Politicians who are legitimately stupid rarely get elected.
 

Discuss.

Unless they're sock puppets for the nefarious power brokers... It was easier, however, before the internet.

They just act legitimately stupid?

Emphasis on the 'rarely', I think. But y'know....it only takes one or two to right royally fuck up the landscape.

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." - recently flown stupid flag

I do know smart people who put their brain through a lot of hoops to match their belief system. It isn't out of the question that politicians have to put their brains through a lot of hoops to meet their constituents dumbass beliefs.

Politicians who are legitimately brilliant also rarely get elected.

2000, dude, how was it even close???

I don't think it's rare at all. I knew foot was alluding to this gem of a statement, but couldn't figure out any intricate cut and pasting from my phone. Again, I don't think this kind of thinking is an exception to the rule; for many it is the be-all end-all rule. And it scares the bejeebus out of me:

Later, his handlers had him issue an "well I didn't mean it like THAT" statement, because he really does empathize with women who are victims of rape and abuse. Legitimate rape and legitimate abuse, whatever that is.

There are no words, except: stop the planet, I want to get off.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ncy/?hpt=hp_t1

Hey, if it takes a spammer to reply to absolutely anything I say...I'll take it!

Did the spammer express outrage (or even thinly veiled disdain?) on behalf of women everywhere?

Hard to say. The spammer's post started off like this, and went on for several hundred similar words.

Well heck, that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me. ;)

In my interpretation, of course.

I also read the story about Akin's remarks with disbelief and horror. TWIL and I talked about it extensively yesterday. We disagreed about some parts and agreed about some parts. Both of us agree that Akin is a dumbass and that his remark is legitimately stupid. We disagree about whether or not Akin actually believes what he said the first time, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down". I contend that he doesn't really believe it and that it was just stupid pandering. I just find it hard to believe despite their alluring mystery, believing this statement indicates a lack of understanding about where babies come from that every ten year old I've ever met already knows. TWIL on the other hand thinks that it he's just stupid. Hard to say. I think it is clear that he's pandering--"look how hardcore I am--no abortion, no way, no how". And, though it saddens me, I think many of the people he directs such a message to may well believe his statement.

His follow up remarks, and I paraphrase: "I misspoke. Rape victims are understandably emotional, and while I have great sympathy for them I don't believe that harsh punishment is fair to the innocent child".

Misspoke? Yes, yes he did. He mistakenly spoke his thoughts when the right thing to do would have been to keep his mouth shut in range of a hot mike. I believe he believes this is the right way to think and act. Just look at his "clarification". He says he misspoke, right. But then he quickly switches to how emotional these women are and that the bad guys (assuming the rape was, you know, legitimate) should be punished but not the baby. Think of the children! No retraction, no "wow, that came out wrong, let me set the record straight", nothing like that. This is his position. It just...smacks of victim blaming to me, like he thinks there's no risk for the woman.

When I read through Google News' front page, I see news items from everywhere (well, it seems like everywhere, but how would I know?). Fox News is a very prominent name in lots of the world news and US news and political news sections, etc. In reading about this story, they were very conspicuously absent from the top thirty or forty providers of this story. I went to FoxNews.com and looked for the article. I *did* find it, but it's pretty well buried. Not something Fox's editorial and journalistic standards for important news. Unsurprising.

Attachment 40119

Maybe he does really believe that's possible. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing paving the way for all sorts of strange beliefs to develop. He knows abortion is bad. He knows rape is bad. He knows that people cite rape as the most legitimate reason for abortion. So he needs to use the word legitimate and he needs to address the what if a pregnancy results from rape. Easiest option is Denial. Pretend that it doesn't. We all know humans are naturally wired for Denial. it's a great self-defence mechanism. Deny the problem exists, deny abortion is the only solution.

The stupidity perhaps lies in the not questioning/checking the soundnes of his beliefs once in a while. But so few people do that, and they can't all be stupid. Can they?

Or maybe he doesn't believe it and it's just a political maneuver. Well that's stupid too because the obvious answer would have been to get all religious about it. He's not sucking up to the people who support abortion in case of rape, he's sucking up to the extreme pro-lifers, so why not just go the religous route? works for the creationists.

But then, I think a lot of people are pretty stupid and it generally causes trouble for me when I say so, especially if I don't "know them in real life" So I now tend to just keep it shut and stay away from them, because I have a low tolerance for stupid. I may even have a stupid allergy.

So he is saying, if a man and a woman really love each other... it isn't legitimate rape. Where does the stork figure in?

Also a neat little assumption here is that women's work is having babies, so it doesn't really matter whose babies.

I think the use of the word "legitimate" may be kind of smart just as long as he doesn't let himself get tricked into defining "legitimate rape", which he's successfully done so far.

Unspeakably immoral IMO, but maybe not stupid. Remember, some geniuses are evil.....

I'm finding it really hard to stay away from religion here, which will undoubtedly cause me to offend just about every body, so i think I'd better stop.

I think what this guy says does and believes is despicable, i was just rising to the challenge of the thread. And now I remember why i stay away from the politics forum.

[my teenage]Do it! You won't.[/daughters]

Over 50% of us routinely do that. Ideological concepts are automatically converted into truth. Then seek soundbytes to support those myths. Many European dwellars still have no grasp of how strongly Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc do this brainwashing with extreme popularity.

Most ideology comes from "it was the first thing we were told". Most will hear something. And not say, "He provided no facts or number; so he is probably lying." That is always required to perform intelligent thought.

Those ‘always required’ underlying facts are necessary to not be an extremist. To not automatically believe what was told. How many drink Gatorade or Powerade because advertising (and no facts) says so? How many foolishly buy Red Bull at $2.50 a can. How many now buy Danon Yogurt because a miracle ingredient - digitalis rectalitis - creates better digestion. When science says no such proof exists. To know means always demanding the underlying facts and numbers. Most of us never do. Therefore have no idea how easily we are brainwashed.

How can that be? Only others are brainwashed? Therefore brainwashing works so easilyl. Those most manipulated by myths and lies will also deny the resulting brainwashing.

We have a benchmark for identifying those most easily brainwashed. Facts and numbers said no proof exists for Saddam's WMDs. How many were taken in by outright lies when even numbers said otherwise? It demonstrates how many can be easily brainwashed. That (and not some result of torture) is brainwashing.

Why did an overwhelming majority in Delaware vote against the once popular (9 time Congressman and Delaware Governor) Michael Castle to instead nominate the witch Christine O'Donnell? She went on Fox News as a wacko extremist spokesperson for Tea Party philosophies. Then was suddenly popular. She preached an ideology - was not a moderate. She demonstrated no intelligence nor educated grasp of facts. Did not even know major benchmarks in American history. Did not even know many fundamental concepts of the US Constitution.

Her extremist ideology alone was sufficient for so many in Delaware to make a decision. She did not waste time learning facts or history. Her philosophy was sufficient. Many choose her ideology (an emotion) rather than think logically. They entertained their emotions rather than intelligence. Brainwashing is that widespread.

You would think those so many in Delaware learned how easily they were manipulated. Nope. It requires a part of the brain that does not develop in many until after the age of 16. Many still never develop or learn how to use that part. Do not learn from their mistakes. Remain a target of extremist concepts promoted by soundbytes and the resulting brainwashing.

Study 1930 European history to appreciate how routinely and effectively it can be performed. Most people cannot separate their emotions from fact.

See, that's exactly what I want to know. What does he call a 'legitimate rape'? Since when did rapes come in degrees of legitimacy? Like.. is it an illegitimate rape if he gets it in but doesn't/can't leave anything behind? Is it only legitimate if the person reports it and not if she (or he for that matter) is too ashamed/traumatized/terrorized to say anything? Is it only legitimate if it's the man raping the woman?

Also, I want him and the doctors he spoke with to cite sources as to this wonderful defense mechanism my body has that only he and those doctors know about that can prevent pregnancy. If we human women can autonomously delay pregnancy like the striped desert mouse, I would love to know more about it. For reasons.

Well Monster, I will go there for you. Religion FOSTERS stupid. And for a very good reason...control. And it works really well.

Thats why I, too, try to stay away from that kind of stupid...its maddening to be around.

Answer from not necessarily a news source.

Legitimate means as defined by law. So he doesn't need to define it, the law does. He may wish to change the law..... but seeing as he wishes to outlaw abortion, that's moot too.

Almost citing sources for this scientific phenomenon was probably the stupidest thing he did. Should have said it was in the bible.



shut up, monster, shut up..............

So, if you are raped and do get pregnant, you must have actually wanted it so therefore it wasn't really rape, because REAL rapes never result in pregnancy? That's what Akin thinks?

This guy gets to stay in office? Jebus fricking Crepes.

Why are women letting these assholes take us back in time? Every right we had to fight for, all the crap we still have to fight for, and someone can just say this nasty crap and we all nod and go about our business?

For the sakes of your mothers, your daughters, your aunts, your sisters, can't some of you get together and beat the snot out of the pasty little fuck face? And fuck him in the ass while you're at it. It will be a legitimate rape because he won't get pregnant.

But is Akin legitimately stupid or just plain evil? Now, the women who voted for him, we can probably take a reasonable stab that they are just plain stupid......

I don't really care if he's stupid OR evil...though I think both which is really scary. He needs to step down.

He needs voting out. If he steps down, he'll find a way to save face, maintain support and public exposure, and make way for one who is worse. He needs to be digraced and booted or voted out.

But now everybody knows his name and those to stupid to research before they vote will see a familiar moniker on the ballot paper and give it a big ole check.....

Worth reading.

Isn't this similar to the "morning-after" pill? Perhaps Akin is going down the wrong path? Perhaps he should give some consideration to prosecuting women who are raped and do not get pregnant for "spontaneous self-abortion"?

The Family Research Council has offered strong support for Akin, saying this is a case of "gotcha politics" and that people including Republicans calling for Akin to withdraw from the race "lack backbone". omg. The FRC is saying that the people of Missouri know Akin, that he's been elected five times, he's a defender of life, yadda yadda yadda. What a dilemma for the Republicans.

Um, so maybe you shouldn't call yourselves the Family Research Council.

Numnut.

Buddy boy Akin needs to take a high school biology class, just sayin'.


Wait... this is Missouri. That's 'intelligent design in schools' territory. Never mind.

He defines 'legitimate' rape as 'forcible' rape.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...ible_rape.html

Can't think of a type of rape (again, there's different kinds now?) where there isn't someone forcing themselves on another person. Has rape-by-osmosis been established then?

perhaps as opposed to statutory rape?

Naive child. There are two types of rape.

'Legitimate' rape can be defined as when the woman becomes so traumatized by the rape event that her body doesn't allow the pregnancy process to happen (just trust me this....don't bother me with this science bullshit).

'Other" rape can be defined as when the woman is not traumatized by the rape event, leading her body to believe it was consensual and allows the pregnancy process to happen. This should actually not be considered rape because she is obviously being a drama queen but those damn femi-nazis and liberal professors got to define "rape" first.

Akin's staying in the race. Wow.


Senator Cornyn, head of the Republican Party Senatorial Committee has urged Akin to withdraw from the race.
What makes this interesting and urgent is that unless swift action is taken, his name will appear on the general election ballot in November.

Discuss? Ok. Let's hear from Tom Schaller over at the Baltimore Sun who has an opinion piece lovingly titled:

Todd Akin rape claim is the tip of the GOP wacko iceberg

House Republicans make constant display of their tenuous grasp on reality

Some excerpts:

Seriously? Who would want to be on their team?

This is true.

It's also true that every time a politician tells a lie about rape,
both his nose and his dick get shorter.

Have you seen the latest picture of Todd Akin ?
.

I can't decide whether Akin's comments are stupidity, ignorance, politically motivated cynicism, or outright neurotic delusion.

Either way it's bloody appalling that this person might be even considered for public office.

America, you really worry me.

considered?

I know you're not from here, but Akin's not just considered for office, he's been in office for five terms already.

Yeah, I got that bit ... "considered for" was my way of emphasising how far off I think he is. What are you, Akin or something? ;)

Meanwhile... http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-m...-as-dog,29256/

gotcha. :)

re link:

LMAO!

Gosh bless the onion. Hilarious! :)

That's the public statement. Necessary to defuse the issue among Akin's oppenents. But I suspect the party would rather have him run since he probably will still win the Senate seat.

The issue may be politically incorrect among the more educated. But his support is not from those people. I suspect Akin's strongest supporters quietly agree with him. Or really don't regard his statements as inflammatory. I suspect the party knows this. And minimizes harm by pretending to not support him.

Y'know what? I don't want to hear a single fucking right-wing conservative open their mouths about how bad Islam treats women ever again.

Jesus fucking christ.

1 point lead

Another great onion article:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pre...as-ille,29258/

And another!

Republicans Condemn Akin's Comments As Blemish On Party's Otherwise Spotless Women's Rights Record

http://www.theonion.com/articles/rep...sh-on-p,29259/

I agree with most of what you've said tw. Public statement, check. Needed to distance themselves from Akin, check. I don't agree that they want him to run; I believe they'd rather have someone else who hasn't attracted and excited (Energized is the political buzzword) so much opposition. Of course the statement is politically incorrect, incorrect in so many ways not the least of which is factually incorrect. And sadly, you're right about his supporters who, not quietly, agree with him. They're just fine with his remark, who cares, no abortion, no exceptions, the end.

I welcome his opposition in this race, though I can't vote in that race. I think he's a good contrast to legitimate leaders, like McCaskill.

Lest we forget, it's not just Akin.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/opinio...ion/index.html

Yeah... The Kos headline is: Republicans in disarray thanks to Akin explaining what they all think about rape

And apparently, none of the statutory rapes or incest victims in Steve King's personal experience have ever gotten pregnant.

Akin should be raped ... legitimately.
After that, maybe just maybe I'll listen to what he has to say.

yes, legitimately. so he wouldn't get pregnant.

George Galloway is not currently covering himself in glory.
Although I have more respect for his reasoning having looked into all the information available.

I think he'll stay in the race. Then, there will be a court battle to remove him which will be successful. Then, the replacement GOP candidate will lose in the general election in November.

So the Republicans arent really assured of the conservative women's vote yet? I dont know about that. Any woman would be insane to vote for this guy, but Im pretty sure that prolifers wont change their minds about him.

I was listening to NPR this morning, and they interviewed a handful of this guy's constituents. Two of them were women who were fully supportive of him and thought he was a victim of gotcha politics.

Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.

I mean, he is a pig and those two women are nuts.

I gotta start writing my manifesto, I suppose.

I heard that story and those women too. This really is "gotcha politics". GOTCHA! But for fucking fuck's sake people, even taking away his "I used one wrong word, one time", he doesn't have a public position that reflects reality. For me, that's enough to disqualify him. As others have opined, the truth matters, for some, and for others, the truth does not matter. I have seen or heard nothing about this issue that has contradicted my original assessment that his only "misspoke" was to actually say, out loud, what he believes.

If there weren't nothin' to be gotted then no one would have to have got him, get it?

Poor baby boohooo, gettin' all picked on and stuff. His mama should've aborted.