GOP'ish candidates

[transjen]

Well a president Perry or president Bachman will mean that instead of writing 2013 we will all be writing 1913 or in Perry case 1813
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well a president Perry or president Bachman will mean that instead of writing 2013 we will all be writing 1913 or in Perry case 1813
Jerseygirl Jen

You give them too much credit, dear Jen. The dates you have provided are post-Renaissance and post-Enlightenment. You need to find a century in the Dark Ages.

[ila]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well a president Perry or president Bachman will mean that instead of writing 2013 we will all be writing 1913 or in Perry case 1813
Jerseygirl Jen

Even up here we are getting saturation coverage of the upcoming US presidentional election. It all gets so very tiresome with all the speculation and accompanying angst.

One thing that I don't like about the media coverage of Bachman is the blanket statement that Bachman is getting the Christian vote. While I will admit that there are professed Christians that will vote for her I would think that most of them belong to the wingnut fringe. Christians (as any other religious group) do not vote for a single candidate. I'm really getting tired of Christians being lumped together as one big amorphous mass that do not think individually.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Even up here we are getting saturation coverage of the upcoming US presidentional election. It all gets so very tiresome with all the speculation and accompanying angst.

One thing that I don't like about the media coverage of Bachman is the blanket statement that Bachman is getting the Christian vote. While I will admit that there are professed Christians that will vote for her I would think that most of them belong to the wingnut fringe. Christians (as any other religious group) do not vote for a single candidate. I'm really getting tired of Christians being lumped together as one big amorphous mass that do not think individually.

If this is what you are being told in Canadian media coverage of the election, your reporters are adopting an unfortunate shorthand. Bachmann appears to be garnering the support of "evangelical Christians" who comprise a large segment of the population who specifically participate as voters in Republican primaries and for whom a small set of social issues trump most other considerations (e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion, and so on). Beyond that, only time will tell.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

If this is what you are being told in Canadian media coverage of the election, your reporters are adopting an unfortunate shorthand. Bachmann appears to be garnering the support of "evangelical Christians" who comprise a large segment of the population who specifically participate as voters in Republican primaries and for whom a small set of social issues trump most other considerations (e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion, and so on). Beyond that, only time will tell.

The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.

It's not only evangelical that's is being left out. Many of them are dominionists that want a totalitarian Christian government that imposes their religious views on all of us, similar to the Taliban.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

Even up here we are getting saturation coverage of the upcoming US presidentional election. It all gets so very tiresome with all the speculation and accompanying angst.

One thing that I don't like about the media coverage of Bachman is the blanket statement that Bachman is getting the Christian vote. While I will admit that there are professed Christians that will vote for her I would think that most of them belong to the wingnut fringe. Christians (as any other religious group) do not vote for a single candidate. I'm really getting tired of Christians being lumped together as one big amorphous mass that do not think individually.

Bachman isn't the only Jesus freak in the bunch. There are many. Perry is a strong contender for top Jesus freak. Romney and Huntsman are the mormons, and Pawlenty is actually proud of his evangelical heritage. Look up the others, by far, most of them do not believe in evolution, which is the cornerstone of a giant branch of science: biology.

Too bad Gary Johnson isn't a stronger presidential candidate. It would be nice to get a conservative atheist in the White House.

Originally Posted by randolph

It's not only evangelical that's is being left out. Many of them are dominionists that want a totalitarian Christian government that imposes their religious views on all of us, similar to the Taliban.

That sounds like Huckabee. He wanted the constitution to be aligned more with the bible. I am SOOOOOOOOO glad he dropped out.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by ila

The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.

No, the real missing adjective is deranged.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

While the GOP wannabe Presidents are doing a Mexican hat dance about zero job for Aug and after they finished high fiven each other they started running there mouth and if you listen you will find one pattron to there load of crap
They all claim they will create jobs
How will they do this feet you ask?
For the most part they are not telling but what they do tell is the same old GOP BS about cutting taxes
this BS has been in affect since 2001 and is still going
So if cutting taxes creates jobs where the are the jobs
in fact in 2010 the GOP ran for the house claiming they will make jobs there number one duty so to the GOP controled house i ask where are the jobs?
The GOP BS about cutting taxes has never worked and never will

The reason they aren't telling us they want to cut taxes is because the GOP and Obama have kept the tax cuts in place. Obama agreed to this because even he knew that raising them would make a bad job market even worse. Still the GOP has had to fight to keep taxes low and have basically won that fight. The other reason is that there are several things that need to be done to get the economy moving again. Bring the debt down so we can restore our AAA credit rating. Repeal obamacare. Lower gas prices. Restore high tech jobs that Obama eliminated. Enact policies that bring jobs back to the US.

One of the main things that need to be done is to reverse several of Obama's energy policies. Obama has openly stated that his goal was to drive coal companies into bankruptcy and that energy costs under his presidency would necessarily skyrocket. Banning oil drilling sure hasn't helped. If the cost of energy goes up, the cost of everything goes up.

Originally Posted by transjen

And before Tracy chimes in here's a fact for her to chew on when there belove W was in the white house we were in a neg 2000 jobs a month in the hole
The GOP answer is keep the Bush failed policies active and trople down on a loosing hand of failed policies which got us in to this mess to start with
and remember they cry the poor

Did you know the unemployment rate under Bush is almost half of the unemployment rate under Obama?

Here's a question for you... What policy of Obama's created the most jobs?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... Did you know the unemployment rate under Bush is almost half of the unemployment rate under Obama? ...

In "Chapters from My Autobiography," published in the North American Review in 1906, Mark Twain wrote: "Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics'."

Tracy Coxx knows full well that the current Great Recession began under Bush's watch, and that the statistic to which he alludes simply reflects what Obama inherited from Bush. The unemployment rate rose in the aftermath of the financial meltdown that began in 2007 and proceeded through 2008, while Bush was still in office. By the time Obama was sworn in, the Recession was in full force. To take out of context a statistic about the unemployment rate to make this political point is classic Tracy Coxx, and makes what Tracy wrote -- in the words of Mark Twain -- a lie.