Presidential Election: 2012

[Sach]

*** May I respectfully request that you please read my comment at the very bottom of this post before replying again with a bunch of quotes to individual things, so that we can try to get this more on topic? Thank you.

So you would have the money taken from a group that provides something society wants in large amounts to pay for them? Why is it anyone else's responsibility to pay for a jazz musician's quality of life?

I never said it was. But history has proven that the arts are vital to a healthy society, and what I see are the powers that be wanting to continually delude our people with materialistic, mindless garbage, and in doing so they are also taking away important jobs. Yes, I know there are other fields experiencing the same thing which are important. - I'm allowed to speak up for my own field and say that I will not vote for a person who will cut funding for the arts. That is how this all started.

No, but you mentioned it in regards to a commune. If they are self-sustained they have to have a farm. You said no one of them could do that on their own. I was pointing out that plenty do that.

An individual doesn't provide for an entire community (commune) by themselves as in your model. We are talking about two different things.

Cool story. I grew up in nowheresville Taylorsville, Kentucky where the local public school did not do college preperation because it was a farming community. I got into college on my own merit, got a job on my own merit, and was promoted every two years on my own merit. If you don't know what I am getting at: The "I grew up without opportunities" speech falls on deaf ears with me. I made my opportunities. I even made mistakes along the way, but I corrected my errors and kept going. And there are other things I had to overcome that more veteran members are well aware of.

This kind of pisses me off, if I'm being honest. I never asked for any sympathy, I only pointed out that my mother has taken care of herself through a lot of self-sustenance over the years. I've accomplished as much as you from the same situations, so get off of your own high horse.

So, say no one wants to do certain jobs, like shovel hog crap. How does that get dealt with?

We're all adults here. People change diapers, they're tough.

Democratic agreement? Do you mean a vote? A vote, by definition has a loser. Someone will lose the vote.

No reason why that can't be part of the understanding going in.

Are you going to tell me that ensuring everyone has equal access to everything leaves room for arts for all who wish to pursue it?

No, because I believe you have oversimplified things in the model you proposed.

A free market eliminates government interference. The problem is caused by the people you think are keeping things controlled. Government is the problem, not free market.

Not really, just look at the farming industry. The market is not EQUAL, which is what you are suggesting. One person goes into it with a billion dollars and buys all the patents on seeds, and owns the farmers who only have enough to barely get started. The market is free, however it is so unbalanced that this fact makes no difference.

So you care about what society cares about...right up until you disagree with their priorities?

Eh, what? I'm saying that I have concern with my society preferring to destroy itself. That's what I mean when I say I care about what they care about, not that I share their beliefs, etc.

Wait, you have moderate athletic ability? That is so unfair. You had an ufair advantage. Society should correct this.

You haven't proven anything here, and you're frankly resorting to jackass remarks in addition to consistently putting words into my mouth. This comment serves no purpose and you have taken it the wrong way in the first place.

Try Kentucky. Music majors only had to be in a band performance group for one semester, got 3 hours per class, and their final projects were an individual performance. But my video and audio production courses required many hours in the studios producing and editing and the lab component was only one hour.

Like this example... you completely misunderstood my previous comment. This to me sounds like some form of retaliation, when in fact I never made a comparison to try and gather pity for marching band players at one university versus another. Or maybe I'm not understanding the nature of your response, but in light of your previous comments I take this as a cynical retaliation.

I'm confused. Either I misunderstood you or you said arguing against averting government shutdown was traitorous, but the debate was over increasing the debt ceiling. And the tax issues were about raising taxes on one group and not another in order to maintain entitlements instead of cutting spending.

I have not once argued in any debate here about raising the debt ceiling. Your reactions to me are mostly confused as to where I am coming from, from what I am gathering.

The feeling is mutual. Far better than the one-liner trolling some others have done.

I was enjoying the discussion until you made the comments I have pointed out in this thread, specifically about what you have accomplished. For one, it is off topic. You also know absolutely know nothing about what I have accomplished either, where I am now, and the fact that I did everything completely on my own just like you, against very specific odds that were not faced by everyone else in addition to my financial situation. That's beside the point, and I haven't thus far seen a need to flaunt whatever hard work and accomplishments I have at this point in my life within this thread for that very reason. My comment about baseball was just a response to your "you should support sports" comment showing that I have been quite active in sports for many years. I don't know a single person who makes a legion baseball team without a lot of dedication and love for the sport. That was the point, to demonstrate my understanding of your side of the value system we were discussing.








**************

And here is another article about how Obama's crony capitalism (or crapitalism as Stossel calls it) led to just throwing US money away on bad companies due to favoritism. http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/02/23/serious-crapitalism

** I think everyone here knows that it's a lesser-of-two-evils situation and has been for years. Maybe none of our realistic political options are actually any less oppressive or destructive than the other.


So to get this back on topic, let me ask:


How might you propose that we solve this issue in the coming election(s)?


(Can we try to keep the discussion here? Please, PM me if you want to continue the other discussion. Respectfully...)

 

[Vince_Fiero]

How might you propose that we solve this issue in the coming election(s)?

It is the only point that is relevant to the thread, what are the ideas of the candidates, what are the actions you can expect from them, etc...

So the election is about will you vote someone in that will increase taxes, someone that will bring legislation that limits the actions of citizens more, will you bring in someone that will remove taxes or legislation and increase liberty of the market, including the bankruptcy of your community.

The US citizens will solve issues (we hope) by putting someone that thinks and acts correctly in office.

Clearly more spending will be more income and less income will be less spending:
Mitt Romney offered an expanded tax- cut plan with the goal: "My plan will create jobs," Romney told.
Permanent top tax rate of 28 percent for individuals from 35 percent now, cut corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, eliminate the estate tax and scrap the alternative minimum tax.

Is this the solution, more means to the people and more private initiative; thus less to the state and less state initiative? On the creation of jobs, without more spending there is no jobs creation, and the spending has to be on inland products; refer to the French campaign that some focus on "Buy French".

 

[Touring Mars]

Here's a decent synopsis of how the GOP nomination process actually works and how Ron Paul could play a pivotal role in deciding who wins the nomination...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/23/ron-paul-amasses-delegates-republican-election

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Here's a decent synopsis of how the GOP nomination process actually works and how Ron Paul could play a pivotal role in deciding who wins the nomination...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/23/ron-paul-amasses-delegates-republican-election

I had understood this.
But why should people be happy about this (except for Paul supporters), he is denying the votes and using friends politics to push through a choice that is not democratically chosen.

 

[livemusic]

But the GOP process isn't democratic, so how would it be democratically chosen?

 

[Touring Mars]

But why should people be happy about this (except for Paul supporters), he is denying the votes and using friends politics to push through a choice that is not democratically chosen.

They aren't doing anything against the rules - Paul's campaign is just better organised and playing the game better than the others... as the article says, however, many of the delegates will be assigned according to the popular vote, and you cannot hope to win the nomination with the amount of the popular vote that Paul can command. But, by adopting this strategy, Paul will maximise his impact on the nomination process, and could help win the nomination for someone in return for policy concessions. Given that Ron Paul has never had any realistic chance of winning the GOP nomination, this is a good way to get his own policies taken seriously by a party elite that doesn't like many of his views much.

 

[Joey D]

** I think everyone here knows that it's a lesser-of-two-evils situation and has been for years. Maybe none of our realistic political options are actually any less oppressive or destructive than the other.

So to get this back on topic, let me ask:

How might you propose that we solve this issue in the coming election(s)?

There isn't a way for it not to be a lesser-of-two-evils this coming election. Whoever wins the GOP nomination will end up being the same as Obama or worse if elected. They will both seek to undermine each other's political parties at the cost of the American people, so in the end they are exactly the same, all rhetoric and little action.

The only way I see our elections not being based on the lesser-of-two-evils (or three or four) is to stop partisan politics. It won't happen, but that is really what needs to be done. When all you have are Republicans trying to block any Democrat's proposal, or vice verse, you end with a big, expensive body of leaders that doesn't do anything but tell the other side they are wrong. This is of course at the expense of the American taxpayer and their quality of life. Look at how many politicians have campaigned on job creation, look at how far that's got us, not very far at all.

The government needs more cooperation and less looking out for the politicians' best interest. When you have Congressmen who use lobby money to influence their decisions, whether they agree with it or not, it makes getting anywhere almost impossible. I mean should the government really be arguing over gay marriage? Or Internet censorship? No, they should be focusing on fixing the massive debt problem we have and trying to avoid a war with Iran.

We also need politicians to be more in touch with people and reality in general. The current crop of GOP'ers are showing just how out of touch they really are. Look at Rick Santorum, he is seriously suggesting that the government ban contraceptives in order to stop unwanted pregnancies. Now I'm no doctor, but I know that isn't going to work. This isn't the 1950's where the thought of someone having pre-martial sex was taboo.

A third party candidate might help but I seriously doubt it, they still are, after all, a politician. Plus a third party candidate would need a fortune to even remotely be considered as viable, and with such a low level of support in America I don't see that happening.

 

[Dapper]

This lady agrees with TM.
The Paul family's behavior is very odd.

 

[Sam48]

Paul would loose a lot of support if he ran as VP to Romney because Ron Paul supporters hate Romney. John McCain tried this in 08' with Palin and failed. I see no reason why it would not fail again. But here's the interesting bit. Paul has the power to ruin it for Romney by going third party (A tactic that got Clinton elected with only 41% of the vote). So I can see Paul making a deal with Romney not to run third party as long as Paul or Rand Paul get the VP position, but I don't like the idea at all. I guess that's politics.

 

[Dotini]

I just do not see the problem with libertarians gaining increasing control of the GOP by a strong grass roots takeover at the delegate level. What's not to like?

True change for the better build slow and strong. Paul's movement appears to have legs, and Paul himself is scampering ahead a half-step at a time.

This is a dream coming true,
Steve

 

[FoolKiller]

*** May I respectfully request that you please read my comment at the very bottom of this post before replying again with a bunch of quotes to individual things, so that we can try to get this more on topic? Thank you.

I only have two short responses before the bottom.

This kind of pisses me off, if I'm being honest. I never asked for any sympathy, I only pointed out that my mother has taken care of herself through a lot of self-sustenance over the years. I've accomplished as much as you from the same situations, so get off of your own high horse.

You are correct to be kind of pissed and I apologize. Reading back on it now I realize you weren't going the sympathy route. It seemed that way last night, but it was 1:30AM for me. But I hope it shows you where I come from and why I am adamantly opposed to a system that takes the earnings of some to give to others.

Not really, just look at the farming industry. The market is not EQUAL, which is what you are suggesting. One person goes into it with a billion dollars and buys all the patents on seeds, and owns the farmers who only have enough to barely get started. The market is free, however it is so unbalanced that this fact makes no difference.

The market is not free. That is why it is so unbalanced.

Everything else is us talking two different languages. When you use examples you refer to a society or community while I refer to the individual. Misunderstanding was bound to happen and I doubt we can ever achieve more than agreeing to disagree.

And back on topic.

I think everyone here knows that it's a lesser-of-two-evils situation and has been for years. Maybe none of our realistic political options are actually any less oppressive or destructive than the other.

So to get this back on topic, let me ask:

How might you propose that we solve this issue in the coming election(s)?

Simple. It isn't the lesser of two evils. There are as many as ten parties that run in presidential elections. If everyone who thought it was the lesser of two evils found one of the others that they did like and voted for them then a few would get the federal backing to run a major campaign in the next election. I did not vote Republican or Democrat in 2008, but I did vote.

Usually this is where someone will say a third party vote is a wasted vote. If every person that said, "I like X candidate the most, but a vote for him/her is just a wasted vote," actually voted that way it wouldn't be a wasted vote.

Just remember, a compromise between sustenance and poison is still poison.

 

[Keef]

Not only did Bolton insult this Army Ranger, but then FOX went and edited Stossel's video to include applause, when Bolton was actually booed!

 

[Villain]

Are you really surprised or is that sarcasm?

Just impressed with the work he put into that post.

 

[FoolKiller]

Just impressed with the work he put into that post.

I use Google Reader on my phone throughout the day. I am subscribed to every news outlet and blogs from all sides of the political spectrum. There are also as many entertainment sources in my subscriptions. As I read I star any story I find interesting or that irks me. Many times I will link those stories on GTP that day, but some are unrelated to any topic I am active in and turn out to be useful later.

The only effort that post required were the Veteran's for Ron Paul rally videos, and that was one search in YouTube and then just clicking related videos for better quality versions of the same video and other videos from the rally. Since most video posting Ron Paul supporters have dedicated Ron Paul channels there were very few unrelated videos to sort through.

My job used to be media research. It's hard to let that go after eight years.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just impressed with the work he put into that post.

I guess, I think it was a good put together I mean it's better than what I've seen for those who support Romney or Obama. Jumping in and putting in a four word blip or so on (for those who have) and not truely informing people is a waste to this thread. So no matter if you like Paul or not you have to admit that at least those supporting him are trying to get that message out.

 

[Sach]

Not only did Bolton insult this Army Ranger, but then FOX went and edited Stossel's video to include applause, when Bolton was actually booed!

I think we can agree that Fox News is the kryptonite of anything honest and legitimate concerning politics (or basically anything remotely honest at all)?

 

[Liquid]

The public: We don't want this war, we're unpopular because of it and even while we're there we're abusing our power.

The politicians: You don't understand; we're not Shelling out, we're bringing freedom to these people and it Texaco-uple of years for these things to happen. It'd Bee Pee-retty bad if we let the terrorists win. I'd be a Total nightmare. If we keep fighting now, we Chevron more trouble in the future. There are too many aSasolations in the middle East.

The public: You're completely avoiding the question and hundreds of our people are dying because of it.

The politicians: ...ExxonMobil.

And yet another propaganda video from FOX. Can't misrepresentative journalism be reported to the FCC?

 

[FoolKiller]

I think we can agree that Fox News is the kryptonite of anything honest and legitimate concerning politics (or basically anything remotely honest at all)?

They are no worse than the other 24 hour news networks. CNN keeps having "technical trouble" when covering Ron Paul or his supporters, including cutting off a soldier mid-endorsement. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow will praise libertarian leaning Republicans in a primary only to demonize them in the general election season. And Chris Matthews will actually leave Ron Paul off poll results that put him ahead of candidates. Not just not talking about it, but even leaving his results off of the on-screen graphic.

And yet another propaganda video from FOX. Can't misrepresentative journalism be reported to the FCC?

These are commentary/opinion programs and labeled as such. The networks do take advantage of the public's confusion, but so long as they are clearly labeled commentary no regulations are being violated. They are held by slander/libel rules, but that is why you have guests make false assertions, as the network is not responsible for the opinions and/or ignorance of non-employees.

The only people to blame for this shell game is the audience. They tune into these programs, thus making them the only profitable option for a 24 hour news network.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Speaking of news outlets being bias and picking canidates or what not. In my state the biggest newspaper has come out and said they will endorse Romney. Now tell me how that is fair and just...

 

[Famine]

They aren't doing anything against the rules - Paul's campaign is just better organised and playing the game better than the others... as the article says, however, many of the delegates will be assigned according to the popular vote, and you cannot hope to win the nomination with the amount of the popular vote that Paul can command. But, by adopting this strategy, Paul will maximise his impact on the nomination process, and could help win the nomination for someone in return for policy concessions. Given that Ron Paul has never had any realistic chance of winning the GOP nomination, this is a good way to get his own policies taken seriously by a party elite that doesn't like many of his views much.

The first part of that last statement is false for two reasons.

There are 2,286 delegates sent to the National Convention - with these primaries and caucuses electing those delegates. A candidate needs 1,144 delegates before then to be nominated without opposition. Paul is concentrating on the caucus states, as you note, as they are the ones he can score high numbers of delegates in without high numbers of Republican Party votes.

The caucus states provide 431 delegates. If Paul can manage 75% of those delegates - as his own numbers suggest - he scores 323 delegates, or about 30% of the total he needs. Even if he only nets 25% of the 1,855 delegates from primaries - assigned proportionally according to votes - he's up to 787 delegates. That's not enough to secure the nomination unopposed, but that's not the point (well... it's half of the point ). If he's running 787 delegates, that's 1,499 delegates split amongst Santorum, Gingrich and Romney. If we split those according to current popular vote proportions - not supremely accurate, due to winner-takes-all states - that'd be 270, 530 and 699 delegates respectively. Seems those caucus states are mightily important...

Going to the Convention like this, Paul and Romney would be leading, Gingrich in third and Santorum in last, but none with enough delegates to be elected unopposed. Santorum should probably gracefully withdraw at that point and his delegates will go elsewhere. Who are second and third in Santorum States so far? Yep, Paul and Romney, about 60:40 in Romney's favour. Now we're at 895 for Paul, 861 for Romney and 530 for Gingrich and Gingrich drops off the radar and it's anybody's call...

Of course this is conjecture, but it's based on the numbers we have so far.


Ron Paul has a realistic chance of winning the nomination if he keeps sweeping the caucus delegates and the three alternatives duke out the primaries between them - that is the tactic and the game he's playing. Of course he'd have an even more realistic chance if he could get the votes in the primaries too - which merely requires everyone who thinks he can't win to vote for him rather than voting for others because they think he can't win.

 

[Dapper]

Of course he'd have an even more realistic chance if he could get the votes in the primaries too - which merely requires everyone who thinks he can't win to vote for him rather than voting for others because they think he can't win.

The hi-lighted group of people is way bigger than the group of people who would vote for him even if they thought he could win.
What you are saying is if a lot of people who don't agree with his ideals vote for him he will win. Shocker.
The other possibilities seem... unrealistic.

 

[livemusic]

I believe he meant people who like him but don't think he can win.

 

[Dapper]

I believe he meant people who like him but don't think he can win.

Ron Paul, unlike Mitt or Newt even, won't get votes besides his zealous supporters. That ultimately means he has the least chance at the presidency and least likely to get the GOP nomination.

 

[ShortAznGuy]

Romney will become the Republican candidate. He will lose the Obama. Paul will be back in another four years and fail again.

 

[FoolKiller]

Romney will become the Republican candidate. He will lose the Obama. Paul will be back in another four years and fail again.

Paul isn't running for re-election in the House. He has basically set himself up for the White House or retirement.

 

[ShortAznGuy]

Paul isn't running for re-election in the House. He has basically set himself up for the White House or retirement.

Well, I guess that makes sense. He's getting pretty old, haha.

 

[Omnis]

The point is, there's not much he can do as a congressman anymore. Being a lone wolf in opposition doesn't mean anything like it does in the Senate.

 

[Famine]

What you are saying is

No it isn't.

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]

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Are you on something? Unless it is something wiki can easily prove, everything you say is wrong. You think laws are subjective because they are mutable, but a table can mutate into a piece of wood and never leave the objective state. That is a synopsis of how you think. It is blatantly clear what you are saying makes no sense (for instance, that something is subjective becasue it can change, ie a law) yet you actually believe you are right. That is noise. And you copy/paste your opinion/noise until you get the last post.

(just as predicted )

 

[Famine]

That is a synopsis of how you think

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.

And that was two weeks ago.


When you want to play the ball, come back and participate.