In terms of the national presidential election, without major structural changes to the GOP they are finished.

Texas.

In 2020 to 2024, based on changing demographics, it will become blue. If/when it does, the GOP will lose 50+ electoral votes, and lose any chance to win a presidential race.



>> ^MonkeySpank:

I'd give the Republican party another 2 terms before it morphs into something else; obviously, extreme-right is not the answer, especially with a larger segment of the new voting population leaning center. You can see it today; Mitt cannot have a change unless he pretends he's a centrist. This not only goes for the general populace, but also for the republican registered voters themselves. It's no surprise Santorum didn't win the primaries. History books will look back at this era and reflect on the neo-conservative movement and its negative effect on American politics.
The great thing about the internet is that every video, document, public forum comment, and article can be stored permanently. Many people are on the wrong side of history, and their offspring will find that out.

I'd give the Republican party another 2 terms before it morphs into something else; obviously, extreme-right is not the answer, especially with a larger segment of the new voting population leaning center. You can see it today; Mitt cannot have a change unless he pretends he's a centrist. This not only goes for the general populace, but also for the republican registered voters themselves. It's no surprise Santorum didn't win the primaries. History books will look back at this era and reflect on the neo-conservative movement and its negative effect on American politics.

The great thing about the internet is that every video, document, public forum comment, and article can be stored permanently. Many people are on the wrong side of history, and their offspring will find that out.

Mitt is a complete buffoon. He's a rich, entitled prick who is parroting exactly what his target audience of millionaires (both actual and imaginary) have been told for years by neocon pundits.

That @bobknight33 agrees with his sentiment is just confirmation of what Santorum has being saying. Smart people just aren't his target audience.

>> ^Lendl:

At least he admitted that Fox News isn't really a media organization. Glad he cleared that up.


Well they're not "News" they're definitely in the business of producing media though to support a narrative.

>> ^messenger:

@packo
I've recently become interested in what conservative politics looks like. I'm realizing I've probably never seen it in my lifetime.


You have seen what conservative politics looks like. The ACLU is conservative, it fights to defend the constitutions original wording.

he should re-read.... or perhaps read for the first time... what the Constitution says about freedom of religion... and how religion relates to self-government

though there is a tendency on the right (which is predominantly FAR right) to skip over things like facts, act like the more you say something (no matter how false) the more true it becomes, and to resort to propaganda/brainwashing

its sad the pandering to the crazies is actually alienating conservatives and religious people who are actually capable of independent thought... and not one of these dark age politicians can see it

its time to grow up, and realize just because one side doesn't NECESSITATE the inclusion of invisible spaghetti monsters in the sky in their conversation about social issues... that the conversation doesn't exist

its quite similar to how the Republican party has stalled so many efforts in congress, and then says its a failure of the other side... its the other sides fault, because they didn't get concrete results, not because we said NO to each and every attempt, alot of times even before hearing what they had to say

children are smart enough to see through this tactic

the well being of people world wide would benefit from people like R. Santorum being swept up in a rapture... I'm not religious, but if I had to pray... it'd be for that

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rick santorum, froathy, smart people, conservatives, value voters summit, gop' to 'rick santorum, frothy, smart people, conservatives, value voters summit, gop' - edited by oohahh

^Fairbs

I do not get my information from Youtube, it's great for entertainment - not so much for accurate Information.

Here are some relevant points I found from a Washington Post article dated April 6, 2012 entitled "Why Ron Paul rallies never translate into votes".

Ron Paul recently held a rally at UCLA, and between 6,000 and 10,000 people attended. The rally itself was a complete success. Yet while Ron Paul has consistently attracted larger, more enthusiastic crowds than his GOP competitors, those events always fail to translate into victories at the ballot box. Ron Paul has never won a presidential primary or caucus.

The media bias argument is nonsense. The media could never hate Ron Paul with the pure passion and ferocity that they despise Rick Santorum. The liberal media loathes social conservatives. They love Republicans who bash other conservatives. This is how John McCain in 2008 and Jon Huntsman in 2012 became the darlings of the liberal media. The media will end up despising whomever the GOP nominee is, and Ron Paul has suffered much less abuse than Newt Gingrich. Every day there are calls for Gingrich, and now even Santorum, to drop out. Dr. Paul does not face those calls.

As for election fraud, the GOP should just agree to give the Virgin Islands and Maine to Ron Paul in exchange for a vow of silence from the movement. The Paul movement uses complaints as their oxygen. All the voter fraud in the world cannot explain Florida, Illinois, and many other big states where Dr. Paul was rejected by more than 90% of the voters.

For those Paul supporters who are still unable to understand these repeated, huge rejections at the polls, the answer can be found right in front of their faces. The Ron Paul movement consists of too many supporters who are completely certifiable. They run up and down the hallways of GOP conventions screaming about revolutions. Decorum is replaced with degradation and debasement.

They shout down speakers they disagree with. They have zero interest in freedom and liberty for anybody except those who agree with them. Decent human beings would just accept this under the rule of "live and let live." The verbal carpet-bombers in the Ron Paul movement consist of some intolerant zealots who will harass, bully, and intimidate anybody just for thinking differently. The same hypocrites who are against undeclared wars engage in undeclared wars against their fellow Americans just for not worshipping Ron Paul. It makes the David Koresh movement look moderate.

Tell a Ron Paul supporter you disagree with his candidate. The responses will be:
1) You just do not understand. You're an idiot.
2) You are an uninformed tool of the political machine.
3) You don't care about the Constitution, freedom or liberty.
4) You are corrupt, bought and paid for, a shill for the status quo or some other powerful, mythical, nefarious entity.

These lines of thought are pure bile. The idea that a person can be decent, well educated, intelligent, have a sophisticated gift of analysis, be a clear thinker, and reject Ron Paul is totally incomprehensible to his supporters.

So it seems like the big question is, assuming humans could reduce CO₂ and other green house gas emissions to (a) zero tomorrow, what happens to the climate/atmosphere over the next century? What is the effect if we reduce them to (b) 50% current output? What is the effect at (c) 85% output?

Assuming (a), are we already past a point at which extreme weather, sea level rise, etc. will disrupt human activity for at least 20 years? Would that be the case assuming (b) or (c)? The question we really need an answer to is how do we optimize, over time, the economically relevant weather extremities against energy generation and consumption.
In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Also: "Global warming is the current rise in the average temperature....

My natural instinct is to suggest that you don't let crazy or trivial ideas or people rent space in your brain. On the other hand, everyone needs to have exactly this issue in their mind when making everyday decisions.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
I know that talking to ideologues like you doesn't do anything, because ideologies are just like secularised religions, but if i don't vent my frustration, I'd only carry it around.>> ^quantumushroom:

He's referring to "manmade" global warming, which is socialist BS theory.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Sooo do they make out in the end? Produce lotsa santorum?


I was going to say something about an ass interviewing a cock, but that would just lower the tone.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

You just described one of the biggest problems with religion in general. You ask a 1000 people who claim to be Christian to describe god and what they feel god is about and what god stands for and how you live a christian life and you'll get a 1000 different answers and 1000 different definitions of god and I'm sure many of them will conflict. And every one of them will believe their way is right and any other way is wrong.

Everyone..from the abortion clinic bombers and hard core evangelists and fundies to the most moderate liberal believer...they all get to claim a shared belief for some reason..they all get used as a demographic to intimidate people into believing that their beliefs are the majority when in reality it's a lot more fractured. There are no true believers, because no one can definitively prove that there is one true way.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^RadHazG:
Yes but Santorum equating being gay to bestiality isn't a similar treatment? Spare us your ignorant ranting you two, the Catholic church has done nearly to the same thing to those it opposes over the years. Have some of your own medicine for a change.

I don't like this whole "The Catholic Church" distinction. To me it's like when people blame America when they're really talking about just the government. The Catholic Church is a misnomer in my opinion that doesn't represent the majority of Catholics let alone it's churches and their individual leaderships.

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho:

His recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage?!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing. Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true. A truly radical stance to the left on abortions is pushing for a federal law to provide anyone who wants an abortion to get them for free, and at any time during the pregnancy. Something closer to that line than "I want to continue to provide funding for an organization that spends 99% of its budget on other things than abortion. BTW, this is an organization that was also funded by the Republican presidential administration AND a GOP dominated Congress. In fact, it's received funding since 1970."

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not some , most . Obama governs mostly to the center-left, except for his recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage. He lets his minions do his dirty work for him.
I agree, this happens all the time. It is the lens through which everyone seems to understand politics. I just don't think anyone really knows what makes Obama tick, and certainly not what he plans to do in his second term, when he is no long accountable. He is not a traditional democrat, certainly.