Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rick Santorum is fething insane. Seriously, any other republican candidate would be better than him. Any of them.

Well you have me there.

On the positive two of those three are now out of the race, and Perry's on the ropes.

Frazzled wrote:Well you have me there.

On the positive two of those three are now out of the race, and Perry's on the ropes.

Perry is basically out. He went home to "consider" his campaign. I mean we all know what that actually means.

Seaward wrote:
Interesting. So as long as I promise you a better defense industry job, I can advocate for a pogrom against redheads and the banning of all food that doesn't start with M and still receive your vote?

It depends on how good the defense industry job is.

You pay enough, I'm willing to put up with a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
You might be able to argue that there is one according to the 9th or 14th Amendments, but you're not going to find a privacy right in the 4th.

Many people have argued that the prohibition on unwarranted search and seizure is a cornerstone of the right to privacy.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Rick Santorum wrote:One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country...Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

Source.

Here's the thing...just because someone thinks X is bad doesn't mean that they want to ban X. Well, for Republicans at least.

I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility - Santorum is basically a religious liberal when it comes to government expansion - but you haven't shown what the article purports, namely that Santorum is "coming for your birth control."

There's only two things here: either he thinks contraception is a danger to the country and intends to do something about it, or else he thinks contraception is a danger to the country but doesn't want to do anything about it. Your position is that Santorum is saying, "This is a threat to our society that, as president, I intend to do absolutely nothing about." That doesn't make a lot of sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
It depends on how good the defense industry job is.

You pay enough, I'm willing to put up with a lot.

That's your argument against my assertion that single-issue voters are self-interested, short-sighted individuals who don't make the best decisions for the country?

Seaward wrote: Your position is that Santorum is saying, "This is a threat to our society that, as president, I intend to do absolutely nothing about." That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Well, he's kind of silly that way. He didn't say black people shouldn't get welfare, after he was caught on video saying black people shouldn't get welfare.
What a zany kinda guy....

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-santorum-to-john-king-i-didnt-say-black-people-i-said-blah-people/

Seaward wrote:That's your argument against my assertion that single-issue voters are self-interested, short-sighted individuals who don't make the best decisions for the country?

One can be a self-interested, short-sighted individual who don't make the best decisions for the country while not being a single issue voter as well. It isn't like the fact that someone isn't an activist for a single issue they are passionate about makes them magically have wisdom or insight, it just means they don't have strong feelings about a specific issue. His argument though, by the way, and one he gave numerous examples of, is that being a single issue voter isn't necessarily disastrous to the process or mean that a person is stupid. You seem to confuse you disliking something with: 1) having an understanding of it and how it plays a role and 2)meaning that it must automatically make it bad.

schadenfreude wrote:
Does the 4th amendment guarantee a right to privacy?

No, but it does limit the circumstances under which the state can intrude on any given person's privacy. In essence, it outlines those circumstances under which you do have a right to privacy, but does not guarantee a general right to privacy. He's also probably right that types of privacy protected by the Constitution don't prohibit states from banning the sale or use of contraceptives (though the ban on use would be difficult to enforce).

Still, his description contraceptives as things which allow people to do sexual things that are not in consistence with the way things are "supposed to be" is laughably stupid.

Ahtman wrote:

Seaward wrote:That's your argument against my assertion that single-issue voters are self-interested, short-sighted individuals who don't make the best decisions for the country?

One can be a self-interested, short-sighted individual who don't make the best decisions for the country while not being a single issue voter as well. It isn't like the fact that someone isn't an activist for a single issue they are passionate about makes them magically have wisdom or insight, it just means they don't have strong feelings about a specific issue. His argument though, by the way, and one he gave numerous examples of, is that being a single issue voter isn't necessarily disastrous to the process or mean that a person is stupid. You seem to confuse you disliking something with: 1) having an understanding of it and how it plays a role and 2)meaning that it must automatically make it bad.

No, I'm afraid not. He gave a lot of examples of issues he doesn't care about, but that doesn't make them unimportant. Picking a candidate exclusively due to his stance on one single issue - caring only about one single issue amongst the wide range of extremely important issues that any government faces - is foolish. Especially as the single issue the single issue voter cares about tends to change from election cycle to election cycle.

Seaward wrote:
That's your argument against my assertion that single-issue voters are self-interested, short-sighted individuals who don't make the best decisions for the country?

No, my argument is that being a single issue voter doesn't mean being short-sighted, or even self-interested (in the conventional sense).

I can vote favorably on a single issue that is critical to the well being of the nation, but very detrimental to myself. Maybe I'm a horrible monster that kills kittens, and all the kittens in the US will soon be dead if nothing is done. If someone runs on a "Kill Dogma!" platform, and I vote for him, I'm making a single-issue choice based on the well being of the nation.

If you want a more realistic example, economic issues are just about the single most important thing in any given political campaign because they necessarily affect everyone. Being a single issue economics voter isn't really that bad, unless the guy you're supporting also wants to, say, exterminate 30% of the population, or legalize rape, or something else awful.

Sometimes 1 issue really is more important than everything else combined, especially when you're looking at a democratic system in which no one man has his finger on the button, so to speak.

Seaward wrote: He gave a lot of examples of issues he doesn't care about, but that doesn't make them unimportant.

It makes them unimportant to me when I'm casting my vote. I'm not instantly a moron because I have decided that a number of issues aren't really issues at all.

For example, the whole intelligent design thing. Its not an issue to me because I have absolutely no faith in the ability of any politician to pass a law requiring its teaching, and don't think it would be disastrous if such a law were passed. I would be saddened a bit, as I think ID is nonsense that should be consigned to the dust bin of history on both logical and scientific grounds, but I really wouldn't care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:Especially as the single issue the single issue voter cares about tends to change from election cycle to election cycle.

I don't see why that's relevant at all.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/santorum-hates-sex.php

Relevant and a good laugh.

Something awful is a good description of Rick Santorum's position on social issues.

dogma wrote:
If you want a more realistic example, economic issues are just about the single most important thing in any given political campaign because they necessarily affect everyone. Being a single issue economics voter isn't really that bad, unless the guy you're supporting also wants to, say, exterminate 30% of the population, or legalize rape, or something else awful.

Of course it is. People with extreme agendas haven't gotten into office because they convinced everyone of their extreme agenda, they've gotten in because people liked, for example, their economic policy, and said, "Oh, well, he can't be serious about/won't get a chance to enact all that crazy stuff." Sometimes that's true, sometimes that's not.

Sometimes 1 issue really is more important than everything else combined, especially when you're looking at a democratic system in which no one man has his finger on the button, so to speak.

Again, no. Unless you choose to define pretty much every other issue as some aspect of economic policy, the economy is simply not more important than everything else a president can impact.

It makes them unimportant to me when I'm casting my vote. I'm not instantly a moron because I have decided that a number of issues aren't really issues at all.

For example, the whole intelligent design thing. Its not an issue to me because I have absolutely no faith in the ability of any politician to pass a law requiring its teaching, and don't think it would be disastrous if such a law were passed. I would be saddened a bit, as I think ID is nonsense that should be consigned to the dust bin of history on both logical and scientific grounds, but I really wouldn't care.

What worries me is that attitude right there, because there have been laws passed to mandate its teaching. They haven't been on a national level, and fortunately those evil activist judges that conservatives enjoy ranting about have overturned them, but that fight's far from over.

I don't see why that's relevant at all.

It's relevant because it undermines your point about one issue being more important than all others combined. If the single, shining issue that takes priority over all others EVAR can change every four years, maybe, just maybe, that suggests that there really are a lot of important issues out there. If you had told me in 2004 that the president who oversaw the mission that killed bin Laden would face a tough reelection battle one year later, I'd have called you insane, as had Bush pulled that off in '04, he would've been elected king for life. Similarly, terrorism wasn't even an issue in '00.

Single-issue voting, you see, predicts the future. It says, "I need to know nothing more about this candidate than his stance on X, because that's always going to be the most important aspect of his presidency." And that statement is usually wrong.

I'm honestly a little shocked that you're so open about not caring a whit if a candidate's a gibbering loon so long as he panders to your particular issue. Any given issue can be dominant in an election cycle, but to pretend that all the others don't matter is, frankly, absurd.

Seaward wrote:
Of course it is. People with extreme agendas haven't gotten into office because they convinced everyone of their extreme agenda, they've gotten in because people liked, for example, their economic policy, and said, "Oh, well, he can't be serious about/won't get a chance to enact all that crazy stuff." Sometimes that's true, sometimes that's not.

Sure, that's the risk of representative democracy. The other risk is that the candidate can be telling you things that aren't at all reflective of his real intentions.

Lying in public is pretty easy.

Seaward wrote:
Again, no. Unless you choose to define pretty much every other issue as some aspect of economic policy, the economy is simply not more important than everything else a president can impact.

Given the current field of candidates and their positions, and current economic conditions, yeah, it pretty much is. Not to me (I'll be fine no matter what.), but if we're looking at the whole electorate, definitely.

Seaward wrote:
What worries me is that attitude right there, because there have been laws passed to mandate its teaching.

I only think if its bad if said mandate precludes the teaching of more reasonable positions, which, as far as I know, is not the case.

Seaward wrote:
It's relevant because it undermines your point about one issue being more important than all others combined. If the single, shining issue that takes priority over all others EVAR can change every four years, maybe, just maybe, that suggests that there really are a lot of important issues out there.

I didn't say anything about "EVAR". One issue can be of critical importance at one time, and be completely unimportant at another.

dogma wrote:Something awful is a good description of Rick Santorum's position on social issues.

Exalted. Short, sweet and to the point.

When I asked if anybody thought Santorum would win with his extreme position on social issues I was not expecting the classic right wing debate tactic of denial. Saying Santorum doesn't want to outlaw birth control is like saying Ron Paul doesn't want to switch the country back to the gold standard. Wow, I was caught off guard by some crazy use of denial by Santorum supporters. If you are going to support a cook don't deny aspects of his political platform.