Iowa Poll Goes to Bachmann

[Mensch1351]

According to the Boston Globe this morning, roughly 17,000 people voted in the straw poll. That's less than 3% of the actual voting population in the state of Iowa that are registered as Republicans (which is estimated at about 640,000 people). So if Bachmann won this poll with 28.6% of the vote, she received under 5,000 votes total.

Damn. We knew that this straw poll was insignificant, but these numbers make it look even more ridiculous. Can someone wake me when Perry & Romney go head to head?

I think you may have an over-inflated estimate of Registered Republicans in that State. Where'd you get your statistics. I've tried over and over again to get Registration statistics for States and can't find a good web-site. Any suggestions??

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I think you may have an over-inflated estimate of Registered Republicans in that State. Where'd you get your statistics. I've tried over and over again to get Registration statistics for States and can't find a good web-site. Any suggestions??

This was all mentioned in the Boston Globe in yesterday's Sunday paper.
Bachmann, Paul soar in Iowa’s straw poll - The Boston Globe

Of course, if we can find a more accurate number that would always be welcome.

 

[798686]

I'm not saying that you do, but too many people think that formal education and free-thinking go hand in hand. I've met graduate students who are little more than automatons parroting that which has been presented to them by their professors, and I've met construction workers who are incredibly lucid and cognitively brilliant. It takes determination, not so much cognitive ability, to make it through most college programs. That being said, someone with high cognitive ability will be more likely to finish college and work with their heads instead of their hands.

Yep, I agree here. I was having a hard time describing the group I meant, really without being offensive. Basically, non-thinking, often uneducated, sometimes rural whites or people who just jump on the obvious bandwagon of their community and peers (can also apply to privileged Conservatives, as much as working-class Labour).

I agree that formal education doesn't necessarily guarantee anything in terms of thinking objectively, same with a religious upbringing (usually guarantees the opposite?). I was caught in this situation myself as a kid - hothouse education/strict religious upbringing = spoon-feeding. Taken a good 10-15 yrs of real life to work out my real priorities.

I do think practicality, common sense and a certain amount of experience are often more valuable than straight academic ability - the two combined are even better tho. Also, you often get a lot more sense from down-to-earth, real people than you do with some people who have only known suburbia, the education system and the shopping mall.

Complicated tho.

Basically, I was saying why do unthinking dickheads vote Republican in the US and Labour in the UK? (Which isn't to impune either party particularly, or say intelligent, thoughtful ppl dont also vote for them) - just focusing on that particular group, and their tendency to vote in opposite directions in US and UK. Phew! (Got there in the end? )

Totally agree that Ron Paul is the man we need in office.

Or RuPaul! :biggrin1:
Less scary and fierce than Bachmann, at least.

 

[B_crackoff]

Yep, I agree here. I was having a hard time describing the group I meant, really without being offensive. Basically, non-thinking, often uneducated, sometimes rural whites or people who just jump on the obvious bandwagon of their community and peers (can also apply to privileged Conservatives, as much as working-class Labour).

I agree that formal education doesn't necessarily guarantee anything in terms of thinking objectively, same with a religious upbringing (usually guarantees the opposite?). I was caught in this situation myself as a kid - hothouse education/strict religious upbringing = spoon-feeding. Taken a good 10-15 yrs of real life to work out my real priorities.

Basically, I was saying why do unthinking dickheads vote Republican in the US and Labour in the UK? (Which isn't to impune either party particularly, or say intelligent, thoughtful ppl dont also vote for them) - just focusing on that particular group, and their tendency to vote in opposite directions in US and UK. Phew! (Got there in the end? )


Or RuPaul! :biggrin1:
Less scary and fierce than Bachmann, at least.

I think that culturally, in certain states, there is a belief among the poor of self reliance. In the Uk, the belief among the poor is reliance.

BTW, far more Republicans have degrees than Democrats.

File:Fig 57 - men 4-yr college degrees.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For some reason, however, call it discrimination if you will:smile:, overwhelmingly the lecturers/professors employed consider themselves Liberal, & vote Democrat. It seems that Republican's get the short end of the stick. Academics are a bigoted lot

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)

Re hate crimes:

All crime is a hate crime. It's ridiculous to imagine that beating someone up because they are a democrat or rich is worse than beating up someone because they are Mexican. Has no one watched Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000?

Furthermore, it seems wholly arbitrary in its application.
It isn't a crime to call the Irish leprechauns: Court clears teenager of racially harassing neighbour | Mail Online

This judgement meant it's now not a hate crime to kick a gay man to death whilst calling him a "fucking fairy". Neither was it a crime to tell someone to get back on the boat to Ireland.

The Commission for Racial Equality (as it was), stated that stuff like "kick a ginger day", & wide spread antagonism against redheads wasn't definable as a hate crime either. Blonde jokes are fine too, which is odd because calling the French "frogs", or German's "Krauts" is not.

Hate crimes are just selective hypocritical politicking. Here's one from the other day which clearly would seem to qualify, but of course was dropped.

Black Wisconsin Teen Admits to Targeting Whites | TheBlaze.com

 

[B_VinylBoy]

BTW, far more Republicans have degrees than Democrats.

File:Fig 57 - men 4-yr college degrees.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For some reason, however, call it discrimination if you will:smile:, overwhelmingly the lecturers/professors employed consider themselves Liberal, & vote Democrat. It seems that Republican's get the short end of the stick. Academics are a bigoted lot

Not hard to figure out a possible scenario about this.
The way most GOP politicians pander to big business and to the wealthy, there's a strong possibility that most families that can outright pay for college are Republican. Of course, simply affording it and doing well in a higher institution of learning are two different things altogether. As for professors & teachers being liberal? Ever heard of the Teacher's Union?

 

[docilej]

Michele Bachmann just won the Iowa straw poll. Well, you know how candidates have to do dumb things to drum up votes? She went to a country fair a few days ago.

Anyways, go to Google and do a 'google image search' for "michele bachmann eats a corn dog".

 

[dazedandconfused]

You understand more than you realize.



If you're trying to convince others with more left leaning mindsets that the reason why we should consider Ron Paul is because he's more like Barry Goldwater, then you're not helping matters. Goldwater's stances on key civil rights issues were skewed in my opinion, such as his disapproval of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for example. Much of who I decide to vote for determines on how well one tries to understand the struggles of people who are different from themselves and the willingness they have to make things better for those who really need the help. In many ways, Goldwater's ideology is parallel to the neo-cons of today putting business over the lives and liberties of human beings and disguising it under the distorted, political guise of "state's rights". And I simply cannot accept people who are that adamant in protecting the rights of business who care that much more about money than the stranger standing next to them.



It's not just the gay marriage issue with me, as I don't tend to be an one issue person.



Even if he is in line with Conservatism as you say, the current state of their party (based on the ones that control most of the voices within it) is too far to the right to consider someone like Ron Paul as their GOP candidate. And if we really need to discuss issues about his record, I can find plenty of grievances to bring to the table -

-----------
1. He thinks the Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution, positioning himself to be pro-life on Abortion. I find it exceedingly hypocritical for a man to dictate to a woman through oppressing legislation what to do with their own body in some convoluted attempt to protect the lives of the unborn. Women go through much more strife to bring babies into the world. They endure major physical and psychological changes and many have died trying to bring life into this world. So it should be up to them to make the decision to carry any baby to term. This doesn't make me "pro-abortion" because most women don't use it as a form of birth control. But it does make me pro-choice since I can nsympathize with their struggles.

He is personally against abortion but believes it is a state issue. Anyways,
making abortion such an issue pushes what we really need to be discussing to the back burner. Roe v. Wade, no matter who is President, will never be over-turned. I cannot

2. He's against gay people adopting children. Which means in a situation where if one of my relatives are no longer able to take care of their own children for whatever reason, he would push for legislation where I, as their "gay uncle", would not be able to adopt my nieces and nephews even though they and everyone else in my family fully accept me for who I am and my life partner. It may be true that some studies show that kids are raised best under traditional family structures. But not every person is born and raised with that structure and it's foolish to think that every child has to be.

Again, he is personally against it and does not believe federal money should be used to encourage anyone to adopt a child, whether a heterosexual or homosexual person or couple.

3. He thinks Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. So in some ways he's fine with the fact that women get paid considerably less money than men for doing the same work. I don't need to go into detail about how crazy that is.

He is also against the minimum wage. There are pleanty of women who were opposed to the equal rights amendment. It is implorable that wages are no equal, but the government should have no say on how much a company pays anyone.

4. He opposes “hate crimes” legislation. Which means the two men in Pennsylvania who beat up on a Mexican all because they didn't want immigrants living in their neighborhood wouldn't have been treated as harshly as they deserved by the law for having such antiquated and barbaric beliefs about people different than themselves. Men convicted of hate crime sentenced to 9 years in prison - CNN

We won't even get into too much detail about the two men in Mississippi who just decided to run over a random African American with their car. - Video shows white teens driving over, killing black man, says DA - CNN.com

If anything the last few years has proven, it's that racism is still alive and well in this country. Opposing "hate crime legislation" attempts to make people adhere to a colorblind standard that simply does not exist. We have to face facts that some people do heinous things to others just because they're different. Until incidents are reduced significantly, it makes no sense to be against "hate crime legislation".

Any crime is a hate crime. But since we have laws, thats fine. We should not legislate based on what people think beyond pre-meditation or not. And the problem is that it does not cut both ways. Having followed the Duke lacrosse case from the beginning, it is absolutely implorable that the federal government did not investigate CLEAR civil rights abuses by Duke and Durham. Me thinks if the defendents had been black and the insane accuser had been white, things would have been different. But since it was the other way around, we get statements like "whatever they did was bad enough" and that even if the defendents were guilty, they should be prosecuted.

Hate crime bills, fine. But I cannot even fathom supporting hate crimes legislation when it is so subjective on how it is enforced.


-----------

And I could go on. But I honestly believe that Paul is not going to be one of the final two come 2012... not unless he conjures up the guts to run as an Independent where he may be able to sway voters that could go either way. But if he continues to chase after the GOP nomination, he like everyone else is going to run into the brick wall that is Rick Perry who is poised to get all of the major endorsements from the party as well as all the campaign dollars.

Perry might get the nomination because the American public are sheeple.

 

[798686]

I think that culturally, in certain states, there is a belief among the poor of self reliance. In the Uk, the belief among the poor is reliance.

Ahh, ok. I assumed the self-reliance thing was a rich, right-wing preserve...'I'm doing ok, so why can't you?'. Maybe the poor feel that way too in terms of pride, etc?...but I'm not convinced!

Yep, too much reliance here. Help those who do need it, and help the others to help themselves/get on the ladder (which obv isn't quite the same as 'fuck the disadvantaged'/'it's their own fault'/'let them eat cake', lol).

 

[B_VinylBoy]

He is personally against abortion but believes it is a state issue. Anyways,
making abortion such an issue pushes what we really need to be discussing to the back burner. Roe v. Wade, no matter who is President, will never be over-turned.

In some ways I do agree with you regarding Roe v. Wade. However, that is not stopping many GOP politicians to propose legislation from making it near impossible for women to get one. In fact, more anti-abortion legislation has been presented and passed in the House, during this current Congress under Boehner's rule, than jobs bills.

Again, he is personally against it and does not believe federal money should be used to encourage anyone to adopt a child, whether a heterosexual or homosexual person or couple.

And federal money isn't being used for such things, just like federal money wasn't being used to fund abortions.

He is also against the minimum wage.

Which is another problem, considering that corporations are increasingly outsourcing jobs and terminating older, experienced people for younger, non-experienced talent (with college degrees) so they can pay them less and offer fewer benefits. The everyday costs of living continue to rise, while wages continue to go down. The minimum wage attempts to make sure that a worker gets at least a base amount for their labor so they can at least tread water. This is necessary. I don't trust any corporation owner, whose sole purpose is to make profit, to keep wages on a competitive and livable level just out of the kindness of their hearts.

There are pleanty of women who were opposed to the equal rights amendment.

But more women were obviously for it. Then again, civil rights issues aren't determined by majority rule anyhow.

It is implorable that wages are no equal, but the government should have no say on how much a company pays anyone.

They wouldn't have anything to say if women were actually paid equally to begin with. But they're not, so something has to be done about it.

Any crime is a hate crime.

Really? How about indecent exposure? You and your date got caught getting a little too frisky in a car under a shady tree. This is a "hate crime"?

We should not legislate based on what people think beyond pre-meditation or not.

Which basically exempts people for not taking responsibility for their own actions if they "act out of the moment". Not a good idea.

And the problem is that it does not cut both ways. Having followed the Duke lacrosse case from the beginning, it is absolutely implorable that the federal government did not investigate CLEAR civil rights abuses by Duke and Durham. Me thinks if the defendents had been black and the insane accuser had been white, things would have been different. But since it was the other way around, we get statements like "whatever they did was bad enough" and that even if the defendents were guilty, they should be prosecuted.

Percentage-wise, considering how black & hispanic people are imprisoned in our current prison system in droves over any other race of people, it's only your own prejudicial beliefs that make you think this way.

Hate crime bills, fine. But I cannot even fathom supporting hate crimes legislation when it is so subjective on how it is enforced.

That's because (I think) somewhere you think white people cannot be victims. But if I, as a black man, just decided to randomly beat up on a white person just because of his skin color and was yelling out racial slurs in the process that would also be a "hate crime". Unfortunately, minus the recent flash mobs in Philadelphia there really isn't a lot of "minority intentionally seeking out caucasian" crimes happening in our country. Recent federal statistics regarding hate crimes also support this theory. - FBI — FBI Releases 2009 Hate Crime Statistics

Perry might get the nomination because the American public are sheeple.

Again... you know more than you realize. We may have some ideological differences, but there are some things even you and I can agree on.

 

[Klingsor]

Get to know Ron Paul. Many on this board would actually support him if they understood what he stands for. Hence why staunch democrats, such as Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich have worked with him recently. In fact, if it was Obama vs. Paul, I think even Bill Maher would vote Paul.

Others here have already stated their objections to Ron Paul at greater length and with greater eloquence than I can muster. But I'll add my two cents, specifically about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul (along with his son Rand) has expressed reservations about the provision barring privately owned businesses, open to the general public, from discriminating.

Now, I'll take both Pauls at their word when they say that they abhor such racism, but are concerned about government intrusion into private business. They would have preferred that racial equality be arrived at by other means--protests, boycotts, etc.

Two points.

1) WHEN was this great turnaround through civic action going to happen? At the time the Civil Rights Act passed, it had already been a hundred years since the Civil War. Yes, the civil rights movement was in full swing, the times they were a changin'--but there was just as much pushback from the bigoted old school as well. How many more decades--or centuries--were we looking at?

2) Even granting that such protests and boycotts might have been successful at some times and in some locations (though not others), Paul's whole argument misses the point. People *shouldn't have to* wage a continual political and economic battle to gain and maintain their basic human rights. Those rights should be guaranteed and protected by law--otherwise there's no point in talking about them as rights at all.

Apparently Paul doesn't see this. And that worries me.

 

[dazedandconfused]

Touche on the hate crimes quip. People assaulting someone or killing someone is a hate crime, period.

I never said nor feel anyone, anywhere cannot be a victim. But the Duke lacrosse case is the most clear-cut case of civil rights violations in some time, and nothing. Nifong pushed it to rile up the black community to win an election (fact). He even indicted a player HE COULDNT EVEN PLACE AT THE PARTY UNTIL AFTER THE INDICTMENT. He had a photo line-up consisting of only Duke lacrosse players. Duke University told its students to not contact lawyers is now arguing in court it has no legal obligation to enforce its student handbook. There was clear-cut professor grade retaliation and harrasement that went investigation. New black Panthers were allowed in the court room for a hearing AFTER MAKING A DEATH THREAT against one of the indicted. The STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT AT NCCU said that these guys deserved to be in jail, even if innocent, because of the past transgressions against blacks. And that whole sad part of the case, it would not have unraveled for Nifong (despite the fact it was clear after about a month after the case broke the indicted were innocent) unless an attorney locked himself in a solitary room to study DNA to a T and a TIE-BREAKING VOTE by the ethics committee to bring CLEAR ethical violations against Nifong.

You can argue reverse-racism does not exist, but I would suggest you do not argue against the Duke lacrosse case.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Touche on the hate crimes quip. People assaulting someone or killing someone is a hate crime, period.

How about "involuntary manslaughter", which sometimes is issued to people who wind up killing someone out of self defense? That's a "hate crime"? :tongue:

I never said nor feel anyone, anywhere cannot be a victim. But the Duke lacrosse case is the most clear-cut case of civil rights violations in some time, and nothing. Nifong pushed it to rile up the black community to win an election (fact). He even indicted a player HE COULDNT EVEN PLACE AT THE PARTY UNTIL AFTER THE INDICTMENT. He had a photo line-up consisting of only Duke lacrosse players. Duke University told its students to not contact lawyers is now arguing in court it has no legal obligation to enforce its student handbook. There was clear-cut professor grade retaliation and harrasement that went investigation. New black Panthers were allowed in the court room for a hearing AFTER MAKING A DEATH THREAT against one of the indicted. The STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT AT NCCU said that these guys deserved to be in jail, even if innocent, because of the past transgressions against blacks. And that whole sad part of the case, it would not have unraveled for Nifong (despite the fact it was clear after about a month after the case broke the indicted were innocent) unless an attorney locked himself in a solitary room to study DNA to a T and a TIE-BREAKING VOTE by the ethics committee to bring CLEAR ethical violations against Nifong.

I'll take your word for it, as honestly I never paid attention to the story and I don't really care.

You can argue reverse-racism does not exist, but I would suggest you do not argue against the Duke lacrosse case.

It's "racism", plain and simple. This idea of "reverse racism" is silly, because the reverse of racism is tolerance and it's obvious none of that is being practiced in the case you're sourcing. Regardless, my stance on hate crime legislation still remains. It applies to everyone and for now it is still necessary in order to invoke some level of standards for people in a modern, civilized society.

 

[dazedandconfused]

But the problem is how can we accuratly judge whether someone did it because of the color of the skin or they are just idiots. Statistics say black on white crime is way more prevelant than the other way around. Yet, I have never heard of someone who is any other race being charged with a hate crime towards a white person.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

But the problem is how can we accuratly judge whether someone did it because of the color of the skin or they are just idiots. Statistics say black on white crime is way more prevelant than the other way around.

Not according to FBI statistics - FBI — Hate Crimes Report

Victims - 61.1 percent of all hate crimes were committed against persons, while 38.1 percent were crimes against property. Of the 4,057 victims of racial bias, 71.5 percent were victims because of an offender’s prejudice against blacks. Of the 1,575 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, 71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.

Offenders - Of the 6,225 known offenders, 62.4 percent were white, 18.5 percent were black, and 7.3 percent were groups of individuals of various races. The race was unknown for 10.2 percent of offenders, and other races accounted for the remaining offenders.

I'm curious to know where you got your information. Just on numbers based on population alone, the idea that there is more black on white crime in this country is preposterous. More than 70% of the people in this country are white. About 12.4% of the American people (37.6 million, including about 885,000 Hispanic or Latino) are Black or African American. - Race and ethnicity in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you know how many of these people would have to be "bad" in order for your claims to have any factual relevance? And do you really want to go there?

Yet, I have never heard of someone who is any other race being charged with a hate crime towards a white person.

That's because according to FBI statistics when it comes to hate crimes, most of them are perpetrated by white people. Again, population. It's not because white people are bad. However, there are more of them than anyone else in this country by a huge margin, so odds are gonna remain higher for that particular demographic than others. It's just math, not a moral judgement.

 

[dazedandconfused]

You use the term "most of them." I would agree more whites committ crimes against blacks because of hate then the other way around. It does happen. But to use the reason "most of them" as an excuse for a reason to use hate crime on whites against blacks but the other way around, is ludicrous.

There is a good episode of the west wing that deals with the issue of hate crimes. Again, a crime is a crime and if I go down the street and plug a guy, there should not be handled any differently by law enforcement based on the persons sex, sexual orientation or ethnicity?

 

[Calboner]

The start of this thread:

And the #2 slot goes to Ron Paul. Can the Republican Party get any wackier than these two loons?

Iowa Poll Goes to Bachmann

The latest news:

Bachmann exits presidential race - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

Following a poor showing in Iowa, GOP presidential contender Michele Bachmann announced she is dropping out of the contest.

:haha:

 

[chicagosam]

Bachmann exits presidential race - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

:booty::fest30::friday::lol::crazy::bootyshake:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[Calboner]

Bachmann exits presidential race - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

:booty::fest30::friday::lol::crazy::bootyshake:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

By not going out in a burst of narcissistic delusion, she showed her difference from Sarah Palin, who memorably said that to finish her term as governor would be to take a "quitter's way out." :hypnotized:

 

[chicagosam]

By not going out in a burst of narcissistic delusion, she showed her difference from Sarah Palin, who memorably said that to finish her term as governor would be to take a "quitter's way out." :hypnotized:

Alas, I will miss them running together as the Republican nominees for President.

 

[Who_Dun_It]

Wonder if it "hurts" that she lost by such a wide margin in her state of birth?