Presidential Election: 2012
- Thread starter Omnis
- 3,780 comments
- 157,123 views
- 87,597
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
There was something about Clark County, Nevada, earlier in the thread which wasn't quite all that it appeared to be.
However, there's a little confusion over what a vote in a caucus state does that I've just clarified to myself (I'd always wondered what a caucus was, never asked). So I'll clarify for others:
At primaries the process is simple. The delegates go and vote for the candidates in their state proportionally to their results in the primary (open primary) or winner-takes-all (closed).
At a caucus, however, delegates are chosen from members of the party and that includes registered members who don't go home when the voting closes. Ron Paul's supporters stay behind, get picked and take a vote for Ron Paul to the national convention, regardless of what the voters in the caucus chose.
As it stands, Ron Paul hasn't won a single state - the only man of the four left to do so - on popular vote, but on delegate counts, which is what matters, he might have won four of the eight (before tonight).
Odder still, this is Ron Paul's stated election tactic. It's on his website. He mentions it a lot. His supporters care enough to not only vote for him but to stay behind to be chosen to be his delegates at the national convention.
However, there's a little confusion over what a vote in a caucus state does that I've just clarified to myself (I'd always wondered what a caucus was, never asked). So I'll clarify for others:
- Caucus vote occurs; people vote for candidates
- Caucus vote closes; Local party meets to discuss delegates
- Delegates chosen (total limited by national convention), sent to national convention
- 2,286 Delegates vote for chosen candidates at national convention; Winning candidate becomes nominee
At primaries the process is simple. The delegates go and vote for the candidates in their state proportionally to their results in the primary (open primary) or winner-takes-all (closed).
At a caucus, however, delegates are chosen from members of the party and that includes registered members who don't go home when the voting closes. Ron Paul's supporters stay behind, get picked and take a vote for Ron Paul to the national convention, regardless of what the voters in the caucus chose.
As it stands, Ron Paul hasn't won a single state - the only man of the four left to do so - on popular vote, but on delegate counts, which is what matters, he might have won four of the eight (before tonight).
Odder still, this is Ron Paul's stated election tactic. It's on his website. He mentions it a lot. His supporters care enough to not only vote for him but to stay behind to be chosen to be his delegates at the national convention.
- 3,321
- United States
- GTP_Sam48
That's the bit that really throughs me off. Are the delegates the news media reports just estimates? (e.i. Romney with 112, Gingrich 38, Santorum 37, and Paul 25)
Also, regarding voter fraud in Clark County Nevada, is there an on going investigation into this? If you recall Iowa, there was a similar situation.
Jubby
Premium
- 1,532
- Maine
- jubbyboi617
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Yes. You'll notice that every news outlet is reporting a different number for delegates. As of yet, there are no official numbers for allocated delegates because not all of them have been chosen from any state except Florida, which held a primary and awarded its delegates immediately.
I don't know where to find out the actual delegate count there simply isn't a proper count as far as I can work out.
- 38,953
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
Yes, they are all presumptions. The media is doing a terrible job reporting the facts because they are either (a) lazy or (b) complicit in running a misinformation campaign so that they can write the narrative.
The media is covering a horse race. That's basically it.
For example, Santorum only has 9 confirmed delegates so far. Santorum and Gingrich will not be able to win outright even in the separate scenarios that each of them dominates the rest of the campaign. Ron Paul's shot at winning will only exist if Romney can be kept from winning outright, and the more people there are in the race keeping Romney from getting votes, the better. Newt and Rick need to stay in it to give Ron his chance.
- 6,076
- Simcoeace
Oh dear! You've got to be kidding me! I think my daughter in fourth grade has a better understanding of the concept of "objectivity" that that!
Making a mistake in applying a math calculation is not the same thing as disagreeing on philosophical ideas AT ALL! The former is a MISTAKE - it's commonly understood that there is only one correct answer. If you were to ask a thousand mathematicians, whether they're from the present or the 18th century, whether they're from the US, France, England, India, China, or any other country, what 28 divided by 4 equals, the answer will always be the same. Ask a thousand philosophers about "human rights" & you'll get a huge range of different responses. The reason libertarians disagree "on something objective" is because there's no clear "objective something" to agree on in the first place.
The fact that you can make a logical argument for libertarian principles is simply the starting point for taking them seriously. It doesn't establish that they are "correct" - not even in theory, let alone in practice. Fundamental libertarian principles, whether consequential or deontological in origin, have led in so many different directions - including Keef's & Danoff's differing interpretations of the Civil War - who's to say which one is the 28 divided by 4 = 7 & which one is the 28 divided by 4 = 6?
Comparing the logic of libertarian thinking to the logic of mathematics is just plain wrong.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 87,597
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, it's just we're all fourth graders. There's a single answer. We're just not bright enough to all arrive at it yet.
The act of misapplying logic or applying it from incorrect bases doesn't render the logic flawed, it renders the thinker flawed. The one thing you can't say about Libertarian philosophies is that they are inconsistent - where disagreements occur between them is when the base information is subjective or unclear. There's only one other philsophy that is wholly internally consistent in its world view and since that seeks to deny all freedoms, it's wrong.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
Supporting Famine here.
The point is that when we formulate Human Rights logically, we can get criticism and see where it becomes incorrect, where wrong premises were brought in. The effort has been insufficient to get the subjective out. It is difficult, since the language used to describe objectivity is subjective and objective conclusions are probably against our values.
But with time humanity will get 1 set without subjectivity so that it can not be refuted.
So if the candidates show their logic you will probably see their values and how far they can let them go and be objective. I would go for someone who proves to be most objective, even if he has values that I do not share.
- 87,597
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Your first and second statements do not agree - and thus "therefore" is misplaced. If you start from a single thing and use logic you will arrive at a single result.
However, where does one start applying logic? If you start from a principle, how did you arrive at that principle? Was it through logic or not? If not, your foundation is not logical and using logic will arrive at a logical (in that context), but flawed and illogical conclusion. If so, you can logically regress all the way to the first truth - a single thing that logically leads to further single principles and answers.
You have already proven your inability to reason and articulate your own thoughts, multiple times. You should not presume to be able to reason and articulate mine.
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,835
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
They do agree, that is why you are wrong. Logic is not an answer, therefore logic does not need an answer.
You rely on 'if'.
The problem is you don't deal with reality. Just look at your own argument. It is true to you, but not in the real world, that is why you rely on a hypothetical.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,046
- Mile High City
I fear we're taking this thread too far off topic, but I want to respond to this as succinctly as I can.
Objective statements can be wrong. In fact, only objective statements can be wrong. Subjective statements can never be wrong, as they subject to interpretation (such as... "blue is the best color"). An objective statement like "the world is flat" is a fact about reality. It happens to be an incorrect fact*, but it is an objective statement - one that does not depend on perception.
So you see that at many points throughout human history we have disagreed on objective things. We've disagreed on whether the earth is the center of the universe (objective... given a definition of center). We've disagreed on whether the earth is flat, whether matter could be spontaneously generated, whether the universe was filled with ether, and whether the universe is of constant size. All of these were arguments in which both sides were arriving at objective statements about reality, but only one side was correct.
What you have done is the equivalent of observing an argument between a scientist who thinks the universe is filled with ether and a scientist who believes the universe is not, and subsequently announcing "clearly there is no one answer to what the universe is filled with, it depends on who you ask".
So I'll restate my position:
me
*Given a reference frame of course
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Hey would you look at that, this looks almost like the Human Rights thread now.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
True, but not in the context you've presented so much and also wouldn't be seen in a political debate as well. Also the point is you too yourself had just claimed it was getting off topic. So not sure why you want to make a point (or try rather) to me when I indirectly agree with you.
Odd.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I'm not trying to accomplish anything, you seem to always think that I have some kind of agenda with my post. Maybe just maybe I'm making a quick conversation piece or observation, but please tell me what I was trying to accomplish since I always have it out for you and anything you're in. Just saying looks a lot like the Human Rights thread, was waiting to see when it would come to it. However, I think the argument of logic and philosophy has little to do with elections, but that was the same argument I also saw once again in the Human Rights thread.
Hence why I said what I said. Do you understand now? Biggles brought up a good point about the thought behind libertarians but not it has fizzled to a pissing match between who has their philosophical center in a better place you and Famine or biggles and dapper.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 87,597
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
What's the delegate count looking like from Maine?
I demonstrated why they don't - all principles regressed with logic = first truth. Single principle plus logic = single answer.
Nope. I simply posit questions with it and you, as ever, decline to answer. We know why.
I gave no hypothetical. The problem is that you do not wish to examine your reality - and that begs the further question of what you wish to achieve in the Opinions forum at all. If it's just repeating your opinion over and over again without listening to any dissenting ones or examining your own reasons for holding your opinions - which essentially defines your MO - you'd be better suited to putting them in a blog.
Every time danoff posts in this forum, I examine my own reasons for any opinion I hold. He generates discussion and introspection - in those willing to discuss and self-examine. You generate noise.
I demonstrated why they don't - all principles regressed with logic = first truth. Single principle plus logic = single answer.
You rely on 'if'.
Nope. I simply posit questions with it and you, as ever, decline to answer. We know why.
I gave no hypothetical. The problem is that you do not wish to examine your reality - and that begs the further question of what you wish to achieve in the Opinions forum at all. If it's just repeating your opinion over and over again without listening to any dissenting ones or examining your own reasons for holding your opinions - which essentially defines your MO - you'd be better suited to putting them in a blog.
Every time danoff posts in this forum, I examine my own reasons for any opinion I hold. He generates discussion and introspection - in those willing to discuss and self-examine. You generate noise.
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Just like it is everywhere, which is to say, "iono".
Samuel L. Jackson isn't exactly a guy to look toward for political advice.
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 5,812
- shmogt
There is a lot of talk about job creation and how jobs in China need to be brought back to the US. This is a very interesting article that shows very large amounts of job creation due to app designers are all in the US. http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/07/atten...p-economy-has-created-a-decent-job-in-the-us/
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
