Palin is probably not half as bad as her reputation. The progressive press always talks about wanting "diversity" (ie women) in politics. But they don't want diversity of opinion. So when they see a non-progressive Republican woman run for high office, they do everything they can to smear her as a crazy bitch.

Dude. She smears herself every time she speaks. All the press had to do was put her interviews on air. Sarah Palin has nobody to blame but herself for her reputation (well, possibly the McCain campaign holds *some* responsibility for putting her in the public eye in the first place).

Dr. Ben Carson is a great example. He's very smart and charismatic, and looks back to a career of doing groundbreaking research. He's just as accomplished as any, but according to you and other gullible progressive fanboys, he's just a token candidate and nothing more.

He doesn't even pass the global warming or evolution/creationism litmus tests. Anyone that out of touch with reality is not competent to be president of the most powerful country on the planet. Sorry, that's just facts. Crazy is as crazy believes.

Edited 2/16/2016 22:59:30

He doesn't even pass the global warming or evolution/creationism litmus tests. Anyone that out of touch with reality is not competent to be president of the most powerful country on the planet. Sorry, that's just facts. Crazy is as crazy believes.

America is not the most powerful country, and until the scientists who perpetuate humanity's guilt in global warming present evidence of it, there is no reason that not believing in it is "crazy". Evolution is not fact either, it is a theory and you can believe as you wish.

He doesn't even pass the global warming or evolution/creationism litmus tests. Anyone that out of touch with reality is not competent to be president of the most powerful country on the planet. Sorry, that's just facts.

Let's see. Believing in evolution was not a requirement for him to graduate from Yale, receive his M.D., or become a world class neurosurgeon so why do we even care? Second its not a fact that Ben Carson is not competent to be "president of the most powerful country on the planet". That's an opinion (more specifically your opinion): a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective. Since millions of people support Ben Carson (including Kanye West if you happen to take your political cues from him), there is no doubt that your opinion on him is on a matter "commonly considered to be subjective". Second, if you want to know a real fact - Evolution is a theory and not a law (even if it is well evidenced).

Give me quotes of Palin being crazy.

Scientific Theory > Scientific Law > Your Opinions

they *represent* the interests of people who already value 'diversity'

LMAO. Yes the Democrats represent the interests of minorities!! Of course.

That's why the cities with the largest minority populations and longest history of Democratic control have the worst crime rates, the worst educational statistics, the highest poverty rates, and are generally hell holes for minorities.

That's why Democrats who claim to support Asian-American interests simultaneously support affirmative action laws at state universities and colleges that discriminate against poor inner city asians and jews.

That's why Democrats who claim to support working class latinos and blacks simultaneously support TPP and NAFTA, which suck jobs overseas.

I don't think you know how to measure diversity. Remember that article on cultural diversity I linked to, in reference to how scientists define diversity? There's a reason I linked to it. You may be right about that measure for the candidates, but if the numbers don't lie, then what *are* those actual numbers? Why don't you try actually calculating them? Might be a fun exercise and you might learn a bit about how diversity is actually measured, too.

What's wrong with you...why do you always gravitate towards the more complex and inevitably less logical. There's no need to link to a scientific or statistical formula to calculate diversity in the Presidential Election....it just requires simple elementary school arithmetic. Here I'll even do it for you!

Diversity in the GOP Presidential Race:
1 Women = Carly Fiorina
1 African American = Ben Carson
2 Latinos = Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio
1 Indian-American = Bobby Jindal
5 Candidate with at least 1 immigrant parent - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Donald Trump, and Rick Santorum
0 Jewish

Total GOP Diversity = 6

Diversity in the Democratic Presidential Race:

1 Women = Hillary Clinton
0 African Americans
0 Latinos
0 Indian-Americans
0 Candidates with at least 1 immigrant parent
1 Jewish = Bernie Sanders

Total Democratic Diversity = 2

Ratio between GOP and Democratic Diversity = 6/2 = 3. You should be happy I didn't even consider ideological or age diversity (it would have made the ratio even worse!!).

I didn't say they are the dregs of the Republican party. They are the 'dregs' of the 'diversity' contingent as opposed to the 'cream of the crop'

So instead of calling them the dregs of the Republican Party you called them the dregs of the minority lawmakers who are Republican? Does that somehow make you less insulting? Not really. From my point of view...it sounds just as elitist and disparaging (although this may be your defining characteristic).

I'm only (somewhat) familiar with Jindal, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, and Rand Paul (ideological diversity).

For the record, although I admit I know very little of *any* of the GOP candidates

Then why are you talking about them as if you are objectively and subjectively well informed about them?

I know more about Jeb Bush than any of the others (and that's not saying much! I know little about him too), and based solely on what I've heard and read about him, he appears to be someone who would *actually* probably be pretty decently competent as a president.

This should be evidence for anyone on the forum for how out of touch you are with America. You think the most hated Republicans in the field should be the nominee for the Republicans?

Instead of waiting until the VP selection to fill their 'diversity' quota, they *started* by trying to find the most viable 'diversity' candidate they could find (someone who could compete against Hillary, and challenge Obama's legacy). So they tended to support all the possible 'diverse' seeming candidates they could find within their ranks. They are trying to sort out the best one(s) out of their pool of candidates through these primaries, but nearly all of them are turning out to be duds

You keep saying they!!! Who are "they"!!! Republicans don't act as a collective body. Its not "they" who decide who runs or who wins...its "US"!!! Ben Carson ran for the GOP Presidential Nomination not because he was told by the party elite or the RNC or the special interests or the donors that he needs to run so the Republicans seem more diverse. If you believe that's how it happens you're a conspiracy theory nut. Ben Carson ran because he believes in his story and his success and his ideology and that he can unite a very disjointed Republican Party. The same goes for Ted Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, etc.

WCT, your ignorant.

I say that because you measure "competency" in how much a politician agrees with you, which is borderline idiotic.

Edited 2/16/2016 23:49:45

Stuff like this is why nearly everyone else here thinks of you as an arrogant snake and has called you such at one point.

Obviously, I don't care. Call me whatever you want. It does nothing to bolster your arguments. Even if I was the most arrogant asshole in the entire world, it's still fricken crazy to say that the Republican party is more diverse than the Democratic party.

I look at claims like these the same way I look at claims that global warming is a hoax or that some god created the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago: If you want to make a crazy claim like that, you have every right, but I also have every right to point out just how crazy it is.

If you don't like people pointing out your crazy statements, don't make crazy statements. Easy as pie.

You think that you're somehow superior by belittling and ridiculing those who think differently than you. You think that it makes your position look stronger by acting this way, but it doesn't.

I know that you think that you know what I think, but you know what I think that I know? I think that I know that I know what I think, and I happen to know that you don't.

TL,DR: You aren't persuading anyone with this

Is this another example of something you think you know, but don't?

only those who already are on your side will find any amusement of it

I hope they do, too. :-)

and those who are against you will just become more hostile in response to the arrogance.

More power to them. It makes my job easier, that's for sure. ;-)

America is not the most powerful country, and until the scientists who perpetuate humanity's guilt in global warming present evidence of it, there is no reason that not believing in it is "crazy". Evolution is not fact either, it is a theory and you can believe as you wish.

I rest my case... again!

Oh, I understand the ideas. That's why I find it hard to understand why people *believe* them.

Then you don't understand them if you find it hard to understand why thousand millions believe it. So shut up until you get smart.

And, "half the world"? You think Republicans are representative of half the world? Have you really not understood the key point that America's political climate is a huge outlier? Way more right-wing than most of the rest of the developed world. Way more religious. Way more deluded.

I mean right in general. And there you go again, you're the archangel, and the Republicans are poor black sheep somehow irrationally lured in by Satan's daemons. Hail atheism.

However, if I interpret your phrase more literally, then actually I do agree that "half the world is wrong". I'd say the majority of the world is wrong. Nearly all of it in fact. Myself included. It's by understanding this that I'm motivated to investigate reality and find out good ways to become 'less wrong' in my worldview. If only more people would do this.

Get off your high horse. Your most powerful argument here are that rightists are baboons. You're not open-minded one bit.

I'm not asking about perfection. Do you really believe that no president has done a decent job since the 1800s? Not one?

I'm not too taught in American presidents, but George Washington basically violently got rid of British patronage, and the presidents in the 1700s began the campaign to plunder the Aboriginal Americans. But it only got worse and worse, so, not really, no.

Clearly, if someone can do a decent job at something, they must have been, as a simple matter of fact, qualified for that job. I'm having a hard time seeing how that could *not* be the case. Perhaps they just got extremely lucky and things worked out okay, despite them being inept? I suppose, in principle; but in practice the job of a president has too many contingencies, too many decisions that have to be made, for mere blind luck to pass muster. In a sitcom, sure, but in real life? Nah.

No, what you are saying is all irrelevant to the point of democracy - if the folk like, you're qualified, that's it, no more things to say. Nothing can really prepare you for ruling a country, anyway, as I said before.

Sarah Palin would have been disastrous as a president. Same for the vast majority of the Republican nominees. That's the whole point. Dancing around the choice of words to express that fact won't actually avoid or change that fact.

I'm not aware of Sarah Palin, but Republican Candidates this year, Rand Paul definitely was by far the best, before he has lached. Ben Carson and Donald Trump would be pretty good for America, but bad for everyone else. Bernie Sanders would be terrible for America, but better for everyone else. And H. Clinton is the worst of both worlds.

Second, if you want to know a real fact - Evolution is a theory and not a law (even if it is well evidenced).

Wow, Jai, you're skating on thin ice there. Didn't you say earlier you weren't a creationist? (Maybe I'm misremembering.) You realize that line is just creationist pap, eh?

What's wrong with you...why do you always gravitate towards the more complex and inevitably less logical. There's no need to link to a scientific or statistical formula to calculate diversity in the Presidential Election....it just requires simple elementary school arithmetic. Here I'll even do it for you!

Diversity in the GOP Presidential Race:
1 Women = Carly Fiorina
1 African American = Ben Carson
2 Latinos = Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio
1 Indian-American = Bobby Jindal
5 Candidate with at least 1 immigrant parent - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Donald Trump, and Rick Santorum
0 Jewish

Total GOP Diversity = 6

Diversity in the Democratic Presidential Race:

1 Women = Hillary Clinton
0 African Americans
0 Latinos
0 Indian-Americans
0 Candidates with at least 1 immigrant parent
1 Jewish = Bernie Sanders

Total Democratic Diversity = 2

Ratio between GOP and Democratic Diversity = 6/2 = 3. You should be happy I didn't even consider ideological or age diversity (it would have made the ratio even worse!!).

Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't.

Hey man, don't complain to me. You're the one who brought "numbers don't lie" into this. If you can't actually get the real numbers, that's your own problem.

Call me whatever you want. It does nothing to bolster your arguments.

Arrogantly assuming the high ground does nothing to bolster your arguments. So I guess we're in the same mud pit.

it's still fricken crazy to say that the Republican party is more diverse than the Democratic party.

Several different arguments debunking that subjective assumption have already been posted on this thread. Take a moment to consider, even the possibility, that you could be the crazy one in this equation.

If you want to make a crazy claim like that, you have every right, but I also have every right to point out just how crazy it is.

If you want to be an ass, you have every right. We also have the right to tell you you're being an ass.

only those who already are on your side will find any amusement of it

I hope they do, too. :-)

and those who are against you will just become more hostile in response to the arrogance.

More power to them. It makes my job easier, that's for sure. ;-)

And what is your job exactly? Ticking people off? This is borderline on a troll confession.

As a final note. The only one making unfounded arguments here is you. 90% of your posts consist of calling people crazy with only your own subjective viewpoint to back it, if even that.

You've made no case. All you do is call other people crazy and assume that you're right.

Edit:

Wow, Jai, you're skating on thin ice there. Didn't you say earlier you weren't a creationist?

You don't have to be part of a group to defend said group. Stop putting religious zeal into science. The irony is gut-wrenching.

"Wow, Jai, you're skating on thin ice there. Didn't you say earlier you weren't a witch?"

Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't.

Hey man, don't complain to me. You're the one who brought "numbers don't lie" into this. If you can't actually get the real numbers, that's your own problem.Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't.

He just gave you the real numbers. Right in front of your face. See? This is what we're talking about. You preach to us endlessly about facts,evidence,etc. Yet whenever we provide you with said things you ALWAYS deny them. Any fact that counters your viewpoint you ignore outright.

All your talk of intellectual honesty is just hypocrisy. You don't care about the truth, you care about your own viewpoint.

Edited 2/17/2016 02:03:08

Then why are you talking about them as if you are objectively and subjectively well informed about them?

This question, coming from you, who regularly talks about your opponents as if you know all about them, is priceless.

My answer to your question is that I read/heard just enough about them to figure out that they were very likely incompetent. Once I knew that, I had little interest in them any further. In short, I know just enough to know that they suck.

This should be evidence for anyone on the forum for how out of touch you are with America. You think the most hated Republicans in the field should be the nominee for the Republicans?

No. I really can't figure out how you can so frequently misread what I write.

You keep saying they!!! Who are "they"!!!

The word 'they' is what's known as a pronoun, whose meaning depends on the context of the words around it.

Give me a specific quote of a usage of the word 'they', and I'll identify who I mean in each instance.

This question, coming from you, who regularly talks about your opponents as if you know all about them, is priceless.

My answer to your question is that I read/heard just enough about them to figure out that they were very likely incompetent. Once I knew that, I had little interest in them any further. In short, I know just enough to know that they suck.

As someone who argued with both him and you, he shows 95% less smugness than you do. Anyhow, so you just went on "Are they openly Christian? Must be bad, then."? And/Or just listened to whatever your socialist friends said, they themselves might not doing research.

You're trying to make yourself sound "resourceful" - why waste your time reading when you get the general gist? If you did that with Iosif Stalin - "Joseph Stalin (/ˈstɑːlɪn/;[1] birth surname: Jughashvili; 18 December 1878[2] – 5 March 1953) was the leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953." Seems fine to me, gets loads of unearned hate.

Don't argue about things in which you yourself have said that you didn't read much into it. It certainly doesn't make you look smart if you say "I think Iosif Stalin was just this guy, he ruled the Soviet Union for about 30 years, he was ok, I got the gist of things, I read enough, even if I didn't read much. His moustache was cool"

Edited 2/17/2016 02:22:05

Wow, Jai, you're skating on thin ice there. Didn't you say earlier you weren't a creationist? (Maybe I'm misremembering.) You realize that line is just creationist pap, eh?

1) I'm not a creationist (probably closer to deism).
2) So just want to clarify...are you saying that evolution is a law or do you accept that the scientific community still calls it a theory?

Wikipedia: "In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his book On the Origin of Species (1859)."

Wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired."

Evolution is a theory by scientific standards for theory formulation, because it is still being adjusted in accordance with new testable hypotheses and experimental results.

WCT, your ignorant.

*You're