2016 Election
Quote: BozThe problem is the liberals lose on all those issues and they know it. So why would they want them to be up for debate, you silly racist, homophobic old white guy?
Yeah... Let's see who wins on immigration in 2016. Good luck, conservatives.
Quote: ams288I'm not saying I would expect straight people to want to try the "whole pitcher catcher deal." It was a light hearted attempt to reply to a mean spirited post.
I don't really care what percentages of people were born gay, straight, or bi.
"Natural" is nonsense. This argument (along with every other anti-gay argument) always fails. There are a lot more right handed people than left handed people. Are left handed people unnatural? Nope.
Didn't exactly work for Manny Saturday night, did it? :-)
Quote: BozDidn't exactly work for Manny Saturday night, did it? :-)
I don't know. I wasn't about to pay $100 to watch the woman beater fight the homophobe.
Quote: ams288Yeah... Let's see who wins on immigration in 2016. Good luck, conservatives.
Another issue you liberals haven't thought out. You are already counting on them to be Dem voters without jobs dependent on the government for assistance. Sure you think it will be another way to show the rich have too much, but what about when their desire to work for a living comes out? Are you going to count on them to strike for $15 an hour or are they going to take the jobs at $8 because others won't do them? Then they are your worst nightmare.
Quote: ams288I don't know. I wasn't about to pay $100 to watch the woman beater fight the homophobe.
And again 3 million working Americans did. And the American system wins again as much as you liberals hated it. A Jew (Bob Arum) and multiple smart black businessmen made money. Damn how I hate this damn system how hard work pays off!
Quote: RonCThe whole LGBT thing should not be allowed to control the election. Quite frankly, I think it should be ignored. Not because it isn't an issue but because it is not really a Federal issue. The States should regulate marriage laws; the Supreme Court can decide if they stand up to the Constitution, but we shouldn't waste time on it at the Federal level.
Why not? Honestly, we have bigger fish to fry. I want people treated fairly, but I don't have to believe only one way for that to happen. Becoming single issue thinkers distracts us from all the work to be done. I feel the same way about the whole abortion issue.
Poverty--what can we do about it? Liberal ideas have failed; let's try some new ones.
Race--racial politics have done no good to bring us closer together because they are politics of division. Again, how about some new ideas.
Immigration--our policies suck and both parties have people who want them to stay the same. We, the people, are getting screwed by both parties not making any real changes.
Taxes--our system is a failure. Taxing the rich into moving money away from here is no good. There are ways to collect more taxes that could be done fairly, but you can't do it by attacking one group. The rich will always pay more $$ in taxes. Don't hate them; try to join them...they also tend to produce more!!
The big issues are what we need to focus on.
This is a thread for American politics, RonC. Please cease your reasonable and intelligent babbling. There is no time to discuss catastrophic infrastructure failure and a disintegrating economy until we have first decided into whom we can stuff our wieners and have it recognized.
Then we'll fight about whether a Canadian can legally hold the title.
Then we'll argue about the physical appearance of parties involved.
Then, then, then, and somewhere way in the back, we'll deal with the collapse of bridges and the middle class. Be patient. It'll be some years before we get there.
Quote: Gabes22I never quite the the term homophobic. It's not like people are afraid of homosexuals. Being around them is not going to alter my behavior or send me running the other direction like a perturbed Python. There are legitimate divides as to whether homosexuals deserve to be a protected class and what not, but the traction the term homophobic has gotten in mainstream society because as far as I can tell nobody has a phobia of homosexual people
Technically there are actually quite a lot of homophobes just as there were in the past. Look at old PSAs equating gay people with pedophiles and realize people are still rehashing this same old tired old canard even today despite overwhelming evidence. Again there is no evidence that a gay person is more likely to sexually molest a child then a straight person is likely to sexually molest a child. Also look at the use of "gay panic" as a legal defense. People have attempted to use the fact that a gay person came onto them as justification for killing that person because they were terrified of what would happen.
Quote: FaceThis is a thread for American politics, RonC. Please cease your reasonable and intelligent babbling. There is no time to discuss catastrophic infrastructure failure and a disintegrating economy until we have first decided into whom we can stuff our wieners and have it recognized.
Then we'll fight about whether a Canadian can legally hold the title.
Then we'll argue about the physical appearance of parties involved.
Then, then, then, and somewhere way in the back, we'll deal with the collapse of bridges and the middle class. Be patient. It'll be some years before we get there.
A good parasite doesn't kill the host, at least while they are still feeding off of it.
"The will to power is as old as Babylon, and evil as Hell" [Jesse's]
Quote: TwirdmanTechnically there are actually quite a lot of homophobes just as there were in the past. Look at old PSAs equating gay people with pedophiles and realize people are still rehashing this same old tired old canard even today despite overwhelming evidence. Again there is no evidence that a gay person is more likely to sexually molest a child then a straight person is likely to sexually molest a child. Also look at the use of "gay panic" as a legal defense. People have attempted to use the fact that a gay person came onto them as justification for killing that person because they were terrified of what would happen.
This is still the norm in many countries, including Russia.
"You can feel free in your relationships but leave children in peace" Putin (on foreign gays coming to Russia Winter Olympics last year).
"We have the ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia" -Putin
But yes you are correct, there is zero correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. In fact, most pedophiles are or were in straight relationships.... I have always been taught in psychology classes that pedophilia is related to having a strange sexualized obsession with power over children, and has nothing to do with gender or adult sexual preference.
I do find it ironic that organization that are vehemently anti-gay (often on the complete lie about pedophilia) are often large religious groups that spend lots of money and time hiding and sheltering numerous pedophiles from the law in their own ranks...
Quote: petroglyph
It makes no sense to me to give a stack of papers the same rights as a human being. A corporation is just a set of legality's with the fees paid. It's saying a rock or a tree or bush has constitutional rights.
It is all legal mumbo jumbo to continue the control of the luddites, and nothing to do with right or wrong or reality. What about one man one vote? Giving corps. personhood and the "right" to vote lets business owners double dip.
This is incorrect. A corporation is not "a stack of papers." It is a group of people. And corporations nowhere have the "right to vote." All letting corporations participate does is let people pool resources.
Why are you so against free speech?
Quote: TwirdmanTechnically there are actually quite a lot of homophobes just as there were in the past. Look at old PSAs equating gay people with pedophiles and realize people are still rehashing this same old tired old canard even today despite overwhelming evidence. Again there is no evidence that a gay person is more likely to sexually molest a child then a straight person is likely to sexually molest a child.
Liberal logic:
A guy that seduces a 17 year old boy is not gay, he is probably straight. So we should not be concerned with gay males around teenage boys in locker rooms, etc, We CANNOT blame the entire gay community.
BUT......
When a criminal uses a gun, the NRA and every gun owner is to blame. No mater the overwhelming evidence that most gun owners are legal, law-abiding citizens. In fact we must ban guns!
"Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
Ratio found in this study = 9.09% of pedophiles are homosexual
Since 9.09% come from a group that makes up 2%-4% of the population, the assumption would be that gays are more likely to be pedophiles than straights.
I don't know if that is enough reason to become overly concerned; it is enough to disprove the claim that homosexuals are less likely to become pedophiles.
Quote: RonCFor anyone who cares to look beyond the noise, there are gay pedophiles just as there are straight pedophiles. You see, gays aren't special or better than average people...in fact, the incidence of gay pedophilia seems to be higher, percentage wise, than the incidence of heterosexual pedophilia. Is it a statistically significant difference?
I don't know if that is enough reason to become overly concerned; it is enough to disprove the claim that homosexuals are less likely to become pedophiles.
The thing is it needs to be divided out by age. My thing is this. Is a gay more likely to molest a boy of 10 years old, who has little to no understanding of what is going on? The rate might be higher, but might not be significant.
However, went you get to boys over say 14 years in age and really more in the 16-18 year old range and are aware, now this is something different. Here I believe the rate is higher and significantly higher. And at the very least I believe we need to use the same logic that you do not want a straight male with 14-18 year old females in situations where there could be an issue, like the locker room or sharing overnight accommodations.
Some of you are just hopeless...
Quote: TwirdmanTechnically there are actually quite a lot of homophobes just as there were in the past. Look at old PSAs equating gay people with pedophiles and realize people are still rehashing this same old tired old canard even today despite overwhelming evidence. Again there is no evidence that a gay person is more likely to sexually molest a child then a straight person is likely to sexually molest a child. Also look at the use of "gay panic" as a legal defense. People have attempted to use the fact that a gay person came onto them as justification for killing that person because they were terrified of what would happen.
Just because a person attempts to use something as a legal defense doesn't mean they actually believe the drivel they are spewing. Oftentimes, people are grasping at straws in a losing battle hoping to minimize the damage. Does everyone who cops an insanity plea actually believe they are insane? Of course not. They believe that they would rather spend their days in a hospital than in prison and it is a conscious choice that they make when they decide to make that plea.
Quote: ams288Whenever conservatives fall down the "lets try a serious discussion about pedophilia and gays" well, it always brings the LOLz.
Some of you are just hopeless...
Actually, conservatives know gays refuse to have a serious discussion. Gays say, "my way or you are just a homophobe!"
The world will eventually learn.
Quote: AZDuffmanActually, conservatives know gays refuse to have a serious discussion. Gays say, "my way or you are just a homophobe!"
The world will eventually learn.
There is no serious discussion to be had. Anyone who cannot separate gays and pedophiles is hopeless and should just be ignored and shunned.
Quote: ams288There is no serious discussion to be had. Anyone who cannot separate gays and pedophiles is hopeless and should just be ignored and shunned.
So lets see, to say a guy who is attracted to other guys, supposedly because he was "born that way," and cannot help it. So we are going to say that guy will have no attraction to other guys who have not yet turned 18 yet the moment they do turn 18 if he does that is "different."
Moving on, the very same act is not a "gay" act. In fact, the guy who instigates it is "straight" by gay logic.
You see, all that is being said is:
There are gays that are attracted to younger boys, same as there are straight girls. No person says the guy who is attracted to girls "is not straight." So we expect gays to accept that a guy attracted to younger boys is gay. Not saying all gays fit this profile, but saying it is gay behavior.
But somehow *I* am the one that should be "ignored and shunned."
Quote: AZDuffmanSo lets see, to say a guy who is attracted to other guys, supposedly because he was "born that way," and cannot help it. So we are going to say that guy will have no attraction to other guys who have not yet turned 18 yet the moment they do turn 18 if he does that is "different."
Moving on, the very same act is not a "gay" act. In fact, the guy who instigates it is "straight" by gay logic.
You see, all that is being said is:
There are gays that are attracted to younger boys, same as there are straight girls. No person says the guy who is attracted to girls "is not straight." So we expect gays to accept that a guy attracted to younger boys is gay. Not saying all gays fit this profile, but saying it is gay behavior.
But somehow *I* am the one that should be "ignored and shunned."
Your argument does not make sense because you are mixing up pedophilia with people people who have sex with minors (under 18 most places).
Pedophilia is a condition where people are sexual attracted to undeveloped children (generally under 12).
Having sex with a 16 or 17 year old is illegal as they are minors, but it is not pedophilia.
That would depend on how you define speech. Are you claiming that money [contributions] is speech?Quote: AZDuffman....Why are you so against free speech?
Money is speech in the same way that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. G/O
Quote: GandlerYour argument does not make sense because you are mixing up pedophilia with people people who have sex with minors (under 18 most places).
Pedophilia is a condition where people are sexual attracted to undeveloped children (generally under 12).
Having sex with a 16 or 17 year old is illegal as they are minors, but it is not pedophilia.
Thank you for bringing logic and fact into the discussion.
Quote: GandlerYour argument does not make sense because you are mixing up pedophilia with people people who have sex with minors (under 18 most places).
Pedophilia is a condition where people are sexual attracted to undeveloped children (generally under 12).
Having sex with a 16 or 17 year old is illegal as they are minors, but it is not pedophilia.
OK, I am willing to go along with that. So first what is the "cutoff?" I would say 14-15 but will ask at what point does it change and is no longer pedo?
Quote: petroglyphThat would depend on how you define speech. Are you claiming that money [contributions] is speech?
100% yes! "Speech" is about getting your idea across. For example, "freedom of the press" is in the same amendment as "speech." The idea was to allow people to promote their political views. Money cannot be removed from this process.
Quote: AZDuffmanOK, I am willing to go along with that. So first what is the "cutoff?" I would say 14-15 but will ask at what point does it change and is no longer pedo?
"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia."
From Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
Quote: AZDuffmanOK, I am willing to go along with that. So first what is the "cutoff?" I would say 14-15 but will ask at what point does it change and is no longer pedo?
The cutoff is when somebody becomes sexually developed (puberty).
Age 12 is the average. It's different for every individual.
Quote: GandlerThe cutoff is when somebody becomes sexually developed (puberty).
Age 12 is the average. It's different for every individual.
OK, so generally speaking we could say age 13 and below is a pedo and above is just "breaking the law" in the form of statutory rape or whatever the similar charge may be? Is this something we can agree upon from this point forward to spare the board the back-and--forth?
Anyone else?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: petroglyphThat would depend on how you define speech. Are you claiming that money [contributions] is speech?
100% yes! "Speech" is about getting your idea across. For example, "freedom of the press" is in the same amendment as "speech." The idea was to allow people to promote their political views. Money cannot be removed from this process.
That is unfortunate for the "common man". Even the medium used to carry the message is fiat.
The coinage act constitutionally defines a dollar: First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:“the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units … of the value [mass or weight] of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure … silver."
So,,, a private corporation gets to manufacture, determine the amount and value of our money, and a corporation has the "constitutional right to free speech". This has nothing to do with the framing of the constitution. All that the founding fathers wrote, that people thought applied to them and their heirs, has been wiped out. See "NDAA"/ Patriot Act/ Freedom Act . That this is a constitutional representative republic is an illusion, no more real than the "Matrix", and that our political industrial complex [tm] represents our freedoms, is an abomination. Or is that Obama nation? lol
" First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:
The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs."
This was written so that "the press" could expose corrupt politicians who have long since been bought by the corporations who control everything from the air, to the water and land and now with this mass propaganda which we call "the press" can control the thoughts of people. See Edward Bernays.
As you mentioned elsewhere "people need to be told what to think".
I think the Great Land has it about right, as regards age of consent. People grow up young in harsh conditions. I will leave this thought to within US boundaries.Quote: AZDuffmanAnyone else?
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/alaska-age-of-consent-lawyers.html
PSM, lower the age to vote. If you can sign up for the Marines, you should have the right to vote, or drink.
Quote: AZDuffmanOK, so generally speaking we could say age 13 and below is a pedo and above is just "breaking the law" in the form of statutory rape or whatever the similar charge may be? Is this something we can agree upon from this point forward to spare the board the back-and--forth?
Yes precisely.
Quote: petroglyphQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: petroglyphThat would depend on how you define speech. Are you claiming that money [contributions] is speech?
100% yes! "Speech" is about getting your idea across. For example, "freedom of the press" is in the same amendment as "speech." The idea was to allow people to promote their political views. Money cannot be removed from this process.
That is unfortunate for the "common man". Even the medium used to carry the message is fiat.
The coinage act constitutionally defines a dollar: First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:“the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units … of the value [mass or weight] of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure … silver."
So,,, a private corporation gets to manufacture, determine the amount and value of our money, and a corporation has the "constitutional right to free speech". This has nothing to do with the framing of the constitution. All that the founding fathers wrote, that people thought applied to them and their heirs, has been wiped out. See "NDAA"/ Patriot Act/ Freedom Act . That this is a constitutional representative republic is an illusion, no more real than the "Matrix", and that our political industrial complex [tm] represents our freedoms, is an abomination. Or is that Obama nation? lol
" First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:
The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs."
This was written so that "the press" could expose corrupt politicians who have long since been bought by the corporations who control everything from the air, to the water and land and now with this mass propaganda which we call "the press" can control the thoughts of people. See Edward Bernays.
As you mentioned elsewhere "people need to be told what to think".
Free speech is connected to money, so rules the Supreme Court. It only keeps the wealthy free speech unfettered, but does nothing for an individual of little wealth with his or her opinion. The best you can do is join a group and live with your view diluted by a group message, and hope that is somewhat close to your actual opinion.
Agreed, and would like to add.Quote: rxwineQuote: petroglyphQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: petroglyphThat would depend on how you define speech. Are you claiming that money [contributions] is speech?
100% yes! "Speech" is about getting your idea across. For example, "freedom of the press" is in the same amendment as "speech." The idea was to allow people to promote their political views. Money cannot be removed from this process.
That is unfortunate for the "common man". Even the medium used to carry the message is fiat.
The coinage act constitutionally defines a dollar: First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:“the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units … of the value [mass or weight] of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure … silver."
So,,, a private corporation gets to manufacture, determine the amount and value of our money, and a corporation has the "constitutional right to free speech". This has nothing to do with the framing of the constitution. All that the founding fathers wrote, that people thought applied to them and their heirs, has been wiped out. See "NDAA"/ Patriot Act/ Freedom Act . That this is a constitutional representative republic is an illusion, no more real than the "Matrix", and that our political industrial complex [tm] represents our freedoms, is an abomination. Or is that Obama nation? lol
" First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:
The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs."
This was written so that "the press" could expose corrupt politicians who have long since been bought by the corporations who control everything from the air, to the water and land and now with this mass propaganda which we call "the press" can control the thoughts of people. See Edward Bernays.
As you mentioned elsewhere "people need to be told what to think".
Free speech is connected to money, so rules the Supreme Court. It only keeps the wealthy free speech unfettered, but does nothing for an individual of little wealth with his or her opinion. The best you can do is join a group and live with your view diluted by a group message, and hope that is somewhat close to your actual opinion.
The SCJ's are appointed by the President, who is financed and therefore offered to the masses, to supposedly "vote" on. Like the pols, the SCJ's who are more powerful than the constitution are appointed by the POTUS who is appointed by money, that is printed at will, by a private corporation, the Fed. reserve.
edit: good post Rx
I see Mike Huckabee threw in his hat to run for president.
Hmm.
So I read a bit about him.
He came out against dancing early in his life.
Against Dancing????????????????????
This is straight out of footloose.
I thought people against dancing are right wing nuts such as Fred Phelps of the Westboro baptist church.
I can see Fred against dancing. Not sure his view but it would not surprise me somebody like him against dancling, he's a kook.
But a Presidential Candidate that was once against dancing. WOW.
Footloose lives :-)
Quote: terapined
He came out against dancing early in his life.
Against Dancing????????????????????
Heterosexual white males hate dancing. At least most of us do. Anything that helps me avoid it, well it isn't all bad.
So do Muslims and Buddhists. Yet we never hear discourses about them.Quote: AZDuffmanHeterosexual white males hate dancing.
Quote: AZDuffmanHeterosexual white males hate dancing. At least most of us do. Anything that helps me avoid it, well it isn't all bad.
Quote: SanchoPanzaSo do Muslims and Buddhists. Yet we never hear discourses about them.
If a Muslim or Buddhist that is against dancing runs for President, damm right there will be a discourse :-)
It one thing to be against dancing. If you are against it, oh well.
Now a Presidential Candidate that was against dancing early in their life time, well thats another thing, Discourse needed :-)
Quote: terapinedBack to the 2016 contest.
I see Mike Huckabee threw in his hat to run for president.
Hmm.
So I read a bit about him.
He came out against dancing early in his life.
Against Dancing????????????????????
This is straight out of footloose.
I thought people against dancing are right wing nuts such as Fred Phelps of the Westboro baptist church.
I can see Fred against dancing. Not sure his view but it would not surprise me somebody like him against dancling, he's a kook.
But a Presidential Candidate that was once against dancing. WOW.
Footloose lives :-)
Doesn't surprise me one bit. Huckabee is a loon.
He has zero chance at ever becoming president.
Huckabee is an accomplished musician--folk, hillbilly, country and rock. Anyone who thinks that they might know the slightest bit about him ought to know that he almost always was invited to play along with the professional acts appearing on his TV program. Usually to extremely good effect.Quote: ams288He has zero chance at ever becoming president.
Quote: SanchoPanzaHuckabee is an accomplished musician--folk, hillbilly, country and rock. Anyone who thinks that they might know the slightest bit about him ought to know that he almost always was invited to play along with the professional acts appearing on his TV program. Usually to extremely good effect.
And this somehow makes him fit to be president. The guy is a nut bag.
Wel;l,, neither you nor the others commenting in this subthread seem the least bit interested in the real issues that he has long and clearly discussed. Apparently such substance has at the most minimal significance for his critics.Quote: TwirdmanAnd this somehow makes him fit to be president. The guy is a nut bag.
Quote: ams288Doesn't surprise me one bit. Huckabee is a loon.
He has zero chance at ever becoming president.
There are six candidates on the Republican side. Can you please list them as loon/non-loon for us? Thanks--it will help in the discussion moving forward.
...and the same for the potential Democrat candidates....simply list:
Clinton (D) loon
Warren (D) non-loon
Quote: SanchoPanzaWel;l,, neither you nor the others commenting in this subthread seem the least bit interested in the real issues that he has long and clearly discussed. Apparently such substance has at the most minimal significance for his critics.
Try having a discussion about substance with some of these folks and you'll not have much luck...they'd rather talk about pedophiles, gays, abortions, etc. even after you destroy their arguments.
Quote: RonCTry having a discussion about substance with some of these folks and you'll not have much luck...they'd rather talk about pedophiles, gays, abortions, etc. even after you destroy their arguments.
If Hillary was the best my side had I would be trying to talk about anything but substance.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWel;l,, neither you nor the others commenting in this subthread seem the least bit interested in the real issues that he has long and clearly discussed. Apparently such substance has at the most minimal significance for his critics.
I have listened to him lately.
He is easy to make fun of
but
he had some excellent points recently that I have to say I agree with.
Too many candidates are pretty much abandoning their present jobs to run for President.
Take Cruz, he was determined to vote no on appointing an attorney general.
Did he vote no, of course not, no time, missed the vote, more important to meet donors for his campaign.
He has actually missed a lot of votes. Rubio, Paul ect, they all miss votes because they dont have enough time to be a senator.
Huck is right. If a senator wants to run for President, should step down. Its a full time job running for president.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWel;l,, neither you nor the others commenting in this subthread seem the least bit interested in the real issues that he has long and clearly discussed. Apparently such substance has at the most minimal significance for his critics.
Those issues are what make him a nutbag. He favors increased privatization of prisons perhaps the dumbest idea conceived in this country. They have not been conclusively shown to reduce cost and they financially disincentive proper rehabilitation by giving a profit motive to high rates of recidivism.
He believes creationism should be taught in science classrooms something that has 1 already been shown to be unconstitutional and 2 is just incredibly dumb. The number of scientist in the world who reject evolution is a minuscule fraction of a minuscule fraction of people especially when you look at biologist and yet we are supposed to give these people air time why. Letting anti-evolution crap in science classrooms is the equivalent of letting 9/11 truthers or Holocaust deniers in history class it is utterly debunked and not believed by anyone who knows anything.
He favors building a border fence which is simply a waste of money while having very little effect on illegal immigration.
He has come out in favor of displaying the 10 commandments in school, something again found to be unconstitutional, and claims the reason for failing schools and school shootings are related to a break down of morality.
He supports even stricter sentencing for drugs, because apparently being the country with the highest percentage of our population arrested a significant portion being for non violent drug offences, isn't quite good enough.
All things he has well and clearly discussed and all things that make him a nutbag. This is without going into things where one could at least argue a question of morality like abortion or LGBT rights things which I fervently disagree with him on. Now he has said things which make him less nutbaggy then other contenders for the GOP nomination, but still a nutbag unless you show me a reason why I should think he isn't.
