Register to reply

Rick Santorum's candidacy ...

by ThomasT
Tags: candidacy, rick, santorum
Share this thread:
ThomasT
#1
Jan5-12, 09:31 PM
P: 1,414
Another of the current frontrunners in the GOP race. Anything you want to say about Santorum. Would you vote for him? Do you like anything about him? Etc.

My current opinion is that he seems to be a fanatical fundamental Christian extremist. So, being an atheist myself, I wouldn't vote for him. Hopefully this thread will enable me and others to learn more about this candidate.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Scientists develop 'electronic nose' for rapid detection of C. diff infection
Why plants in the office make us more productive
Tesla Motors dealing as states play factory poker
Evo
#2
Jan5-12, 09:36 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,552
Well, he did well in Iowa due to the Evangelical endorsement. He has the Reality TV breeding rabbits The Duggars endorsing him.

Is he a flash in the pan? The media says the Evangelical endorsement won't travel far.
ThomasT
#3
Jan5-12, 09:44 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Well, he did well in Iowa due to the Evangelical endorsement. He has the Reality TV breeding rabbits The Duggars endorsing him.

Is he a flash in the pan? The media says the Evangelical endorsement won't travel far.
The media seems to want Romney, so far. Whether the Evangelical endorsement might be a deciding factor is arguable -- but, Americans did elect G.W. Bush to two terms, so ...

lisab
#4
Jan5-12, 10:23 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,990
Rick Santorum's candidacy ...

Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
The media seems to want Romney, so far. Whether the Evangelical endorsement might be a deciding factor is arguable -- but, Americans did elect G.W. Bush to two terms, so ...
I really think the party bosses cringe at the notion of a Santorum candidacy. Now I admit I'm not following the race very closely, but I did see that McCain has endorsed Romney. I bet in the next few weeks several more mainstream Republicans will do the same, as the party tries to sway the undecideds towards Romney.

OTOH, after New Hampshire there is South Carolina...I think it's very possible Santorum could smoke Romney there.
KingNothing
#5
Jan6-12, 01:43 AM
P: 949
I think Rick Santorum will be gone fairly quickly. It was one caucus, and he was basically tied for first (what was it, 9 votes behind?). In a month most people will think he's crazy. I already do.

I am making a killing off these elections. Seriously, a lot of money. I already put $1000 to win ~$300 on Herman Cain not getting nominated, and about the same for Gingrich and about ~$150 on Bachmann. Meanwhile I got Obama winning @ even odds a while back and put $5k on him.

Yes, I do bet on politics. By far (and I mean FAR) the most lucrative betting I've ever done.
daveb
#6
Jan6-12, 07:28 AM
P: 925
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
I think it's very possible Santorum could smoke Romney there.
I don't think Santorum would do that simply because Santorum doesn't seem the type to roll Romney into a large piece of paper and light him up.
turbo
#7
Jan6-12, 07:32 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Santorum has problems. I won't link them here, but he has been behind many of the things that he claims to be against. Any of these will kill his candidacy vs Romney. Romney is the GOP candidate, IMO. If the Republicans don't learn to accept him, Obama has a second term.
Ryan_m_b
#8
Jan6-12, 08:19 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,473
Apparently Rick thinks that scientists aren't moral and need to be "checked"
D H
#9
Jan6-12, 08:44 AM
Mentor
P: 15,170
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
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 impact us. The inherent amorality of human constructs applies to just about everything humans do as a group per Reinhold Niebuhr. His thinking has influenced a number of American politicians -- including both of the main contenders in the 2008 presidential election.
Jack21222
#10
Jan6-12, 08:45 AM
P: 772
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Another of the current frontrunners in the GOP race. Anything you want to say about Santorum. Would you vote for him? Do you like anything about him? Etc.

My current opinion is that he seems to be a fanatical fundamental Christian extremist. So, being an atheist myself, I wouldn't vote for him. Hopefully this thread will enable me and others to learn more about this candidate.
I agree with your current opinion.

Santorum also opposes contraception. ALL forms of contraception. I can almost understand being opposed to Plan B, and I can certainly understand opposition to RU486, but being opposed to contraception in general? It boggles the mind.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011...-to-do-things/

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”
D H
#11
Jan6-12, 08:59 AM
Mentor
P: 15,170
In the same vein,
(CNN) - Potential 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the "abortion culture" in America is to blame for the failing Social Security system.
In short, young American women are getting busy and then getting abortions instead of getting busy birthing the future taxpayers needed to keep Social Security afloat.

See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...cial-security/ for the full article.
Ryan_m_b
#12
Jan6-12, 09:24 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,473
Quote Quote by D H View Post
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.
Science isn't really amoral, biomedical research especially isn't considering it is done to better people's quality of life and to save lives. To say that scientists just go off and do whatever they want is utterly stupid, bioethics is a massive part of modern biology and biomedical research. What he is suggesting is that no scientist is thinking of the consequences and are committing immoral research because of their amorality, hidden subtext being that they aren't agreeing with his religions dogma.
Quote Quote by disregardthat View Post
What's he's saying here is not any more extreme than what any animal right's group would say. He did say he talked in particular about the scientists who are doing animal studies and harming animals in the process.
I wasn't referring to the animal rights stuff, all medicines are tested on animals because for the moment we have no other way. What he is trying to do here is shut down research like stem cell research because his religion (and by extension the voters who share his religion) deem it to be sinful and he's presenting it in a way that portrays researchers as amoral mad scientists who don't think of the consequences of their actions.
Jack21222
#13
Jan6-12, 10:02 AM
P: 772
Quote Quote by D H View Post
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 impact us. The inherent amorality of human constructs applies to just about everything humans do as a group per Reinhold Niebuhr. His thinking has influenced a number of American politicians -- including both of the main contenders in the 2008 presidential election.
You just said two different things in your post. You said "He said [scientists] are amoral." You then said that human constructs can be amoral, including science.

There is a difference between scientists and science. Santorum said (as did you at first) that scientists are amoral. As in, the people. The human beings themselves, not the "human construct" of science, as you put it. I find this to be highly offensive. You cannot let a few bad people who happen to also be scientists paint the rest of us.
NeoDevin
#14
Jan6-12, 01:00 PM
P: 687
Google "santorum" and read the first result.
russ_watters
#15
Jan6-12, 01:13 PM
Mentor
P: 22,300
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Science isn't really amoral, biomedical research especially isn't considering it is done to better people's quality of life and to save lives. To say that scientists just go off and do whatever they want is utterly stupid, bioethics is a massive part of modern biology and biomedical research.
I guess I would have thought "bioethics" was created to deal with moral issues surrounding research because the research itself is amoral.

So whether reseach results in inventions that betters lives or kills people doesn't mean the work contains moral considerations. Scientific discovery is about finding knowledge, regardless of where it might lead. Placing constraints on it for reasons of morality is unscientific at face value.
russ_watters
#16
Jan6-12, 01:18 PM
Mentor
P: 22,300
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
There is a difference between scientists and science. Santorum said (as did you at first) that scientists are amoral. As in, the people. The human beings themselves, not the "human construct" of science, as you put it. I find this to be highly offensive....
I think you are making something out of nothing: I think Santorum was talking about the work, not the people and was just being sloppy with the wording.
D H
#17
Jan6-12, 01:19 PM
Mentor
P: 15,170
Amoral ≠ immoral.
russ_watters
#18
Jan6-12, 01:25 PM
Mentor
P: 22,300
Quote Quote by D H View Post
Amoral ≠ immoral.
Not necessarily, but an amoral persom might do something a moral person finds immoral because they didn't consider the moral implications. Bioethics was created to keep scientists from crossing that line, for that reason.

You don't spend a lot of time in ethics classes examining cases where people acted ethically.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Mitt Romney's candidacy Current Events 735
Rick Steves' Europe: Iran Current Events 4
Consider yourself Rick Roll'd General Discussion 20
Vote Rick James! General Discussion 6