Which Presidential hopefuls don't believe in evolution?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by jackson33

Buffy and the Bush haters; history takes a great deal of time to sort out opinions of the people involved. ... Lincoln, himself was the single greatest person to promote the equal value of people in a society, yet is know for so many other things. then as today the same that hated his agenda have viewpoints which if allowed would seem to make him "the worst ever". he did hold the country together, a feat 60% did not want and another 30 couldn't have cared less. those 10% left, did not write the history we read, but the historians who have judged decisions did so and IMO have done well...they will do the same for Bush.

Of course we'll see, although Bush himself has said he'll be dead by the time they "see the light..."

I have no idea where you get those numbers about Lincoln, but he won re-election "by a landslide" in 1864, when the worst of the war had already happened but the end was not yet in sight. This isn't a terribly good analogy for a whole lot of reasons, one of which is that the war in Iraq has now gone on several months longer than the Civil War, with pretty clear indications that its not going to end anytime soon. You can take this topic to the History Forum if you'd like to debate it.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Rush Limbaugh....has chosen and for good reason to leave the name calling and all that goes with any such attempt to those that want the power he has no desire to have.

Yah, like "Barack The Magic Negro"! Rush and Coulter and Malkin don't "represent" anyone but themselves. Yes, they get ratings, but what's problematic is that they and many other right-wing extremists--calling what they say "conservative" is a joke--do nothing but say "everything that Bush is doing is right." That's not thinking, that's blind idolatry.

That some people want to blindly follow this sort of line is easy and comforting: it requires no energy wasted on thinking, all you have to do is say "ditto," and there's all those flags and fireworks to let you know that you're on the "right" side and are helping the fight against "truly evil people."

It would be nice if people actually followed the Jeffersonian ideal of studying the facts and making independent opinions about what is right, instead of simply falling in line with whatever "their" party says. "Stop snitchin' and don't go to school cuz its just whitey history" is not just found in the "godless liberal ghetto" its found among those extremists on the left with the simple substitution of "evolution-believing liberals" for "whitey". Obama and Cosby are railing about that attitude in the Black community. Why can't someone on the "conservative" side rail against this know-nothing-ism? If you think what Sharpton does is bad, the folks on the left have the same opinion about Rush for all the same reasons.

Now what came out of this debate was *facinating* *precisely* because as I said, *no one* had anything good to say about Bush. They are *all* running away from this presidency like rats fleeing a sinking ship. And *that's* what makes Rush's blind idolatry so silly. Why does he do this? Doesn't he recognize that true conservatives have started actually *thinking* about the issues and are starting to question this blind devotion?

I actually agree that none of the candidates from either party stands head and shoulders above the rest, but I've *never* voted for one that I thought did. Clinton grew into the job. I think folks that voted for Bush have legitimate reasons for thinking that he would too, but it sure looks like a lot of folks decided they were wrong. The fact is that a lot of CEOs and other leaders out there just plain suck, and a lot of folks that could do a good job wouldn't want it no matter what. This is not a perfect world, and we have to make decisions on who gets the job with a lot of imperfect information, but we're all better off with more information than less, and it would be *much* better if people actually talked about the pros and cons of issues rather than slapping those you disagree with as "haters" or "evil" or "traitors" or other meaningless epithets.

Not believing in evolution certainly tells me that a candidate does not believe in science or in rational debate, and he won't get my vote because of the fact that so much of what a president has to decide depends on rational and scientific weighing of facts and making hard decisions based on seemingly conflicting data when there are so many special interests. I was *encouraged* that 7 of the ten did not fall into "pander mode" and show blind obidience to the extremist Evangelical block. That's *progress*.

There are extremists on both ends of the spectrum trying to scream "there is no middle in politics" anymore, and fomenting "us versus them hatred." If you want to spread hate and bile, that's your business. Its a free country. But don't expect the middle to fall for it anymore. Candidates from both parties are at least starting to recognize this. If you and Rush and Coulter want to scream "traitor" until you turn blue, but its *bad* for America.

Don't be afraid to see what you see,
Buffy

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

This is a big "So what?" from me. The three guys so raised their hands will combine for less than 5% of the primary vote, with most of that coming from their stance on other issues.

I agree. After hearing some vague mentions of the incident on the radio, I read about it expecting 9 of the 10 or some other appalling portion of the GOP candidates to come out as fundamentalists. I was heartened to see only 3/10ths, and those (Brownback, Tancredo & Huckabee) ones who’s names I didn’t recognize. If 70% of all Americans rejected creationism, rather than the actual appalling 22 – 52% (per 2005 Harris Poll #52), I would be even more heartened.

For reasons unrelated to science and religion, it’s unlikely I’ll vote for a Republican candidate for President in ’08. Nonetheless, I felt pride and admiration for McCain and the other 6 candidates who refused to “play to the base” of Creationsists (who, according to the poll linked to above, comprise 73% of self-identified Republicans, and 75% of self-identified conservatives).

I hope, if the same question were put to the Democratic party candidates, one (or, most likely two) of whom I likely will vote, they will behave as well.

[Zythryn]

While there are a number of good point on both sides of the discussion, I wanted to address one in particular.

Jackson33: the base of the party is, ... favors less

If this were true, the republicans might get my vote. Big business gets huge favors from the government. This happens under both democrats and republicans. It seems that it happens more with every new administration. We are no longer in a free market. Those with big pockets, get big favors. Those that can't afford lobbyists that will take politicians on golf outings to Scotland don't get as big favors.

Excellent point C1ay regarding the quality of canidates. I don't think there are really any great choices, just choices that aren't as bad. I don't believe those that wish to serve the public are any longer attracted to office, only those seeking power and/or money.

I don't care if a canidate is science orientated. I would just hope that the canidates would not be anti-science. Reason and logic will go a long way towards winning my vote. Showing a lack of either or both will go a long way towards winning my vote for the opponent

[jackson33]

Buffy; as to Lincoln's popularity in the early 60's, i don't think any of the Confederacy was pro-Lincoln. the Northern states were split and the Western at best, didn't care. McClellan the Democratic candidate, was not the best of candidates for the time, condemning freedom of the slaves and demanding a cease fire. slavery itself was not popular, at all in the north. prior to the election decisive battles were won and the outcome pretty well determined.
if you call the results a real landslide, the Bush's 04, election was as well. the popular votes in 1864 was 55-45 Lincoln, however 11 states in the south did not participate. historians at the time were concerned with the issue of State Rights which were at issue for some time and nearly over road the ones which gave him his due fame.

*The Magic Negro* as portrayed on the Limbaugh Show was an off take from another black mans portrayal. AGAIN, your giving Rush, to much credit for origination. much of what he is said to say, are quotes from other folks, which he may agree with. you ladies often refer to his "feminatzi" verse, which was his, but referred to a limited number of woman who, even by you definitions, were extreme in their views. think he often says about 10 or 15 radical leaders of extremist groups.

of those ten Republican and all the Democrats, if asked if a God created mankind, i would suggest all 20 would say yes...to say no, would mean automatic defeat in the US, which you well know. i happen to agree with you on faith based government. i oppose it well beyond you, but practicality or realization of what the voters require (%), leads to incomplete answers.

i also agree and its becoming clear we are not alone, no single person is standing out, which fits the times we live in. on my side Newt G. would be philosophically the best, not not electable. i see no others, even Fred T...
IMO, the Dem's, will nominate Hillary which in my financial life will be devastating, however unless some one comes out of the woodwork, she will win...

Polosi and Reid, in my mind are traitors. many others as well, when displaying politics overs actions. you cannot vote for something such as a war or national commitment, then for reasons as politics, change your mind. Limbaugh, Hennessey and Colter are declaring their views, as do many on the other side in media, especially the arts, but none are decision makers which is the problem....and differance.

I have a short, but succint, theory on this subject, that I would like to broach, in the near future. ( politics always involves a connumdrum )

In the meanwhile, I am enjoying this discussion.

[jackson33]

Zythrun; i understand your frustrations with the perceived lobbyist problem.
however i feel its seriously mis-understood. to me its a process which government can hear from the people themselves. business, organizations or groups of like minded persons can give and take from discussions which are not conceivable one on one with 300 million people. with all due respect, i doubt any president (R or D) has ever talked to any one, with intent to make a decision. his administration heads or their staff, yes and to much more degree then most would like. yes, this includes party donations or to sponsor some event, but thats the way our system works. it also includes talks on issue which each individual as some connection to...pro or con on. you, me and every one is indirectly represented by many of the lobbyist, unknowingly giving our opinion to the people that count. we can write all the letters or e-mails, even receive prepared replies but we know the total influence.

business and corporations, the biggest single factor in our daily lives by products produced, working for or a component of and the effects on our city, state or national interest. even here these companies have a vested interest in you as the customer, stock holder or advertiser (word of mouth) for whatever the objective is.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by C1ay

What scares me is the fact that out of approximately 20 candidates across the parties I haven't seen one that I think has presidential qualities. What will it take to get truely presidential candidates to run for the presidency?

I’m unsure if one should approach the problem as one of finding a candidate who matches some template of “Presidential qualities”, or conclude that “Presidential qualities” is a sort of vague historic term describing the personalities and policies of previous holders of the office. Are the best presidents one’s who fit the mold, or redefine it?

I think Democratic party candidate Dennis Kucinich would be an excellent President. His views, as evidenced by his executive and Congressional voting history, seem well-aligned with my own, and with those of the majority of America. Yet, to my puzzlement and dismay, his candidacy seems dismissed by political activist, media spokespersons, and ordinary people.

Increasingly, I think, consideration of the electability of candidates, rather than their stated platforms, public service histories, and personal character, is driving voters’ decisions at the polls. This strikes me as a gross and damaging example of people accepting having their decisions made for them, and tends to fill me with bitter cynicism.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by jackson33

Buffy; as to Lincoln's popularity in the early 60's, i don't think any of the Confederacy was pro-Lincoln. the Northern states were split and the Western at best, didn't care.

This doesn't provide any data to justify the "10%" approval you claim above, but its off topic so take it to History if you want to argue the point.

Originally Posted by jackson33

*The Magic Negro* as portrayed on the Limbaugh Show was an off take from another black mans portrayal. AGAIN, your giving Rush, to much credit for origination.

So if he doesn't actually originate it and only promotes it to his "huge" audience, he's off the hook? How convenient. Your unprompted reference to "feminazi's" is interesting because it is a standard--and false--apologia of his generalized use of the term to rail against anything that is not in the Republican platform on abortion or women's rights.

But I won't worry my little head over it. He can be a bully if he wants to. People who respect him for being a bully are pretty sick, but there are a lot of sick people out there...

Originally Posted by jackson33

of those ten Republican and all the Democrats, if asked if a God created mankind, i would suggest all 20 would say yes...to say no, would mean automatic defeat in the US

...because even if their beliefs are as strange as mine, that statement is indeed consistent with their beliefs. On the other hand Rove is apparently an atheist...

Originally Posted by jackson33

....the Dem's, will nominate Hillary which in my financial life will be devastating...Polosi and Reid, in my mind are traitors. many others as well, when displaying politics overs actions. you cannot vote for something such as a war or national commitment, then for reasons as politics, change your mind.

This is the kind of seething irrational hatred that is poisoning politics, and its my main point here relevant to the thread: if you put hatred ahead of logical analysis you come to stupid conclusions. Why would Hillary "devastate" your "financial life?" Unless you subscribe to the notion that no president can ever take credit for changes to the economy during their presidency, Bill was pretty darn good for all of our financial positions. Moreover within the Democratic party, the extremists don't like her precisely because she supports things that benefit "evil capitalists." Why do you hate her so irrationally?

As for Pelosi and Reid, most of the recent call-outs as to why their traitors just reek of self-serving and hypocritical--and relevant to the thread, is yet another example of irrational statements that work for the "base" who will unthinkingly follow no matter what: Pelosi was a Traitor for even talking to the Syrians, but when it was called out that the Republicans who visited the very week before were not called Traitors, there was an immediate effort to belittle the trip as being of no importance and just grandstanding. But even the administration recognized this as an embarrasing demonstration that refusal to talk just makes us really look stupid, and that the "Big Lie" is not even working on the American People anymore, resulting in that 28% approval rating, and Condi's rushed trip to meet the Syrians herself this week (although Rush didn't call *her* a Traitor).

Again, Irrationalism based on The Big Lie, has been an insidious tradition in the Republican party since Newt, and perfected to a fine art by Rove. Its been practiced by some extremists in the Democratic party, but it completely enveloped the Republicans and its coming back to bite the party now, and while the *candidates* may be making only baby steps away from it at the moment, even Bush's *supporters* are getting horrified. If this is not a lesson in how we really need to get back to the days when a Lyndon Johnson or a Howard Baker could find *compromise* between the parties and do what is right for America. People who go around demonizing the other party in such an extreme fashion only hurt this country and they should stop now.

More importantly, I'd like everyone on all sides to *think first* before blindly parroting what their party's "message machines" generate. The other party is *not* the enemy, and just because a candidate belongs to that party is no reason not to consider them.

Think first, then vote the candidate, not the party.

Or most assuredly we will all hang separately,
Buffy

[jackson33]

Buffy; I don't think the Republican platform rails against womans rights. if it does, their actions certainly do not demonstrate compliance. as to abortion, they do favor the rights of an unborn child, which they feel is one at conception. personally i have no opinion on when a child is a child and go with the society i live in. i will say, the few ladies i know, who have aborted life, did so for the would be father who did not want the responsibility.

when i speak of "financial disaster" i am talking as an market investor and/or adviser, not necessarily personal. seethe all you want, the general consensus of those well above my level, fear Universal Health Care, Tax Policy and the effects she would have on securities. personally i go to the lack of practical experience she would take to the office, even the expectations from external forces that desire a return to Mr. Clinton's policy of appeasement. IMO these are disqualifying reasons, much less qualifiers. on the market end, i have already reduced as i feel our economy in the US is in for a correction and possible slide. that is I'll take the 6% interest rates any day over what i feel is coming, Hillary or natural economic cycles. by the way, i don't hate Hillary, feel she is quite attractive, has many non political good traits and a very good actress. same holds true for my favorite Madonna and Susan S., Barbra Streisand and many others. Achievement is what i am about and i might add the foundation of capitalism....

Bill, was not material to the Technology Boom of the nineties and in my opinion was material to the collapse or the bubble pop of 2000 and the small recession that followed. i feel his business adviser (forget his name) quit, for reasons of not addressing the problem which we all knew was coming. but then this is really off topic.

just who are you kidding. "think candidate first, then the candidate", knowing full well no Republican can support, higher taxes, bigger government, throwing money at problems, isolationism, discarding free trade, globalization or capitalism in any form. your safe, just voting a straight ticket, never looking to see who is on it.

when a person in office, elected by the people projects his or her power beyond the constitution's design with complete disregard and in counter to the policy of the person designed to have that power, it is an act of treason.
you can justify radicals of either side who are not elected citizens and have the right, but not the elected folks who have limited rights in such affairs. i would certainly suggest any person in congress under the conditions witness, during WW II, WW I, and especially the Civil and War for Independence would have been imprisoned, shot or hung with in hours.

[Zythryn]

Jackson33:
when a person in office, elected by the people projects his or her power beyond the constitution's design with complete disregard and in counter to the policy of the person designed to have that power, it is an act of treason.

I don't know that I would call George Bush a traitor Incompetent, allowing money/power to cloud his judgement. His stretching of the presidential powers MIGHT be treason, but I don't know that they have gone quite that far yet.