Polls now favor Santorum, the ninth flip of the nomination

[fskimospy]

Please explain why I've had to educate young engineers and correct their screw ups if a college degree means they're so smart. A college degree doesn't automatically mean that a person has a high IQ or is smart.

No one said it automatically related to such things, just that it related. ie: not everyone with a college degree is intellectually capable, but the odds are higher than with someone who does not have a degree. This doesn't even need to be attributed to the actual education that comes from a degree, it could even be more of a statement of the type of person who gets one.

Regardless, as someone who spent 7 years in the military I can tell you that I'm not particularly keen on the political acumen of your average enlistee.

 

[cybrsage]

You are quite naive if you believe a college degree is irrelevant to being smart.

At one time, a college degree meant a person was smart. Now, anyone who graduates high school can go to college. Many people graduate high school without being able to read. They go to college and get an associates degree, gaining the ability to read and not much more.

A college degree is irrelevant to being smart. All it means is that you spent a bunch of money.

 

[dank69]

Hey cybr, I am curious, did you find my answer in post 23 to your question sufficient?

 

[Zargon]

My gut tells me that santorum is going to win the nomination, and lose to Obama.

Santorum is really only vulnerable on the quacky religious right stuff he dwells too much on.

Also, Santorum IMO got the better of this ad exchange.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/the_anti_santorum_onslaught_begins/

Santorum is the male Palin. Amazing that he can garner any votes at all. Sad perhaps the more accurate word. Scary is a good word too.
My guess is that Romney will clinch it in the end, though.

Santorum hates Gays with a passion. hes way way worse than Palin, and makes her seem silly and harmless.

Santorum will try his best to revert our nation back 100 years of social progress

 

[WhipperSnapper]

At one time, a college degree meant a person was smart. Now, anyone who graduates high school can go to college.

Even retards can go to college today, seriously. The federal government helps pay for it and people get warm and fuzzy feelings at the thought.

http://azstarnet.com/news/national/article_c8864055-3eb2-55c1-a740-f99b88fef36e.html

 

[lopri]

I don't see the Repubs having any hope in this election. They aren't enthusiastic about any of their candidates (cant blame them). It is obvious the establishment is pushing Romney as hard as they can because he is the only one with any hope of a broad appeal to moderates, but the voters refuse to get in line.

I got news for you Republicans, a platform based on social issues isn't going to cut it anymore. It's time to stop measuring a candidate based on stupid $hit like abortion and what they think about gays, because it doesn't matter anymore. You are not, nor have you ever been able to roll back progressive social policies, so give it up. Playing that card to whip your base into a frenzy only pushes the younger generation away. Get back to your roots as fiscal conservatives, and try not so make it so obvious that you are beholden to the rich.

It may come as a surprise (was to me) but there are lots of young "conservatives," it seems. And they're like a carbon-copy of their grand parents.

http://melissablogs.com/2012/02/14/cpac-the-jersey-shore-ification-of-our-young-people/

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/...atters-communications-room-but-still-grow-up/

 

[dmcowen674]

Santorum hates Gays with a passion. hes way way worse than Palin, and makes her seem silly and harmless.

Santorum will try his best to revert our nation back 100 years of social progress

That's what needs to happen to get people to stop voting against their own interests by voting Republican.

 

[Jhhnn]

At one time, a college degree meant a person was smart. Now, anyone who graduates high school can go to college. Many people graduate high school without being able to read. They go to college and get an associates degree, gaining the ability to read and not much more.

A college degree is irrelevant to being smart. All it means is that you spent a bunch of money.

It's more than that. It shows that you're willing to play the game, validate the system & the hierarchy, that you share the "values" of people who are tasked with hiring you... you demonstrate the quality they seek the most- conformity & submission to arbitrary authority.

 

[fskimospy]

It's more than that. It shows that you're willing to play the game, validate the system & the hierarchy, that you share the "values" of people who are tasked with hiring you... you demonstrate the quality they seek the most- conformity & submission to arbitrary authority.

Well that and some minimum level of independently evaluated and vouched for commitment and capability. Colleges are selector mechanisms first, educational systems second. When someone hires a guy from Harvard Law, they aren't hiring him because they think Harvard has a secret book of legal tricks that nobody else knows, they are hiring him because Harvard has evaluated him separately and selected him as being exceptional.

The level of capability might not be as high as you would like, but if you took 100 random people with college degrees and 100 random people without them I'm quite confident that you could tell the difference.

 

[cybrsage]

Some colleges definately select based on smarts. MIT does not let just anyone in, for example. These are far outdone by the plethora of community colleges, though.

 

[cybrsage]

Hey cybr, I am curious, did you find my answer in post 23 to your question sufficient?

Not really, go ahead and do it and post it. I fear the types of sites which may come up...I am also at work, and that could be an issue.

To be honest, I completely forgot about the question!

 

[dank69]

Not really, go ahead and do it and post it. I fear the types of sites which may come up...I am also at work, and that could be an issue.

To be honest, I completely forgot about the question!

News headlines are what comes up. Nothing NSFW. Nothing like just googling santorum which does return NSFW results.

 

[cybrsage]

Post a reputable one here, with snippets from it. I may not be able to open any of the links to find out what they say.

 

[dank69]

Post a reputable one here, with snippets from it. I may not be able to open any of the links to find out what they say.

I'd think I'd just rather let you remain ignorant.

 

[Smartazz]

Just read an interesting OP-ED piece by Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html

What are all your thoughts on the "Red" states rallying against their own interests when they benefit the most from federal programs? Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? Does racism play a factor?

 

[zinfamous]

republicans are funny. they will latch onto whatever racist, bigoted wasp they can find to keep a mormon out of their campaign.

amazing.

 

[zinfamous]

eh, looks like all the more reason not to elect someone that is supposed to be the chief civilian in this country.

Unabashed military support is the absolute last thing one wants in a president. Just ask Eisenhower.

 

[allenk09]

Has Ron Paul ever lost anything that wasn't the result of a conspiracy against him?

See, it's not really a conspiracy. If there's even a single NOTION that someone/some group committed election fraud, you should be absolutely pissed that someone is purposely screwing with your countries (if you're not american well then, guess you can stop reading) potential presidential candidates, and the future of your country...REGARDLESS of what candidate is being cheated out. In Maine, there's plenty of anomalies and people coming forward calling bullshit that the entire thing was a fraud.

If Ron Paul was winning these elections, I'm sure a lot of people would be up in arms going "Ron Paul could NEVER win these", and in turn starting a conspiracy that Ron Paul is doing voter fraud. I hate people who call "conspiracy" on voter fraud simply because it's Ron Paul losing out.

In fact, I don't hesitate to think that Ron Paul really won most, if not all states. I'm not even voting for the man but you can see the OBVIOUS bullshit when you peel your eyes open a bit. Ron Paul supporters are _very_ enthusiastic about their candidate, and show up in mass amounts to all of these caucuses. None of the other candidates have that on such a large level. The other candidates have the stupid people sitting at home watching Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannity spread their obvious propaganda every night, never participating in anything that has to do with the elections or state caucuses.

 

[fskimospy]

Ron Paul did not win most, or all states by any possible stretch of a fevered imagination. This willful denial of reality by the Ron Paul people does your candidate a disservice, because it makes his supporters appear insane.

 

[allenk09]

Ron Paul did not win most, or all states by any possible stretch of a fevered imagination. This willful denial of reality by the Ron Paul people does your candidate a disservice, because it makes his supporters appear insane.

It appears you have failed to read my post above. Try again.

He most likely won all of them, its just that the media tells you he didn't. Every time I see you post, its as if you're one of those who listen to Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin and base what you say on what someone else feeds into your brain. People who can't see that Ron Paul should have in reality won every single state solely based on how enthusiastic his supporters are vs any other candidates....have something wrong. Now that this fraud talk is coming out, it gives an even better reason to believe it is all an elaborate game set up so Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. Its right there right in everyone's face and few notice it. And we know American mainstream media would never cover something they help play off. Like I said, I am not a Ron Paul supporter but I give him a fair chance just as other candites (xceept santorum, we can all agree he's batshit insane far trumping anything Ron Paul could pull off).

Spelling errors caused by the crappy stock android browser not being able to move the cursor around properly to fix them.

 

[fskimospy]

It appears you have failed to read my post above. Try again.

He most likely won all of them, its just that the media tells you he didn't. Every time I see you post, its as if you're one of those who listen to Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin and base what you say on what someone else feeds into your brain. People who can't see that Ron Paul should have in reality won every single state solely based on how enthusiastic his supporters are vs any other candidates....have something wrong. Now that this fraud talk is coming out, it gives an even better reason to believe it is all an elaborate game set up so Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. Its right there right in everyone's face and few notice it. And we know American mainstream media would never cover something they help play off. Like I said, I am not a Ron Paul supporter but I give him a fair chance just as other candites (xceept santorum, we can all agree he's batshit insane far trumping anything Ron Paul could pull off).

Spelling errors caused by the crappy stock android browser not being able to move the cursor around properly to fix them.

In order for me to believe what you wrote is true, I would have to grab a drill and destroy all parts of my brain that understand voter mobilization, statistics, campaigning, and elections. All I can tell you is that you don't understand what you're talking about and it's leading you to make horrible conclusions.

The conspiracy to commit massive voter fraud to deny our good friend Ron his victories in some of these states would have to be so massive as to rival the faked moon landing, which I assume you also believe in. In order for Ron Paul to have won South Carolina, he needed to make up a nearly 200,000 vote margin. In Florida he needed to make up 650,000 or so which, by the way, would be about six times as many votes as he received TOTAL in that state. In Nevada he needed to triple his vote share. In Colorado quadruple it.

Generally, Ron Paul's results matched up with predicted results from widespread, scientific public opinion polling done by a number of sophisticated, nonpartisan entities. There was no fraud, Ron Paul just lost because his policies are unpopular.

 

[zinfamous]

See, it's not really a conspiracy. If there's even a single NOTION that someone/some group committed election fraud, you should be absolutely pissed that someone is purposely screwing with your countries (if you're not american well then, guess you can stop reading) potential presidential candidates, and the future of your country...REGARDLESS of what candidate is being cheated out. In Maine, there's plenty of anomalies and people coming forward calling bullshit that the entire thing was a fraud.

If Ron Paul was winning these elections, I'm sure a lot of people would be up in arms going "Ron Paul could NEVER win these", and in turn starting a conspiracy that Ron Paul is doing voter fraud. I hate people who call "conspiracy" on voter fraud simply because it's Ron Paul losing out.

In fact, I don't hesitate to think that Ron Paul really won most, if not all states. I'm not even voting for the man but you can see the OBVIOUS bullshit when you peel your eyes open a bit. Ron Paul supporters are _very_ enthusiastic about their candidate, and show up in mass amounts to all of these caucuses. None of the other candidates have that on such a large level. The other candidates have the stupid people sitting at home watching Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannity spread their obvious propaganda every night, never participating in anything that has to do with the elections or state caucuses.

so, he has a lot of people show up, and they are enthusiastic...swell.

that really doesn't matter if other candidates have 5-10x as more supporters that don't always show up, aren't as vocal, but actually vote.

it's the same thing with what is going on with the GOP, as whole, at the moment--all you ever hear about are the fundy right-wing christians and their Fox-lead vocal support of some of the most racist, bigoted candidates in recent memory--the idea that these people speak for the party, simply because their message is the loudest. You'd think that in light of this, Santorum and Gingrich would be locks, but they aren't. The majority of the party seems to continue to support Romney, as they had for 98% of this current campaign kept him in the lead--but you'd never realize that because the loudest minority of the bunch--fundy christians and teabaggers--live in fantasy land and ignore any type of relevant pole.

The majority aren't the loudest, and clearly don't support the clowns that the bigots want to elect, but they still maintain power...or so it seems.

 

[Smartazz]

so, he has a lot of people show up, and they are enthusiastic...swell.

that really doesn't matter if other candidates have 5-10x as more supporters that don't always show up, aren't as vocal, but actually vote.

it's the same thing with what is going on with the GOP, as whole, at the moment--all you ever hear about are the fundy right-wing christians and their Fox-lead vocal support of some of the most racist, bigoted candidates in recent memory--the idea that these people speak for the party, simply because their message is the loudest. You'd think that in light of this, Santorum and Gingrich would be locks, but they aren't. The majority of the party seems to continue to support Romney, as they had for 98% of this current campaign kept him in the lead--but you'd never realize that because the loudest minority of the bunch--fundy christians and teabaggers--live in fantasy land and ignore any type of relevant pole.

The majority aren't the loudest, and clearly don't support the clowns that the bigots want to elect, but they still maintain power...or so it seems.

My experience with Ron Paul supporters is that they have a certain suspension of disbelief. Ron Paul may bring up some good arguments but he has way too many crazy ideas. Granted, if he were President, his crazier ideas would be unlikely to pass. In the 2000 Presidential election, some argued that Ralph Nader played a crucial role in taking votes from Gore. If Ron Paul ends up running as an independent, we might see a similar phenomenon assuming the 2012 election is close.

 

[Jhhnn]

so, he has a lot of people show up, and they are enthusiastic...swell.

that really doesn't matter if other candidates have 5-10x as more supporters that don't always show up, aren't as vocal, but actually vote.

it's the same thing with what is going on with the GOP, as whole, at the moment--all you ever hear about are the fundy right-wing christians and their Fox-lead vocal support of some of the most racist, bigoted candidates in recent memory--the idea that these people speak for the party, simply because their message is the loudest. You'd think that in light of this, Santorum and Gingrich would be locks, but they aren't. The majority of the party seems to continue to support Romney, as they had for 98% of this current campaign kept him in the lead--but you'd never realize that because the loudest minority of the bunch--fundy christians and teabaggers--live in fantasy land and ignore any type of relevant pole.

The majority aren't the loudest, and clearly don't support the clowns that the bigots want to elect, but they still maintain power...or so it seems.

I don't think you understand the Repub Base, at all. They want somebody who doesn't exist, they want Colbert's mythical "Rick Parry", a guy who can pander to their basest instincts... discreetly, of course, speaking the code & using the dog whistle, stroking their erroneous zones so as to make them feel good. Dubya did it well, but they've now disowned him, blaming the man rather than the ideology they still believe in so fervently. Ronnie did it even better, but he was a professional actor, after all. Actual deeds matter not if the words are what they want to hear, if they satisfy their cravings in just the right way. They're deeply conflicted, at once desperately seeking some authority to follow and yet hold strong anti-gubmint attitudes.

Their support for Romney is lukewarm, at best, because his schtick just doesn't satisfy, isn't the kind of red meat they crave. Newt gets it right more often than any of the others- witness his victory in S Carolina... If he could just keep it in his pants, he'd be at the head of the column, leading the charge... Or the real Rick Perry, if he weren't an intellectual lightweight, a complete dolt.

 

[LumbergTech]

At one time, a college degree meant a person was smart. Now, anyone who graduates high school can go to college. Many people graduate high school without being able to read. They go to college and get an associates degree, gaining the ability to read and not much more.

A college degree is irrelevant to being smart. All it means is that you spent a bunch of money.

I saw plenty of people who spent lots of money and didn't walk away with a college degree.....