Survival of the Fattest

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

echochamberlain (23 posts)

Could you vote for a Democrat who didn't accept evolution?
   
If, in a Senate vote where you come from, the Democrat believed that the Earth was made in the last 6 to 10 thousand years, or said that 'the jury was out' on evolution, would you vote for them?
If the race was close, and the balance of the Senate was riding on it, then I would hold my nose and vote; but in any other situation, I'm not sure...I don't think any Democratic in the modern age could get the presidential nomination if they didn't accept Darwin - but in a crazy hypothetical circumstance, if the Republican nominee accepted evolution, but the Democrat didn't, I might be in a bit of a pickle...
I'm not authorized to start a poll, so I'm putting it out there to spark a debate.

JustAnotherGen (11,508 posts)

7. My gut instinct

Would be that they are some sort of IndieTeaPublican plant.

MADem says it would vote for just such a dem for practical purposes.

Squinch (9,320 posts)

4. Democrats are sometimes dumb. But not that dumb.

newfie11 (5,547 posts)

14. No

Someone that doesn't accept science is off my voting list.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN (2,592 posts)

20. Write in or third party

would probably be my vote in such a case.

We don't need those kind of idiots destroying the Party's image, even if it means losing a seat in the short term.

We're already facing potentially record low voter turnout in 2014 because people are giving up on politics in droves as a result of Democrats acting like Republicans in issues from economics to foreign adventurism, fossil fuels to domestic surveillance.

We need good Democratic candidates to inspire voter turnout. Candidates who will actually fight against the things Republicans like, not try to outdo them. At a time when anthropogenic climate change is killing off everything from starfish to polar bears, fish stocks are plummeting coastlines are rising, we have a Democratic President who has facilitated a vast increase in the production of fossil fuels in the lands and waters our country controls, and approved the use of technology that will devastate marine life off our east coast to try to find even more fossil fuels.

We don't need more candidates who are working to push us into the next extinction event.

Codeine (13,717 posts)

23. I can't vote for a moron, regardless of party.

People who don't accept the reality of evolution are just that; morons.

But you'd vote for someone who thinks Guam could capsize if the navy put too many assets on one side of the island.

Orsino (27,653 posts)

28. A Dem who walks upright, with opposable thumbs, and who speaks?

That Dem has already accepted evolution, and is taking advantage of it.

I'd need to see what other lies and/or delusions come out of his/her mouth, just in case they could possibly be worse than those of a Republican opponent.

ann--- (819 posts)

31. No

just as I couldn't vote for a Democrat who supported Israel.

on point (1,677 posts)

40. No. Brings into question their education, wisdom, connection to reality

You'd better believe if the Proglodytes can get rid of the 2nd Amendment they will come charging for anyone daring to cling to the 1st.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025310541


These "people" who claim to embrace survival of the fittest in all its implications are the same people who cannot feed themselves, insist the herd support its weakest and most diseased members, literally treat pregnancy as if it were a plague, slaughter their progeny with abandon, revel in childless homosexuality, will not fight to defend their herd and cannot even protect themselves but "the Law" will be whatever you can force upon your political opponents.

They should pray to God that evolution never become the creed of the conservative.

[thundley4]

newfie11 (5,547 posts)

14. No

Someone that doesn't accept science is off my voting list.

Says the DUmmie that doesn't believe science says life begins at conception.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Just read over at NRO --

All over the Internet, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s face is presented next to words that he may or may not have spoken. “Other than being a scientist,” he says in one image, “I’m not any other kind of -ist. These -ists and -isms are philosophies; they’re philosophical portfolios that people attach themselves to and then the philosophy does the thinking for you instead of you doing the thinking yourself.” Translation: All of my political and moral judgments are original, unlike those of the rubes who subscribe to ideologies, philosophies, and religious frameworks. My worldview is driven only by the data.

This is nonsense. Progressives not only believe all sorts of unscientific things — that Medicaid, the VA, and Head Start work; that school choice does not; that abortion carries with it few important medical questions; that GM crops make the world worse; that one can attribute every hurricane, wildfire, and heat wave to “climate change”; that it’s feasible that renewable energy will take over from fossil fuels anytime soon — but also do their level best to block investigation into any area that they consider too delicate. You’ll note that the typical objections to the likes of Charles Murray and Paul McHugh aren’t scientific at all, but amount to asking lamely why anybody would say something so mean.

Still, even were they paragons of inquiry, the instinct would remain insidious. The scientific process is an incredible thing, but it provides us with information rather than with ready-made political or moral judgments. Anyone who privileges one value over another (liberty over security, property rights over redistribution) is by definition indulging an “-ism.” Anyone who believes that the Declaration of Independence contains “self-evident truths” is signing on to an “ideology.” Anyone who goes to bat for any form of legal or material equality is expressing the end results of a philosophy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384081/smarter-thou-charles-c-w-cooke/page/0/1

[Carl]

Yet after 100 years of failure,slaughter and starvation they still believe marxism can and will work.

[wasp69]

These "people" who claim to embrace survival of the fittest in all its implications are the same people who cannot feed themselves, insist the herd support its weakest and most diseased members, literally treat pregnancy as if it were a plague, slaughter their progeny with abandon, revel in childless homosexuality, will not fight to defend their herd and cannot even protect themselves but "the Law" will be whatever you can force upon your political opponents.

They should pray to God that evolution never become the creed of the conservative.

That is an absolutely profound and earth shaking analysis, Bunny Man.  There are not enough hi-5's that can be given for such crystal clear truth.

[Zathras]

Squinch (9,320 posts)

4. Democrats are sometimes dumb. But not that dumb.

You sure about that DUmbass? Maybe you should read some of the posts at DU and get back to us.

[diesel driver]

Codeine (13,717 posts)

23. I can't vote for a moron, regardless of party.

People who don't accept the reality of evolution are just that; morons.

And yet, "you people" (and I use that term loosely) have elected morons that not only think Guam would "tip over and capsize", but also claim the migratory pattern of sharks was changed due to the slave trade, wanted a remote controlled rover to go to where the US flag was planted, ON MARS, Shelia Jackson "Buckwheat" Lee, Joe Biden, and Gorebull Warming^tm.

[ColonelCarrots]

What if they don't believe because they're a Hindu or Buddhist? What a bunch of racists!

[JohnnyReb]

I don't know about evolution but DUmmies are proof of de-evolution.

I once played a scientist in a school play so the science is settled.....can I get a consensus?

[DefiantSix]

I don't know about evolution but DUmmies are proof of de-evolution.

I once played a scientist in a school play so the science is settled.....can I get a consensus?