Who is your favorite Republican presidential candidate for 2012?

Ron Paul

Positions

I think it might be Jonathon Sharkey’s year.

Zombie Roosevelt.

BULLY!

Bachman.. Because it would be funny and she won’t win.

At this point it’s Ron Paul.

I like Ron Paul because of his Libertarian attitudes towards the role of government in our lives.

Ron Paul, but I don’t vote republican, or at all for that matter lol.

@johnpowell – Bachman would be nice.

I was really hoping Basil Marceaux would run.

@tom_g I used to know a guy who got drunk in a bar with Basil Marceaux. He started ranting about cocaine and cheerios.

I sure wish Condi Rice would come out of retirement and run.

@Blackberry – Ron Paul would not win, but if he did he could do the most damage to things most of us feel is important. Besides being real hostile to science (does not accept modern biology, and denies the scientific consensus on global climate change), he wants the country to be run by unaccountable corporations.

@tom_g cite please.

Edit: I see the GA for @tom_g. I’d like some confirmation on your statements please. There’s a lot of talk about RP that is just utter BS. Please support your comments.

Cthulu.

@Photosopher – cite? For what? His denial of evolution? His global climate change denial?

You know, I hear about the various candidates on the news, but it all goes in one ear and out the other. It’s not my problem until one of them is nominated.

From that shallow pool, I would have to say Ron Paul. However, he is so in favor of states rights that he is willing to scuttle other sections of the Constitution that I don’t think I could vote for him. Read his We The People legislation that he proposed and you’ll see what I mean; states rights trump due process, the right to petition for a redress of grievances, and basically neuter the judicial branch.

You will notice the glitch in the RP Evolution video at 0:31. It has been edited to weigh the accusation against Paul and somehow claim he is against science. How unfortunate. I cannot find the full video anywhere. It has been deleted from all links for some reason. Some who have seen it believe it vindicates RP in a more honest representation.

Keep in mind that RP does in fact call evolution what it is… a theory.

The debate is not so much whether it occurs, but how it occurs. RP is wise to call it what it is, and nothing more. I’d recommend anyone who doesn’t study evolution to do the same. It’s not so cut and dried as most people think.

And to claim that Dr. Paul is somehow “against science” after delivering thousands of babies is a bit extreme.

As far as climate change is concerned, to claim that he “denies” it is an outright misrepresentation of the facts. From the very web link provided by @tom_g, in the words of RP, in the first few sentences:
“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising… Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon.”

We would do well to support such open mindedness in a candidate. To see one latch on to dogma of any particular side of any hotly contested debate should be a red flag most noticed.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – Wow, that was quite a dance. He’s not using the word “theory” in the scientific sense. He’s using the tactic that deniers use. See deinition #2

“2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.”

He is not using the scientific term “theory” (definition #1 in the above link):

“1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.”

The guy states in the video that he doesn’t accept evolution. I’m not sure how else to put it.

As for the global climate change denial. I am wrong that he consistently denies it. I apologize. I have listened to him in the past and assumed his website’s position page would say the same thing. In fact, I get the feeling from this single page on his site, that he’s not clear…..

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009”

I’m more concerned about his anti-government/pro-corporate positions. His evolution/biology position scares me, but I’m not sure that would have as much an effect as his vision of the economy.

Also, take a look at this sentence you wrote: “And to claim that Dr. Paul is somehow “against science” after delivering thousands of babies is a bit extreme.”

Note sure if you want to revise that. Maybe it was a typo. I’m trying to figure out how this is not a logical fallacy or just a plain old non sequitur.

Without the full vid, we don’t know, and shouldn’t claim to. His web site doesn’t speak on the matter one way or another. We should not accept this as the truest representation of his beliefs. Unfortunately, it is used to somehow insinuate that he will promote ID being taught in public schools. I see no evidence of this.

Will you deny that the Theory of Evolution is a theory @tom_g? Will you deny that it has been rewritten and modified countless times since its inception? Do you really want a president who takes a hard stance either way on something that has nothing to do with the ability to govern a nation? Who would be more likely that RP to allow the people of individual states decide for themselves what science they will or won’t accept?

And no, I have no desire to retract the statement about “science” and the science RP trusts and knows as fact every time he delivered a child into the world. He obviously relies on the proven science to assist him when and where it can. But he is not a scientist, and should not be held accountable to his depth or lack of scientific education when it comes to politics any more than any other candidate who simply regurgitates what they’ve been told is politically popular.

There seems to be a Ron Paul lovefest, keep the ‘love’ coming.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – I’m going to have to bow out of this discussion. Take that in any way you wish. I do not wish to teach you what a scientific theory is. And I don’t want to keep mentioning that I am more concerned about his anti-government/pro-corporate positions.

“Do you really want a president who takes a hard stance either way on something that has nothing to do with the ability to govern a nation?”
Hard stance? I’m not even following.

“Who would be more likely that RP to allow the people of individual states decide for themselves what science they will or won’t accept.”
That just about sums up my opposition to everything Ron Paul. States rights. The confusion among the US population that science is democratic.

”...and should not be held accountable to his depth or lack of scientific education when it comes to politics any more than any other candidate who simply regurgitates what they’ve been told is politically popular”

It’s 2011. In my opinion, we should have a scientifically-literate president. There are many important decisions that are informed by science. However, it’s not his scientific-illiteracy that concerns me about his position on science. A reasonable response by someone who isn’t familiar with modern biology would be to state that he has no opinion other than he accepts the science.

The theory of gravity is just a theory too, but you don’t see religous people throwing themselves off cliffs

Science may not be democratic, but it is certainly debatable. Therefor, the science you ask him to “accept” is debatable. Therefor, your problem with RP’s scientific knowledge is not so much that it is illiterate, but rather that it simply doesn’t coincide with your own.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – damn you ;) I have 5 minutes left before I leave work. I guess I lied that I am out…...

It’s not debatable. You go through the work of doing the science. If the science conflicts with existing science, it gets peer-reviewed, attempts to duplicate, etc. I don’t get to just stand on the corner and say that I have something interesting to say about cell physiology. I don’t know shit about that.

I’m sure Ron Paul accepts a ton of science that doesn’t conflict with his religion or views on corporate de-regulation.

Then why don’t all scientists agree how evolution actually operates?

Has RP ever suggested not teaching the Theory of E in schools as the current theory we have based on the best of our current knowledge?

Many theories that were once taught have been rejected or modified throughout the years. It doesn’t stop us from teaching them.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – I thought you were kidding for the sake of the RP argument. There is great debate – between scientists – of some of the specific mechanisms of how evolution works. here and here.

And other places too…

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: “Has RP ever suggested not teaching the Theory of E in schools as the current theory we have based on the best of our current knowledge?”

Again, I don’t think this is his main push. I wouldn’t be too concerned about it. But interpret this as you wish: Check out the Freedom of religion section.

I interpret it for what it actually says. And I have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever.

The problem of ignorance is never addressed by forcing people to believe something one way or another. It is addressed with insight, understanding, empathy, and access to quality education.

And if I’m not “too concerned about it” then many others will by continuing misrepresentation of RP’s position on these matters to specifically use it as a political pitfall. If it’s not such a big deal, then why do some make such a big deal out of it?

Palin.

I want Obama to continue.

Palin or Santorum.

Google Santorum to find out why, click on the first link!

Obama.

There is no other candidate than Ron Paul! : D

Well, there’s Palin @CaptainHarley!

[ Scowls @Dutchess_III ]

Voldemort.

@SavoirFaire He’s British. I heard he was running for parliament, though.

@incendiary_dan Bachmann is Canadian, but she’s still running for President. Oh, well… I’ll just have to watch the Dark Lord from across the pond.

How about this?

LMAO @jerv ! You nut! : P

Carl Sagan’s zombie supports Captain Harley for president? Cool.

Stand-up comedy and late-night television requires the blind visionary Sarah Palin.

@Dr_Lawrence That’s Sarah Palin® to you!

I never use the word gross. But it’s the only word that comes to mind when I see Palin’s face.

Massmedia-conditioned much? : )

Colin Powell. I hope he changes his mind and decides to run.

@mattbrowne – On which ticket? The Republicans aren’t likely to touch him with a 10’ pole.

@mattbrowne

Colin Powell… a man of honor and erudition. I’d work my ass off to get him elected… even sent him a letter and told him so, back when his name was being floated as a possibility.

He dropped out so quickly last time that it made me consider there might be secrets he didn’t want revealed by running. Perhaps secrets from the war that would turn is shining image muddy. He seems the type that wouldn’t risk his family for such scrutiny.

Keep in mind I’m not saying anything bad about Powell. It was just odd how he completely disappeared so quickly off the radar.

Sigh. Who knows.

When the real Republicans take their party back from the ultra-conservative forces, Colin Powell would fit in quite well. Yes, he’s a great guy. I read one of his impressive books.

Romey he seems most flexible.
Gingrich changes his find like the wind and lacks any trace of morality. The Videos on Youtube prove it.
Why do they accept the fact that he is a whore? They attacked Clinton for less.

@philosopher They attacked Clinton for being a Democrat. What form their attacks took was merely incidental.

guess who

@SavoirFaire
Which proves how irrational they are. All that should matter is that our nation does well.

@philosopher I’m not disagreeing. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t expect them to attack their own the way they attacked Clinton because the subjects for which they attacked him aren’t the reasons for which they attacked him. In other words, expect hypocrisy. Actually, that’s just a good slogan for politics in general: expect hypocrisy.

@SavoirFaire ”...that’s just a good slogan for politics in general: expect hypocrisy.”

One politician that I know seems to agree with you. He has a sign on his desk that says:
Don’t Steal… The Government Hates Competition

Sadly I am aware that you are correct.
What intelligent Americans should do is call both parties on the rhetoric.
Gingrich is an immoral pig. Obama has not been affective but he only had under four years. The R refuses to compromise and blocks everything.
I am disgusted by the extreme R and L. Truly intelligent people determine issues by documentation not hype, BS or party lines.
Many American’s are too lazy to evaluate the facts. They follow party lines like mindless sheep because that is what is easiest. This must change!!!!
I dislike Pelosi too. The extremist decide things in an irrational matter.
The Politicians all work for the benefit of the 1% wealthiest, the Lobbyist and those who fund their Campaigns. At the expense of the American Tax Paying, hard working Middle Class. If people do not comprehend this they are naive, dumb and beyond help.
I think this is why people are protesting and if the situation does not improve the protest will increase.
I hate violence but it appears that most Politicians are unwilling to change the way things are done. I think they will have too.