Is Rick Santorum's Religious Extremism a Deal Breaker for Voters?

  • News
  • Thread starter ThomasT
  • Start date
In summary: Apparently Rick thinks that scientists aren't moral and need to be "checked"He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.This inherent amorality of human constructs is why we need to regulate them. Businesses need to be constrained in what they can and cannot do. So does medical research, weapons research, and just about any other scientific research that unconstrained could adversely
  • #456
was that done by the daily show or the colber report

I was honestly expecting to hear an audience laughing at the end but... I didn't ;_;
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #457
lisab said:
Be very afraid!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApjHZq9o7M

Honestly, it's so bad, and so desperate, it's funny...in a ridiculous way, at least.

I like it. The Obamaville part at the end gives it a bit of a Twilight Zone feel.

I have to admit including a nuclear explosion (as the Daisy ad did) would make it better. Nuclear explosions always work in political ads. (In fact, even warning that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" even works in the 21st century.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4tKOWdux9I
 
  • #459
SHISHKABOB said:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/poli...d-rick-santorum-almost-call-pres-obama-n-word

I've tried my hardest, but I'm having a tough time thinking of some word that goes "nig-" that would fit after "anti-war"

anyways, what's wrong with being anti-war in the first place? Why is that something to frowned upon.

It's very clearly that word. He even starts stuttering afterwards, knowing he just sunk his candidacy.

Now we just have to start wondering who Romney will trot out for a VP, and if it'll be as vapid and depressing as the last one the Republican nominee picked. For Santorum, Bill Paxton said it best: Game over, man. Game over.
 
  • #460
Well, that's Santorum done. His advisers can't even deny it.
 
  • #461
Wow.

Santorum-"...We all know what Obama was like. The anti-war, government nig uh the fuh the uh..."

That's worse than his no welfare for blah people speech.
 
  • #462
skippy1729 said:
It is puzzling. If there are any "values voters" or "religious right" voters who don't already know where Rick stands on these issues they must be living under a rock. Yet he continues with statements that alienate many other Republicans and independents. Almost all Republicans would vote for him anyway but independents are the key.
Yes, that seems to be the case. It seems, and one can hope, that he's talked himself into nonelectable ... ness.
 
  • #463
lisab said:
Be very afraid!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApjHZq9o7M

Honestly, it's so bad, and so desperate, it's funny...in a ridiculous way, at least.
Yeah, it's hard for me to comprehend that tens of millions of Americans will buy into this stuff. But, apparently, that's the case.
 
  • #464
BobG said:
Nuclear explosions always work in political ads.
They didn't help Humphrey win. But it's obvious why Humphrey lost; his campaign slogan is ungrammatical.
 
  • #465
Char. Limit said:
Well, that's Santorum done. His advisers can't even deny it.

I've heard three hypotheses that could explain what he said.

Perhaps he was trying to add the Slavic ending -nik to government. You know, a governmentnik, like a peacenik or a beatnik.

Or, he started to say "negotiator" and realized that "negotiator" isn't really an insult, so he stopped.

One conservative blog said that he tripped over two separate words, one starting with an N and one starting with a G, and it's just an unfortunate coincidence that they were next to each other.

I don't really buy any of these explanations, but they're possibilities.
 
  • #466
There is a chance he was about to say the word "nig".

I don't think this slip was too consequential.

We already know that nearly all African American voters are not supporting him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #467
jduster said:
There is a chance he was about to say the word "nig".

I don't think this slip was too consequential.

We already know that nearly all African American voters are not supporting him.

Do you think only African Americans would be offended if he said nig?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #468
jduster said:
We already know that nearly all African American voters are not supporting him.
Source?
 
  • #469
Evo said:
Source?

CNN has plenty of voter exit polls from primary states.

The amount of African American voters that supported Santorum (or any of them) was so trace that a percentage could not be calculated in many cases.
 
  • #470
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asTPft2-RWw

I think he is serious.
 
  • #471
Santorum and I have this in common, neither one of us knows what he's talking about.

Here's an article by another member of the club.

The Daily Californian

In the article, they conjecture that he might be referring to a report by the California Association of Scholars which states that students at four UC campuses can

CAS said:
achieve a bachelor’s degree without doing any coursework in science, mathematics, a foreign language, economics, literature, or the history and institutions of their country. Those four include the Berkeley campus.

If so, he changed the meaning considerably when he said that the courses are not available. When I went to school at Rutgers in NJ, math and science majors were required to take 4 courses outside of math and science, but there was no requirement to take any specific course except English Composition 101. So technically, this quote covers my situation. However, the courses were available, just not required. For students in the humanities, they had a requirement of 4 courses in math and science. However, there was no individual requirement for math or for science so they could skip either one if they wanted.
 
  • #472
why would I take a course on USA history in college? I learned all that stuff in middle school and high school already. I feel as though Santorum has an odd view of why people go to universities. Er, well, actually I think that's definitely the case.
 
  • #473
  • #475
Rick Santorum, who rose in the polls thanks to enthusiastic support from Christian conservatives, faced pressure Sunday from a key Republican evangelical to end his increasingly long-shot White House bid.
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-cancels-campaign-events-sick-daughter-135456885.html

The rest of the party was not so enthusiastic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #476
phoenix:\\ said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asTPft2-RWw

I think he is serious.
He is serious, and seriously wrong. :rolleyes:

Minor requirement in History as UCSD - one of ten campuses.

HILD 2 A-B-C - United States History
HILD 7 A-B-C - Race and Ethnicity in the United States


Clearly Santorum is out of touch with reality.


Clearly the US can do without a president mired in fantasy.
 
  • #477
Astronuc said:
He is serious, and seriously wrong. :rolleyes:
...
Clearly the US can do without a president mired in fantasy.
I think you're correct. Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans don't agree with us. I might have to break my vow to not vote for Republicans or Democrats in order to help prevent Santorum and his ilk from becoming president.
 
  • #478
Astronuc said:
He is serious, and seriously wrong. :rolleyes:

Minor requirement in History as UCSD - one of ten campuses.

HILD 2 A-B-C - United States History
HILD 7 A-B-C - Race and Ethnicity in the United States Clearly Santorum is out of touch with reality.Clearly the US can do without a president mired in fantasy.
Politifac suggests Santorum was likely referring to the recent WSJ Berkowitz (board of National Assoc. of Scholars) article, which points out

Berkowitz said:
"None of the nine general campuses in the UC system requires students to study the history and institutions of the United States. None requires students to study Western civilization, and on seven of the nine UC campuses, including Berkeley, a survey course in Western civilization is not even offered."

So Santorum, as Politfac states, badly bungled the details on the stump. Is that the standard for being out of touch with reality? Should I bring up comparable blunders from Obama as a reality check?
 
Last edited:
  • #479
mheslep said:
Should I bring up comparable blunders from Obama as a reality check?
That's not a good idea (consider yourself warned). This thread is about Santorum's strengths and weaknesses, not Obama's.
 
  • #480
From the http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog11-12-21.htm#368767672_pgfId-998745 website:

American History and Institutions
The American History and Institutions requirement is based on the principle that a U.S. citizen attending an American university should understand the history and public institutions of the U.S. under the federal and state constitutions. Candidates for a bachelor’s degree must satisfy the American History and Institutions requirement by one of the following methods:

•Completing a year’s course in American history or American government, or a one-year combination of both, in high school with an average grade of B or better OR
•Completing anyone of the following UCLA courses with a grade of C or better, or a grade of Passed:
Afro-American Studies M158A, M158B, M158C, M158E
Asian American Studies M171D
Chicana and Chicano Studies M159A, M159B, M183
Economics 183
Geography 136
History 13A, 13B, 13C, 138A, 138B, 138C, 139A, 139B, 140A, 140B, 140C, 141A, 141B, 142A, 142B, 142C, 143A, 143B, 144, M144C, 145A, 145B, 146A through 146D, 147A through M147D, 149A, 149B, M150A through M150E, M151A, M151B, M151C, 152, 153, 154, M155, 156
Political Science 40, 114A, 114B, 140A, 140B, 140C, 142A, 143A, 143B, 145B, 145C, 146A
Equivalent courses completed in UCLA Extension or at another college institution, and accepted by the Board of Admissions, may be used to fulfill the requirement OR
•Presenting a satisfactory result of the requirement, by examination, as administered at another college or university within the state OR
•Scoring 500 or better on the SAT Subject Test in U.S. History OR
•Scoring 3, 4, or 5 on the College Board Advanced Placement Test in American History.
Candidates for an instructional credential, but not for a degree, must take one of the following courses: History 143A, 143B, Political Science 145B, or 145C.

Students attending the University on an F-1 or J-1 visa may petition for exemption from this requirement by showing proof of temporary residence in the U.S.

My guess is Santorum was referring to those that satisfy the requirement ina manner other than taking it at UCLA - but they still (supposedly) know the concepts and information, so why force them to learn it all over again? Hence, I conclude he's a tad loopy.
 
  • #481
D H said:
That's not a good idea (consider yourself warned). This thread is about Santorum's strengths and weaknesses, not Obama's.

I would say comparing Santorum's gaffes to Obama's gaffes wouldn't be a particularly thorough analysis of whether Santorum makes more gaffes than the average candidate, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

A better measure would be to take the number of gaffes all of the candidates make and then see if Santorum makes an above average number of gaffes, a below average number of gaffes, or makes about an average number of gaffes.

It's an evaluation that's impossible to make without referring to the gaffes of other candidates. (None the less, simply telling other posters to do the comparison themselves between one other candidate isn't a particularly strong statement, but I think the point that a conclusion can't be drawn from one example was clear.)

At least Santorum has yet to make the top 25 list for most embarrassing politician gaffes of this century. He still has a little bit of time left in which to raise his game, though.

And, http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-27/opinion/opinion_obeidallah-gaffes_1_president-obama-mitt-romney-eric-fehrnstrom?_s=PM:OPINION , even if a candidate's gaffes should be put into perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #482
Looking from the other side of the pond, this debate about the minutiae of degree requirements seems like a sideshow (how ever important it might seem to those inside the US education system).

For example the UK gets all this "general education" stuff out of the way as part of the national education curriculum up to age 16 (i.e. the age limit for compulsory schooling). After that, you specialize in whatever you want to specialize in.

The notion that if you went to Oxbridge to read math or science you would have to take courses in languages or history would seem completely nonsensical - to Brits.
 
  • #483
BobG said:
I would say comparing Santorum's gaffes to Obama's gaffes wouldn't be a particularly thorough analysis of whether Santorum makes more gaffes than the average candidate, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss Santorum, no one else. This thread isn't about comparing candidates. Each candidate has their own thread to discuss facts about them.
 
  • #484
daveb said:
From the http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog11-12-21.htm#368767672_pgfId-998745 website:



My guess is Santorum was referring to those that satisfy the requirement ina manner other than taking it at UCLA - but they still (supposedly) know the concepts and information, so why force them to learn it all over again? Hence, I conclude he's a tad loopy.
When does being wrong on the facts make someone loopy?
 
  • #485
AlephZero said:
Looking from the other side of the pond, this debate about the minutiae of degree requirements seems like a sideshow (how ever important it might seem to those inside the US education system).

For example the UK gets all this "general education" stuff out of the way as part of the national education curriculum up to age 16 (i.e. the age limit for compulsory schooling). After that, you specialize in whatever you want to specialize in.

The notion that if you went to Oxbridge to read math or science you would have to take courses in languages or history would seem completely nonsensical - to Brits.
Depends on the definition of general. My experience in US college, along side students raised abroad was that, though well prepared, they did not receive a substitute for a university level course.
 
  • #486
... has been suspended.
 
  • #487
I'm contemplating packing up and leaving the US with how much momentum he had. Not sure this is my country.
 
  • #488
Pythagorean said:
I'm contemplating packing up and leaving the US with how much momentum he had. Not sure this is my country.
I'll help you pack.
 
  • #490
Jimmy Snyder said:
I'll help you pack.

Hey, if enough of the right people leave, Santorum could be the president of 2012 elections.
 

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
9
Replies
293
Views
34K
News Politics - playing the religious card
3
Replies
74
Views
9K
News Can Religious Institutions Discriminate in Hiring Practices?
2
Replies
64
Views
7K
News What Are the Consequences of the Debt Deal for the US Economy?
Replies
27
Views
4K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
29
Replies
1K
Views
91K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
In The United States Today Science, Is Under Attack As Never Before
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
9K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
Replies
6
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top