you can't be serious.
Printable View
you can't be serious.
Some people like to act like Ron Paul doesn't know what he is talking about when he says things like there is no proof of Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons, or talking about how actions increases the likely hood of blow back from middle eastern countries. However it is our own CIA that has been saying it.
Ron Paul is the only one actually listening when people speak. The CIA comes in and tell congress and the president that there is no evidence of Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons and everyone else for some reason takes that as code for yes they really have them. What is the point of having experts in the government if we totally ignore what they say?
To increase the air of legitimacy. Just like how in the Roman empire they used to pay priests to bless the emperor before a military campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Yes, I am serious. You don't simply ignore an enemy when they are trying to tell you why they ARE your enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
To understand your enemy is key to resolving a conflict.
Don't know if anyone has talked about this; are there any independents here who live in a state where the republicans have a closed primary? If so, you should look in to registering as a republican so you can vote for ron paul. I did it here in california and I know I had to be registered before jan. 21st in order to vote in the primary election even though it doesn't take place until aug. I think. I just barely made it; I registered on the 20th.
I like Ohio's primary system. You just go in and ask for whatever ballot you want, and that's how you change your party affiliation. No hassles, it's very simple and makes a lot of sense.
Ron Paul is leading the poll on "Who Should Drop Out of the Primaries". It's on the "fair and balanced" news website. I call major bullshit. Go there and vote for someone else.
www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/you-decide/should-someone-drop-out-gop-presidential-primary-race
I will vote on Gingrich, its come out that that fucker lied when he made the opening remark of the Carolina debate.
/b/ reddit etc. that shit, if it hasn't been already.Quote:
Originally Posted by louie54
Haha. This is the point of experts.... to back you up when you want to do something, and to ignore them when they don't back you up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Also that's fucking ridiculous that you have to register which party you're going to be affiliated with before voting in some states. I wasn't aware of that.
Oh and I like this poll too lol
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...er-of-congress
Only for primaries and stuff, which are not actual elections ran by the government but are elections ran by the political parties and its members. In a real election you can vote for anyone you want, and you do not have to register for any party. In fact you don't even have to be a registered voter to vote. They might give you a hard time for not being registered but by law, since you are an American citizen they have to allow you to vote. Usually they hold your vote until they can confirm you really are a citizen though.
They worded it so as to catch Ron Paul fans. Instead of reading the whole question, many people just click the person they like the most. (I almost did the same thing when I saw that poll. but thankfully I caught myself and clicked Santorum.)Quote:
Originally Posted by louie54
No doubt, America's current woes attribute to this exact tendency toward laziness.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Yeah, you can also vote as many times as you like.
Can some explain from MCWillis' video, the healthcare part?
Ron Paul doesn't agree with public healthcare?
Why not?
Health Care*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeQuote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Diagnosing Our Health Care Woes by Ron Paul
Public healthcare is a way to treat a symptom (high prices) not the cause (government intervention and control over the system.) The HMO Act essentially established health insurance agencies as they exist today, get this, to make healthcare more widely-available and affordable for all Americans. Somewhere along the line, as with all government regulation and subsidy, it turned into a nightmare.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Also, Ron Paul opposes mandates; he believes that no one should be forced to purchase anything, including health insurance, against their will.
Ok, but how do you explain the fact that every country with complete public healthcare has better healthcare than America? (That includes being 90% cheaper).
It seems the only thing which made it more expensive is employer paid healthcare. Which we don't have here either.
Why can't healthcare just be treated like any other good or service (which in the US it currently is not)? Is it "essential"? Food is also "essential", yet we don't see mass starvation, even with a largely free market in...super markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
You'd see mass starvation if there were no welfare or free food services.
You can't treat it the same as anything else because it is fundamental to keeping people alive.
Especially those who cannot afford private insurance, and those who get rejected by insurance whenever they actually get seriously sick.
Are we talking about MRI machines?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
WHAT!??!????????
........
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwg5smQlQ51qzjix8.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwg5ueU1XR1qzjix8.gif
tommo I heartily recommend you don't try to get snarky, it will almost definitely backfire in your case.
You are far too generous, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm not getting "snarky".
He's obviously wrong.
Really if you want a lot of government provided things, you should support Ron Paul. He obviously wants to get rid of a ton of stuff, but he is starting with the most wasteful and useless stuff.
His slashing of the budget and liquidation of wasteful programs are ultimately the only thing that is going to save the other programs from bankruptcy.
This is how I see it, too. With anyone else, they'll pretend they support social justice programs only to strip them because we can't afford them, while refusing to strip away the programs that are inhibiting them from being funded in the first place.
So giving healthcare to people who can't afford it is wasteful and useless?
Ron Paul has a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars from the budget in one year, and balance the budget in 4 before he would leave office. That plan does not cut welfare, social security, or any type of health care. It cuts government bureaucracy, gets rid of federal positions and puts control at the state level, it cuts military spending and closes foreign military bases, and stops foreign aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Ok.... but, what if he just decides to do it? He'd have the support of pretty much every politician in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
What makes him a trustworthy candidate is that his voting record shows he's not afraid of being unpopular when popularity means compromising his values which coincide with the best interests of the nation. Were he to fail at his endeavors to cut the Pentagon's budget, he would not say "Oh fuck it, I'll just cut medicare instead."
Ok, well, we'll see. I'll take you guy's word for it I guess.
Insurance of all kinds seems like a big corrupt bureaucracy of bullshit. They take your money and then fight you as hard as they can, giving you as little of your money back as they can get away with.
That is why I want a personal health-expenses savings account; it stays my money, and when I hit retirement age if I do not need that money for healthcare purposes anymore, I can use it for whatever I wish, or give it to charity or go on vacation instead of the insurance company attempting to prevent OTHER people from getting my money, too.
Or just let you save money for any purpose without being penalized with taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
That's a much better idea, but under our current multi-thousand page tax code we'd have to completely throw out and rethink taxation to make that a possibility. I never understood why you get taxed for money you aren't using; it discourages saving and SMART money management.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
The 401k system worked for the rulers as it forced people to shovel their life savings into the stock market, which pleased Wall Street and in turn increased their campaign donations.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Ron Paul has the record to show he always does what he says, and says what he does. Most politicians lie and say whatever is needed to get elected then don't follow through. Paul has the record to show he is honest.
Now he does want to phase out stuff like social security but he has said multiple times he isn't going to cut people off. Same for the other programs. He wants to gradually phase the programs out in an orderly manner, that is his goal.
Now even if you want the programs, they are going to be all cut off instantly if we cant afford them and people are going to suffer. Worst case Paul leads a controlled and orderly decline in services. Best case with the budget balanced and spending under control people are more open to negotiate and compromise and keep those programs running or even extend them.
On the other hand, you elect someone who is for endless spending, and the country ends up like Greece. The programs are cut off all at once, taxes shoot through the roof and there is civil unrest and people die.
Discouraging saving is exactly why the system is set up the way it is. Our economy is designed to work only when money stays in circulation.
That is a good point. I still don't think it's a good idea generally though, like if the country is doing fine economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
How exactly do you phase out social security? No matter what you're going to fuck people over that paid into it. I'm only 23 and I've already paid several thousand dollars into the program. By the time I retire, people better still be forced to contribute or it's not fair to me and anyone else who's paying into it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
You phase it out by siphoning money that went INTO it, BACK to it. The money we spend on wars is often siphoned from the SS fund. They would effectively end all revenue generated by SS and have to find a source of money for those already receiving benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Now, if it were an actual untouched FUND, there wouldn't be this problem, because people paid into it and would then get their money back, in a sense. But they wanted to use it as a source of unending income (and then it failed.)
At this point we're in too deep to NOT hurt someone by getting it out of the way; but it will hurt FAR more if we leave it as is.
I agree we shouldn't siphon money from it, that goes without saying. But the concept of Social Security is sound and I disagree with Ron Paul's idea that people should get to choose whether or not they pay into it. That dissolves the point of SS to begin with.
Ideally, you would get back what you paid into it. But I have the feeling you want much, much more than what you paid in. And THAT'S the problem. Think about it (if you're capable of rational thought): if you only got back as much as you paid in, what's the point of paying in? Clearly, you expect MORE than what you paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
>.> no, I would expect less actually, because I work an above average paying job. My dad will not receive near the amount he paid into social security by the time he dies, considering he's been paying into it his entire working career as a teamster, private contractor, high school teacher and college professor. His SS and Veterans Benefits barely cover his rent, food, utilities and gas but he was laid off at the university and is currently still trying to start a new business. Near 70, he won't be retiring for a long time to come, even with supplements from SS.
That's the problems with you conservatives, you think SS and shit is all about entitlement. I do just fine, and I won't make my dad's mistakes, I'll accumulate my own personal retirement fund for myself. But I'm not just talking about me here, most people in the US get paid less than I do and live paycheck to paycheck. These people work their asses off 40-60 hours a week to make other people rich, and they deserve their due compensation.
When you think about it, other people shouldn't need to pay in, for you to get back what you paid. Otherwise its just a pyramid scam where new people pay the older people. That isn't what SS is supposed to be, though that is an accurate description of what it has become.
Any way you can phase it out, and people who are paying in would still be entitled to get money back out. However people who don't want to pay in, don't have to pay the tax and can use the extra money as they wish(hopefully investing it for their retirement).
Now Ron Paul is the only one with a plan to fix SS. He wants to take the money cut from other places and put money back into the social security accounts, so the money that is supposed to be there, is there. Then when we start phasing it out, everyone is still getting the money back they paid in. We just give new people an option to invest it them self, or let the government invest for them.
You've forgotten all the not old people who need it as well. If they get fired or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
This goes against the principle of Social Justice. People who can afford their own retirement would be the first to opt out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
If you want to remove the compensation our ancestors fought for to force the entitled to give back to those they reaped the sweat from, let's start by removing share-holders and giving ownership of production to the producers.
Take your Marxism elsewhere, OD. We've already seen your kind of evil.
And yours.
Besides, I'm not advocating marxism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
Really? We've seen a lot of evil libertarianism in human history? Come back to reality, Jered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Who the fuck is Jered?
Anyways I was talking about Capitalism, I'm a libertarian, too. Just a Left Libertarian. Have you read the wikipedia article? Educate yourself.
Roderick Long is laughing his ass off, I bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Who the fuck is Roderick Long?
A prominent libertarian. Do yourself a huge favor and look him up on youtube.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Here's another wikipedia article to help you understand my point of view. I don't know what Roderick Long would have to say about this Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can also look up Noam Chompsky, he's written extensively on the subject.
Syndicalism is wonky imo. Worker guilds form oligarchies yet the negative insinuation toward capitalism is that it allows for a upper elite class (the haves) which is continually oppressing the lower class (have nots). Just seems like Syndicalism has all the problems that Syndalists perceive in capitalism yet it is "public" property rather then private.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I'm trying to piece together what you said...
The negative implication of Capitalism or Plutocracy is that it allows people who provide nothing to become successful based off the work of the providers.
Syndicalism is rulership by the actual providers. This allows real participation based democracy to exist.
Well already you are having a problem with definition. Anarchism means "without rulers" and here you are talking about rulership...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
It appears that you don't understand the definition of anarchy. Just because rules are not dictated by a central command structure does not mean they don't exist. Nature contains all sorts of self-emergent rules.
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -archQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
anarchy - definition of anarchy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
I made it bold, italicized it and underlined it for you. Learning is fun.
:facepalm:
I mentioned rulership, when did I mention ruler? Besides, you have to be more specific which type of ruler you are talking about. To assume anarchy would contain no system of order whatsoever is ignorance to a pathetic level.
Rulership | Define Rulership at Dictionary.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
"the act or fact of ruling or the state of being ruled"
Seriously...do we have to go through the whole English dictionary?
Rulership conflicts with anarchism because rulership cannot happen without a ruler and anarchism cannot happen with a ruler. Order is different from a rulership and is not excluded from anarchism. Anarchism can have order. However, you are under the delusion that "actual contributors," which is wonderfully ambiguous, are allowed to participate (in what you have not said, I also love the fact that you said "allowed" as if you could control who could participate and who could be excluded) through democracy (the type of which you have not stated). So what are these actual contributors participating in?
Remember...anarchism means without rulers so...try not to screw that up.
Ready go!
Well aren't you condescending.
Rules surround every facet of nature. One of the first rules a species develops when it evolves into something multicellular is carrying capacity, a natural regulation to prevent a species from exhausting its resources. Within all cooperative groups of animals, there are very specific rules and rituals which developed for the survival of that species and must be strictly adhered to if each group is to sustain itself.
Within the human species, very similar establishments have emerged. Fishermen have regulated the amount of fish they can catch each season so they don't deplete fish populations. But this is not something they adhere to using the honor system. From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_managementQuote:
Fisheries management draws on fisheries science in order to find ways to protect fishery resources so sustainable exploitation is possible. Modern fisheries management is often referred to as a governmental system of appropriate management rules based on defined objectives and a mix of management means to implement the rules, which are put in place by a system of monitoring control and surveillance. The overall goal of fisheries management is to produce sustainable biological, social, and economic benefits from renewable aquatic resources. Fisheries are classified as renewable because the organisms of interest (e.g., fish, shellfish, reptiles, amphibians, and marine mammals) usually produce an annual biological surplus that, with judicious management, can be harvested without reducing future productivity.
No no, I am sardonic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
"characterized by irony, mockery, or derision"
Sardonic | Define Sardonic at Dictionary.com
That's interesting. It says something about order but says absolutely nothing about "actual contributors" who are "participating" in "democracy." I'm still waiting to hear about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
It takes time for OD to make his stuff up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
I'm merely trying to explain the principle of self organization to you. Participatory democracy is the dream, not the reality. You were throwing up dictionary definitions to refute me and I was showing you how baseless your reasoning is. If you'd like to know more, I've posted two links regarding anarcho syndicalism as well as social libertarianism. You can also look up interviews with Noam Chompsky and other advocates of social libertarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
On the other hand, you have more fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
So we replace perceived value paper with paper backed by perceived value gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
I don't see any benefit.
Because if there's gold backing each dollar, you can't "create" more out of thin air.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
It's a way to prevent inflation of the money supply, since gold 100 years ago can still buy approximately the same commodities (including oil) now. The value of gold is relatively stable; the value of paper money changes based on how much the Fed creates (and the Fed creates a hell of a lot.)
The price of gold has skyrocketed recently. It's no where near the same as 100 years ago.
They can still stockpile gold and create false worth.
It's not false worth though, there's a difference because if every dollar is backed by actual gold then you cannot surge more bills into the economy, depreciating the value of the bills already in circulation. Inflation is a form of taxation, it is used to protect the economy but in reality it lowers the value of your dollar without proper compensation. Your money loses value, period. They cannot invent gold out of thin air, making it impossible to depreciate.
But they can mine more of it.
Maybe it is slightly better. But I think maybe some simple set amount would be even better.
There needs to be some sort of limit.
Of course it ain't gonna happen, coz then when a company or government runs out of money, they run out of money.
Are you telling me the Treasury is in possession of the Philosopher's Stone?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Who the fuck is Ron Paul?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
LOL
Um, nope.?Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman
I'm sorry I don't know an obscure libertarian fucktard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
It's not about the "price" of gold. It's about the value in relation to goods and services. 100 years ago, an ounce of gold could buy approximately the same amount of oil as an ounce of gold can buy now. Money loses value, but commodities are much more stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Here's a chart for the last 50-ish years.
http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/files/OilGold1.png
Ok.... so.... both resources that are being mined. That's two things that are very similar. Hence the term "black gold".
What about actual products?
You could buy a good computer for an ounce of gold now (obviously if you convert it in to money first coz no one would accept gold). Could you do that in 1990? No way.
I see a pretty significant change in the past 10 years. 10 years ago an ounce of gold could buy about 20 barrels of oil; today it's roughly 9.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Supply and demand. They point is that the money is based upon a commodity with a limited supply so while supply and demand can fluctuate the value of gold cannot be deflated due to any intervention apart from gold miners finding more.
And stockpiling to to drive prices up, and then releasing it to plummet the prices?
Or do you want to set up restrictions on that? Wouldn't be very libertarian-like.
Your dollar would equal to a finite amount of gold, driving the price of gold up means your dollar would be worth more for the period of time it's being stockpiled. The stockpilers wouldn't actually benefit in any way because selling their gold would add more to circulation and correct the supply imbalance. Rather, those not stockpiling their gold would benefit most from a stockpiling situation because demand would increase on them.
The only reason the oil cartels got away with it is because they all unanimously agreed to raise the price of oil, had one single cartel defected from their operation it would have crashed the whole scheme. Besides, they weren't stockpiling anything, they were taking advantage of their monopoly.
First of all, you can buy several good computers with an ounce of gold now; second, it has nothing to do with a change in the value of gold and everything to do with the advancement of technology. A computer is cheaper to build and in much greater supply today compared with 22 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
If you are going to try to make price comparisons like that you better start researching; in order to do it accurately you'll have to know the relative increase in demand for oil compared to gold, the relative production rates, what spills or mine disasters have happened over that time, the effects of war in the middle east on the price of oil, etc. etc.. You should be able to look at the chart, however, and see a closer correlation between the value of oil and gold as compared to the value of us dollars and gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
He said that an ounce of gold today can buy approximately the same amount of oil as it could 10 years ago. I simply pointed out that, according to the data he provided, that is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
EDIT: Ok, I misread his post. Perhaps we should look at some data for 1912 and compare.
There IS no perfect form of money; they all have downsides. But paper money that the government doesn't even CONTROL anymore, is virtually ALL downside. It would be different if perhaps Congress and the Treasury Dept. had the power to determine the money supply, instead of a shady as FUCK organization who has no regulation or oversight, and is unelected...
Shady? See this: News Headlines
WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF YOU?! (They won't like what they find... never does someone say "Oh golly gee, Jenny! Don't you just LOVE the Federal Reserve having total control over our money?!" And even then it's sarcasm.)
Wow.... yeah I'm pretty sure that article deserves a thread of its own....
The Fed is looking to launch its new monitoring software, appropriately named the Sentiment Analysis And Social Media Monitoring Solution, in December of 2012, according to the Fed's request for proposal.
Prophecy has come true.
Rest assured, on the first day it becomes active I will be voicing my dissent for them. Multiple times.
http://lolmart.com/files/2011/03/har...-at-me-bro.jpg
I will be wishing them a hearty "Fuck you!" as soon as that happens.
I cannot express in text how creepy and shady that is.
"Don't mind us, we're just... collecting data. Harmless data, you can go on with your business."
OK, now I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means. And I'd like to HOPE that elections aren't rigged... but this is seriously fishy. Does this graph make ANY sense, especially when you consider that Nevada is a very libertarian place (Take a look at Las Vegas...)
And I had my first suspicions the night OF when CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and New York Times all had different results, but reported the same precincts in...
http://i.imgur.com/uxz8b.jpg
I mean, c'mon. Ron Paul didn't campaign at ALL in Florida, and he got nearly twice as many votes. But he campaigns for days in Nevada and doesn't even outperform his old numbers?
I think this is just another case of media blackouts and sheeple mentality, but then again I wouldn't put it past them to rig elections if they thought the candidate would be a disaster (to their own interests).
Have you ever been to Nevada? They still think we're at war with the Indians over there.
And you can't use Las Vegas as an example to claim Nevada is Libertarian. Las Vegas only exists because they didn't want to pass any sort of law that would give Indians a leg up in the world.
Burning Man also takes place in Nevada, but only because they don't know about it.
The Nevada GOP pulled this same shit at the state convention in 2008 where they attempted to prevent Ron Paul delegates from attending. I would absolutely not put it past them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I trust the other states, because the numbers add up, and there's really no evidence for fraud (Ron Paul performed very well, based on his efforts, in the first four.) But those numbers do NOT fucking add up for Nevada, nor does the fact that it took the Nevada GOP 48 hours to count only about 20,000 paper ballots, when it took Iowa one night to count over 100,000.
It's just a messy situation, and I'm not entirely favoring fraud as the answer, but I can't rule it out. The Nevada GOP is corrupt as hell (even for GOP standards.)
EDIT: I forgot. The number of ballots cast in multiple precincts did not equal the number of caucus-goers who attended each caucus. But then again, hundreds of dead people voted in South Carolina's primary... so there have to be flukes somewhere. (How does that even happen in this day and age?!)
So who is actually crazy enough to still not support Ron Paul. And What is overall wrong with you?
I bet if you go looking for Ron Paul Supporters it may just be a way to find the most sophisticated people that we have avaliable to us.
On the internet plus not knowing Ron Paul equals massive contradiction. Actually no candidate is more well supported than Ron Paul when it comes to the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
Hi, Ron! *waves*Quote:
Originally Posted by knight31
I found this entertaining.
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...52168250_n.jpg
Why are the Ron Paul supporters not participating in the income tax thread? It seems like you would be all over it. It was one versus three for hours last night.
I usually just check my subscriptions; I don't like being involved in many threads. (I didn't see it but I'll check it out.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Ron Paul doesn't support a sales tax either, sorry but you're still on your own.
Please quote where I said he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
He wants to get rid of the income tax (what that thread is about), Captain Insight.
But you want to reign in a Federal Sales Tax, a la Herman Caine.
Noam Chomsky in support of Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDYFqYLdfXY&feature=fvwrel
I also think what he's saying is "well, d'uh!"
But... I also agree with Chomsky here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B0Q109uQ7o
Noam Chomsky has said many times that American Libertarianism (or Rightwing Anarchism/Libertarian Capitalism) would essentially hand over power to the elite with out checks and balances or any social infrastructure, no questions asked. However, considering the corrupt way the government works as it is, it is a Corporatist/Fascist state and Libertarian Capitalism would at least end the monopolistic force that's disabling Libertarian Socialism.
If Rick Santorum wins Michigan (Five Thirty-Eight is predicting he will with 80% certainty, they have been pretty reliable to date aside from their prediction of Iowa, but wasn't everyone thrown by that?) then I think we may have a brokered convention... CNN, despite my disdain for their "news," has a very useful Delegate Predictor tool with a full map of all races where you can predict who will win each state.
If Romney takes the Northeast Seaboard states, Gingrich takes Georgia and maybe one other, and Rick takes Midwest states, it's a brokered convention, the 15% of voters that love Ron Paul will be the deciding factor... interesting. Very interesting.
Haha, that's great if it happens. Similar thing happened here last election, where the two major parties got almost 50% each but the Greens got 1 seat and so they hold the balance of power.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Awesome.
It's really the only way for Ron Paul to make a HUGE difference, unless he endorsed Gary Johnson and gave him about 10% of the vote. That would be HUUUUUGE. Huge. And I would approve very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
I don't like to swear and voice profanity but the schoolboy media has made me really fucking angry...
Yesterday saw almost five thousand people turn out in Illinois to see the Congressman, while his rivals can only draw crowds in and below the hundreds.
Paul’s supporters will once again be asking serious questions as to where his rivals are getting their votes from.
Of course, the event was not covered by ANY mainstream media sources. The last embedded reporter covering Ron Paul was reassigned this week.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, was covering a Newt Gingrich event not too far away in Rosemont, Illinois. Seventy, yes 70, people showed up.
Earlier in the week, Mitt Romney drew a handful of supporters to a small park in St. Louis.
And last weekend Rick Santorum's speech at a Kansas town hall meeting only 150 people showed up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSjWlnAVT6Y
Who needs crowds when Faux News can tell you who you're supposed to vote for? The reason the others draw no crowds is because they are all "undecided" neocons who don't know if they want to vote for tweedle dee or tweedle dipshit.
The people who already KNOW who they are voting for, and therefore most active and enthusiastic, are the Paulites.
Well what would you expect? The people who support Ron Paul actually support him, or about 80-90% of his policies. The people who "support" the republican or democrat candidates just don't want the other side to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
Well, I would have expected the above outcome and that is what has happened. That doesn't stop me from becoming very angry and I hope my post enlightens a few people to then go and do something to demand a transparent, mature and honourable media. Does that answer your question sufficiently?Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
I saw a guest lecturer today, he (as a member of the media) noted very importantly: "The only purpose of the media is to make money." They aren't liberally-biased or conservatively-biased, they are sensationalists who will tell whatever story they can to make money. They can't switch from ignoring Ron Paul to paying attention to him; all of their viewers will be bored and confused and upset that they are covering the guy who is "crazy."
That is partly true, however, some news sources cater to conservative viewers and some to liberal viewers.
And there are outlets like SBS which basically just report what's going on in the world, with no bias on the matter at all.
There would still be bias in the actual events they report, of course.
You mean the internet? We're never going to get transparent media coverage of elections when the people who own the media companies have an agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
They are very concerned with making money, but they also wanna keep people distracted from the real issues.
I am definitely going to check that out. I didn't think such a thing existed. Journalism attracts extremely opinionated people, and it does the best business when it appeals to a political side. So, if there is a source that just reports the news, that is awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
If SBS really is unbiased and honest, it's funny that "BS" is in their name.
Let me know what your opinion on it is. I can't believe you haven't heard of it tbh.