Presidential Election: 2012

[Keef]

Oh. Yeah, that's why they're called bound delegates. Most of them aren't bound, however, and the delegates counts you see on the news literally are numbers they've pulled out of their ass. That's why they're all different.

 

[arora]

Forgive my ignorence, will Paul consider running 3rd party? I forget, I figured no based on things he's said in the past but if he's all or nothing as he seems to be at this point? If he is done with congress I'm curious to see how he ends his political career.

So, are there concrete 3rd paty peeps lined up? You guys prolly shoot me for saying, I'd like to see Chuck Baldwin run, big surprise, don't think he is though. Who then, Bob Barr? Ralph?( ) I hope some one manages to get on some ballots.

''....Republicans use conservative rhetoric the same way Democrats use liberal rhetoric. Neither party believes what they are telling their constituents. They merely say what constituents want to hear in order to get elected; after which, they set about to do what their elitist, globalist manipulators tell them to do.''

Baldwin in 2007 iirc.

 

[Touring Mars]

Oh. Yeah, that's why they're called bound delegates. Most of them aren't bound, however, and the delegates counts you see on the news literally are numbers they've pulled out of their ass. That's why they're all different.

Nope. Most of them (over 70%) are bound. As far as I know, only something like 433 delegates are unbound (unless more become unbound by virtue of a contender dropping out of the race).

The numbers you see on TV and in the mainstream media are not pulled out of thin air - they are merely totals based on both hard and soft counts - hard counts are based on actual bound delegates already won, and thus are alot more reliable. Soft counts include projections of delegates in caucus states (where delegates are unbound), and therefore estimates vary alot.

 

[Keef]

Nope. Most of them (over 70%) are bound.

I read that graph totally backwards. Touche.

 

[FoolKiller]

Forgive my ignorence, will Paul consider running 3rd party? I forget, I figured no based on things he's said in the past but if he's all or nothing as he seems to be at this point? If he is done with congress I'm curious to see how he ends his political career.

So, are there concrete 3rd paty peeps lined up? You guys prolly shoot me for saying, I'd like to see Chuck Baldwin run, big surprise, don't think he is though. Who then, Bob Barr? Ralph?( ) I hope some one manages to get on some ballots.

''....Republicans use conservative rhetoric the same way Democrats use liberal rhetoric. Neither party believes what they are telling their constituents. They merely say what constituents want to hear in order to get elected; after which, they set about to do what their elitist, globalist manipulators tell them to do.''

Baldwin in 2007 iirc.

I doubt he will go third party. He wants to protect his message, which lives on in his son Senator Rand Paul. Going third party could result in Rand being shunned by party officials.

I am curious what RP supporters will do if he doesn't get nominated (it is still mathematically possible). If they can organize they could send a message. Write-in for Ron Paul? Support a specific hird-party candidate? Where do those who believe the lesser of two evils is evil, and compromising between food and poison is still poison go, and will they do it as a message-delivering group? If all RP supporters voted for the Libertarian Party (or whoever) candidate the tally should be enough to get that party federal funding in the next election, and on even financial footing with the other two parties.

 

[arora]

Yeah, it could be a good year for 3rd parties to gain a foot hold. If many believe crooked republican capitalist cronies ruined the economy, savior Obama could not fix it(and is primarily backed by GS), and Romney is more of the same, maybe someone could build up steam.

I'd vote for one over writing in Paul if that one represented me more so then not.

 

[Keef]

represented me

This is a phrase that has interested me for a while now. People always say to vote for the candidate which represents you best, etc.

But is that a good idea? Is it a good idea to vote for somebody who represents me rather than what is right for everybody? Me wants free money. Me wants a big yacht with a helipad on the back. Me wants to drive a Rolls-Royce everywhere. So am I supposed to vote for the candidate who says he'll give me those free things?

I think that's a stupid idea. You shouldn't vote for the candidate who represents you, but the candidate who represents what is right. I'm voting for RP despite the fact that I want a free education because I know the government handing me a free education isn't right.

 

[arora]

Well I believe what represents me is right, mainly some conservative values mixed in with upholding the constitution. A new yacht would be cool though too, as a bonus.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is a phrase that has interested me for a while now. People always say to vote for the candidate which represents you best, etc.

But is that a good idea? Is it a good idea to vote for somebody who represents me rather than what is right for everybody? Me wants free money. Me wants a big yacht with a helipad on the back. Me wants to drive a Rolls-Royce everywhere. So am I supposed to vote for the candidate who says he'll give me those free things?

If you are moral then what represents you won't be so greedy.

 

[Danoff]

This is a phrase that has interested me for a while now. People always say to vote for the candidate which represents you best, etc.

But is that a good idea? Is it a good idea to vote for somebody who represents me rather than what is right for everybody? Me wants free money. Me wants a big yacht with a helipad on the back. Me wants to drive a Rolls-Royce everywhere. So am I supposed to vote for the candidate who says he'll give me those free things?

I think that's a stupid idea. You shouldn't vote for the candidate who represents you, but the candidate who represents what is right. I'm voting for RP despite the fact that I want a free education because I know the government handing me a free education isn't right.

The idea is that if you ask everyone to do what's best for the country they'll come up with some pretty bad ideas. But they at least know what's best for them, and if everyone is represented presumably we'll do what's best for everyone. That's the theory anyway.

 

[Keef]

Yeah but that's how we land ourselves where we are, in the Age of Entitlement, because everybody chooses what's best for them. It's basic instinct to choose short-term benefits, and therefore all the sheep vote for the person promising some sort of benefit. It's a big step intellectually to purposely vote for the person who is promising you nothing but an opportunity to make your own way. There's risk involved and nothing is "guaranteed", a word that people love to hear. That's not the easy way though, and so most people don't choose it.

It almost seems like "the idea" was crafted specifically to lead to this result. If anybody could be bothered to admit when they're being selfish they might have been able to analyze "the idea" and realize that it would encourage sly appeasement schemes and nurture attitudes of entitlement which lead to dependency.

 

[FoolKiller]

Its a democratic republic. We vote to say what we want and the Constitution narrows the scope within which we shoot to meet the demand of the people. Unfortunately, we have forgotten the republic part.

 

[arora]

Its a democratic republic. We vote to say what we want and the Constitution narrows the scope within which we shoot to meet the demand of the people. Unfortunately, we have forgotten the republic part.

A few things come to my mind...

"The effect of [a representative democracy is] to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of the nation...."

"Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

James Madison

 

[FoolKiller]

"Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; "

James Madison

If that bit doesn't describe the US in at least the last 20-30 years (probably much longer the more I think on it), I don't know what does.

 

[Keef]

 

[Dapper]

If that bit doesn't describe the US in at least the last 20-30 years (probably much longer the more I think on it), I don't know what does.

Didn't Bush Jr. lose the popular vote?

 

[arora]

If the only thing left to show of our Republic is the electoral college system, then yeah, we be in trouble, especially if you add in the Chicago style welfare state Keef is complaining of.

 

[FoolKiller]

Didn't Bush Jr. lose the popular vote?

1) There is no Bush Jr. There is George H W Bush, and George W Bush, and a Jeb Bush, and probably other bushes I can't name right now, but none of them have Jr after their name.

2) I don't see how the intricacies of the electoral system have anything to do with what I said.

3) Even if they did, the electoral oddities of one position, which lacks power to do anything without a few hundred other elected representatives agreeing in majority in most cases, has little effect on my comment. If anything the way that one position is viewed and used today proves my point.

 

[Tesla]

I live in Australia and I'm still donating $20 👍

 

[Strittan]

On a poll in Sweden's biggest news paper between Obama and Romney, over 90% of the 40,000+ voters voted Obama. 👍

 

[Keef]

That's probably because Ron Paul wasn't an option. Obama will beat Romney here too.

 

[FoolKiller]

On a poll in Sweden's biggest news paper between Obama and Romney, over 90% of the 40,000+ voters voted Obama. 👍

I don't get the point of the poll. I doubt anyone in Sweden has a fraction of the information on Romney as they do Obama. Many in the US don't know a lot about Romney right now.

Then there is the fact that if there is one thing I have learned on GTP it is that how government is generally viewed in Europe is far different than how it is viewed in the US. These differences range from "small" things like free speech vs hate speech laws and being stopped for random checks by law enforcement to the role of government in things like healthcare and the economy. There are things seen as normal in European countries that would violate our Constitution, get thrown out by the Supreme Court, and have a US president voted out by a landslide.

Basically, all that poll can show is that there are vast cultural differences between the two countries. But that would be better shown by polling people on policies rather than politicians who will change their stance at the drop of a dime.


Keef, do you really think Ron Paul would have done well on a poll in Europe? He might have gained ground on foreign policy, but would lose as much on economic issues.

 

[Keef]

Ron Paul would be favored on social issues, probably even more than Obama. Hippies like Ron Paul.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ron Paul would be favored on social issues, probably even more than Obama. Hippies like Ron Paul.

It depends which issues. Anywhere government money or interference is required and he'd be on the losing side of a vote. But if we are talking drugs, then hippies love him.

I have a proposal for the media. This weekend I have been seeing tons of articles on Romney and Obama's tax returns. Headlines about Romney being rich, Obama paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, so on and so forth. Here is a headline for you: National politicians are almost always rich. Let's all get that through our heads and be done with it. Are we really going to play the who is richer game? Neither are in touch with average America, if we make that judgment based on money. Romney owns lots of homes and the Obamas pulled in half a million dollars a year while working for a university. Pretty much neither of these guys played Mega Millions out of desperation.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Basically, all that poll can show is that there are vast cultural differences between the two countries. But that would be better shown by polling people on policies rather than politicians who will change their stance at the drop of a dime.


Keef, do you really think Ron Paul would have done well on a poll in Europe? He might have gained ground on foreign policy, but would lose as much on economic issues.

I doubt many of the people voting go beyond 'Obama is a democrat' or 'Bush was a Republican and he started the war in Iraq'. It must be nice to play vote for the president of a country you don't live in.

 

[Famine]

What about a country you want to live in?

Also, Ron Paul points out the President's lack of understanding on Constitutionality.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

As long as you believe in change...err

 

[arora]

 

[FoolKiller]

Saw this article over the weekend, just haven't had time to really st down and post it until now.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/15/romney-and-obama-agree-power-is-good

So the presidential campaign is shaping up as a contest between a Democrat who says we had a free market from 2001 through 2008 and a Republican who . . . agrees—he says “[w]e are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy.” You can’t cease to be something you never were.

Thus Barack Obama claims and Mitt Romney implicitly concedes that the free market 1) has existed and 2) therefore presumably created the housing and financial debacle. This bodes ill for advocates of liberty and voluntary exchange.

Notice what will happen if this framing is widely accepted: Genuinely freed markets won’t make the list of feasible options. That will leave us with mere variations on a statist theme, namely, corporatism. How will voters choose among them? Most of those who abhor “socialism” (however they define it) will rally round Republican corporatism because of the pro-market rhetoric, while most who abhor the cruel “free market” (“Look at the hardship it created!”) will rush to Democratic corporatism because of its anti-market rhetoric.

And the winner will be: Corporatism. (That is, the use of government force primarily to benefit the well-connected business elite.) The loser? The people, who would benefit from freedom and freed markets—markets void of privileges and arbitrary decrees. That’s what maximizes consumer and worker bargaining power and enhances general living standards.

No Fundamental Difference

Does that mean the two contenders are really on the same side? Yes and no. They each want the reins of power. But the stakes are not what they are represented to be, and the differences are not fundamental. At the most fundamental level and despite appearances, Obama the government man and Romney the business man share common ground. Romney says, “Washington has to become an ally of business, not the opposition of business” (as though those were the only alternatives), and Obama would not disagree. Ask Jeffrey Immelt of GE, Jim McNerney of Boeing, and other beneficiaries of the Export-Import Bank. Or ask the principals of Bank of America. Obama would just want government to be the more dominant voice in any dispute.

As Roderick Long wrote in his 2006 Rothbard Memorial Lecture:

We might compare the alliance between government and big business to the alliance between church and state in the Middle Ages. Of course it’s in the interest of both parties to maintain the alliance—but all the same, each side would like to be the dominant partner, so it’s no surprise that the history of such alliances will often look like a history of conflict and antipathy, as each side struggles to get the upper hand. But this struggle must be read against a common background framework of cooperation to maintain the system of control.

Long is on to something important, and people as different as Ron Paul and Ralph Nader get it. At the rhetorical level the differences between the major parties look substantial: One side says it favors a dominant role for the central government (to promote fairness and jobs); the other, a dominant role for “the private sector” (to promote economic growth). This difference in emphasis sometimes matters at the margin. The fuzzy line between “private” and “public” sector may move slightly this way or that, depending on which side is in power. But big changes do not occur when power changes hands. Do you want recent evidence? Look at the central government’s record since 1981. If you want evidence from the more distant past, read Roy A. Childs’s 1971 libertarian classic, “Big Business and the Rise of American Statism.”

Viewing History

Each side of course views recent and distant history through its own self-serving lens. To gain power each must persuade voters that its philosophy differs sharply from the other’s and that the fate of the country—indeed, the world—hangs in the balance.

It all works neatly to the advantage of the permanent regime—the ruling elite, which has elements both inside and outside the formal government apparatus. Signs of the permanent regime can be seen in the presence of high-ranking corporate personnel from Wall Street banks and other firms no matter which party is in power. The revolving door is well greased. This phenomenon is captured in various Venn diagrams illustrating the bipartisan role of corporate leaders in government. (Here are a few.)

Things are not so different from the days of Thomas Hodgskin, the great English libertarian author and editor, who wrote, among other works, The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted (1832). (See another article about him here.) Hodgskin was one of many classical liberals who understood that one cannot adequately analyze government without employing class analysis. (Others included Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, J. B. Say, Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, and Murray Rothbard. Marx didn’t invent class analysis; he inherited it, before mangling it.) Hodgskin wrote:

And this law, founded on oppression, upheld by force and fraud, intended solely to preserve ill-gotten power, or ill-gotten wealth, to maintain the dominion of an aristocracy, and the supremacy of a priesthood, to perpetuate the slavery, ignorance, and poverty of the great body of the people, the political writers of our day, call on all mankind to obey, as the only means of social salvation.

When Obama and Romney argue over whether taxes should be raised on the rich, bear in mind that such disagreements are nothing new among factions of the ruling elite. (Besides, the rich can always find ways around higher rates). No matter which faction wins, the people will lose.

 

[Danoff]

Good read FK, but this part bugs me:

(Besides, the rich can always find ways around higher rates)

BS. Not without leaving the country or at least the money coming in outside the country. I don't know why this myth is allowed to perpetuate.