republican primary and cause mischief, but they would then be barred from voting in the Democratic primary, which would let them choose between the candidates that they may actually want to win, rather than just the person they think would be easier to beat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Boof, posted 03-05-2012 12:07 AM Boof has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2012 7:58 PM Perdition has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 755 of 1485 (654945)
03-05-2012 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 754 by Perdition
03-05-2012 4:20 PM


Re: Don't misunderestimate them....
Which would be no big deal here in Texas, where most Democratic primaries are so poorly populated by candidates that they're approximately meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by Perdition, posted 03-05-2012 4:20 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 757 by Perdition, posted 03-06-2012 10:26 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 756 of 1485 (654948)
03-05-2012 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by Boof
03-05-2012 12:07 AM


Re: Don't misunderestimate them....
I have been reading this thread with interest, much in the same way one watches a bus crash in to a child care centre with interest.
Probably one of the single most interestings thing ever. That, and 9/11.
I wonder how accurate these figures are? If true a 10% voting bloc could have significant sway in some of the closer elections.
No more than it always is. This is not something new they're pointing out, it happens every election. At every level there is funny business taking place in elections. They're only complaining to get sympathy for their party.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Boof, posted 03-05-2012 12:07 AM Boof has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 757 of 1485 (654990)
03-06-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 755 by Coragyps
03-05-2012 7:58 PM


Re: Don't misunderestimate them....
Which would be no big deal here in Texas, where most Democratic primaries are so poorly populated by candidates that they're approximately meaningless.
For local and statewide elections, I have no doubt, but for a national election, such as President, or even Senate, that's probably not true. I know Austin is a bastion for Democrats in a very red state, so around there I would assume there would be more going on in a Democratic primary.
Besides, if there are so few Democrats around the state, in general, then there aren't too many Democrats to covertly register as a Republican in order to facilitate shenanigans during the primary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 755 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2012 7:58 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 758 of 1485 (655097)
03-07-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 747 by jar
02-29-2012 8:34 AM


Santorum and Satan
Apparently Rick Santorum has some radical views that go against the majority view in the US. He once said that Satan had his sights set on the US, way back in 2008, but now says they are not relevant to the race for president.
Personally, were I running for president, I wouldn't bring stuff like that up unless I were trying to capture the bobblehead bloc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by jar, posted 02-29-2012 8:34 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 759 of 1485 (655122)
03-07-2012 1:29 PM


Super Tuesday
So, Newt Gingrich won Georgia, I always knew them folks were funny down there. Santorum won North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. And Romney won everywhere else. Ron Paul, of course, didn't win anything.
However, winning isn't what it used to be, because delegates are appointed proportionally rather than on a winner-takes-all basis.
No-one has dropped out. And it's a big yawn from us here at Adequate Towers, where we say, ah, who really gives a damn?

Replies to this message:
 Message 760 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2012 1:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 760 of 1485 (655124)
03-07-2012 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 759 by Dr Adequate
03-07-2012 1:29 PM


Re: Super Tuesday
same old same old ... I thought it was stupor tuesday.
the circus will continue
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 759 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2012 1:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 573 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 761 of 1485 (655223)
03-08-2012 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by Tanypteryx
02-27-2012 7:00 PM


Re: It makes me want to puke when I read\listen to santorum's rants
That isn't what santorum meant by "intellectual diversity". If you look at the context of his statement, he was talking about university faculty. He also wasn't talking intelligence either. He was talking about the lockstep, party line thinking of academia. Although there is some leeway in what is acceptable for faculty to openly believe, there are some things you must never be let known that you believe, let alone teach to your students. This is the opposite of diversity. This is intellectual totalitarianism. This forum is a perfect example of it. There are a set of beliefs that are acceptable here. If you openly suggest that reality may swerve in the slightest from the acceptable beliefs here, you are mocked, ridiculed, and your reputation level kept in the basement.
Academia and this forum are little fascistic, totalitarian groups. The only diversity alllowed here is skin color, and sexual persuasion.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-27-2012 7:00 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2012 7:49 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 573 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 762 of 1485 (655225)
03-08-2012 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 751 by subbie
03-03-2012 5:32 PM


It is true. Contraception leads to a false sense of security. If you think you are safeguarded from pregnancy, you are less likely to think twice before having sex outside of marriage. A person who has sex 365 days in a year outside of marriage is more likely to cause pregnancy than a person who has sex perhaps one time a year outside of marriage. The contraception is more likely to fail with more times of use. If you are not sure contraception will keep you safe from pregnancy, it is less likely you will engage in extra marital sex 365 days a year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by subbie, posted 03-03-2012 5:32 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 768 by Theodoric, posted 03-08-2012 11:56 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 769 by Theodoric, posted 03-08-2012 11:57 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 770 by Pressie, posted 03-09-2012 5:49 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 771 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2012 5:52 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 773 by dwise1, posted 03-10-2012 3:42 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 763 of 1485 (655226)
03-08-2012 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 761 by foreveryoung
03-08-2012 7:38 PM


Re: It makes me want to puke when I read\listen to santorum's rants
Although there is some leeway in what is acceptable for faculty to openly believe, there are some things you must never be let known that you believe, let alone teach to your students. This is the opposite of diversity. This is intellectual totalitarianism.
Hilarious.
The idea that ideas are banned in university is right wing paranoid fantasy. Some ideas are held by far fewer academics than others, but mostly because those ideas have lost out based on their merits.
As for this board, you are free to have any opinion you want. But if you hold a minority opinion, by definition, that opinion is not going to be supported by a majority of posters. Not sure how things could be different.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 7:38 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 7:54 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 765 by Panda, posted 03-08-2012 8:32 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 573 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 764 of 1485 (655228)
03-08-2012 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 763 by NoNukes
03-08-2012 7:49 PM


Re: It makes me want to puke when I read\listen to santorum's rants
If it is so hilarious, just try openly saying a few taboo points of view on campus and see what happens. You deny that?
Those ideas have only lost their merit because their proponents were ridiculed, mocked and generally given a hard time. If their time at university can be made more difficult in any imaginable way, it will be done.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2012 7:49 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by Panda, posted 03-08-2012 8:37 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 767 by jar, posted 03-08-2012 8:46 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 765 of 1485 (655240)
03-08-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 763 by NoNukes
03-08-2012 7:49 PM


Re: It makes me want to puke when I read\listen to santorum's rants
NoNukes writes:
The idea that ideas are banned in university is right wing paranoid fantasy.
Surely some ideas are banned?
For example, if a faculty member was to openly advocate child rape, then he would probably sacked.
The same applies to Holocaust denial, racism, homophobia, etc.
Maybe these are the kind of views that Rick Santorum wants to see more of in universities.
But academics viciously mock people that hold those opinions.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2012 7:49 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024