U.S. Republican Primary

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

Moderators: Rinsaikeru, Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:26 am UTC

I just don't get the point of trying to prosecute porn sites... aren't lots of them based outside the USA for the point of making it harder to prosecute? I mean, it's not like the ones they're trying to get are going to make it easy on them or anything.

I dunno, porn just seems like one of those things the internet is going to have any way around it, I don't see any good way to try to get rid of it that will make a meaningful impact.

Heck, if they tried to take down major HC porno providers there'd probably be a bigger outcry than over the MegaUpload guys.

I'm kind of curious where he gets stats like this:
"The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."


Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with a married couple viewing hardcore porn. It if makes them happy, what of it? I mean, as long as it isn't anything super illegal like pedophile or not-acted real life rape, then I'm fine with people doing that.

It's not like women ever look at porn. :roll:
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!
User avatar
Cathy
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:38 am UTC

I don't have any numbers, so someone else feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that for the most part, a large amount of commercial porn is based in either LA or Florida. Other foreign stuff is usually delegated to more specific interests- hentai comes to mind-, but "standard" porn is, I believe, still very US-centric. In the end, it really wouldn't be that difficult for the same things to spring up in other countries, but it'd still be quite the obstacle for the industry in the short term. Unlike moving piracy sites offshore, they'd have to build up a bit of business infrastructure to get a successful replacement in place, so it wouldn't be quite painless, I think.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:53 am UTC

I know there's a lot of DVD-sold porn production in the US, LA and Florida and whatnot, but I don't think that necessarily translates to Internet Porn. Stuff that's well produced is pretty well pay-per-view or membership based, and that's not something an 11-year-old would easily view. Seems to me like Santorum would be gunning more for easily-googled free amateur pornos or something like that.

Of course I could be totally wrong on that. Santorum could try to shut down LA porn sets! ;)

Also, I find it hilarious that my auto-correct tries to change Santorum to Sanatorium. Heehee.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!
User avatar
Cathy
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:01 am UTC

Cathy wrote:I'm kind of curious where he gets stats like this:
"The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."


I was curious too so I did the littlest of digging and I stumbled upon this as a possible source, the site for Reclaim Our Culture, Kentuckiana which makes the claim here

The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography reported in 1986 that the largest group of pornography users was boys ages 12-17. A study published in 1989 found that by the age of 15, 92 percent of boys had looked at or read Playboy. The average age of first exposure was estimated to be 11.2


But they go on to cite this, which says only 3.5% of boys have seen internet pornography by age 11 and the mean average age of first exposure is 14.3 for boys and 14.8 for girls. I'm not quickly and easily finding a study for pornography of any source, although I'm guessing most kids seeking pornography would seek it on the internet, given the easy access.

I then found this article from Forbes that probably tracks the claims to their original sources. It was written in November 2005 after a democratic senator pushing for Child Protection and Safety Act made the same claim.

Spoiler:
When Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) introduced the Internet Safety & Child Protection Act in July, aiming to slap a 25% excise tax on online purchases of porn, she cited a startling statistic: Children in the U.S. now typically get their first exposure to porn at age 11. It got picked up in several press reports. "The average age at which a child first views Internet porn is 11," pronounced a Denver Post editorial. "The average age a child first views Internet pornography is 11, and those kids don't look away," intoned Matt Lauer on General Electric-owned NBC's Today show.

"The Internet has changed the whole dynamic of porn," declares Tim Wildmon, president of the fundamentalist American Family Association founded by his father, Donald Wildmon, in Tupelo, Miss. "The average age of the introduction to pornography is now 11 years old."

Just one problem: The assertion is untrue, unsupported and likely of dubious origin, none of which has stopped porn's opponents from using it. Sen. Lincoln lifted the factoid from a report issued in July by Third Way, a new Washington think tank that helps Democrats grab on to red-state issues. A press release accompanying the report, by Third Way staffer Sean Barney, proclaimed, "While it is as difficult as ever for a teenager to walk into a store and buy a pornographic magazine, it is as easy as 'point-and-click' for an 11-year-old child to view streaming pornographic video online."

Where did Third Way get that notion? From a May 12 story in the New York Times-owned (nyse: NYT - news - people ) Boston Globe headlined "The Secret Life of Boys," which cites an outfit called Family Safe Media. The small firm in Provo, Utah, is in the business of scaring parents into buying software to protect their kids from Internet smut. Jared Martin, who owns Family Safe Media, says he got his porn statistics from Internet Filter Review, a Web site that recommends content-blocking software. It is run by tech entrepreneur Jerry Ropelato of Huntsville, Utah, who pens antiporn screeds, such as "trickses Pornographers Play," and publishes curious and uncredited stats (for example, "17% of all women struggle with pornography addiction").

"Most of the statistics there have come from literally hundreds of sources, all reputable," Ropelato insists. He says he got the age-11 item from The Drug of the New Millennium, a book about the dangers of porn self-published in 2000 by Mark Kastleman, a self-professed former porn addict in Orem, Utah, who counsels other porn fiends. "I don't remember where I got that from," Kastleman says breezily. "That is a very common statistic." And there the trail goes cold.

But Kimberly Mitchell of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, and Michele Ybarra of Internet Solutions for Kids in Irvine, Calif., say the assertion that "extremely young children" are ogling online porn "may be overstated." Analyzing the results of a random-sample survey of 1,500 kids ages 10 to 17, they recently found that kids don't start seeking out Internet porn until age 14, when they're "age-appropriately curious about sex." Fewer younger kids had gone looking smut--and mostly the old-fashioned way, finding it in their dad's magazines lying around home.

"It seems to suggest the Internet may not be posing the threat that some are concerned it is," says Ybarra.
User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
 
Posts: 2836
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:33 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:
The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography reported in 1986 that the largest group of pornography users was boys ages 12-17. A study published in 1989 found that by the age of 15, 92 percent of boys had looked at or read Playboy. The average age of first exposure was estimated to be 11.2

So he wants to eliminate hard-core internet pornography based on a study about soft-core pornography that was done before the internet era.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...
User avatar
folkhero
 
Posts: 1718
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:53 am UTC

folkhero wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:
The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography reported in 1986 that the largest group of pornography users was boys ages 12-17. A study published in 1989 found that by the age of 15, 92 percent of boys had looked at or read Playboy. The average age of first exposure was estimated to be 11.2

So he wants to eliminate hard-core internet pornography based on a study about soft-core pornography that was done before the internet era.

Well I suppose his argument would be that since the internet came into being it's easier to access hardcore porn due to search engines? It's not like you have to go out and buy mags or something.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!
User avatar
Cathy
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:31 am UTC

Stopping people from doing things they want to do—when the act of doing those things does not harm anyone—is pretty much the definition of oppression. Anti-freedom. Anti-liberty. And when those things are a business, then anti-free market. And when they are wholly communicative in nature, censorship as well.

Also, the US culture is way too anti-sex, and way too pro-violence. I’m talking movies, TV shows, video games, societal norms, the whole works. When is it going to get through to people that sex is good, and violence is bad?
Small Government Liberal
User avatar
Qaanol
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:23 am UTC

Cathy wrote:I just don't get the point of trying to prosecute porn sites... aren't lots of them based outside the USA for the point of making it harder to prosecute? I mean, it's not like the ones they're trying to get are going to make it easy on them or anything.

I dunno, porn just seems like one of those things the internet is going to have any way around it, I don't see any good way to try to get rid of it that will make a meaningful impact.

Heck, if they tried to take down major HC porno providers there'd probably be a bigger outcry than over the MegaUpload guys.

I'm kind of curious where he gets stats like this:
"The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."


Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with a married couple viewing hardcore porn. It if makes them happy, what of it? I mean, as long as it isn't anything super illegal like pedophile or not-acted real life rape, then I'm fine with people doing that.

It's not like women ever look at porn. :roll:

There's some substance to his argument. He argues that an environment where it is ok to view women as sexual objects and not as people is damaging to the fabric of society. Too bad Santorum only uses this argument when it suits him. Contraception and abortion on the other hand, no woman should have a choice in that. You do it his way, or be denied any support whatsoever from any governmental or corporate entity. Unfortunately, his beliefs are rooted in conservative Catholicism, not equal rights for women.
sardia
 
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:28 am UTC

sardia wrote:There's some substance to his argument. He argues that an environment where it is ok to view women as sexual objects and not as people is damaging to the fabric of society. Too bad Santorum only uses this argument when it suits him. Contraception and abortion on the other hand, no woman should have a choice in that. You do it his way, or be denied any support whatsoever from any governmental or corporate entity. Unfortunately, his beliefs are rooted in conservative Catholicism, not equal rights for women.

I'm pretty sure a more accurate interpretation of his argument would be that porn is bad because it doesn't show sex as something used solely to turn women into baby factories.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LtNOWIS » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:22 pm UTC

Cathy wrote:I know there's a lot of DVD-sold porn production in the US, LA and Florida and whatnot, but I don't think that necessarily translates to Internet Porn. Stuff that's well produced is pretty well pay-per-view or membership based, and that's not something an 11-year-old would easily view. Seems to me like Santorum would be gunning more for easily-googled free amateur pornos or something like that.

There's probably 3 things he could do:

1) Go after the "worst" US production companies. Even if they just sell DVDs, it's easy enough to torrent that stuff.
2) Go after the "worst" US pay sites. A lot of them have a lot of free content in the form of previews and so forth, where teens could access it.
3) Go after the porn torrent sites pretty hard. This would make it harder for teens to get porn without a credit card, and it would also protect US companies against foreign and domestic piracy.

A determined person could get around that easily enough, but many teens and kids woul have more trouble.

(I should point out that I do not support Santorum on this issue.)

Ghostbear wrote:There is a difference of scale in those two cases however. Not saying that Obama should get a pass for this- he shouldn't- but Santorum's proposal is far more reaching. By his statement, he wants to remove all hardcore porn from the internet:

The example given for the Obama administration is one focused on a much more niche and controversial part of pornography- scatology and bestiality according to the article- and doesn't indicate a desire to remove all hardcore porn from the US. They're similar problems, but Santorum is proposing something on a significantly larger scale.

Right, it's important to realize that the scale of the enforcement is the main factor. It's not a binary thing.

A president who doesn't enforce any obscenity laws whatsoever would be without precedent in the modern era. If the next Republican president gets any criticism on this issue, he or she will probably point to Obama's example.
LtNOWIS
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:07 pm UTC

LtNOWIS wrote:
Cathy wrote:I know there's a lot of DVD-sold porn production in the US, LA and Florida and whatnot, but I don't think that necessarily translates to Internet Porn. Stuff that's well produced is pretty well pay-per-view or membership based, and that's not something an 11-year-old would easily view. Seems to me like Santorum would be gunning more for easily-googled free amateur pornos or something like that.

There's probably 3 things he could do:

1) Go after the "worst" US production companies. Even if they just sell DVDs, it's easy enough to torrent that stuff.
2) Go after the "worst" US pay sites. A lot of them have a lot of free content in the form of previews and so forth, where teens could access it.
3) Go after the porn torrent sites pretty hard. This would make it harder for teens to get porn without a credit card, and it would also protect US companies against foreign and domestic piracy.

A determined person could get around that easily enough, but many teens and kids woul have more trouble.

(I should point out that I do not support Santorum on this issue.)


All those choices seem to me just mean the porn will be produced outside the US, with foreign websites and foreign torrents. The demand will always be there, unless Santorum wants to drug the water supply.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bharrata » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:17 pm UTC

I seriously doubt that Santorum's intentions are based on restricting the access minors have to porn, and imo, the ends of such policies do not in any way justify the means - mainly because they end in places I'd rather not see the US go, paved with good intentions or not.

As much as I'm against porn intellectually/morally (now that I'm older) I can't say that since the 5th or 6th grade I haven't fapped to online porn innumerable times or will not do so again in the future. It probably influenced my early understanding of women, but then that's an argument for parents having more honest discussions with their children rather than government intrusion (just like basically every moral crime in the US).


But more importantly than this issue, any card-carrying GOP member or fiscal conservative needs to come to terms with the fact that the dark horse of the 'small government' nomination is a guy who is proposing this kind of stuff...and if you're against it and the trend of the GOP as whole over the last decade, please start being a bit more vocal and try to out this stuff as the hypocrisy/delusion it is. I'll probably never be a member of the GOP myself (though I agree in principle with fiscally conservative policies, depending on the issue) but that doesn't mean I want to see the Republicans jump the shark as their modus operandi.
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:56 am UTC

I hear tell Puerto Rico is being called for Romney even though less than a quarter of the ballots have been counted, on the grounds that he's getting 83% of the votes so far.
User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
 
Posts: 2836
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:27 am UTC

Voter turnout is significantly higher, too. In 2008, only 208 votes were cast in the Puerto Rico caucuses.
Image
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy marshmallows, which are kinda the same thing.
User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:41 am UTC

Well, part of that is just down to the differences in caucuses and primaries. I think it was called early mostly because if a candidate gets over 50% of the vote, they automatically win all of Puerto Rico's delegates.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bharrata » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:44 am UTC

It's still early but NBC just called Romney as the projected winner in Illinois with 56% and 27% for Santorum, then Paul and Newt coming in 3rd and 4th respectively.

I do wonder how the results will change as the more rural districts come in, which I imagine take longer to report, though maybe that's not the case because they have less voters.

edit: apparently the Flint GOP head has been kicked out or disbarred or something due to violating the state's "open meeting" policy.
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:19 am UTC

Looks like it's going to be a pretty thorough victory for Romney. I think the big question now is going to be if he gets 50% of the vote or more, or is left with "just" a plurality.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bharrata » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:29 am UTC

Yep, seems like that gap between Romney and Santorum will narrow as more districts report in but Romney will take it - even if Romney takes it with 15% above Santorum while not having 50% it'll look much better than Ohio did.

Is Illinois winner-take-all now or proportional?
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:32 am UTC

Neither. It's congressional district based. The vote for the candidates is also (apparently?) separate, and you actually vote directly for the delegates.

Why do states make this shit so confusing?
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bharrata » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:36 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Why do states make this shit so confusing?


Because Kafka wasn't dreaming when he descripted bureaucracy.
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:25 am UTC

March 19, Nate calls IL for Romney, and says that Santorum isn't going for any "gamechanging" maneuvers. It's interesting that he concludes Santorum is aiming for a position in Romney's white house. That's far more plausible than the Santorum/Gingrich ticket imo.
Edit: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... mall-ball/
My mistake, this link is the one that predicts the possible running mate solution for Santorum.
sardia
 
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:09 pm UTC

General question: What do people think about the prospect of a brokered convention? Suppose that Romney comes in with, say, around 40% of the delegates. Is it likely that most of the remaining superdelegates/unassigned ones will coalesce around him? Or would the anti-Romney camp be strong enough to force another candidate forward? Is there a snowball's chance in hell that Sarah Palin could win as a compromise candidate, as she seems to be trying to suggest?
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 2704
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby emceng » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:20 pm UTC

Sigh. When will Whack-a-do and Richy McZombie be done insulting and pandering? I would like to turn on NPR in the mornings without having to listen to this crap.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis
User avatar
emceng
 
Posts: 2741
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:21 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:General question: What do people think about the prospect of a brokered convention? Suppose that Romney comes in with, say, around 40% of the delegates. Is it likely that most of the remaining superdelegates/unassigned ones will coalesce around him? Or would the anti-Romney camp be strong enough to force another candidate forward? Is there a snowball's chance in hell that Sarah Palin could win as a compromise candidate, as she seems to be trying to suggest?


Even if Romney can't quite breach 50%, he can probably rely on the superdelegates closing ranks to ensure a clear winner. He seems to have the blessing of the Republican higher-ups (and there are also signs that the Ronpaul and his smallish pool of delegates might back Romney, possibly in return for a job for either Ron or his son Rand Paul). I don't think Sarah Palin really has any chance at all.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:36 pm UTC

Pretty much. Nate Silver did a great analysis of this a week and a half ago.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ate-math/#
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott
User avatar
bentheimmigrant
The Good Poster
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:40 pm UTC

So, there appears to be a decent chance that Paul will be able to win the nomination through trickery- essentially, based on the way the delegate system works, someone who is elected as State X's delegate to vote for Mitt Romney doesn't actually have to be a Romney supporter, and is only bound to vote for Romney in the first few elections (or, for some states, not at all). And so the Paul supporters have focused most of their effort on the delegate elections, and so the other candidates may find their delegates slipping out of their hands because the people supposed to vote for them will actually want to vote for Paul (and will do so at the first opportunity).

Which will be really fascinating if it happens- but I also imagine if that's about to happen, a deal will be brokered in a back room to make sure the nominee is decided when there's enough delegates bound to vote for the candidate voters sent them to vote for.
Motivation is when your dreams put on work clothes. -- Ben Franklin

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.
User avatar
Vaniver
 
Posts: 9360
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:56 pm UTC

I find the exploitation of the delegate system fascinating and kind of hope it works.
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3834
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:19 am UTC

All that would do is cause the Republican party to implode on itself, as most people would revolt against such a blatant disregard for what would be a 'fair' result. The Civil War was started over something like that*. Which I suppose may be exactly what you want. I would agree only if a new major party is formed that doesn't have the unholy alliance with the Theocrats.

*Lincoln got less than 40% of the votes, yet even if every vote for the others had been for a single candidate, Lincoln would still have won due to the electoral system (where he won, he barely won, where he lost he lost in a landslide).
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:28 am UTC

I would put the chance of Paul being able to take advantage of the delegate system to become the nominee at approximately "snowball's chance in hell" territory. I mean, yes, technically it can happen. It almost certainly won't happen though. It'd be too damaging to the party at large.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:37 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:I would put the chance of Paul being able to take advantage of the delegate system to become the nominee at approximately "snowball's chance in hell" territory. I mean, yes, technically it can happen. It almost certainly won't happen though. It'd be too damaging to the party at large.

I concur, the precedent of a rebellious delegate is unheard of, except for 1 case where it didn't fucking matter. That election, the vote was the sole dissenting vote in a landslide victory.
sardia
 
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bharrata » Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:I would put the chance of Paul being able to take advantage of the delegate system to become the nominee at approximately "snowball's chance in hell" territory. I mean, yes, technically it can happen. It almost certainly won't happen though. It'd be too damaging to the party at large.


Only time will tell, it's certainly an interesting tactic, but I can't say I'm happy with the idea of supposed defenders of liberty trying to intentionally game the system to get their way and in the process disenfranchising what I believe to be the majority of the GOP.

It's going to be an interesting convention, as I really don't see any of the candidates dropping out at this point after sticking around for so long along with all the PAC money.

CorruptUser wrote:All that would do is cause the Republican party to implode on itself, as most people would revolt against such a blatant disregard for what would be a 'fair' result. The Civil War was started over something like that*. Which I suppose may be exactly what you want. I would agree only if a new major party is formed that doesn't have the unholy alliance with the Theocrats.


Spoiler:
Image

:lol:


I think I could live with the Theocrats, Libertarians/Austrians and Fiscal Conservatives all going their separate ways, and then the Democrats having a splinter Progressive Party form.

But yeah, I really don't like some of the rhetoric coming out of some the Ronpaul supporters, though I doubt many would act....but it always only takes a couple nuts with guns. :cry: (which again just goes back to what I said earlier on the page about my wanting the GOP to actually be healthy and functioning because it's better for the country in general, even if I'm not a GOP member.)
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:54 am UTC

sardia wrote:That election, the vote was the sole dissenting vote in a landslide victory.
A brief Google search yielded nothing, but I believe that dissenting vote was cast only to avoid a unanimous electoral vote for that winner - and that delegate just happened be the one picked to cast a vote for the other guy.
"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.
User avatar
Princess Marzipan
Pinkie Fry says Hi, Phee!
 
Posts: 7699
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:53 am UTC

My apologies, it was a faithless electoral delegate, and it was denied to Gore. She abstained to protest the lack of D.C. representation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
=\

I couldn't find faithless primary delegate on google or wikipedia either.
sardia
 
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:17 am UTC

Bharrata wrote:Only time will tell, it's certainly an interesting tactic, but I can't say I'm happy with the idea of supposed defenders of liberty trying to intentionally game the system to get their way and in the process disenfranchising what I believe to be the majority of the GOP.

Why are they "supposed" defenders of liberty? Liberty =/= Democracy and I think most libertarians would choose liberty over democracy if they had a hypothetical choice between the two.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...
User avatar
folkhero
 
Posts: 1718
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jestingrabbit » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:53 am UTC

In much the same way, I think most voters would prefer democracy to liberty, and would rightly destroy any candidate who was so openly mendacious and manipulative. A person for whom fairness is clearly a foreign concept is not someone that the majority of voters would support.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.
User avatar
jestingrabbit
 
Posts: 5187
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:33 am UTC

jestingrabbit wrote: most voters ... would rightly destroy any candidate who was so openly mendacious and manipulative. A person for whom fairness is clearly a foreign concept is not someone that the majority of voters would support.
And yet they keep voting for politicians...
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...
User avatar
folkhero
 
Posts: 1718
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Zamfir » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:53 am UTC

folkhero wrote:And yet they keep voting for politicians...

How do you think politicians got this half-joking reputation of being especially dishonest? To a large extent because honesty is something people look hard for in politicians, so they often find the real people wanting. It's the same reason people complain, for example, about dishonest salespersons.

It would make your life much easier if politicans and salespersons were super-super-trustworthy, even in the face of other pressures on them. They're not, so we complain. That tells us at least as much about our hopes and expectations, as it does about those people.
User avatar
Zamfir
 
Posts: 5746
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:20 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
folkhero wrote:And yet they keep voting for politicians...

How do you think politicians got this half-joking reputation of being especially dishonest? To a large extent because honesty is something people look hard for in politicians, so they often find the real people wanting. It's the same reason people complain, for example, about dishonest salespersons.

It would make your life much easier if politicans and salespersons were super-super-trustworthy, even in the face of other pressures on them. They're not, so we complain. That tells us at least as much about our hopes and expectations, as it does about those people.

Good point.

The strange thing is. Amongst the 300+ million people living in the USA, I'm sure there are plenty of honest people. Fair, intelligent, honest people who would do the right thing even under pressure. The USA has millions of citizens like that, no doubt.

Yet our electoral system seems unable to find them. That is frustrating.

(And I say 'our' here because even though I'm not an USAian, the same problem exists in every democracy)
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
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Zamfir » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:45 pm UTC

"Doing the right thing" is not that clear, in general. Especially if you're in it for the long run, you're not just looking the exact right thing right now, but also how it will enable you to do good things (in your own views) over a longer time period. You regularly run into examples of Highly Principled People who went into politics, stubbornly stuck to their own views of the right thing to do and never accomplished anything because they never collect enough support. Then they leave politics and give interviews in magazines complaining how rotten politics is and how they were bullied out of it. Obviously, those people are not good politicians. They don't get stuff done.

A lot of politics is deal-making, and that's a good thing. You don't get anywhere if politicains don't compromise, but stick to their own principled view of what's best. Everything works smotther if you can trade favours, give up your opposition to something you find of lesser importance, in return for achieving something that others consider of lesser importance.

But if you are a representative for other people, then compromising is just another word for breaking promises. Someone voted for you (or gave you some other form of support), because you gave the impression that you would support their cause. Then you give up that support, in return for another cause that benefits other supporters of the politician. A good politician balances their support, their backers. All the various kinds of supporters get cheated a bit on their promises, but they also get just enough results to make them stay supportive. That way the politician can act with a broad coalition behind them.

If you support a politician who never compromises, then the downside is that this politician will not have much further support, outside of you and people who agree a lot with you.
User avatar
Zamfir
 
Posts: 5746
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:45 pm UTC

Running for office places huge demands on people. Just look at Gingrich for example. How much shit has been slung at him this campaign, rightfully or not? He could just as easily have sat in his, likely quite comfortable, home and not had to deal with people who cared about his prior marriages or other character flaws. It also requires a huge time commitment and presumably quite a bit of stress. Running for office also takes a lot of ego, because you have to be willing to deal with that shit slinging and think "I'm the best motherfucker for this job". You have to believe that you, personally, would do a great job at this position, and be 100% confident that you'd do a better job than anyone else running. You'd need to be willing to give up a lot of privacy to do so, and work on issues that aren't yours.

Not to mention, while campaigning, any candidate is one fucking stupid statement (tm) away from destroying their entire campaign. Romney, Obama, and Santorum have all been torn apart for statements that are only gaffes because people are willing to cut out any and all context from them. Any of us would probably say enough stupid shit over the course of half a dozen conversations to get destroyed if we said it on a campaign trail. You need connections to get taken seriously (most ballots require a few thousand signatures to get on them), then you need to be "exciting" enough for the news to cover you. There's so many crazy obstacles, I'm not surprised that not many people run for office. I think that for most of them, they do want to do what's right too, just it's never easy to figure that out, and it can become difficult to untangle "What I want to happen" and "What is best for my constituents". Some though, they just get taken up by the ego demands of office, and want it because they want power. Still, I think most are trying to do what's best at heart.

Also also, you need to be willing to kiss the babies of strangers. That's just weird, who would want to do that?

EDIT: Dammit, ninja'd in part.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

PreviousNext

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gmalivuk, Robert'); DROP TABLE *;, Rodion Raskolnikov, Tyndmyr and 7 guests