imo, it's an automatic disqualifier. however it is further evidence that the GOP may not be interested in distancing itself from its Evangelical base. i highly doubt that Rubio actually believes in a young earth, but his reluctance to plainly discuss a scientific fact for fear of alienating himself from the loons that he wants to vote for him means that he is unqualified for the highest office in the land.
If the GOP intends to pull themselves back from a rightward shift unprecedented in their history, then Rubio is NOT the answer for 2016! When a political party courts a non-scientifically educated audience like this, all it does is magnify their irrelevance.
Can we all grow up now and acknowledge once and for all that two plus two does indeed equal four???
you just know he's their great "brown hope". and if not him, who? Jindal? despite his recent moderate rhetoric, Jindal is as right wing as any of them. to me, only Chris Christie is even remotely electable given the names that have been floated for '16. and his party is still sore at him for, you know, actually working with the President. so that leaves Jeb Bush, and frankly, i can't imagine that the electorate is prepared for another President Bush. or maybe Paul Ryan? which seems laughable right now.
On of the things I found fascinating in the post-mortem of the election was everyone talking about the changing demographics of the US. Watching Bill Maher last Friday, one of the guests was an Hispanic lady who campaigned for Romney. She made a telling statement regarding Romney's post-election comment about President Obama winning because of all of his "freebie give aways." She stated she was done with Romney forever.
If the GOP is to remain relevant, they need to grow a backbone - not dissimilar to Barry Goldwater who openly despised and ridiculed the evangelicals like Jerry Falwell. If they're going to garner more than just a base of scared, old, anti-scientific, and religious white people, they need someone to come out and espouse such facts, as Loren said, that 2+2 really does equal 4, the earth is more than 6,000 years old, not everyone has the sexual orientation of Anita Bryant, and there are a lot of patriotic Americans whose skin color has deeper tones than Mitch McConnell.
i saw that too, Pat. i call bullshit on her comment though. had this come out 2 weeks before the election she would have been defending Romney to the bitter end. it's easy to throw dirt on a dead guy.
i agree with the rest of what you wrote. problem is, i'm not sure they can do anything about it. they've cemented their place as the party of dumb, and there are far too many of their supporters who agree with the dumb/religious shit. they'd have to completely reverse so many of their deeply held beliefs that it just isn't feasible in 4 short years. maybe in the long haul they will, but it's gonna take some time and a lot more losses before it happens.
Point well taken, about her supporting Romney 2 weeks before the election. You're correct in that it's easy to beat up a dead guy after the coroner has made his pronouncement - even if the body burps.
What concerns me is having a rational, and loyal, opposition. I'm not necessarily married to everything the Democrats say. And, I do think something seriously needs to be done about the economy. On that particular point, one could say I'm somewhat conservative, agreeing with Ron Paul on one point (NO, I have not gone batshit looney and agree with him on everything). That point being, if you're going to start cutting, start with Eisenhower's warning about the military/industrial complex. And, I'm a veteran!
But, the current GOP reminds of the old story of Edgar Allan Poe, The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether. The inmates of the insane asylum are running the institution.
Someone is bound to remind you of this, but I might as well bring it up. When the full catastrophic lot was onstage at a debate, all GOPS, except John McCain, told the questioner that they did not believe in the theory of evolution. McCain had to spin it by saying he believed in evolution, but he also believed in glorious sunsets at mountain lakes, and -- i.e. he waltzed poetic with that sappy grin he sometimes wears. In other words, he fence-straddled. But the fact that about seven other GOP candidates (including Santorum, of course) told the moderator they did NOT accept the theory of evolution is just astonishingly bad. People the world over are laughing at us. And their answers, of course, identify them as -- you guessed it -- Creationists.
this was tantamount to the Nazi's denying the theory of relativity because they didn't like the "race" of its author.
someone came to his defense. and sounded like an ignorant ass in the process. go figure.
The difference between the atheist and secular set on the left and even the right is that while they and I can think the Earth is billions of years old and they and I can think there was a big bang starting it all, we really do not know for sure and they absolutely do not know what came before the big bang. But I do. Erick Erickson
There is one other item you failed to mention regarding the difference between you and I. Your ignorance, coupled with your insufferable and dangerous arrogance, in asserting absolute knowledge of something which is not (yet) known. To put it another way, you have faith. Faith being defined as a blind and unquestionable belief in something for which there is no evidence, no proof, nor any basis for belief in the real and rational world. I don't have faith, because I'm not a fucking idiot!
faith also lets you evade all accountability for your wrongdoings since you do not believe there are objective facts about things.
can you imagine be governed by this right wing fascist twerp who hates nonbelievers so much he can’t even say the word secular?