a clown car full of millionaires: the 2016 presidential primary thread

rare footage of benbbag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fAcxcxoZ8

Or Northern Baptists in South Dakota.

"not my milieu, of course, but "evangelical" ≠ right-wing fundamentalist, necessarily, and in particular is descriptive of a lutheran denomination that predominates in the not-infrequently-lefty upper midwest."

I...what?

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Monday, September 21, 2015 12:53 PM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

1. I'm neither a Christian nor a midwesterner.

2. "evangelicals" belong to nearly every denomination of Christianity, and their largely but not exclusively conservative religious tradition is generally distinct from a fundamentalist one, and strongly correlative but not entirely predictive of political conservatism. in 2008, one-quarter of self-identified white "evangelicals" voted for obama (per cnn exit polls), larger than the percentage of jews or non-whites who voted for mccain.

3. america's mainline lutheran church, headquartered in chicago, is known as the "evangelical lutheran church in america"; the 2nd and 3rd-largest lutheran bodies are the (sometimes "evangelical") "lutheran church-missouri synod" and (sometimes "evangelical") "lutheran church-wisconsin synod". the six most lutheran states in america are the dakotas, minnesota, wisconsin, nebraska, and iowa. some people who identify as "evangelical" do so in substantial part because they are members of these churches.

4. minnesota, the second-most-lutheran state, is the only state in america to vote for a democrat in each of the past ten presidential elections. wisconsin, the fourth-most-lutheran state, is one of only five to vote for a democrat in 8 of 10 (the others are NY, MA, MD, and RI; HI is the only state to vote Dem in 9 of 10), and the only non-coastal state. iowa, the sixth-most-lutheran state, is one of only five to vote for a dem in 7 of 10 (the others being DE, PA, OR, and WA), and the only one in the middle of the country. those states have longer modern democratic records than 11 states that voted for obama in 2012.

5. the top five states by percentage of white self-identified "evangelical" votes for obama in 2008* were illinois (#11 most lutheran), minnesota, wisconsin, iowa, and michigan (#9 most lutheran). a greater percentage of white evangelicals voted for him in south dakota than did in california, and a greater percentage voted for him in north dakota, nebraska, and montana (#7 most lutheran) than did in new york.

*cnn registered statistically insignificant numbers of same in UT and every northeast corridor state except NY

gonna wait for gabbneb to weigh in before i believe that

― mookieproof, Monday, September 21, 2015 11:48 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if you're talking about romney, i've been waiting for him since before the first debate

sorted

maybe he can tell us about how that will play w/ southern baptists in north dakota

― balls, Monday, September 21, 2015 11:52 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'd ask lyle lovett

sorted

― mookieproof, Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:50 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for Deez and Wisc.

Romney wouldn't have worked even before the Lego Movie.

Al Gore should easily have been able to avoid having the election stolen from him, given the 8 years of Fake Peace and Prosperity purveyed by the administration he was a part of.

― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Monday, September 21, 2015 11:45 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a real defender of democracy against fascists in brooks brothers, i see.

the incorrect count in Florida mattered only because your candidate delivered New Hampshire to Bush, guilt you're still denying 15 years later.

Gore won three states Kerry lost (including Florida), and twelve Dukakis did (same). had (Nader and) Scotus not spoiled, he would have won just (3-)5 electoral votes short of Carter in '76 electoral votes, and (9-)12 short of JFK.

make that (2-)6 and (8-)12

a real defender of democracy against fascists in brooks brothers, i see.

the incorrect count in Florida mattered only because your candidate delivered New Hampshire to Bush, guilt you're still denying 15 years later.

Gore won three states Kerry lost (including Florida), and twelve Dukakis did (same). had (Nader and) Scotus not spoiled, he would have won just (3-)5 electoral votes short of Carter in '76 electoral votes, and (9-)12 short of JFK.

― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Tuesday, September 22, 2015 6:23 AM (37 minutes ago)

this crap has been debunked numerous times, but what's the point of going over it again, centrist democrat twerps will never let go of this one

btw "democracy" gives ppl the right to run for president, a fact "your candidate" might have kept in mind when his goons barred nader from even attending the debates as an audience member in 2000

fuck you, quisling gabbneb.

see JD, only the Democratic standard bearer is ENTITLED to liberal votes.

There was a Sunday front-page story in the NYT that the GOP establishment is worried that their current primary/caucus/delegate rules might help Trump get nominated as long as the field stays crowded.

we must be getting closer to a vote as the ad hominem jargon blunderbusses are booming

fuck you, quisling gabbneb

if we ever transition to an I Love Politics board this is the board description forever

btw "democracy" gives ppl the right to run for president, a fact "your candidate" might have kept in mind when his goons barred nader from even attending the debates as an audience member in 2000

'democracy' gives people the right to run for president, 'math' gives 3rd party candidates the ability to play the role of spoiler w/ our electoral system

Republican presidents are the only thing that get most Democrats angry and into the streets, aside from 100% useless "climate marches"

if we ever transition to an I Love Politics board this is the board description forever

cosign

man the 90s are back:

Later, Carson said he personally believed Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was encouraged by the devil.

“I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary, and it has become what is scientifically, politically correct,” said Carson.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ben-carson-big-bang-a-fairy-tale-theory-of-evolution-encoura#.dfmmj1R5b

God help anyone who had that dude's hands in their brains.

'scientifically, politically correct'

so is there another way of being scientifically correct now that is not politically correct

he should send it to a journal

if any of them are brave enough to face his harsh scientific truths

It's that science is bad and politically correct is bad so that's double bad.

Two bads make one good though?

“Amazingly, there are a significant number of scientists who do not believe it but they’re afraid to say anything,” Carson added, saying he would be writing a book, “The Organ of Species” shows how the organs of the body refute evolution.

can't wait

guest chapter by the gall bladder

at least he's breaking the mold of presidential campaign books. more of these guys should really double down on their most out-there ideas in longform. a multi-volume anti-gravity sex manual could have really made the difference for newt.

seriously though, that title

i'm assuming that was just a joke that carson was making for the friendly crowd of complete fucking idiots, but buzzfeed reported it straight up. but who knows, maybe he's working on this book every night.

Can't wait for the Humoral medicine revival. Maybe the NSA can store jars of urine with their phone records.

which organ is it?

God help anyone who had that dude's hands in their brains.

this is something that has always baffled me. (likewise, i remember similar rumblings about one/both of the pauls espousing young earth creationist beliefs which is asinine its own special way.)

i don't understand how one could claim to disavow basic scientific truths while making a living in a vocation based so firmly in science. (i suppose that the people who want to hear this kind of horseshit from their politicians don't ever challenge the intellectual dishonesty inherent in the statement, or at least that's the likely calculus.)

this seems akin to someone like mitt romney trying to appeal to the marxist vote by saying that he doesn't really believe in the basic tenets of capitalism. it just doesn't compute for me.

i don't understand how one could claim to disavow basic scientific truths while making a living in a vocation based so firmly in science

yeah this baffles me too, where do they even get their degrees

he just has to know how to cut a brain, it's not that hard really

The Organ of Species

More like Organ of Feces, amirite.

There's nothing in the functional action of surgery that's guided by belief; he can think we're all made by Xenu and as long as he does the mechanical stuff right, who cares.

if you're running for president on the other hand...

at least he's breaking the mold of presidential campaign books.

I read this as presidential campaign kooks.

Yeah, no, he fits very snugly within that mold.

surgeons are not scientists

uh

caek otm

lol, no. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Carson%20BS%20Sr%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=26274997

In 1987, Carson earned world-wide recognition when he led a team that performed the first successful separation of twins, Benjamin and Patrick Binder, who were joined at the head. In all it took five months of planning and 22 hours of surgery, and it required a 70-person team to complete. He is also credited with the revival of a medical procedure known as a hemispherectomy, an operation where half a patient's brain is removed in order to cure certain brain diseases that cause seizures.

sounds like an idiot to me

not saying he's not an accomplished and possibly even very intelligent guy. but neurosurgery is not science. or at least there's no need for good neurosurgeons to be anything more than empiricists.

surgeons are not scientists

defend the indefensible - this statement

what i'm saying is: it's totally plausible that a successful neurosurgeon might be a creationist.

caek very very otm

that is complete nonsense, dude xxp

you know who else could be a creationist? pretty much any other scientist who doesn't study evolution strictly

this is probably one of the organs he's talking about

k3vin k., have you ever heard the term "surgeon-scientist"

xp this is another bizarre construction - our current understanding of something is insufficient to completely describe it thus it must be somehow supernatural

like isn't this historically how humans have always coped with ignorance until ignorance has become understanding?