U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Chen » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/04/23/ron_paul_wins_minnesota_delegates_by_a_landslide.html

So the Ronpaul ends up winning the majority of Minnesota's delegates after losing the popular vote. Still not going to be enough to get him to win, but its surprising to see his rhetoric about using delegates to get elected at least seem to have to partially worked out.


Its nice that the system is so fucked up things like that can happen. :roll:

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby kiklion » Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:02 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Dark567 wrote:http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/04/23/ron_paul_wins_minnesota_delegates_by_a_landslide.html

So the Ronpaul ends up winning the majority of Minnesota's delegates after losing the popular vote. Still not going to be enough to get him to win, but its surprising to see his rhetoric about using delegates to get elected at least seem to have to partially worked out.


Its nice that the system is so fucked up things like that can happen. :roll:


Not sure how 'fucked up' that is. From reading multiple sources there were 2 distinct events. One is that santorum received a bunch of votes and his guys said 'the Ronpaul better then romney' after Santorum dropped out, and the other that there were polls earlier that the Ronpaul did not win, but the other candidates supporters did not stay and vote in the votes that actually matter.

Unfortunately I can't give specifics about the names of each vote because it is a messed up system and it is different for each state and overall I have a headache from it.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:01 am UTC

the Ronpaul may have just picked up 14 delegates in Iowa, giving him the majority of delegates from that state (despite coming in third) as well.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby kiklion » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:55 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:the Ronpaul may have just picked up 14 delegates in Iowa, giving him the majority of delegates from that state (despite coming in third) as well.


According to

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6 ... nventions/

which I am not sure about how reliable it is, though I can't find any reporting in text either way from any mainstream sources. Furthermore, coming from

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... =iea&ion=1

the Ronpaul was a pretty close third to the second place. Either way, as the republican process is beyond me, it seems either A) Rick Santorums people voted for paul, B) Shit changed in the last 3 months (besides Rick dropping out), C) The voter fraud claims from January panned out and didn't happen this time around.

I'd say A is most likely, especially since I don't think much else has changed, and the fraud I am hoping is just made up conspiracy issues. Though with tales such as http://www.reddit.com/r/talesfromtechsu ... nd_doesnt/ I wouldn't be entirely surprised.

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Randomizer » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:56 am UTC

The primaries for five different states - Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island - are today. And there's speculation that if Newt Gingrich doesn't do well that he'll drop out of the race.

Oh, and the Ronpaul is against CISPA and is calling on people to contact their congressmen in protest of the bill. There's a toll-free number to hear a recording of him speaking about it: 1-888-322-1414 (the message changes every Monday), or you can watch the YouTube video, or read the Text version on his .gov site. Go Paul!
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby kiklion » Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:59 pm UTC

Kind of on topic, anyone know where in New York I could go to vote in the primaries? The school is usually used for federal elections but I am not sure if it would also be used for the private primaries. Actually, none of the 12 people in our house are positive where it would be.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:07 pm UTC

You should call your local Board of Elections. There isn't any special reason why it shouldn't be in the same place, because running primaries for "major" parties (of which there are currently five) is a role of NY state government. Evidently some polling stations are only open from noon to 9 instead of all day, though.

(Also, if any other NYers are curious, there is no Democratic presidential primary today.)

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:24 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:Kind of on topic, anyone know where in New York I could go to vote in the primaries? The school is usually used for federal elections but I am not sure if it would also be used for the private primaries. Actually, none of the 12 people in our house are positive where it would be.


There's got to be a website where you can find that stuff out...

After typing that sentence I decided to google it:

http://www.vote411.org/pollfinder.php
http://www.elections.ny.gov/
https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx - This is the actual state page.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:23 pm UTC

In the unlikely case that Rοn Paul does shockingly well (somehow winning all five of today's primaries) would that mean he miraculously has a chance of winning the nomination? Or is it statistically impossible for anyone other than Romney winning at this point?

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:28 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:In the unlikely case that Rοn Paul does shockingly well (somehow winning all five of today's primaries) would that mean he miraculously has a chance of winning the nomination? Or is it statistically impossible for anyone other than Romney winning at this point?
Romney currently has 536 delegates, the total number is 1,115. If the Ronpaul basically gets all the rest of the delegates, plus Gingrich's and Santorum's vote for him over Romney and unpledged delegates go for him too, he could win. So its not mathematically impossible. Statistically, based of scientific polling, it probably is.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

Thanks! I saw the numbers on a few sites, but I couldn't seem to find if the already pledged delegates could go to him or not. All the news sites have firmly placed their faith in the obvious winner.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:04 pm UTC

Technically, Paul can win. Practically, he can not. He has 75 delegates right now. There are 1,115 delegates remaining. 1,144 delegates are needed to become the nominee; Paul would need to win 95.9% of all remaining delegates to become the nominee, unless he could somehow convince Santorum and Gingrich to pledge their delegates to him -- a highly unlikely proposition, considering he went out of his way to attack Santorum in particular in debates and that neither of them would gain anything by doing so -- he would need to win 83.6% (Gingrich), 72.6% (Santorum) or 60.3% (Gingrich + Santorum) of the remaining delegates. Only the later is truly feasible for him. Those numbers include today's votes -- after today, the remaining delegates will be 884. If Paul wins less than 185 of today's 231 delegates (80.1%), it will be mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination on his own.

All of that said.. Paul doing well is still to his benefit. He never had any plausible expectation of becoming the nominee; his main goal has always been influencing the republican party. If he wins a decent chunk of the remaining delegates (maybe a third or so?) he'll have a sizable delegation. While not enough to change the nomination, that delegation will be enough to make an impression on republican leadership about how his ideas are potential political winners.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:15 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:In the unlikely case that Rοn Paul does shockingly well (somehow winning all five of today's primaries) would that mean he miraculously has a chance of winning the nomination? Or is it statistically impossible for anyone other than Romney winning at this point?


the Ronpaul is apparently modelling his campaign, loosely, after that of Warren G. Harding. Harding entered the convention with 39 delegates, a quarter as many as the frontrunner, and half the total number of delegates apparently unpledged. Harding won on the 10th ballot after being endorsed by the party leadership as the best compromise candidate. He later won the presidency with 60% of the popular vote.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:33 pm UTC

How many delegates do our new insect overlords have?

I know I've said this before but I'd love to see the kerfuffle a ronpaul nomination would cause. Fun times all around :D
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Randomizer » Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:53 am UTC

Gingrich is out. So now the Republican nomination is between Mitt Romney and the Ronpaul.

Code: Select all

Results for U.S. Republican Presidential Primaries
   State   Gingrich   Paul   Romney   Santorum         reporting
04/24   CT   10.3%   13.4%   67.5%   6.8%               100%
04/24   DE   27.1%   10.6%   56.5%   5.9%               100%
04/24   RI      6.1%   23.9%   63.2%   5.7%               100%
04/24   PA   10.5%   13.2%   58.0%   18.3%               99%
04/24   NY   12.7%   15.3%   63.3%   8.7%               95%

Source: typing "Gingrich" into Google, Google itself puts up those numbers.

My question is, with Santorum out of the race, why did he still get some of the vote?
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:51 am UTC

Well, he wouldn't get removed from the ballot. And there are plenty of people who don't want Romney.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LtNOWIS » Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:39 am UTC

Also, some people vote absentee, and therefore fill out their ballots weeks ahead of time.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:57 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:In the unlikely case that Rοn Paul does shockingly well (somehow winning all five of today's primaries) would that mean he miraculously has a chance of winning the nomination? Or is it statistically impossible for anyone other than Romney winning at this point?


the Ronpaul is apparently modelling his campaign, loosely, after that of Warren G. Harding. Harding entered the convention with 39 delegates, a quarter as many as the frontrunner, and half the total number of delegates apparently unpledged. Harding won on the 10th ballot after being endorsed by the party leadership as the best compromise candidate. He later won the presidency with 60% of the popular vote.

That only works if there are more than 1 opposing candidates left. Which there aren't. Romney is going to get a direct majority of the votes.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jareds » Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:That only works if there are more than 1 opposing candidates left. Which there aren't. Romney is going to get a direct majority of the votes.

Rest assured, Romney is going to get a direct majority of the votes in the initial ballot. However, it's not mathematically impossible for there to be no majority winner in the initial ballot like you think it is. The Washington Post explains that most of Santorum's delegates remain bound to him (in the initial ballot, at any rate), because he formally "suspended" his campaign rather than "ending" it. He could nevertheless formally release his delegates, but he has not.

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Thu May 03, 2012 2:42 am UTC

"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

User avatar
zombie_monkey
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Bulgaria

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby zombie_monkey » Thu May 03, 2012 11:49 am UTC

I was just reminded of this clip from the last primary, where Romney said his favorite author is L. Ron Hubbard and his favorite book is Battlefield Earth http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/182910/may-01-2007/mitt-s-favorite-book

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Thu May 03, 2012 3:35 pm UTC

...

uh...

WOO, GO the Ronpaul!

... :oops:
Last edited by Роберт on Thu May 03, 2012 5:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Chen » Thu May 03, 2012 4:12 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:From the article:
A federal law enforcement official familiar with DEA operations said the agency's protocols require that cells be checked each night.


Something went terribly wrong several times for him to have been in there that long. There was no water, so he had to drink his own urine. 4 days with no food or water?


Wrong thread?

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Mon May 07, 2012 3:59 am UTC

Paul seems to have snagged a majority of the delegates in both Nevada and Maine. That makes five states now where he holds a plurality of delegates.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

Waltonruler5
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:27 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Waltonruler5 » Sat May 26, 2012 1:09 pm UTC

Apparently bound delegates aren't bound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtQvKUglRaU

Whoops, I accidentally in your primary.
Though I don't know, there's a good chance most people are unaware of this fact. But then again, most people are unaware of how delegates work. There's definitely tons of Paul supporters showing to these conventions.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Steroid » Wed May 30, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Romney officially wins the nomination.

Well, it's over, and though we had a few hopes, the GOP once again proves itself to be an old-boy's club. Romney came in second last time, so he gets to try now. McCain was second in 2000, so he got the nod in 2008. Bob Dole was a party stalwart. The only thing Romney has going for him is that he's not really old as they were.

I'm not voting for this guy. I listened to their crap about how we have to keep Obama out of the White House in 2008, and I was inspired by Sarah Palin's populist conservatism, but what this nomination says to me is that the Republican base is generally OK with big government, or have no hope of getting rid of it.

If that's the case, then it's better that Obama be re-elected. Then give Biden two terms. Maybe after that, when the government is 75% of the economy and the only way to get ahead is to become a bureaucrat, we'll wake up and nominate an actual right-winger. Meanwhile, count one in New York for Gary Johnson.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Thu May 31, 2012 12:13 am UTC

So, what happens if the delegates that are bound to Mitt but support the Ronpaul just don't show up? Would their votes be counted in absentia, or would they not be counted at all? If it were the later, would there possibly be enough such delegates to keep Romney from getting a majority on the first round?
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 12:40 am UTC

Steroid wrote:If that's the case, then it's better that Obama be re-elected. Then give Biden two terms. Maybe after that, when the government is 75% of the economy and the only way to get ahead is to become a bureaucrat, we'll wake up and nominate an actual right-winger.

You are completely and utterly delusional if you think that's what democrats (or specifically Obama/Biden/friends) want or will try to do or will do. Seriously, take a moment and cut yourself off from the hyperbole loop.

folkhero wrote:So, what happens if the delegates that are bound to Mitt but support the Ronpaul just don't show up? Would their votes be counted in absentia, or would they not be counted at all? If it were the later, would there possibly be enough such delegates to keep Romney from getting a majority on the first round?

I don't know what the rules specifically say for it, but I can't possibly see that scenario happening in practice. Not showing up as a delegate is probably a wonderful way to kill your own political career within the party completely. Beyond that, Paul seems warm enough to Romney that he doesn't want to do anything that will directly hurt Romney's chances.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Steroid » Thu May 31, 2012 9:22 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Steroid wrote:If that's the case, then it's better that Obama be re-elected. Then give Biden two terms. Maybe after that, when the government is 75% of the economy and the only way to get ahead is to become a bureaucrat, we'll wake up and nominate an actual right-winger.

You are completely and utterly delusional if you think that's what democrats (or specifically Obama/Biden/friends) want or will try to do or will do. Seriously, take a moment and cut yourself off from the hyperbole loop.

I don't think it's what they want to do. I think it's what will result from them doing what I think they're most likely to do given the scenario they would face.

Point being, I want to see radical removal of government from American lives, or at least the federal government. I want them to handle the military, diplomacy, interstate squabbles, the treasury, and that's about it. I thought, after Reagan, that voting in Republicans was the way to get that. I thought that George W. Bush with his tax cuts was, if a step away from that direction, at least an acknowledgement that it is the right direction. I thought that McCain was a repudiation of that direction, but that Palin was a step back. I now think that the most likely path to that goal is to have a long string of Democrats and leftists in power, letting right-wing sentiment grow, until one day after an election (hopefully) or a revolution (more likely), the pendulum swings back so far to the right that the bureaucracy is dismantled in one blow, damning the consequences.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Thu May 31, 2012 9:28 am UTC

Name one thing the US government has done in the past 100 years that is worse than the millions of deaths a revolution would cause?

Also, the most likely outcome of a revolution is a dictatorship. It is not a smaller government.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu May 31, 2012 9:35 am UTC

Steroid wrote:Point being, I want to see radical removal of government from American lives, or at least the federal government. I want them to handle the military, diplomacy, interstate squabbles, the treasury, and that's about it.
Yeah that's pretty radical.

Somehow I don't think you're going to get what you want.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Randomizer » Thu May 31, 2012 9:45 am UTC

Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 9:56 am UTC

Steroid wrote:I don't think it's what they want to do. I think it's what will result from them doing what I think they're most likely to do given the scenario they would face.

Which was covered under "[...] or will do." in my statement. They aren't going to grow the government to 75% of the economy. Even real, actual socialist governments* (not the faux socialism attributed to US liberals). There are only four countries in the world (as of 2011) that have government spending over 65% of GDP, all of which are impoverished, dictatorships, or both. The nations more often held up as socialist (though even they are more socialist-leaning than socialist) -- Sweden, France, Finland, Belgium -- are all around 50%, even the UK isn't that far from them at 47%. The economic darling of Europe, Germany, is at 43%, as is Israel. The US isn't that far behind at 39%.

You're assuming, as the almost certain result of democratic presidencies, something that is almost entirely implausible.

* With the sole exception of Cuba at 78%, but you should note that Cuba is specifically communist (not socialist), that essentially all of Cuba's problems can be attributed to the US embargo, and that Cuba has been under Castro rule this entire time as well. There are far too many unique traits to them to make a valid comparison to any large, developed nation.

Steroid wrote:[...] until one day after an election (hopefully) or a revolution (more likely), [...]

Yeah.. that's doubling down on your hyperbole loop. Take a step back (a real, actual step back) outside of your own self-assured-belief bubble and look at things. A revolution is not going to happen if democrats win enough elections in a row. You'd have to be deranged to believe that.

Randomizer wrote:the Ronpaul hasn't lost yet.

It's over. He already suspended his campaign. He lost.

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Randomizer » Thu May 31, 2012 10:09 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Randomizer wrote:the Ronpaul hasn't lost yet.

It's over. He already suspended his campaign. He lost.

the Ronpaul Has Not Suspended His Campaign - straight from his official website (dated May 14th)
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Steroid » Thu May 31, 2012 10:13 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Name one thing the US government has done in the past 100 years that is worse than the millions of deaths a revolution would cause?


Taxing me. Unless one of those millions of deaths is me. I take a rather different standard of "worse" than most.

Also, the most likely outcome of a revolution is a dictatorship. It is not a smaller government.

True, but what I'm saying is that the most likely precursor to a smaller government is either a ballot-box pendulum swing or a revolution. I don't play bocce with my politics--closer to my position is not always the better choice. "More likely to cause the result I want" is.

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Steroid wrote:Point being, I want to see radical removal of government from American lives, or at least the federal government. I want them to handle the military, diplomacy, interstate squabbles, the treasury, and that's about it.
Yeah that's pretty radical.

Somehow I don't think you're going to get what you want.


We were close once, in the latter half of the 19th century. Postwar malaise and the Johnson scandal emasculated the government and escorted in laissez-faire for a few years, before Teddy Roosevelt came along and messed it up.

Ghostbear wrote:
Steroid wrote:I don't think it's what they want to do. I think it's what will result from them doing what I think they're most likely to do given the scenario they would face.

Which was covered under "[...] or will do." in my statement. They aren't going to grow the government to 75% of the economy.

The actual 75% number was intentional hyperbole. If it helps, replace it with "Whatever percentage will cause those who want free-market-anarcho-laissez-faire-etc.-capitalism to either effect it in government or Atlas Shrugged their way into a new country."

Yeah.. that's doubling down on your hyperbole loop. Take a step back (a real, actual step back) outside of your own self-assured-belief bubble and look at things. A revolution is not going to happen if democrats win enough elections in a row. You'd have to be deranged to believe that.

Then how do you think it could happen? Forget the whole program, just give me one piece to chew on. Take Social Security. Someday I want the government's official position to be, "Oh, you didn't save for retirement? Then get your ass back to work, or go out in the street and starve, because if you're too myopic to realize that there's a tomorrow coming, then you're a disgrace to your human ancestors and the rest of us don't want you around anyway." Ignore whether you agree with the position or not. It's a position. What do you think is the most likely way to effect it soonest?

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 10:24 am UTC

Randomizer wrote:the Ronpaul Has Not Suspended His Campaign - straight from his official website (dated May 14th)

I went ahead and looked up the actual quote from Paul himself:
Some Place that I used for a source and feel obligated to link to wrote:“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said in a statement from his campaign. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

He suspended active campaigning. In the end, it's the same difference. He's lost. The sooner you accept it the sooner you can find someone else that replicates the ideals you had hoped he would bring to the executive office, and start spending resources on getting them elected. Sticking around hoping for the impossible with Paul won't do anything to help those goals now.

Steroid wrote:Taxing me. Unless one of those millions of deaths is me. I take a rather different standard of "worse" than most.

Taxing you is not worse than killing millions of our fellow citizens.

Steroid wrote:We were close once, in the latter half of the 19th century. Postwar malaise and the Johnson scandal emasculated the government and escorted in laissez-faire for a few years, before Teddy Roosevelt came along and messed it up.

You mean before Teddy Roosevelt made it so workers weren't being turned into food anymore. Wonderful president.

Steroid wrote:The actual 75% number was intentional hyperbole. If it helps, replace it with "Whatever percentage will cause those who want free-market-anarcho-laissez-faire-etc.-capitalism to either effect it in government or Atlas Shrugged their way into a new country."

And that point is probably around the range of 70-80%, so.. yeah. Since most other countries (as I pointed out) with government spending south of 75% but north of the US' spending rates aren't really rushing to go in the opposite direction; most of them seem content to stay somewhere in the basic space that they're currently in.

Steroid wrote:Ignore whether you agree with the position or not. It's a position. What do you think is the most likely way to effect it soonest?

Convince as much of voting population that that's what should be done, then convince them that it's a major issue. Then convince them to actually vote. That would make it happen the soonest it could.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Steroid » Thu May 31, 2012 10:31 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Taxing you is not worse than killing millions of our fellow citizens.

Once again,
Steroid wrote:I take a rather different standard of "worse" than most.


And that point is probably around the range of 70-80%, so.. yeah. Since most other countries (as I pointed out) with government spending south of 75% but north of the US' spending rates aren't really rushing to go in the opposite direction; most of them seem content to stay somewhere in the basic space that they're currently in.

Hmm. . . there may be an equilibrium point where the government has the most possible involvement, akin to the Laffer Curve. But it could still fall over the edge. I still think that is more likely than going the other way.

Convince as much of voting population that that's what should be done, then convince them that it's a major issue. Then convince them to actually vote. That would make it happen the soonest it could.

I can think of nothing that would result in such convincing more than extended Democratic control of the government.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 10:40 am UTC

Steroid wrote:I take a rather different standard of "worse" than most.

And it's a wrong definition. You can define things however you like, but that doesn't make you right.

Steroid wrote:Hmm. . . there may be an equilibrium point where the government has the most possible involvement, akin to the Laffer Curve. But it could still fall over the edge. I still think that is more likely than going the other way.

What about the fact that no government that is a large developed nation has seemed to reach that point? You admitted yourself that the number you used (75%) was hyperbole and not plausible. All of the numbers that are plausible are shown to be relatively stable points of government involvement. Your whole belief here doesn't have any basis in fact.

Steroid wrote:I can think of nothing that would result in such convincing more than extended Democratic control of the government.

What I suggested was also a wholly different thing than a revolution, however. I was responding to the revolution hyperbole with my original statement, and with my followup. Applying my responses to something else is just shifting the discussion. Your revolution talk is entirely hyperbole and won't happen. If you truly think it's plausible, than I would just like to repeat my prior statement to take a big step back and look at things outside of your own bubble.

Curious: does this mean you're going to vote for and donate to Obama's campaign? According to what you've said, getting him elected should be your #1 political priority.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu May 31, 2012 10:45 am UTC

Steroid wrote:
Diadem wrote:Name one thing the US government has done in the past 100 years that is worse than the millions of deaths a revolution would cause?


Taxing me. Unless one of those millions of deaths is me.
I am irrevocably convinced you are a troll.

The alternative, that there is a human being walking around who thinks millions of deaths is worth it if he gets a lower tax rate, is simply too abhorrent for me to accept.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 10:47 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Steroid wrote:Taxing me. Unless one of those millions of deaths is me.

I am irrevocably convinced you are a troll.

The alternative, that there is a human being walking around who thinks millions of deaths is worth it if he gets a lower tax rate, is simply too abhorrent for me to accept.

Well, they did say they were inspired by Palin...


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EdgarJPublius and 10 guests