Rick Santorum's candidacy

  • 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
  • #421
That should lock up the hypocrite vote pretty tight.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #422
Evo said:
Seriously? And what is his definition of pornography, scantily clad women? ...
He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

Santorum Website said:
Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
 
  • #423
Hobin said:
I'm not from the USA, but surely there aren't that many people who agree with Santorum on this one? Or am I underestimating the anti-pornography movement in America?

I'm sure there are lots who would agree with him, while they're in church. But in the privacy of their own homes...:wink:
 
  • #424
mheslep said:
He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.
There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

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

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.
 
Last edited:
  • #425
mheslep said:
He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.
 
  • #426
Char. Limit said:
Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition.
Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.
Why? Did you read my prior post?
 
  • #427
Evo said:
There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

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

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

But just think how many jobs will be created by trying to enforce a law against hardcore porn! We'd create a Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices*, which would soon be bigger than the TSA, commensurate with the "problem" it's trying to solve.

* if "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices" doesn't ring a bell - google it.
 
  • #428
mheslep said:
Graphic depiction of sex.

That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.
 
  • #429
lisab said:
That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.
Eh, not graphic. R doesn't show genitals doing their thing.
 
  • #430
mheslep said:
Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?
Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?

Char. Limit said:
Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.
You still haven't answered Char's request.
 
  • #431
Evo said:
Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?
The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.
 
  • #432
mheslep said:
The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.

There's a nice difference between forum rules and federal law - namely, that good federal law HAS to be exact. Vague federal laws aren't good federal laws. You can't say the same about forum rules.
 
  • #433
Evo said:
You still haven't answered Char's request.
From before...
mheslep said:
... He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.
 
  • #434
mheslep said:
Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

As much as I value the PF rules, they do not make a legal document. Hence, they don't really need exact definitions.

Since you are talking about an actual law, then you DO need an exact definition. Can you give us the exact definition??
 
  • #435
mheslep said:
The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.
Still waiting for the federal law Santorum is referring to that makes "hardcore porn" illegal.

mheslep said:
He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.
From the links I posted, apparently it is not true. There are vague guidelines for obscenity that is determined at the local/state level. I can't find anything more specific. Maybe Santorum doesn't know the law? You'd think he might have wanted to check that before he made claims.

Seems like he's handed the nomination over to Romney, IMO. Unless more of Santorum's followers would back Newt, I guess that's possible. What a mess if it comes to that, IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #436
Char. Limit said:
There's a nice difference between forum rules and federal law - namely, that good federal law HAS to be exact. Vague federal laws aren't good federal laws.
Agreed, if you substitute 'clear', or widely and easily understood, instead of exact. I don't think the laws should be on the books, especially these laws, if they are not.

...You can't say the same about forum rules.
I'd say that about any set of rules.
 
  • #437
mheslep said:
Agreed, if you substitute 'clear', or widely and easily understood, instead of exact. I don't think the laws should be on the books, especially these laws, if they are not.

No. Laws absolutely need to be exact. Since if they're not exact, then they're vague and up to interpretation. We don't want this.
 
  • #438
Evo said:
There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

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

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.
 
  • #439
SixNein said:
Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.

Please state the specific law.
 
  • #440
  • #441
SixNein said:
And obscenity laws depend on the local community.

So you mean that federal government can't do anything about it. So Santorum can't do anything about porn when he gets elected?
So Santorum is lying?? Is that what you say?
 
  • #443
micromass said:
So you mean that federal government can't do anything about it. So Santorum can't do anything about porn when he gets elected?
So Santorum is lying?? Is that what you say?

He could appoint someone who can enforce it. In other words, bring a lot of cases against internet web sites... in hopefully, very conservative and highly religious communities.
 
  • #444
I'm surprised people are surprised. The bush admin made a law (2257 law) where all photographers of sexually explicit material must provide ID's of the models to all buyers of the content. In other words, webmasters buy it, and they get photo ID's too. Imo, it creates a security hazard for the women because anyone pretending to be a webmaster could buy those photos and get the ID's online.

I'm surprised women in America even do it now for fear of being stalked or having their identities stolen. They take a huge risk... but they are mostly young.
 
  • #445
SixNein said:
Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.
The point is that the words "hardcore porn" aren't used in any laws and has no legal meaning. Attempts to federally enforce prosecution of what someone thinks is "obscene" get's thrown out due to not being specific. Santorum said he will appoint an Attorney General just to enforce a vague law on a federal level according to his interpretation? (my opinion of what he's claiming)

(bolding mine)
 
  • #446
Evo said:
The point is that the words "hardcore porn" aren't used in any laws and has no legal meaning. Attempts to federally enforce prosecution of what someone thinks is "obscene" get's thrown out due to not being specific. Santorum said he will appoint an Attorney General just to enforce a vague law on a federal level according to his interpretation? (my opinion of what he's claiming)

(bolding mine)

Well yes and no. Hardcore porn generally involves penetration of some kind; as a result, it is a candidate for obscenity. Just ask Larry Flynt. He almost got 25 years for his mag. In fact, he was sentenced to twenty five years, but got off due to a technicality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt#Legal_battles

The chilling effect alone would kill half the sites. Who would risk prison for a few extra bucks a month?
 
  • #447
Santorum is unbelievable, he really seems to have little knowledge of the law or the constitution, IMO.

Santorum Backtracks on Langauge Stance in Puerto Rico

Rick Santorum tried to mitigate any damage his earlier remarks — in which he said English should be the island's official language — might have done to his campaign

"As in any other state, you have to comply with this and any federal law. And that is that English has to be the main language," he had said to the paper earlier, referring to the commonwealth's upcoming referendum on whether to become a U.S. state. Those comments ignited a firestorm of criticism, with many pointing out that requiring English to be the main language would violate the U.S. Constitution, which does not designate an official national language.
OOOPS. Doesn't this poor man have a paid staff to check these things, or does he just make things up as he goes?
 
  • #448
Evo said:
Santorum is unbelievable, he really seems to have little knowledge of the law or the constitution, IMO.

OOOPS. Doesn't this poor man have a paid staff to check these things, or does he just make things up as he goes?

I'm more afraid of his base. Social conservatives seem to desperately want a theocracy. They want to see a Christan Government ruled with a divine pretense. Keep in mind, they elected him into office. Mr. Santorum has served for 12 years as Senator. So he has been a part of our government for more than a decade.

People pay a lot of attention to the President, but they don't care about congress. So they elect people like Santorum and Bachmann and wonder why the government is broken.

all of this is IMO
 
  • #449
The practical effect of a crackdown on pornography would be the loss of jobs, since Santorum can't crack down on foreign-produced pornography.
 
  • #450
Reading through the last few pages in this thread it seems that Santorum is continuing his campaign of expressing, imho, inane opinions on unimportant issues in order to, apparently, appeal to a certain perceived base constituency.

Will the net effect of this keep him from becoming the next US president? Well, I hope so.
 
  • #451
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.
 
  • #452
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.

The most scary thing about the fear factor is that it often works. This video is so far over the edge that only my nutty sister -in- law will believe it.
 
  • #453
The irony is that Santorum criticizes both high gas prices and a nuclear Iran, ignoring the fact that the former is a result of trying to prevent the latter.
 
  • #454
edward said:
The most scary thing about the fear factor is that it often works. ...

Yep. Here's the king of all scary adds for perspective. It was broadcast only once during the Goldwater-Johnson election, and that was enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k
 
  • #455
ThomasT said:
Reading through the last few pages in this thread it seems that Santorum is continuing his campaign of expressing, imho, inane opinions on unimportant issues in order to, apparently, appeal to a certain perceived base constituency.

Will the net effect of this keep him from becoming the next US president? Well, I hope so.

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.
 
<h2>What are Rick Santorum's qualifications for running for president?</h2><p>Rick Santorum has a Bachelor's degree in Political Science, an MBA, and a Juris Doctorate. He also served as a Senator for Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007.</p><h2>What is Rick Santorum's stance on key issues?</h2><p>Rick Santorum is known for his conservative views on social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration. He also supports a strong national defense and smaller government.</p><h2>Has Rick Santorum run for president before?</h2><p>Yes, Rick Santorum ran for president in 2012 and 2016. He won the Iowa caucuses in 2012 but ultimately lost the nomination to Mitt Romney.</p><h2>What challenges does Rick Santorum face in his candidacy?</h2><p>Rick Santorum faces challenges in gaining support from moderate and independent voters due to his conservative views. He also faces competition from other candidates with more name recognition and political experience.</p><h2>What is Rick Santorum's campaign strategy?</h2><p>Rick Santorum's campaign strategy focuses on appealing to conservative and religious voters, particularly in key primary states. He also emphasizes his working-class background and experience in Congress.</p>

What are Rick Santorum's qualifications for running for president?

Rick Santorum has a Bachelor's degree in Political Science, an MBA, and a Juris Doctorate. He also served as a Senator for Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007.

What is Rick Santorum's stance on key issues?

Rick Santorum is known for his conservative views on social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration. He also supports a strong national defense and smaller government.

Has Rick Santorum run for president before?

Yes, Rick Santorum ran for president in 2012 and 2016. He won the Iowa caucuses in 2012 but ultimately lost the nomination to Mitt Romney.

What challenges does Rick Santorum face in his candidacy?

Rick Santorum faces challenges in gaining support from moderate and independent voters due to his conservative views. He also faces competition from other candidates with more name recognition and political experience.

What is Rick Santorum's campaign strategy?

Rick Santorum's campaign strategy focuses on appealing to conservative and religious voters, particularly in key primary states. He also emphasizes his working-class background and experience in Congress.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
22
Replies
735
Views
64K
Replies
293
Views
32K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
584
Replies
5
Views
794
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
28
Views
3K
Back
Top