Deace: Huckabee will run in 2016

[anaconda]

Ugh...I see the Stupid Party is all set to replay 2008/2012.

Christie will end up getting the nomination.

And All Hail President Hillary.

These two are not going to get off easily with Rand in the debates. Rand can potentially make a much bigger train wreck of this than Ron was able to.

 

[Matt Collins]

Religion and critical thinking have an inverse relationship. Evangelicals are astonishingly easy to dupe.

Religion has nothing to do with it, most people are "astonishingly easy to dupe" and lack critical thinking skills, regardless of religion.

 

[dinosaur]

Religion has nothing to do with it, most people are "astonishingly easy to dupe" and lack critical thinking skills, regardless of religion.

Religious people are more naive and less open to the idea that conservative politicians could have duplicitous motives.

 

[Matt Collins]

The party has changed profoundly in recent years. Yes Romney did win, but 70% of the GOP voted against him right up until he became "inevitable". GOPers wont give McCain the time of day anymore. Things have changed a lot.

Very true. Except that no one ever considered McCain or Romney a conservative. People DO think of Huckabee as a conservative, unfortunately.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Religion has nothing to do with it, most people are "astonishingly easy to dupe" and lack critical thinking skills, regardless of religion.

There's a reason why Carnegie wanted that book from Eli. And, yes, there's a direct correlation between one's religiosity and their critical thinking and educational level.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Very true. Except that no one ever considered McCain or Romney a conservative. People DO think of Huckabee as a conservative, unfortunately.

And that segment are largely the gullible evangelicals we're discussing. Even the educated evangelical dispenses with critical thinking once a savior figure like a Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson-type figure shows up at their door.

Remember what Ron said, “When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.” He's hinting at the two biggest opiates of the masses that numb critical thinking; Religion and Nationalism.

 

[Matt Collins]

There's a reason why Carnegie wanted that book from Eli. And, yes, there's a direct correlation between one's religiosity and their critical thinking and educational level.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

 

[Matt Collins]

And that segment are largely the gullible evangelicals we're discussing. Even the educated evangelical dispenses with critical thinking once a savior figure like a Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson-type figure shows up at their door.

People's religion has nothing to do with them being gullible.

Remember what Ron said, “When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.” He's hinting at the two biggest opiates of the masses that numb critical thinking; Religion and Nationalism.

I agree, but those are not the causes of people's inability to think critically, they are merely an avenue that gets used to move them where the propagandists want them. Most humans are susceptible to emotional manipulation (even those in the liberty movement unfortunately) leading to irrational choices. The difference is how it is done. For some people it's religion, for others it's national pride, for others it is security, for others it is the bandwagon, etc...

 

[erowe1]

Bastiat, pick any politician you have ever supported, and ask yourself why you supported them.

Don't tell us the answer. Instead, I'll tell you what it is. And if your answer differs from mine, then you're wrong.

The only reason you (and everyone else who has ever existed) supported every politician you have ever supported, is 100% because of your religion. There are zero exceptions to this.

 

[jjdoyle]

There's a reason why Carnegie wanted that book from Eli. And, yes, there's a direct correlation between one's religiosity and their critical thinking and educational level.

Do you not know what a Christian apologist is? Critical thinking Christians, looking to answer and provide answers to questions. Watch a few Creation/Evolution debates, and you will see both "religion" and supposed "science" is lacking in that area.

Now on Ron Paul and the quote, it is actually a quote by Sinclair Lewis, and Ron Paul used it because of the media hyping up a stupid Mike Huckabee ad (trying to make something out of nothing) and asked RP about the ad. He hadn't seen the ad, but said it maybe reminded him of that quote from how the media person described it to him.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Bastiat, pick any politician you have ever supported, and ask yourself why you supported them.

Don't tell us the answer. Instead, I'll tell you what it is. And if your answer differs from mine, then you're wrong.

The only reason you (and everyone else who has ever existed) supported every politician you have ever supported, is 100% because of your religion. There are zero exceptions to this.

No religion, no masters.

 

[Brett85]

Huckabee running for President would definitely not be a good thing. He would hurt Rand a lot in Iowa.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Huckabee running for President would definitely not be a good thing. He would hurt Rand a lot in Iowa.

Yes, he would.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

People's religion has nothing to do with them being gullible.

It plays a huge role. Try having a rational conversation about Israel with a hardcore evangelical. Steve Deace actually admits evangelicals are easily led astray time and time again.

 

[trey4sports]

Rand doesn't have evangelicals tied up, not even close. Rand, uniquely, does have the opportunity to unite social conservatives, libertarians, and tea party folks under the Liberty Movement mantra. It's not a slam dunk though, and like I stated above; evangelicals are the biggest suckers on the planet.

there's lots of time left. Rand has uniquely positioned himself as somewhat of a moderate. He will be the Mitt Romney of this primary season. The conversation will come back to "electability" and Rand will be branded as the level-headed moderate who will be outflanked on the right by Cruz and outflanked on the left by Christie. Little will the general public know that Rand is actually the most radical of them all. Someone who wants to throw a giant monkey wrench into the coming new world order.

 

[devil21]

Yes, he would.

I dunno. If Santorum and Huck both run then they can split the sheepy evangelical vote while Rand secures the rest of the already solid support he has. Even with Santorum's "surge" last time around Ron still did very well and I anticipate Rand doing the same. There's no rule that says we can't use vote splitting against them, particularly since they have used it against us. Still a lot of time until Iowa but I don't think it's a bad thing if they both run.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Most U.S. 'Christians' don't care about Middle East Christians being persecuted. Mainline Evangelicals want: Israel worship, war with Iran, support the troops, and kill the gays -- in that order.

I totally agree with this. Sadly, I think there are a lot of misconceptions here about Christians. I know there are some Christians that make us look bad, like Westboro, but that is not how the majority of Evangelicals think. Most evangelicals would get behind Rand to take marriage out of the government to get rid of the legality of gay marriage. Most Christians do care very much about the persecution of the Christians in the ME. Most evangelicals do care very much about Israel, but are also smart enough to see that our presence in the ME is doing more harm than good to Israel.

I think one think that evangelicals are iffy about is the lack of concern for the Muslim Brotherhood's activity in our government. Now please do not misinterpret that....... I do NOT mean ALL muslims in general....... The Brotherhood is a very different organization and is supportive of radicalization.

I personally think the truth is somewhere in between what you say and what James Madison says (BTW: James Madison is a Christian too, so he's not trying to dump on Christians, although I know I've been accused of the same before despite being a Christian.) Frankly, I think your average Evangelical does care that people in the Middle East are persecuted for Christ, but don't understand that this happens many times because of, and not in spite of, military action over there. Ultimately, informing them is the only way to figure out where an Evangelical really stands is to present them with proof that these things are happening, and then still ask them where they stand. If they're radical Israel supporters, explain to them that Judaism is just as much a false religion as Islam, and that excessively supporting Israel is ultimately supporting one false religion over another, and then see where they stand. Explain to them what's actually going on in Palestine, etc.

For the average person on the street, I think more often than not its stubbornness, ignorance, or both when they oppose libertarian foreign policy. The big name Zionist preachers are another matter.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It plays a huge role. Try having a rational conversation about Israel with a hardcore evangelical. Steve Deace actually admits evangelicals are easily led astray time and time again.

I'm pretty hardcore, ask anyone here who's spent much time with me in the religion section. Sola_Fide had me beat in the radical department, but honestly, I think I'm the most radical in the religion section now. And although I'm not the most anti-Israel here, I definitely don't support them either.

That said, to some extent I agree with what you say, some of the time. It depends.

No religion, no masters.

This isn't true. First of all, everybody is religious, its just a matter of what you believe in. And frankly, most atheists worship Statism even moreso than most Christians. There are exceptions to this generalization, of course, but probably not even as many as there are to the "Evangelicals are all shills for Israel" generalization.

I don't think that choosing warmongers like Romney and McCain over a warmonger like Obama indicates much about the foreign policy persuasions of those evangelicals, especially when the main reasons they have for that decision are based on other issues, very often ones where they (rightly or wrongly) perceive the McCain/Romney types to be more for limiting government than Obama.

Granted I'm stereotyping here, but these voters tend to view Obama as a pussy because he didn't publicly advocate for the full-on ground war/bombing campaign that McCain and Romney wanted in Iran. So no, I don't believe that the evangelical voters knew all along that they were cornered into a "lesser of the 2 evils" scenario.

Again, I think this very much depends on the evangelical. I know some who actually are shilling for war in the Middle East, and some who don't agree with that but nonetheless voted "lesser of two evils". The vibe I get from my own church is that, although you still get the "Defending our freedoms, support the troops" thing, I think they are beginning to get tired of war. However, some parts of my mom's side are still red-state fascists to varying degrees. So... I think it depends. Honestly, I suspect the average Evangelical is less awake than the average person in my church specifically, but again, that's a guess.

 

[Miss Annie]

Most U.S. 'Christians' don't care about Middle East Christians being persecuted. Mainline Evangelicals want: Israel worship, war with Iran, support the troops, and kill the gays -- in that order.







I personally think the truth is somewhere in between what you say and what James Madison says (BTW: James Madison is a Christian too, so he's not trying to dump on Christians, although I know I've been accused of the same before despite being a Christian.) Frankly, I think your average Evangelical does care that people in the Middle East are persecuted for Christ, but don't understand that this happens many times because of, and not in spite of, military action over there. Ultimately, informing them is the only way to figure out where an Evangelical really stands is to present them with proof that these things are happening, and then still ask them where they stand. If they're radical Israel supporters, explain to them that Judaism is just as much a false religion as Islam, and that excessively supporting Israel is ultimately supporting one false religion over another, and then see where they stand. Explain to them what's actually going on in Palestine, etc.

For the average person on the street, I think more often than not its stubbornness, ignorance, or both when they oppose libertarian foreign policy. The big name Zionist preachers are another matter.

I didn't "wake up" until 2011. Until then, I thought that our country "rescued" people in the middle east from tyranny. Was I mislead? Yes. Was it totally my fault? Well, in this country we had come under the impression that the press was free and could be believed. There were so many things I was ignorant of, but the biggest was exactly what we were doing over there. I truly think that people are starting to wake up. I think that is why there was a big majority against going into Syria. People are coming to understand that we are on the wrong side. Call me a warmonger, but I would be not so opposed to aid Assad himself as he attempted to rescue his country from terrorists. But that is just it. People are waking up to the lies of the media and they are beginning to do their research, hence the HUGE objection to interference in Syria. The media has pulled on evangelicals heartstrings to make them think that the foreign policy was "helpful".
This is why I think that Rand would be more "in tune" with the evangelicals than Huckabee. And I don't know one single evangelical that truly liked Romney.
Evangelicals don't want to kill gays. They just don't want to be put in the position to have to "condone" it. If marriage were taken out of the government, it would solve the whole problem for evangelicals.

 

[RickyJ]

Does this mean he's going to go on another major diet?

With Christie running he doesn't appear that big anymore.