Poly's GOP Presidential Nominating Poll

[DinoDoc]

Of course, the intellectual argument would be: hey, look at how well things are going in Massachusetts since I signed that law.

Insurance premiums have gone up in Mass. faster than premiums in the US overall. You're also underestimating how unpopular Obamacare is among GOP voters.

[Al B. Sure!]

As far as I know, the ONLY GOP potential nominees who are most definitely not creationists are Romney and Giuliani. Sarah Palin is iffy. From what I've seen her say, this popular conception of her being a creationist may or may not be true.

[DinoDoc]

I also have a hard time believing both of those figures; as low an opinion as I have about Americans in general, and Americans who subscribe to one party or another in particular, those numbers seem awful high.

The last poll I saw said that 35% of Democrats were Truthers and 26% were unsure on the issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

[Guynemer]

We are truly ****ed as a nation.

[Al B. Sure!]

With regards to Palin, everything's iffy. She says one thing in front of one audience, another in front of another... At least on a national stage, the Katie Couric interview, she gave the right answer.

Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?
Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won't deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.

Interestingly enough, saw this:

“If she had been, ‘I am a creationist,’ she would not have been the nominee,” one former (McCain) aide said. “McCain wouldn’t have gone for that.”

So who knows with Palin? At least that's better than the straight up creationists like all these candidates except for Romney and Giuliani.

[Kitschum]

For a second there I thought it said Polish Presidential Nominating Poll which would have been a lot more interesting.

[giblets]

The last poll I saw said that 35% of Democrats were Truthers and 26% were unsure on the issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

Doesn't "truther" usually refer to people who think 9/11 was an inside job? The poll question doesn't say that.

[Heraclitus]

Believing in evolution demonstrates a belief in reason and science; a belief that is necessary for any societal progress, particularly from the oval office.

Atheist rightists have it hard, not just with demographics or popularity but with intellectual foundations in particular because of the bat **** insanity of academia and the social sciences in particular. Their only real bastions are a bit more clever than average Libertarians and some secular-but-I-think-Christianity-is-good-for-Western-civilization Paleocons. There is also the GNXP former Libertarian turned Conservative crowd, and they are intellectually intriguing, but you can't exactly put that on your resume.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Doesn't "truther" usually refer to people who think 9/11 was an inside job? The poll question doesn't say that.

Rasmussen maybe not, but the 51% number I reference derives from a poll in 2006 using the following question with 51% giving very likley or somewhat likely responses.

There are also accusations being made following the 9/11 terrorist attack. One of these is: People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.

http://www.newspolls.org/surveys/SHOH33

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...Bush_knew.html

[giblets]

Atheist rightists have it hard, not just with demographics or popularity but with intellectual foundations in particular because of the bat **** insanity of academia and the social sciences in particular. Their only real bastions are a bit more clever than average Libertarians and some secular-but-I-think-Christianity-is-good-for-Western-civilization Paleocons. There is also the GNXP former Libertarian turned Conservative crowd, and they are intellectually intriguing, but you can't exactly put that on your resume.

The problem for atheist rightists is that secular humanism supports center-left positions.

[Hauldren Collider]

We are truly ****ed as a nation.

Quit your damn griping, if we weren't ****ed under Nixon and Carter and we weren't ****ed during the Civil War and we weren't ****ed during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we aren't now. There's still plenty of time to right the wrongs with our present course and I'm confident that eventually it'll work out.

[Guynemer]

The idealism of youth. We sure as **** were ****ed during the Civil War; Nixon and Carter were merely mediocre Presidents; Cuba was a international policy issue.

What we are talking about here is that our two major parties can not even agree on what constitutes objective reality. So long as these complete *******s are leading this country, we are ****ed.

[giblets]

And whose conception of reality is closer to, well, objective reality...?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Why does it freakin matter? Both parties suck.

[Al B. Sure!]

Atheist rightists have it hard, not just with demographics or popularity but with intellectual foundations in particular because of the bat **** insanity of academia and the social sciences in particular. Their only real bastions are a bit more clever than average Libertarians and some secular-but-I-think-Christianity-is-good-for-Western-civilization Paleocons. There is also the GNXP former Libertarian turned Conservative crowd, and they are intellectually intriguing, but you can't exactly put that on your resume.

What the hell is GNXP? I googled it and it's some gene expression forum. Really, Heraclitus? You think everything's about genetics and biodiversity!

And it's not hopeless. We've had secular Republicans out there. John McCain got the nomination only a few years ago.

Remember during the GOP debate when Huckabee, Tancredo, and someone else were the only ones that said they didn't believe in evolution? It's looking like if they asked the same question later this year, everybody's going to raise their hands but Giuliani and Romney.

It's like the Party has gone backwards.