[Here’s Huckabee’s latest campaign move:
Huck represents the fundie Christian voters. There are enough of them that they are entitled to a candidate. Complaining about Huckabee doing what fundies do is like complaining about Sanders doing what socialists do.
Sugar? You mean, like, heroin? Goodhair is a dealer?
I’m not Snowboarder Bo but how was his post a complaint?
It may be that adaher thought this was the SRIOTD thread. It’s not easy to tell them apart.
Thanks, now could you send me some brain bleach through the Internet? :eek:
Sure, bro. Just picture Margaret Dumont instead of Rick Perry.
Marxist!
I’m gonna bookmark this because it may be the dumbest thing you’ve written all month.
If fundy Christians are “entitled” a candidate, then so are football fans and cat owners.
“So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.”
- Roman L. Hruska, (R, Wheat)
Puh-leeze. It’s only the 5th. Rest assured he’ll come up with something dumber before October 1.
I would bet before next Wednesday.
How is it dumb to simply point out that in a democracy, if enough people have a worldview, there will be a candidate who represents that worldview?
Do you think that people with sufficiently dumb views should not be represented? If so, then why not take away their vote? Seems more efficient. So here’s an idea: all people who do not believe in evolution will lose their right to vote.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
No one is “entitled” to a candidate. Anyone who can gather as a group is entitled to support a person to be “their” candidate, but that is not the same thing. Your statement indicates that criminals, the mentally ill, and developmentally delayed are “entitled” to a candidate. (I am sure that we could find partisans of most parties who could “recommend” the persons to be the candidates of such groups in other parties.)
On the other hand, it is equally legitimate when evaluating candidates to note that their presumed constituencies would place them outside one’s consideration–as with your labeling Sanders a socialist.
Tempting, but I still would not support it.
Because you’d lose an awful lot of Democrats, 38% to be precise.
Which is why it shouldn’t be surprising that there’s a non-evolution-believing, anti-gay dude in mainstream politics. Quite a few of them, actually. If there weren’t, it would mean our democracy wasn’t working.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t criticize and mock Huckabee.
The breadth of belief in dumb things in no way gives them, or their believers, legitimacy. Yes, it would be best if candidates tried to dispel dumbness rather than pander to it.
It doesn’t take much more than a skill in rhetoric to convert the dumb into holding smarter views. That’s pretty efficient, although it does take some integrity and true public-mindedness. That’s the weakness we’re seeing - it isn’t the system, but the people.
Don’t you ever feel a little queasy about supporting panderers to dumbness?
Mocking him for representing pretty close to half the population doesn’t seem to productive to me. Sanders seems far more mockable in that regard. Sanders is going to do better than Huck, but that reflects voters’ concerns this cycle more than how much Sanders’ views represent the American peoples’. We’re just in a moment where the usual issues aren’t the big issues. So Huck is losing out among his own base to Donald Trump, a godless heathen who believes in evolution and gay rights.