Presidential Election: 2012
- Thread starter Omnis
- 3,780 comments
- 157,028 views
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
If people want to know why I (and maybe others too, but I won't speak for them) support Ron Paul then watch this exchange between Rand Paul and Energy Secretary Chu.
And I think it is important that before someone tries another random, but fully expected at this point, comment about Republicans or their policies then watch it again and be sure to notice where Secretary Chu comments on how some of these deals were setup under a previous Republican administration to some Republican friends and Senator Paul says he wouldn't have given it to them either. Ron Paul similarly questions secretaries and heads of agencies and the policies of their organizations under both parties. Although it does seem odd that they all seem to fall back on, "well we are doing the same now as under the other party."
It explains two reasons why I support Ron Paul for President. 1) Both parties are blatantly guilty of cronyism and there is no change when the party in power changes. No slogan can change that. 2) Of all mainstream party candidates in this race right now only Ron Paul has a record of trying to change this system.
And I think it is important that before someone tries another random, but fully expected at this point, comment about Republicans or their policies then watch it again and be sure to notice where Secretary Chu comments on how some of these deals were setup under a previous Republican administration to some Republican friends and Senator Paul says he wouldn't have given it to them either. Ron Paul similarly questions secretaries and heads of agencies and the policies of their organizations under both parties. Although it does seem odd that they all seem to fall back on, "well we are doing the same now as under the other party."
It explains two reasons why I support Ron Paul for President. 1) Both parties are blatantly guilty of cronyism and there is no change when the party in power changes. No slogan can change that. 2) Of all mainstream party candidates in this race right now only Ron Paul has a record of trying to change this system.
FOX News...? Look, as voters, you've got to weigh-up all the options and pick the choice who most closely represents your feelings and/or views (or not vote for any of them). The truth is, none of them are perfect, and a good few of them seem to not quite be in touch with "ground-zero". So, whatever reasons you have for voting for Ron Paul (in this case) have obviously been thought about a bit. But, the "Reality check" video has a number of, quite major, faults and is a good reason why one would hope you use much more than FOX News to ascertain your worldview...
1. It only deals with ONE aspect of the various issues that Ron Paul's papers contained: racism. It's the big issue, but even THAT is not properly dealt with in the video.
2. It only documents what Ron Paul has said in recent times. His recollection on the whole fiasco changes.
3. There are multiple people who dispute his claims that he "Knew not what was written" here and here.
I don't know if he really IS a racist. Or, if he was, he may well not be NOW. But you have to admit this doesn't look good... It's about integrity now as much as racism and bigotry.
EDIT: I would also like to look more into the feasibility of some of his policies. But, I'll have to get back to you on that.
EDIT 2: Re-organising my points a bit... Changes are now in point 2 and the dispute is now its own point.
Last edited:
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Fox News? Keep talking and keep proving that your assessment of the video is based on not watching, or writing it off before you did watch it. A quick Google search of Ben Swann will lead anyone to discover that Ben Swann's Reality Check is a feature on Cincinnati's channel 19, WXIX. Of course, you shouldn't have need to go that far because the anchor even says it is WXIX at the end of the video.
Before trying to talk down to me pay attention to what you are actually talking about, and maybe realize that for eight years I worked at a media research company. AND on top of all that, pay a bit of attention to this thread and you will see that all the Ron Paul supporters accuse Fox News, with the exception of two commentators, of writing off Ron Paul more than anyone else.
Are we watching the same video? He doesn't make it about if the statements are racist. He even runs down a list of the content. The video was about who wrote the statements and the poor reporting of the people who made the initial reports. The scanned copies that were put online had no by line and had a section of a page missing. Another reporter does admit they have no by line, except for one, but never says who is listed on that by line.
And in my above Googling I did find a follow up report after the reporter finally responds to his questions about the by line.
AND while you are looking at that, maybe you can actually see the FOX 19 (not Fox News) logo in the background at the end.
Allow me to quote from your own link:
Now, I am aware that this doesn't directly address the defending the statements in 1996 and then in 2008 saying he was unaware of them until about 10 years before, when it first came up. But that timeline presented by him would suggest that the interview from 1996 may be what he is referring to.
And to stay on that Think Progress (about as balanced as Fox News, by the way) article for just a second: Despite their claims, Ron Paul has no record of a racist ideology. Voting against issuing a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks?
I guess Think Progress missed this interview in all their research:
As for the Civil Rights Act, I agree with him.
Two, two people. The Washington Post also quotes people saying differently. So, should we vote based on he said/she said fights? Or are we all to truly believe that an actual supporter of Ron Paul's called up the paper to break this damning exclusive? Or is the other person, who admits to not supporting Ron Paul, a trustworthy witness?
Seriously, it has been nearly 20 years since this first came up and the best anyone can do to actually prove he approved them is some he said/she said from former employers?
http://ronpaulracist.com/ looks at some of his past and has a video, not produced by the Ron Paul campaign, from a black man relating the story of how Ron Paul helped his white, pregnant wife when no one else would.
And here is an article that has a by line with Ron Paul's name, and even his picture attached to it from 2002. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
So, saying that because it did go out under his name and that whether he did or did not write them or did or did not approve them for publishing that he takes full responsibility for them shows no integrity to you?
CBS News
I will admit, it all does raise questions and even he takes responsibility for allowing those statements to go out under his name. At best, it shows that he can make a bad call when allowing someone else to take control of something he does. But his legislative career has no record of action to match these statements. If we are to take statements made on the campaign trail more seriously than a legislative record, when one exists, then that means that Mitt Romney is opposed to government run health plans and has always been pro-life, Rick Santorum completely opposes Medicare in all ways, and Newt Gingrich is a non-hypocritical ideal example of a good and caring family man. Or, as Ben Swann points out in the video I posted above, all the candidates are racists, including Obama.
EDIT:
For Christ's sake, people! Does no one actually know the difference between a network and an affiliate? Better yet, the difference between a 24-hour cable news channel and an affiliate of a broadcast network that does not even run a national evening news program? I know this amazingly new technology from 1980 is hard to understand, but the man living in your tiny box is actually in Cincinnati, and the other people in your tiny box with the magical, floating Fox News logo and ticker under them at all times (did you not notice it was missing?) are in New York City. They are NOT the same people.FOX News reporting...
I correct the local affiliate vs Fox News cable channel repeatedly. I get it, I'm the only person here with a degree in telecommunications, so I shouldn't expect people to know the difference between news agencies in their own town and ones from across the country, but I have pointed out the difference enough times in this thread alone that even my daughter would get it by now.
And for the record, as he explains, the images of the newsletters he had on screen were taken from the sites that were reporting on them. If you find them suspect then talk to the people claiming Ron Paul is racist. They are the ones who released them.
Last edited:
For Christ's sake, people! Does no one actually know the difference between a network and an affiliate? Better yet, the difference between a 24-hour cable news channel and an affiliate of a broadcast network that does not even run a national evening news program? I know this amazingly new technology from 1980 is hard to understand, but the man living in your tiny box is actually in Cincinnati, and the other people in your tiny box with the magical, floating Fox News logo and ticker under them at all times (did you not notice it was missing?) are in New York City. They are NOT the same people.
I correct the local affiliate vs Fox News cable channel repeatedly. I get it, I'm the only person here with a degree in telecommunications, so I shouldn't expect people to know the difference between news agencies in their own town and ones from across the country, but I have pointed out the difference enough times in this thread alone that even my daughter would get it by now.
And for the record, as he explains, the images of the newsletters he had on screen were taken from the sites that were reporting on them. If you find them suspect then talk to the people claiming Ron Paul is racist. They are the ones who released them.
Eh, no. They never once give an actual example of what they are claiming exists in those documents. I don't even care if what they say does exist in those documents, they're a joke for 'reporting' like that.
"The departure of white majority..."
That is not a racist comment in the slightest, only an observation of population shifts addressed by way of a comment. They provide absolutely no context surrounding the comment. On it's own it is not remotely racist.
They're a joke.
Keef
Premium
- 25,159
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
So apparently when these people decided to graphs vote results in terms of percentage of vote counted vs. percentage earned by each candidate, they found some rather interesting results.
Now, we all know that polling trends from a standardized sample (bear with me, I'm not a statistician) eventually flatline and result in a reliable percentage. They don't cruise along for a bit and then suddenly rocket up or down in a linear manner; that would require the occurrence of that parameter to become more frequent by an increasingly large factor as more of the poll results have been tallied. That's rather unnatural.
Well, I'll take it with a grain of salt just like I took the official results with a grain of salt. There's no more official evidence supporting this than anybody else. The group who put this basic analysis together is, however, seeking verification by professional mathematicians to see if these numbers make sense and how they could have been created.
Now, we all know that polling trends from a standardized sample (bear with me, I'm not a statistician) eventually flatline and result in a reliable percentage. They don't cruise along for a bit and then suddenly rocket up or down in a linear manner; that would require the occurrence of that parameter to become more frequent by an increasingly large factor as more of the poll results have been tallied. That's rather unnatural.
Well, I'll take it with a grain of salt just like I took the official results with a grain of salt. There's no more official evidence supporting this than anybody else. The group who put this basic analysis together is, however, seeking verification by professional mathematicians to see if these numbers make sense and how they could have been created.
Last edited:
dylansan
Premium
- 4,999
- Massachusetts
- GTP_dylansan
- MINICOOPER120
This link was on reddit a while back, and I think the consensus was that the convergence was only constant if the voting is random, but the actual voting was not totally random due to various factors.
I think you're right to take it with a grain of salt. The results are interesting for sure but I think it's evidence of a non-random voting environment rather than vote-flipping.
Keef
Premium
- 25,159
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I'm taking it cautiously simply because I don't understand what sort of math they're dealing with.
A plausible - hardly - explanation is that Ron Paul voters polled early in the day, while Romney voters polled late. Then the votes were counted in chronological order. And somehow, the proportion of Romney to Paul votes rose at a significant, almost perfectly linear rate throughout the counting, beginning at some random but readily visible point on the graph. Highly unlikely, but plausible.
What exactly do you mean by a non-random voting environment? The group provided graphs of older votes in the same state that showed typical statistics trends that you'd see when analyzing any type of date, and those votes were conducted in the same manner as the most recent one.
dylansan
Premium
- 4,999
- Massachusetts
- GTP_dylansan
- MINICOOPER120
I'm not really sure. I'm just going by what I remember. It may well be evidence of vote-flipping, but I don't understand all the math any better than you, and I understand the environment even less.
I'm curious to see what conclusions the other mathematicians come to.
I'm curious to see what conclusions the other mathematicians come to.
- 29,950
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
We discussed vote rigging in the GOP race a fair few pages back.
...Is some sort of authoritative body going to do something about it? Bit dodgy to have the race for the office of President of the United States to be a race that had confirmed and apparent electoral fraud.
...Is some sort of authoritative body going to do something about it? Bit dodgy to have the race for the office of President of the United States to be a race that had confirmed and apparent electoral fraud.
Keef
Premium
- 25,159
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Our government refuses to pull all American property out of Afghanistan. I believe that Afghanistan should at least sever all ties with the US in and effort to remove us from their country, if not threatening or outright declaring war against the US. I don't think I would have a problem with my failed leadership being bloodied in an effort to right their wrongs.RT News
Wouldn't it be funny if some sort of domestic libertarian organization allied itself with foreign nations, against the US government? What a strange situation that would be. If we can't trust out own government then maybe we should seek help from foreign governments in an effort to remove our current government from power.
Probably not. It will be up to the people at large, hopefully with the help of some exceptionally well-intentioned insiders, to gather evidence, present the case, and not only win the case but enforce the appropriate laws and enact the appropriate changes. Maybe hold a election redo.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
