Do Presidential Candidates talk to God?

Can the GOP please find someone to run who hasn't been on Fox News as a paid contributor? I'd really appreciate that so that I at least have to put SOME thought into my vote.

Ugh, what a tool. Of course my sister in law is going nuts over this (she's Seventh Day Adventist and so is Carson).

Yeah, I want to get in early on this. TO HELL WITH BEN CARSON.

Edwin wrote:

Ugh, what a tool. Of course my sister in law is going nuts over this (she's Seventh Day Adventist and so is Carson).

I say more power to him. He should run, and the GOP should back him fully, and then at some point during the race there will be drama about stuff like this

IMAGE(http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/new_tribnet/assets/images/ebooks/wonderful_numbers_of_sacred_canon/unraveling_the_numbers_of_revelation_sec4_pt44/image014.gif)

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GTrLkO2ukeo/UMVpvg9JxpI/AAAAAAAAAEA/Osy_orIzt6A/s1600/Mystery+Babylon+on+Beast3a.jpg)

IMAGE(http://paradoxbrown.com/BeastMysteryRevelation7HeadsDaniel2.jpg)

and Republicans will suddenly remember they actually find Adventists more even more doctrinally terrifying than they do LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses, and burn the tent down over arguments about whether all the saved people get raptured before WWIII starts or not.

I, for one, am really looking forward to the complete and total sh*t show this could turn into.

ETA: I had to draw diagrams like that in grade school too.

I do not understand any of that.

I'd be curious to see how the War on Christmas rhetoric would go following that nomination.

NathanialG wrote:

I do not understand any of that.

Yeah, I'm gonna need a TL;DR, and then a TL;DR for that.

*Legion* wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

I do not understand any of that.

Yeah, I'm gonna need a TL;DR, and then a TL;DR for that.

Those are like end of the world truthers' creating Gamergate-style diagrams.

*Legion* wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

I do not understand any of that.

Yeah, I'm gonna need a TL;DR, and then a TL;DR for that.

More like some sort of Rosetta Stone.

I'm not a Seventh Day Adventist, nor have any desire to be, but I went through some phases in the past where I really got into studying biblical prophecy and so I actually do understand much of those diagrams. Even though it's a whole lot of conjecture and biblical scholars of all denominations are not in agreement about much of any of it, it's really quite fascinating!

It's like the Nostradamus stuff; taking metaphorical writings meant for one specific area and time and socio-political context and preserving them as if they were somehow perpetually relevant (as semiotics, no less). The interpretations iterate through the generations, differently for each one. What we "understand" from Revelations today is utterly different from what was intended by the author(s), and also wildly different from interpretations at other points in history.

Might as well base your understanding of Biblical prophecy on casting sticks or pulling entrails out of sacrificed animals. That at least would have the virtue of being understandable to the people of the time it was written... We no longer even have the cultural context to assist in understanding these writings, and on top of that, it's distorted further by the application of "literalist" readings based on Luther's theories of the Bible...

I'm pretty sure that the middle diagram means that the Republicans are going to be running on a "Triceratops for everyone to ride on!" platform.

In which case, I'll be voting Republican. Dinosaurs!

The teeth on that Triceratops though... Pretty impressive for a herbivore it was.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

The teeth on that Triceratops though... Pretty impressive for a herbivore it was.

To be fair, the Creation Museum suggests everything was a herbivore prior to Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden, regardless of tooth type, so tooth type was probably not even considered in the realism of that drawing.

Well, to be fair all the dinosaur stuff is just supposed to be non-specific prophetic beast, but for some reason the artists always fixate on showing them as weird mutated dinos.

I will just leave this here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us...

Dozens of the Republican Party’s leading presidential donors and fund-raisers have begun privately discussing how to clear the field for a single establishment candidate to carry the party’s banner in 2016, fearing that a prolonged primary would bolster Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate.

As a person who still considers himself a swing voter with a lean toward the right, that makes me a bit salty.

Having a small group of people getting to essentially choose who is the nominee makes me a bit sad, would prefer a more open race where the most popular candidate wins, not the one with the most money.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

I will just leave this here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us...

Dozens of the Republican Party’s leading presidential donors and fund-raisers have begun privately discussing how to clear the field for a single establishment candidate to carry the party’s banner in 2016, fearing that a prolonged primary would bolster Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate.

As a person who still considers himself a swing voter with a lean toward the right, that makes me a bit salty.

Having a small group of people getting to essentially choose who is the nominee makes me a bit sad, would prefer a more open race where the most popular candidate wins, not the one with the most money.

Yeah, that seems shady as heck. But, I also get that they don't want 6 dudes trying to out-Conservative each other which basically just gives a lot of ammo to Democrats in the general election.

Demosthenes wrote:
Kamakazi010654 wrote:

I will just leave this here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us...

Dozens of the Republican Party’s leading presidential donors and fund-raisers have begun privately discussing how to clear the field for a single establishment candidate to carry the party’s banner in 2016, fearing that a prolonged primary would bolster Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate.

As a person who still considers himself a swing voter with a lean toward the right, that makes me a bit salty.

Having a small group of people getting to essentially choose who is the nominee makes me a bit sad, would prefer a more open race where the most popular candidate wins, not the one with the most money.

Yeah, that seems shady as heck. But, I also get that they don't want 6 dudes trying to out-Conservative each other which basically just gives a lot of ammo to Democrats in the general election.

Oh come on! As if that'll happen. I mean, one misspelling of Rodham and you've gotten Hillary on a connection with North Korea that's gonna make the birthers look like sociopolitical babies!

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

Having a small group of people getting to essentially choose who is the nominee makes me a bit sad, would prefer a more open race where the most popular candidate wins, not the one with the most money.

The GOP's 2012 autopsy report clearly spelled out that the party most definitely doesn't want a repeat of the 2012 election cycle. That was an 18+ month long freak show where every candidate got their 15 minutes as the frontrunner only to have each of them melt down or implode in spectacular fashion.

Which left them with Romney. Who no one was happy with. (Which makes it very puzzling why he's even mentioned as a possible 2016 candidate.) They want fewer candidates and only a handful of party sponsored debates (and absolutely no third-party sponsored debates).

Of course this is also exceptionally disturbing in regards to the Citizens United ruling because it shows that absolute power that money now has in elections. What does your vote matter when you're only going to get the option to vote on someone that was chosen by rich donors over a year ago?

OG_slinger wrote:
Kamakazi010654 wrote:

Having a small group of people getting to essentially choose who is the nominee makes me a bit sad, would prefer a more open race where the most popular candidate wins, not the one with the most money.

The GOP's 2012 autopsy report clearly spelled out that the party most definitely doesn't want a repeat of the 2012 election cycle. That was an 18+ month long freak show where every candidate got their 15 minutes as the frontrunner only to have each of them melt down or implode in spectacular fashion.

Which left them with Romney. Who no one was happy with. (Which makes it very puzzling why he's even mentioned as a possible 2016 candidate.) They want fewer candidates and only a handful of party sponsored debates (and absolutely no third-party sponsored debates).

Of course this is also exceptionally disturbing in regards to the Citizens United ruling because it shows that absolute power that money now has in elections. What does your vote matter when you're only going to get the option to vote on someone that was chosen by rich donors over a year ago?

I think he's only mentioned because he still polls above all other Republican potential candidates right now. Tells you what kind of a sh*tstorm they're in for in 2016 if things don't dramatically change.

OG_slinger wrote:
Kamakazi010654 wrote:

Having a small group of people getting to essentially choose who is the nominee makes me a bit sad, would prefer a more open race where the most popular candidate wins, not the one with the most money.

The GOP's 2012 autopsy report clearly spelled out that the party most definitely doesn't want a repeat of the 2012 election cycle. That was an 18+ month long freak show where every candidate got their 15 minutes as the frontrunner only to have each of them melt down or implode in spectacular fashion.

Which left them with Romney. Who no one was happy with. (Which makes it very puzzling why he's even mentioned as a possible 2016 candidate.) They want fewer candidates and only a handful of party sponsored debates (and absolutely no third-party sponsored debates).

Of course this is also exceptionally disturbing in regards to the Citizens United ruling because it shows that absolute power that money now has in elections. What does your vote matter when you're only going to get the option to vote on someone that was chosen by rich donors over a year ago?

Oh yeah, watch this democracy in action restoftheworld! See how star-spangled awesome we are? Pathetic hole in the wall wastelands like Iran have to elect candidates pre-screened by an ideological ruling class. Here in the United States of Christmasland we--we... Um... sh*t...

Well whatever! f*ck you restoftheworld! USA NUMBER 1!

Yonder wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Kamakazi010654 wrote:

Having a small group of people getting to essentially choose who is the nominee makes me a bit sad, would prefer a more open race where the most popular candidate wins, not the one with the most money.

The GOP's 2012 autopsy report clearly spelled out that the party most definitely doesn't want a repeat of the 2012 election cycle. That was an 18+ month long freak show where every candidate got their 15 minutes as the frontrunner only to have each of them melt down or implode in spectacular fashion.

Which left them with Romney. Who no one was happy with. (Which makes it very puzzling why he's even mentioned as a possible 2016 candidate.) They want fewer candidates and only a handful of party sponsored debates (and absolutely no third-party sponsored debates).

Of course this is also exceptionally disturbing in regards to the Citizens United ruling because it shows that absolute power that money now has in elections. What does your vote matter when you're only going to get the option to vote on someone that was chosen by rich donors over a year ago?

Oh yeah, watch this democracy in action restoftheworld! See how star-spangled awesome we are? Pathetic hole in the wall wastelands like Iran have to elect candidates pre-screened by an ideological ruling class. Here in the United States of Christmasland we--we... Um... sh*t...

Well whatever! f*ck you restoftheworld! USA NUMBER 1!

If this wasn't so long, it'd be sig-worthy.

Demosthenes wrote:
Yonder wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Kamakazi010654 wrote:

Having a small group of people getting to essentially choose who is the nominee makes me a bit sad, would prefer a more open race where the most popular candidate wins, not the one with the most money.

The GOP's 2012 autopsy report clearly spelled out that the party most definitely doesn't want a repeat of the 2012 election cycle. That was an 18+ month long freak show where every candidate got their 15 minutes as the frontrunner only to have each of them melt down or implode in spectacular fashion.

Which left them with Romney. Who no one was happy with. (Which makes it very puzzling why he's even mentioned as a possible 2016 candidate.) They want fewer candidates and only a handful of party sponsored debates (and absolutely no third-party sponsored debates).

Of course this is also exceptionally disturbing in regards to the Citizens United ruling because it shows that absolute power that money now has in elections. What does your vote matter when you're only going to get the option to vote on someone that was chosen by rich donors over a year ago?

Oh yeah, watch this democracy in action restoftheworld! See how star-spangled awesome we are? Pathetic hole in the wall wastelands like Iran have to elect candidates pre-screened by an ideological ruling class. Here in the United States of Christmasland we--we... Um... sh*t...

Well whatever! f*ck you restoftheworld! USA NUMBER 1!

If this wasn't so long, it'd be sig-worthy. :lol:

"United States of Christmasland" would make a great location and "star-spangled awesome" would make a great tag.

To be fair Star-spangled Awesome is from Newsroom (rip Newsroom :()

I take full credit for United States of Christmasland though, glad you guys like it!

Yonder wrote:

To be fair Star-spangled Awesome is from Newsroom (rip Newsroom :()

I take full credit for United States of Christmasland though, glad you guys like it!

Oh yeah, the opening scene. I love that scene. Is that show up for streaming anywhere?

Demosthenes wrote:
Yonder wrote:

To be fair Star-spangled Awesome is from Newsroom (rip Newsroom :()

I take full credit for United States of Christmasland though, glad you guys like it!

Oh yeah, the opening scene. I love that scene. Is that show up for streaming anywhere?

It's only on HBOGo I believe. They've announced that they are actually going to start selling that subscriptions separately from cable, I think the next update on that process is coming in January or February.

Yonder wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Yonder wrote:

To be fair Star-spangled Awesome is from Newsroom (rip Newsroom :()

I take full credit for United States of Christmasland though, glad you guys like it!

Oh yeah, the opening scene. I love that scene. Is that show up for streaming anywhere?

It's only on HBOGo I believe. They've announced that they are actually going to start selling that subscriptions separately from cable, I think the next update on that process is coming in January or February.

I could pay for a month just to binge watch that.

OG_slinger wrote:

this is also exceptionally disturbing in regards to the Citizens United ruling because it shows that absolute power that money now has in elections. What does your vote matter when you're only going to get the option to vote on someone that was chosen by rich donors over a year ago?

On the contrary, it's the purest expression of our market system. We'll end up with the best GOP candidate because it'll be the one that cost the most!

...That, or we'll get the lowest bidder.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

We'll end up with the best GOP candidate because it'll be the one that cost the most!

The best for who?

OG_slinger wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

We'll end up with the best GOP candidate because it'll be the one that cost the most!

The best for who?

That's exactly the sort of question that a loyal citizen shouldn't be asking. Just trust in the invisible hand Communist!