That debate was a travesty of justice!
Go Hillary!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s your prerogative of course. But like an FL Dem who voted for Nader in 2000, you need to accept the fact that this is essentially a 1/2 vote for the other major party candidate. So remember: writing in Paul is a 1/2 vote for Clinton or Obama, to the extent you would otherwise be voting GOP.[/quote]
Nader is seriously considering another shot at the presidency.
Anyway, I don’t understand this “vote for party” logic. How intelligent people can think in those terms is beyond me. The whole concept of voting for a party rather candidate doesn’t add up.
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
analog_kid wrote:
You can debate whether Ron Paul has a chance until your asshole’s bleed. What you need to concern yourself with is who is a best man for the job. Fuck what the polls say, fuck want your grandma thinks, pick your guy and roll with it. Some people like to win, others like to stand up for what they believe in. Sometimes you get both, sometimes you don’t.
I’m voting for Ron. If he’s not on the ballot, I’m writing him in. I think he is the best guy for the job. I’m not going to vote for McCain or Romney just because they are republicans(well, Romney is).
I don’t think Paul is the best man for the job. I don’t care if you vote for him. I won’t.
Respect.
[/quote]
I think it is good people vote their values. I share a lot of values with Paul, but there are too many things about the man that bother me. I will hold my nose and vote for McCain and Romney, who also bother me to a lesser extent.
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Most voters do not donate.
Ahh…who does then? People donate money to a candidate and then don’t vote? People are dumber than I thought.
[/quote]
Most voters don’t donate to a candidate. Some do. I suspect that most that donate to a candidate do vote although some donate to multiple candidates so I have no idea how they vote.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, and because they tightened the money supply - which, of course, is what a gold standard would do.
Stagflation?! Give me a break. There is no such thing. This is a made up term by investors to scare people when really it just means people are not spending and the economy is humming along neither growing nor shrinking. Hello, McFly!! Dollar Stability is a good thing. I don’t care what the Wall Streeters are crying about
The gold standard does not tighten the money supply. There is no effective money supply on a gold standard. There is either money in a bank account or their isn’t. When there isn’t it is a signal to banks to raise interest rates to stimulate savings and slow down debt when there is an excess of money in savings banks can lower interest rates.
The concept of a money supply on a gold standard is nonexistent because the supply can neither be increased nor decreased but rather saved or spent. Why should savers be punished for putting off consumption for a later time? Saving is the only real way wealth can be accumulated – not by infinite borrowing which is what the Fed causes. Eventually, someone has to pay it back.
And apparently this didn’t sink the U.S. economy in the 80s when we were spending a much higher portion of GDP on defense, and essentially spent the USSR out of existence?
Did you sleep through the recession in the 90s or were you still in grade school? The effects of military spending weren’t felt 1990, coincidentally before we went into Kuwait with our new gear.
You should really stop posting. You don’t understand how this stuff works. [/quote]
Enlighten us please! How does money work? When you make statements like that with out baking it up it shows how ignorant you really are about economics.
Money. It buys stuff depending on how badly people want it. Is that too hard for you to figure out?
People value stuff in proportion to the value they derive from one unit less of that same object. This is called marginal utility and it explains inflation quite well. For example, I value $99 more than I value $100. When people have less they want to spend less and thus prices are inherently lower.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
analog_kid wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Most voters do not donate.
Ahh…who does then? People donate money to a candidate and then don’t vote? People are dumber than I thought.
Most voters don’t donate to a candidate. Some do. I suspect that most that donate to a candidate do vote although some donate to multiple candidates so I have no idea how they vote.[/quote]
Ok, now I understand where you are coming from. Also about your previous comment, while I support Paul, I don’t support him on every issue. There will be a certain amount of nose holding when I connect the dots on my ballot as well. I actually become less annoyed with Romney as time goes on, it’s McCain I have the real beef with.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Anyway, I don’t understand this “vote for party” logic. How intelligent people can think in those terms is beyond me. The whole concept of voting for a party rather candidate doesn’t add up.[/quote]
It is precisely because people are so unintelligent that they are forced to think in these terms.
I think writing in Paul’s name will take votes evenly from both the republican and democrat nominee. Nader will definitely take votes from the democrat. Let’s hope he runs.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s your prerogative of course. But like an FL Dem who voted for Nader in 2000, you need to accept the fact that this is essentially a 1/2 vote for the other major party candidate. So remember: writing in Paul is a 1/2 vote for Clinton or Obama, to the extent you would otherwise be voting GOP.
lixy wrote:
Nader is seriously considering another shot at the presidency.
Anyway, I don’t understand this “vote for party” logic. How intelligent people can think in those terms is beyond me. The whole concept of voting for a party rather candidate doesn’t add up.[/quote]
It’s actually quite rational, in a lot of cases.
Consider a voter in our two party system who strongly agrees with one party’s platform (or disagrees with the other party’s platform). Voting for the party - even for an individual who doesn’t agree with the entire platform - makes it more likely that all the items from that party’s platform will be undertaken.
Or consider judicial nominations. I might hate the idea of a certain candidate as president, but I might also think that judicial nominations are the most important thing in politics, and that that particular candidate, because he is from the Republican Party, is more likely to appoint judges who would adhere to my views of the Constitution. And I might also vote party line in the legislature in order to similarly affect judicial confirmations (or blocks if my presidential candidate should be defeated).
Or consider that because of platforms, party is proxy for information. I might not know a lot about the local school board race, but I read that the candidates self identify as Republican and Democrat. If I support test-score accountability and taking a hard line with teachers unions, I would vote for the Republican.
Why, because there are a lot of libertarian progressives running around?
Paul’s support comes from libertarians and Republicans.
Let’s take a little poll: How many Paul supporters voted for either Kerry or Gore?
I often wonder how many of Ron Paul’s supporters even gave two shits about all these percieved problems the country faces before the Ron Paul internet revolution.
Seriously, every single one of Paul’s supporters are just parroting the same crap they see on all those stupid youtube videos…“Gold standard”, “Austrian economics”, “NAU, CFR, NWO, CAFTA, NAFTA, etc…”, “Federal reserve printing money out of thin air”, “Federal reserve is a private bank”, “Federal reserve eats babies, etc…”
It is clear to me that many of Pope Ron Paul’s supporters were asleep in their high school Econ 101 classes, because they would have already had a basic understanding of how these institutions work.
It makes me mad that all these people that have never voted before, don’t know what is at stake, don’t even know who their representative in Congress is, are going to go out and vote because it is now a “cool” and “hip” thing to do to vote against this imagined monster that just wants global domination and enslavement of the people.
Here, I got a chant for the Paultards: “Ron Paul revolution! Legal weed and prostitution! Ron Paul revolution! Legal weed and prostitution! Ron Paul revolution! Legal weed and prostitution!”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is precisely because people are so unintelligent that they are forced to think in these terms.[/quote]
I have a problem with that statement. Actually, I have a problem with statements like that in general. I just don’t like it when someone says things like: “Everyone is an idiot” or “Typical American idiot” or “Country full of stupid idiots” etc…
What these statements say to me is: “I think I am SO much smarter than everyone else, and I am BETTER than them based on my warped view of society as a whole.”
I don’t think everyone is an idiot. In fact, I know MANY really smart people, I rarely encounter a true “idiot”. The people I deal with, and interact with are NOT idiots. No one in my family is an idiot. None of my friends are idiots. The last time I had to deal with a true idiot was years ago, at work, with a brain dead pot-smoking loser.
I think a big problem this country faces is this type of attitude, this “I’m better than you, I’m smarter than you, I’m worth more than you because I say so” bullshit. I truly dislike people that think this way.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I think a big problem this country faces is this type of attitude, this “I’m better than you, I’m smarter than you, I’m worth more than you because I say so” bullshit. I truly dislike people that think this way.[/quote]
Unless it’s the “Paultards.” Cause, you know, they want to sleep with whores and smoke pot all day.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Nader is seriously considering another shot at the presidency.[/quote]
By all means - I am thinking of sending him money.
Parties are nothing but coalitions of like-minded people that band together in a winner-take-all system to win elections versus other coalitions who have banded together for the same reason. Parties act as vehicles for these coalitions. Nothing more than that. Not complicated.
If you share enough in common with the party platform, you’ll wind up backing party candidates most of the time. Therefore, you vote “party” - it just adds up that way. I vote Republican in practically every national election, but I occasionally cast votes for Democrats are more local levels, Independents too.
They cover this in civics. This nonsense over “how intelligent people vote party” is nothing but the distractions of dilettantes. The rest of us figured this out in high school.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
What these statements say to me is: “I think I am SO much smarter than everyone else, and I am BETTER than them based on my warped view of society as a whole.”[/quote]
That is exactly what it says - but it is usually a reflection that the speaker desperately wants others to think he is “intelligent” when it is clear others wouldn’t otherwise.
It’s done when people need to fulfill some self-esteem mission - it’s quite popular around here.
If you have to self-advertise, then it probably isn’t true - good rule of thumb, I think, for internet bluster.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, and because they tightened the money supply - which, of course, is what a gold standard would do.
Stagflation?! Give me a break. There is no such thing. This is a made up term by investors to scare people when really it just means people are not spending and the economy is humming along neither growing nor shrinking. Hello, McFly!! Dollar Stability is a good thing. I don’t care what the Wall Streeters are crying about
The gold standard does not tighten the money supply. There is no effective money supply on a gold standard. There is either money in a bank account or their isn’t. When there isn’t it is a signal to banks to raise interest rates to stimulate savings and slow down debt when there is an excess of money in savings banks can lower interest rates.
The concept of a money supply on a gold standard is nonexistent because the supply can neither be increased nor decreased but rather saved or spent. Why should savers be punished for putting off consumption for a later time? Saving is the only real way wealth can be accumulated – not by infinite borrowing which is what the Fed causes. Eventually, someone has to pay it back.
And apparently this didn’t sink the U.S. economy in the 80s when we were spending a much higher portion of GDP on defense, and essentially spent the USSR out of existence?
Did you sleep through the recession in the 90s or were you still in grade school? The effects of military spending weren’t felt 1990, coincidentally before we went into Kuwait with our new gear.
You should really stop posting. You don’t understand how this stuff works.
Enlighten us please! How does money work? When you make statements like that with out baking it up it shows how ignorant you really are about economics.
Money. It buys stuff depending on how badly people want it. Is that too hard for you to figure out?
People value stuff in proportion to the value they derive from one unit less of that same object. This is called marginal utility and it explains inflation quite well. For example, I value $99 more than I value $100. When people have less they want to spend less and thus prices are inherently lower.[/quote]
You have already shown that you don’t understand inflation or money supply. You are beyond help.
Of course you are the same guy that switched from a communist to a libertarian. Fun to chat with but it gets tiresome when you miss by this big a margin.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s your prerogative of course. But like an FL Dem who voted for Nader in 2000, you need to accept the fact that this is essentially a 1/2 vote for the other major party candidate. So remember: writing in Paul is a 1/2 vote for Clinton or Obama, to the extent you would otherwise be voting GOP.[/quote]
True, but voting for McCain or Romney is 3/4 of a vote for Clinton or Obama and that’s being generous with the numbers.
mike
Where was Wednesday’s debate? The guy gave a speech at the University of Washington in Seattle on Thursday afternoon and I was there in Spokane when he spoke at 5:00. I’ve got a few thoughts that no one cares about but I’m going to spit out anyways:
-I normally don’t buy into the whole conspiracy thing. Paul isn’t getting coverage because he isn’t winning any primaries. Second by a long shot in Nevada doesn’t cut it. But…
…this evening I’m in the ballroom at the Doubletree and it’s standing room only with people asshole to elbow trying to find breathing room. There were well over a thousand people there, yet there wasn’t a single local news network unit until after two of the stations got dumped with phone calls by pissed off Paulies. They pulled a shitload of people on a day when half the city is shut down and schools were cancelled due to snow. We got about a foot last night alone. Hell, here in Moscow two hours away, school is still cancelled for tommorrow.
I know the man isn’t polling highly, but why was there no coverage of a presidential candidate in pissant Spokompton? The bigger story may have been the snow, but I’m not so sure.
-Secondly, damn if I don’t feel awkward there. I’m voting for the guy, but I’m sick of hearing people bitch about Iraq. They cry, “Bring our troops home!” yet they don’t even know that their very own local Marine unit is in Iraq right now. Shows how much they care for the troops. It just sucks because a large portion of them are just Dems that are pulling for Paul to get us out of Iraq. I hate having to associate with these people.
-Finally, the guy seems much more level-headed in person than on TV. That said, I really wish he would stop badmouthing Iraq. The surge is working and for him to say otherwise is just wrong. He is also DEAD WRONG when he says the founders were non-interventionalist. I’m sick of hearing that one as well.
Unfortunately, he’s my only option. He is right about one very important point: as military men, we swore to uphold the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Our foreign enemies are bad, but the domestic ones are much worse and much more powerful.
mike
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Parties are nothing but coalitions of like-minded people that band together in a winner-take-all system to win elections versus other coalitions who have banded together for the same reason. Parties act as vehicles for these coalitions. Nothing more than that. Not complicated.
If you share enough in common with the party platform, you’ll wind up backing party candidates most of the time. Therefore, you vote “party” - it just adds up that way. I vote Republican in practically every national election, but I occasionally cast votes for Democrats are more local levels, Independents too.
They cover this in civics. This nonsense over “how intelligent people vote party” is nothing but the distractions of dilettantes. The rest of us figured this out in high school.[/quote]
I know the way it works. What strikes me the most, is how this is turning into pure demagoguery, and how people end up voting “against” a candidate.
The two-party system was a great idea, but as time goes by, it is turning into a bit of a charade. Both have drifted so far to the center, that they are hardly doing much good to the country anymore. People are mostly concerned with the one that will do the least damage, and that thought is disturbing to say the least.
I don’t see it making it past the first quarter of this century. By then, I’m positive others will start gathering votes in the double digits.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
That said, I really wish he would stop badmouthing Iraq. The surge is working and for him to say otherwise is just wrong.
I never heard him that the so-called “surge” was not working, but you’re obviously in a better position than me to hear such things. What I gathered from his speeches, is that he was opposed to the presence in Iraq in the first place and does not see how the current level of troops can be sustained given the state of finances, recruitment and “drop-outs”.
As it stands, all the US managed to do is tame the violence by dividing the country. The internal struggle among the people behind Al-Sadr forced him to call for a ceasefire back in the summer. A single word from him - when he feels in control again - can dramatically raise the number of dead soldiers. But that’s another thread…meanwhile, a few hours ago in Baghdad;
Hard to believe it’s been 5 years already.
For obvious reasons, I doubt they would have backed up Bush on his invasion of Iraq plan.
Ron Paul’s time has not yet come.
Only in times of desperation can radical ideas be taken seriously. Dr. Paul’s case in analogous to Hitler’s in the 1920’s: Germany was fairly prosperous (albeit based upon American loans) so Hitler was a very minor candidate. It took an economic collapse to bring him to power.
Dr. Paul is an older guy. Let’s hope his successor will carry on his philosophy after our economy collapses.