PDA

View Full Version : Christie/Rubio 2012



JohnnyMack
9/27/2011, 10:01 AM
You heard it here first.

http://www.uncoverage.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/chris-christie-.jpg

sappstuf
9/27/2011, 10:04 AM
I'm not even sure I would care who was at the top of that ticket.

SoonerMom2
9/27/2011, 10:12 AM
Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen so according to the Constitution he is not eligible and I support Rubio. His parents became naturalized citizens after he was born. They had to be naturalized citizens before he was born in order to qualify. Anyone born with dual citizenship, except Obama, is not qualified to be President. Zero got an exemption since he was part black and no one wanted to be called a racist by saying he was not eligible to run.

It is amazing to see so many places pushing him. Maybe the Constitution doesn't mean anything to reporters and pundits.

Midtowner
9/27/2011, 10:27 AM
Ah yes... the next big thing.

So far, "generic Republican" is beating all of the other potential Republican up and comers. Not the greatest sign.

diegosooner
9/27/2011, 10:41 AM
Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen so according to the Constitution he is not eligible and I support Rubio. His parents became naturalized citizens after he was born. They had to be naturalized citizens before he was born in order to qualify. Anyone born with dual citizenship, except Obama, is not qualified to be President. Zero got an exemption since he was part black and no one wanted to be called a racist by saying he was not eligible to run.

It is amazing to see so many places pushing him. Maybe the Constitution doesn't mean anything to reporters and pundits.

If he was born in Miami, he is a natural born citizen. His parents citizenships are irrelevant. But I suspect you were joking.

diegosooner
9/27/2011, 10:43 AM
nm

TitoMorelli
9/27/2011, 10:57 AM
Ah yes... the next big thing.

So far, "generic Republican" is beating all of the other potential Republican up and comers. Not the greatest sign.

If this country doesn't get back on the upswing economically in the next ten months, a generic canker sore will poll better than our president, and any of the "non-generic" republican candidates will still be more than enough to unseat him.

Midtowner
9/27/2011, 01:04 PM
If this country doesn't get back on the upswing economically in the next ten months, a generic canker sore will poll better than our president, and any of the "non-generic" republican candidates will still be more than enough to unseat him.

That may be your hope, but if you trot out extremists like the Republicans have, the middle will go back to Obama, who has governed from the center.

badger
9/27/2011, 01:12 PM
What I want to know is what 5-0's signature will have to say about this :D

okie52
9/27/2011, 01:56 PM
That may be your hope, but if you trot out extremists like the Republicans have, the middle will go back to Obama, who has governed from the center.

The center?...maybe left center.

TitoMorelli
9/27/2011, 02:14 PM
That may be your hope, but if you trot out extremists like the Republicans have, the middle will go back to Obama, who has governed from the center.

Oddly enough, unless there is a huge shake-up in the primary race between now and next summer, Romney will be the nominee for that party of right-wing extremists. Not exactly the poster boy for the lunatic fringe, now is he? Of course a lot can happen between now and mid-2012, and the candidates with the more energized base, and that's often the one farther from the center, usually have an advantage.

Who btw was farther to the left in the 2008 Dem primary, Obama or Clinton? Seems to me that the extremist got the nod.

Of course, Obama veered toward the center until after the general election. But if promoting programs such as crap and trade and appointing czars such as Van Jones = governing from the center, I'd surely hate to see someone actually governing from the left.

Midtowner
9/27/2011, 02:21 PM
And if we elect Romney, I don't imagine much will change.

TitoMorelli
9/27/2011, 03:43 PM
And if we elect Romney, I don't imagine much will change.

Probably not, or with any of the others.

Midtowner
9/27/2011, 03:56 PM
I could see Perry invading Mexico or something crazy like that.

I might even vote for Romney over Obama.

okie52
9/27/2011, 04:15 PM
Perry would open the door to Mexico rather than fight them....anyone that will give instate tuition to illegals isn't looking to get rid of them.

diverdog
9/27/2011, 04:18 PM
You heard it here first.

http://www.uncoverage.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/chris-christie-.jpg

Christie won't run for POTUS.

OhU1
9/27/2011, 07:35 PM
Not enough time for 2012.
2016.

Hell, big Chris hasn't even served a full term as Governor yet. Yeah I know Obama didn't do anything beforehand either experience-wise which is not a good argument for other inexperienced pols if you're claiming Obama is ill equipped.

Put up a Repub who puts reason before religion and woo-woo and I'll vote for him. Put up Perry or another anti-science evangelical and I'll stay home or even vote for that "hope and change" guy.

MR2-Sooner86
9/27/2011, 08:41 PM
Not going to happen.

sheepdogs
9/27/2011, 09:40 PM
And if we elect Romney, I don't imagine much will change.

Change will occur when the Office of the Presidency is alligned with congress and not until then. The change might not be positive, but it's not going to happen until what was stated occurs.

TitoMorelli
9/27/2011, 11:55 PM
Not enough time for 2012.
2016.

Hell, big Chris hasn't even served a full term as Governor yet. Yeah I know Obama didn't do anything beforehand either experience-wise which is not a good argument for other inexperienced pols if you're claiming Obama is ill equipped.

Put up a Repub who puts reason before religion and woo-woo and I'll vote for him. Put up Perry or another anti-science evangelical and I'll stay home or even vote for that "hope and change" guy.

So what is closer to an unquestioned religious belief, that anthropogenic climate change is absolutely settled science, or that there is room and reason for doubt?

Responsible science shouldn't declare something to be settled unless it's as closed a case as the earth being round. Or nothing being faster than the speed of light...oops.

Midtowner
9/28/2011, 06:42 AM
You misunderstand science. Science is a mere paper or two away from turning on a dime on what is "settled" and there are always people trying to disprove it. The big difference is that science relies on evidence. Dogma relies on unquestioning loyalty to a belief which is often completely disproved by the evidence.

http://thesuperjesus.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/science-v-religion.jpg?w=510

sappstuf
9/28/2011, 09:26 AM
You misunderstand science. Science is a mere paper or two away from turning on a dime on what is "settled" and there are always people trying to disprove it. The big difference is that science relies on evidence. Dogma relies on unquestioning loyalty to a belief which is often completely disproved by the evidence.

http://thesuperjesus.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/science-v-religion.jpg?w=510

Didn't you hear? Global warming is incontrovertible. How could it be disproved if it is incontrovertible? Just to make the conversation clear, let us define incontrovertible: not controvertible; not open to question or dispute; indisputable.

That is the stance of the American Physcial Society. They say "the observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C)". Can you imagine the complexity of capturing and putting the data together for the entire earth over a period of 150 years and being 100% sure that the temperature of the earth has changed 1 degree fahrenheit??

Now imagine that when we started, we hadn't even discovered electricity yet and for probably 90% of the surface of earth people were not capturing data or if they were records were lost... But they say the evidence is incontrovertible..

Honestly, does that sound like science or dogma?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EgXqKP0XKGM/SxWlGOP3vHI/AAAAAAAABT4/eEPltcDL8P0/s400/Global+Warming+Fool-Aid.jpg

sappstuf
9/28/2011, 09:47 AM
So what is closer to an unquestioned religious belief, that anthropogenic climate change is absolutely settled science, or that there is room and reason for doubt?

Responsible science shouldn't declare something to be settled unless it's as closed a case as the earth being round. Or nothing being faster than the speed of light...oops.

That reminds me of a joke I heard..


The bartender says, "Hey neutrinos aren't allowed in here!".

A neutrino walks into a bar.

East Coast Bias
9/28/2011, 09:49 AM
Interesting that the Republicans are still trying to find a palatable candidate that can win the upcoming election. Christy would not survive the vetting process anymore than any of these other candidates. Everyone knows that Obama will be a very formidable candidate and what he does best is in the political arena. It looks to me that Romney will be the candidate and maybe he can court the "crazys" and the main stream crowd as well. His liability still is that he is a Mormon and the Party of God,Guns, and Gays will never feel comfortable with that.......

TitoMorelli
9/28/2011, 11:01 AM
Interesting that the Republicans are still trying to find a palatable candidate that can win the upcoming election. Christy would not survive the vetting process anymore than any of these other candidates. Everyone knows that Obama will be a very formidable candidate and what he does best is in the political arena. It looks to me that Romney will be the candidate and maybe he can court the "crazys" and the main stream crowd as well. His liability still is that he is a Mormon and the Party of God,Guns, and Gays will never feel comfortable with that.......

So I guess anyone who votes for a conservative just has to be a Bible-thumping gay-bashing gun-toting neanderthal who will never vote for a Mormon? You'd be surprised how few people will let that affect their vote, when it comes down to any opponent vs the current president. What will motivate many to vote GOP is their preference for a candidate who acts and speaks as if he loves this country, as opposed to one who acts and speaks as if he is ashamed of it. and who after two years doesn't dare run upon his record in office.

And plenty of moderates, and yes, Democrats, will support Romney or whoever gets the nod, for the same reasons.

Midtowner
9/28/2011, 12:27 PM
Didn't you hear? Global warming is incontrovertible. How could it be disproved if it is incontrovertible? Just to make the conversation clear, let us define incontrovertible: not controvertible; not open to question or dispute; indisputable.

That is the stance of the American Physcial Society. They say "the observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C)". Can you imagine the complexity of capturing and putting the data together for the entire earth over a period of 150 years and being 100% sure that the temperature of the earth has changed 1 degree fahrenheit??

Now imagine that when we started, we hadn't even discovered electricity yet and for probably 90% of the surface of earth people were not capturing data or if they were records were lost... But they say the evidence is incontrovertible..

Honestly, does that sound like science or dogma?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EgXqKP0XKGM/SxWlGOP3vHI/AAAAAAAABT4/eEPltcDL8P0/s400/Global+Warming+Fool-Aid.jpg

Scientific fact is scientific fact, at least until it's proven wrong. I'd rather err on the side of general consensus in the scientific community rather than what coal industry publicists want us to believe. As for global climate change, Ithere's a lot more empirical data out there besides historical temperature readings.

JohnnyMack
9/28/2011, 12:29 PM
Scientific fact is scientific fact, at least until it's proven wrong. I'd rather err on the side of general consensus in the scientific community rather than what coal industry publicists want us to believe. As for global climate change, Ithere's a lot more empirical data out there besides historical temperature readings.

Like what CERN discovered with their CLOUD study? Was that done by the coal industry?

Midtowner
9/28/2011, 12:32 PM
Like what CERN discovered with their CLOUD study? Was that done by the coal industry?

Did Einstein have a billion dollar/year motive to lie about his theory of relativity?

sappstuf
9/28/2011, 12:54 PM
Scientific fact is scientific fact, at least until it's proven wrong. I'd rather err on the side of general consensus in the scientific community rather than what coal industry publicists want us to believe. As for global climate change, Ithere's a lot more empirical data out there besides historical temperature readings.

You seem to be missing the point, almost intentionally I think. Their position is that it is incontrovertible.. It cannot ever be proven wrong because it isn't even open for discussion.

Is that what science is about?

OhU1
9/28/2011, 12:57 PM
It looks to me that Romney will be the candidate and maybe he can court the "crazys" and the main stream crowd as well. His liability still is that he is a Mormon and the Party of God,Guns, and Gays will never feel comfortable with that.......

Yep. I have a good friend who is a conservative member of the legislature. When I told him Perry was a "no go" for me because he wants creationism taught in public schools he admonished me that I should be more tolerant and understanding of those "with doubt" about the "unproven theory" of evolution.

Later in the conversation he told me "anyone but Romney". It bothered him that Romney is Mormon. I found my friend's tolerance angle to be somewhat confused, but I don't think he is alone by any means.

In past elections I got to hear "Joe the Jew" in the Bush/Gore election cycle by other folk here in Oklahoma. Religious prejudice is alive and well. Mine is against fundy evangelicals when it comes to public office but they are the majority here so I hardly think they are an oppressed group. :)

Midtowner
9/28/2011, 01:01 PM
You seem to be missing the point, almost intentionally I think. Their position is that it is incontrovertible.. It cannot ever be proven wrong because it isn't even open for discussion.

Is that what science is about?

I'm not sure what some advocacy group's opinion about climate change has to do with the price of tea in China. Things are always open for discussion in the scientific community, but right now, that man is a cause for climate change is the scientific consensus based on a lot more than just historical temperature data. No scientific position is unassailable, but if you're making policy, better to rely on the best science has to offer currently than to rely on what entities with massive profit motives want you to believe.

JohnnyMack
9/28/2011, 01:32 PM
Did Einstein have a billion dollar/year motive to lie about his theory of relativity?

What? How does that relate at all to CERN's findings?

NormanPride
9/28/2011, 02:20 PM
Because, y'know. Oil money. And stuff.

Oil on the money makes it slick, which means it doesn't stick to stuff like the ozone and co2. And that stuff is bad. So there you go.

Midtowner
9/28/2011, 02:24 PM
Who had a vested financial interest in it being a belief in physics that you couldn't go past the speed of light? Probably no one.

Who has a vested financial interest in us believing that greenhouse gasses are vitamins? Lots of folks.

NormanPride
9/28/2011, 02:28 PM
But CERN isn't one of those groups.

Midtowner
9/28/2011, 02:30 PM
But CERN isn't one of those groups.

No, CERN is where they got particles to go faster than the speed of light.

You're not so good at analogies are you?

JohnnyMack
9/28/2011, 02:41 PM
No, CERN is where they got particles to go faster than the speed of light.

You're not so good at analogies are you?

Do you know what the CLOUD study is?

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

Your argument is overly simplistic and not unexpectedly dichotomous.

NormanPride
9/28/2011, 02:41 PM
No ****?

Midtowner
9/28/2011, 04:00 PM
Wasn't familiar with the CLOUD study, but the FTL study was also a recent CERN innovation which turned some of Einstein's theories on their head. And when science learns it's wrong, it reverses course. When religion learns it's wrong, it typically doubles down on its insanity, e.g., Galileo or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

OhU1
9/28/2011, 04:28 PM
Re the CERN speed of light result, the media and public is jumping to a conclusion that scientist themselves have not reached. Bottom line so far is the researchers have reported a result and how they reached it. They are trying to find out if there were flaws in how they reached the measurement and if the data is sound. If it is, then the analysis of what that data means will follow.

No scientific conclusion is based on any single study or experiment. The CERN data is very intriguing but it is not conclusive of anything including whether the speed of light has been exceeded.

Midtowner
9/28/2011, 04:40 PM
My only point is that the CERN folks are just doing science. They could GAS about the outcome except that the outcome is correct.

Oil and coal industry executives on the other hand have a vested financial interest in lying. It's very simple.

TitoMorelli
9/28/2011, 04:52 PM
Oil and coal industry executives on the other hand have a vested financial interest in lying. It's very simple.

And universities and climate scientists don't? Are you that naive?

JohnnyMack
9/28/2011, 05:30 PM
My only point is that the CERN folks are just doing science. They could GAS about the outcome except that the outcome is correct.

Oil and coal industry executives on the other hand have a vested financial interest in lying. It's very simple.

That's a much better reply than asserting that anyone who disproves global warming has a financial incentive behind it.

TitoMorelli
9/28/2011, 08:20 PM
So you don't think that the millions of dollars being awarded for environmental research isn't incentive for those individuals and university departments to err on the side that will fatten their coffers, much less outright fabricate or alter data?


(see previous rhetorical question)

JohnnyMack
9/28/2011, 08:54 PM
So you don't think that the millions of dollars being awarded for environmental research isn't incentive for those individuals and university departments to err on the side that will fatten their coffers, much less outright fabricate or alter data?


(see previous rhetorical question)

Cancer is big business after all.

Midtowner
9/28/2011, 09:57 PM
So you don't think that the millions of dollars being awarded for environmental research isn't incentive for those individuals and university departments to err on the side that will fatten their coffers, much less outright fabricate or alter data?


(see previous rhetorical question)

Except we expect oil and coal industries to lie their asses off. On the other hand, if universities are conducting fraudulent research, that spigot's going to run dry post haste. We're talking accountability versus zero accountability.

soonercoop1
10/3/2011, 05:30 PM
Take Christie off and you have a winner...

JohnnyMack
10/4/2011, 10:03 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/04/christie-to-hold-press-conference/?hpt=hp_t2

Christie not running according to this.

sappstuf
10/4/2011, 10:10 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/04/christie-to-hold-press-conference/?hpt=hp_t2

Christie not running according to this.

Of course he isn't running.. I bet he can barely jog.