Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T23:59:02Z

LouW: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::But the queen isn't anything to do with the "atheist religion," is she? She's head of the Anglican Church. Why do you keep making irrelevant comments? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref><ref>http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/swe12501397.html</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::True, I do not want to be 90/10'd for pointing out the blindingly obvious. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Davidspencer, unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area. :) Your comment further illustrates that you no doubt come from a higher than average socially stratified society with lower than average socially mobility in the Western World and feel the need to needlessly elevate yourself! :) By the way, consider reading Luke 14:7. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:12, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::"...unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area." Wow...
:::::::This coming from the user who talks like he knows the UK better than people who actually live there and ridicules those who disagree. User:Conservative, you are not as smart as you think you are. Just because you found a quote about the relevant subject by one person who might agree with you if interpreted a certain way, doesn't make you automatically the most knowledgable person on the subject. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 16:46, 8 February 2012 (GMT)

User Conservative: you make some interesting points about the cultural legacy of protestantism in Scandinavia but why doesn't the same apply to the UK? As well as being historically a centre of protestant and non-conformist thought, protestantism and non-conformism were central to the English Revolution, the colonisation of the New World, liberal humanism (eg the work of Adam Smith), the first stock and insurance markets, the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire. It still remains in Britain's cultural DNA. In fact, the UK today is far more conservative than the social democratic Scandinavian countries, both socially and economically. So why doesn't your Gladwellesque reasoning apply here? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 14:09, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::RedGoliath, who said that I/we don't live in the UK? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::I doubt someone with such a strong interest in American politics wouldn't be living in the US. [[User:LouW|LouW]] 18:59, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Rafael, I did think of that. Although having the mindset of working hard helps a "underdog" become a bigger dog, I also think a society not having unnecessary barriers in the way helps too which Gladwell does talk about in his book. I also know that England has a history of social stratification compared to other countries. Here is what a Christian site says about England: “In the 1800s England had one hundred sixty crimes punishable by hanging, including ones as trivial as stealing a loaf of bread.” “I thought of this when I was reading in the Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the lengthy prison sentences that Soviet children received for stealing when they were hungry.”[http://bible.org/seriespage/lamp-loaves-and-loudmouth-leviticus-24] The Bible has restitution for stealing.

Also, there is no doubt that atheists are more likely historically to promote social Darwinism and England was at the forefront of social Darwinism.

Since people tend to be their own worst enemies, I do think an underdog's biggest asset is not having a bad mindset and having good habits and a good society should promote an industrious/virtuous mindset. In the Western World, although there are certainly young ladies who have husband's cheat on them, there are also plenty who have sex before marriage and wind up being single mothers with unruly kids. I also think feminism and selfish males increase divorce rates which causes single motherhood. Single motherhood can be a big factor when it comes to poverty and less social mobility in a society.

Here are some relevant statistics about the above as far as the United States:

In terms of household structure, households headed by women are far more likely to be poor than
other types of households. There are 4.1 million female-headed families in poverty and 2.9
million married-couple families in poverty; in total over 14.4 million households are headed by
women.73 Half of all women will potentially experience single motherhood at some point in
their lifetimes; 80 percent of black women and 45 percent of white women will become family
heads at some time during their childbearing years.74 In 2000, the distribution of female-headed
household types with children was as follows: 12 percent were headed by a woman with a
cohabitating male partner, 14.3 percent were headed by a grandmother, and 73.8 percent by a
single mother. A larger share of the households headed by a grandmother is black.75
Poverty rates in female-headed households are typically 3 to 4 times as high as those for the
overall population.76 Individuals in households that become headed by a female are extremely
likely to enter into poverty:

• When a two-adult household becomes a female-headed household, 20.1 percent entered
poverty.77
• The transition to a female-headed family accounts for 59 percent of the poverty
beginnings for female heads with children: 38 percent of these poverty spell
beginnings result from a marital breakup and 21 percent result from what is most likely
unmarried motherhood.78
• Persons in households that have been female-headed for 2 or more years are more likely
enter poverty than persons in two-adult and single male-headed households.79
• More than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households’ status is closely tied to poverty because single parent families
typically have just one potential earner and are less likely than married parents to have a fulltime
worker. When there is only one adult earner in the household, fewer hours are worked and
fewer hours are available to be worked due to care giving responsibilities. Though employment
rates are high for single women with children (almost 80% work)86, mothers who never
marry are 70 percent less likely to be working full time compared to women who have only
marital births.87 If there is not another earner in the household, grandmother-headed households
with children have extremely high odds of experiencing poverty, significantly higher (40%) than
those headed by a single mother.88[http://www.heartlandalliance.org/whatwedo/advocacy/reports/causes-of-poverty.pdf]

Martin Seligman wrote about "learned helplessness" and I do think that liberal's constant promotion of victimhood promotes "learned helpflessness" as well as central government controlled social programs. After all is said and done, I think "America's war on poverty" has been a colossal failure as it rewards bad habits and causes a dependent mindset. I think when families and local communities were in charge of charity, there was more accountability and less fostering of a dependency and victimhood mindset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-19T19:27:33Z

LouW: Pared down the Republican list to those who actually have a chance...removed many Democrats

'''''The next debate is on January 19, 2012. The next primary elections are on Saturday, January 21, in [[South Carolina]], and then [[Florida]] on Tuesday, January 31'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is nearly 9% (and real unemployment much higher) less than 12 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

For the Republican nomination, in early December it seemed to become a two-man race between [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Mitt Romney]], but then [[Ron Paul]] ran devastatingly negative political ads against Gingrich in [[Iowa]] that dropped Newt to fourth place there.<ref>For the dates of early primaries, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Still, Romney was unable to attain a commanding lead. About 1,214 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except for Florida, which will be winner-take-all but only half its delegates will count).<ref>Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but Texas is going to be proportional anyway.</ref> It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, heavily favored by the Establishment, has business experience, was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Romney is a prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner who won the initial primaries in Iowa and New Hampahire. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Has come out with a new jobs plan. Received endorsements from [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], and South Carolina Governor [[Nikki Haley]].
|Has big weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it unlikely Romney can win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. Won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Endorsed by [[John McCain]], [[John Bolton]], and [[Jon Huntsman]] after a virtual tie for first place the Iowa caucuses and a solid win in the [[New Hampshire]] Primary. He remains strong in national polling, and even has a lead in conservative South Carolina. He's done well in most of the debates so far, yet Romney has done poorly in straw polls, and the majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Has the backing of Fox News and will likely receive the endorsement of those who appear on it: [[Sarah Palin]], [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Lindsey Graham]] (influential in [[South Carolina]]), etc.; Newt won the endorsement of the most influential newspaper in [[New Hampshire]]; as [[Speaker of the House]] in the 1990s, Gingrich had a strong record on "right to life" issues and of passing [[conservative]] legislation, including welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. He also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]. Advocated a limited amnesty for illegal immigrants during the November 22 debate. Resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a woman 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. Since 9/11, Newt has come to adopt more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney pushes Gingrich back to #2, and with Romney unable to gain 50% support in any State there remains an opportunity for his opponents to rally behind Newt. Newt did lose the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia, even though he lives there and is in first place in its polling. Most polls released in November and December put Newt in 1st place, but attacks from other candidates and the media erased his lead. His debate performances have earned him a reputation as the most knowledgeable of the Republican candidates and the one most capable of winning debates against Obama. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. Still has not done better than 4th place in the first two contests of the election season. Was endorsed by Rick Perry. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Finished a strong third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and is the only candidate other than [[Mitt Romney]] to qualify for the ballot in Virginia; Paul has won at least fifteen regional straw polls and online polls and, surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by evangelicals, strongly conservative across the board.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; endorsed Romney in 2008. His tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes.
|Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], is fabulous in debates and television interviews, but has been near the bottom in polling in some key states (like [[South Carolina]]). Campaigned relentlessly in Iowa and succeeded in picking up several important endorsements. Then sagged to only 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary.
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States Presidential Race - Endorsements for Republicans 2012

2012-01-19T19:24:24Z

LouW:

Endorsements could decide the outcome of the [[Presidential Election 2012]], especially in the [[Republican]] primary. Here are the likely big endorsements in December 2011 through March 2012:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Predicted Timing
!Actual Endorsement
!Analysis
|-
|10
|[[John McCain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|Mitt Romney<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-mccain-endorses-mitt-romney-hampshire-primary-article-1.1000891?localLinksEnabled=false John McCain endorses Mitt Romney ahead of New Hampshire primary] Shahid, Aliyah, NY Daily News, December 4, 2011, retrieved December 4, 2011</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted the timing correctly, and presumably Gingrich's poor showing in the [[Iowa Caucuses]] caused McCain, in a surprise, to back Romney. The press conference itself was a disaster, however; McCain does not excite or charm the faithful anymore. He would likely become Romney's [[Secretary of Defense]] and dictate his foreign policy. ''Mitt Romney did worse than polling indicated in [[New Hampshire]] after McCain endorsed him''.
|-
|9
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between NH and SC primaries
|Newt Gingrich <ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/17/sarah-palin-endorses-newt-gingrich-sort-of-and-only-in-s-c/]</ref>
|The endorsement of Newt by [[Todd Palin]] just before the NH primary creates anticipation that Sarah will endorse Newt soon after the NH primary, thereby negating Mitt's victory. As predicted, Sarah Palin endorsed Gingrich for the SC primary.
|-
|8
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Before Iowa primary
|
|The [[Fox News Channel]] probably wants Huck to endorse Romney now that his choice for Secretary of State will likely be the [[neocon]] [[John McCain]]
|-
|7
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Newt Gingrich
|After SC primary
|Newt Gingrich
|Perry delayed his exit from the race and held on to his endorsement until it was at a maximum value for Gingrich
|-
|6
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Mitt Romney
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|As long as Santorum draws more voters away from Romney's more conservative competitors than from Romney himself, Santorum will stay in the race and delay his endorsement.
|-
|5
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Mitt Romney
|prediction already made and confirmed
|Mitt Romney
|
|-
|4
|[[National Right to Life Committee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|in December
|[[Trent Franks]], a leading pro-life congressman, endorsed Newt on Jan. 13
|The delay in pro-life endorsements is probably to await Santorum dropping out of the race.
|-
|3
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Newt Gingrich
|between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|Trump subsequently left the [[Republican Party]], presumably to consider running as an Independent, which makes it unlikely he'll be endorsing any Republican for president in the near future.
|-
|2
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|before [[Iowa Caucuses]]
|Cain announced on January 16 that he would not endorse any candidate during the GOP primaries.<ref>[http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/cain-will-not-endorse-1299792.html Cain will not endorse in GOP primary] Malloy, Daniel, The ''Atlanta Journal-Constitution'', January 16, 2012, retrieved January 12, 2012</ref>
|Cain was reportedly ready to endorse Gingrich in December, as ''Conservapedia'' predicted, but bad press about Cain probably caused Gingrich to place that on hold for lack of a positive effect.
|-
|1
|[[Lindsey Graham]]
|Newt Gingrich
|before South Carolina primaries
|
|
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Useless Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Endorsement
!Why it is useless
|-
|10
|Iowa ''Des Moines Register''
|Mitt Romney
|The newspaper supported same-sex marriage
|-
|9
|[[Jon Huntsman]]
|Mitt Romney
|Many wondered why this ambassador for the Obama Administration was running for the Republican nomination.
|-
|8
|[[John Bolton]]
|Mitt Romney
|No impact on the essential issue of domestic policy and may not even help on issues of foreign policy except to the extent Bolton has been critical of the [[United Nations]]
|}

== Not likely to endorse until winner is clear ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Non-Endorser
!Reason explained by ''Conservapedia''
!Result
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb hopes to be selected at the convention if no candidate wins a majority,{{citation needed}} and thus wants to remain on good terms with all candidates.
|
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|DeMint would rather build support across the [[conservative]] movement without picking sides.
|
|}

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:politics]]

United States Presidential Race - Endorsements for Republicans 2012

2012-01-19T19:23:56Z

LouW:

Endorsements could decide the outcome of the [[Presidential Election 2012]], especially in the [[Republican]] primary. Here are the likely big endorsements in December 2011 through March 2012:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Predicted Timing
!Actual Endorsement
!Analysis
|-
|10
|[[John McCain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|Mitt Romney<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-mccain-endorses-mitt-romney-hampshire-primary-article-1.1000891?localLinksEnabled=false John McCain endorses Mitt Romney ahead of New Hampshire primary] Shahid, Aliyah, NY Daily News, December 4, 2011, retrieved December 4, 2011</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted the timing correctly, and presumably Gingrich's poor showing in the [[Iowa Caucuses]] caused McCain, in a surprise, to back Romney. The press conference itself was a disaster, however; McCain does not excite or charm the faithful anymore. He would likely become Romney's [[Secretary of Defense]] and dictate his foreign policy. ''Mitt Romney did worse than polling indicated in [[New Hampshire]] after McCain endorsed him''.
|-
|9
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between NH and SC primaries
|Newt Gingrich <ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/17/sarah-palin-endorses-newt-gingrich-sort-of-and-only-in-s-c/]</ref>
|The endorsement of Newt by [[Todd Palin]] just before the NH primary creates anticipation that Sarah will endorse Newt soon after the NH primary, thereby negating Mitt's victory. As predicted, Sarah Palin endorsed Gingrich for the SC primary.
|-
|8
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Before Iowa primary
|
|The [[Fox News Channel]] probably wants Huck to endorse Romney now that his choice for Secretary of State will likely be the [[neocon]] [[John McCain]]
|-
|7
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Newt Gingrich
|After SC primary
|Before SC primary
|Perry delayed his exit from the race and held on to his endorsement until it was at a maximum value for Gingrich
|-
|6
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Mitt Romney
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|As long as Santorum draws more voters away from Romney's more conservative competitors than from Romney himself, Santorum will stay in the race and delay his endorsement.
|-
|5
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Mitt Romney
|prediction already made and confirmed
|Mitt Romney
|
|-
|4
|[[National Right to Life Committee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|in December
|[[Trent Franks]], a leading pro-life congressman, endorsed Newt on Jan. 13
|The delay in pro-life endorsements is probably to await Santorum dropping out of the race.
|-
|3
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Newt Gingrich
|between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|Trump subsequently left the [[Republican Party]], presumably to consider running as an Independent, which makes it unlikely he'll be endorsing any Republican for president in the near future.
|-
|2
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|before [[Iowa Caucuses]]
|Cain announced on January 16 that he would not endorse any candidate during the GOP primaries.<ref>[http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/cain-will-not-endorse-1299792.html Cain will not endorse in GOP primary] Malloy, Daniel, The ''Atlanta Journal-Constitution'', January 16, 2012, retrieved January 12, 2012</ref>
|Cain was reportedly ready to endorse Gingrich in December, as ''Conservapedia'' predicted, but bad press about Cain probably caused Gingrich to place that on hold for lack of a positive effect.
|-
|1
|[[Lindsey Graham]]
|Newt Gingrich
|before South Carolina primaries
|
|
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Useless Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Endorsement
!Why it is useless
|-
|10
|Iowa ''Des Moines Register''
|Mitt Romney
|The newspaper supported same-sex marriage
|-
|9
|[[Jon Huntsman]]
|Mitt Romney
|Many wondered why this ambassador for the Obama Administration was running for the Republican nomination.
|-
|8
|[[John Bolton]]
|Mitt Romney
|No impact on the essential issue of domestic policy and may not even help on issues of foreign policy except to the extent Bolton has been critical of the [[United Nations]]
|}

== Not likely to endorse until winner is clear ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Non-Endorser
!Reason explained by ''Conservapedia''
!Result
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb hopes to be selected at the convention if no candidate wins a majority,{{citation needed}} and thus wants to remain on good terms with all candidates.
|
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|DeMint would rather build support across the [[conservative]] movement without picking sides.
|
|}

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:politics]]

Gotcha journalism

2012-01-15T04:21:37Z

LouW:

'''Gotcha journalism''' is a [[liberal]] [[mainstream media]] tactic of asking questions of [[conservative]]s to draw out responses that can easily misinterpreted and used as damaging, contextless [[soundbite]]s.

An example of such a question is ''Name all [[ten commandments]]''. Few people, regardless of [[political leaning]], can do this, and the question is aimed to make the target look silly. This particular question is usually asked of those who wish to see the ten commandments displayed outside [[courthouse]]s.

Gotcha journalism is an example of a [[Media tricks|media trick]].

==See also==
*[[Journalistic malpractice]]
*[[Liberal trap]]

{{Liberalism}}

Talk:Gotcha journalism

2012-01-15T04:21:09Z

LouW: Impossible?

== Impossible? ==

Article states that this tactic is asking "impossible" questions to make conservatives look foolish. However, the cited question ("Name all 10 Commandments") is far from impossibe, and the most famous gotcha question of all (when Couric asked Palin what magazines she read) is in no way impossible. I will take steps to fix this article. [[User:LouW|LouW]] 23:21, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Destiny Church

2012-01-15T04:18:33Z

LouW: typo

'''Destiny Church''' is a New Zealand Evangelical church; the church has over 20,000 members in congregations across the country. It believes in the unchanging Word of God as in the Bible, and although [[New Zealand]] has become an increasingly [[liberal]] and [[atheism|atheistic]] society, Destiny Church has attempted to protect New Zealand's standing as a Christian country.

The Church is led by Bishop Brian Tamaki, who is the spiritual father of the church. Brian Tamaki takes a stand on all matters of immorality, particularly in leading the "Enough is Enough campaign", protesting against a government pursuing a [[homosexual agenda]]. He believes that the increasingly secular attitude to education and society has had disasterous effect on values and standards. Tamaki has patriarchal views and believes in prosperity theology.<ref>http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol3_1/grimshawpf.htm</ref>

The Destiny Church has received criticism for actions deemed to go beyond the realm of [[Christianity]] and into [[Occultism]]. A notable case is a 2009 event in which 700 male church members allegedly swore an oath of loyalty, requiring them to submit to Brian Tamaki as [[God|God's]] chosen one on earth. <ref>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605956&pnum=0</ref> Further to this, concern has been raised about the structure of the Destiny Church, placing more emphasis on Bishop Tamaki than [[Jesus Christ]]. <ref>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3012558/Destinys-Brian-Tamaki-answers-cult-accusations</ref>

DestinyNZ, ostensibly an independent entity from the church, had a chance of becoming a political force however, but after polling below the 5% threshold required to gain a seat in [[New Zealand]] [[parliament]], DestinyNZ is no longer on the electoral roll.<ref>http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00240.htm</ref>. The Kiwi Party and the Family party have arisen out of the ashes of DestinyNZ and another failed party, the Christian Heritage Party. Destiny Church finds it disturbing that all leaders of the major political parties in New Zealand are agnostics and atheists. The only exception is that of the left wing party Progressive, whose leader is a faithful Catholic.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:New Zealand]]

Axis of Evil

2012-01-15T04:17:48Z

LouW: typo

The '''Axis of Evil''' was mentioned in [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]]'s State of the Union address on January 28th, 2002. The Axis of Evil was a reference to the governments of [[Iran]], [[Iraq]] and [[North Korea]]. Since the 2002 State of the Union the [[United States]] has consistently pursed these states with success. [[North Korea]] has now been removed from the Axis of Evil after giving into demands to destroy its [[nuclear]] facilities<ref>http://www.newsweek.com/id/144031</ref>.

"Our goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an '''axis of evil''', arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic." --[[George W. Bush]]
[[category:United States Political Terms]]

The President's speech has been proven to be remarkably prescient. [[Iran]] is widely suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, while claiming its nuclear program is for peaceful means. The invasion of [[Iraq]] and overthrow of the Baathist regime has neutralized one of the three Axis of Evil members and prevented weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of [[Saddam Hussein]].

==References==
<references/>