U.S. Republican Primary

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

Moderators: Hawknc, Zamfir, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

All indications point to Romney being under the senate's coattails and not the other way around. That's what I'm really afraid of. He's such a mess with his positions that he's just going to be a rubber stamp for all the crazy shit that Paul Ryan proposes. If Romney gets elected we're screwed.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

Garm wrote:All indications point to Romney being under the senate's coattails and not the other way around. That's what I'm really afraid of. He's such a mess with his positions that he's just going to be a rubber stamp for all the crazy shit that Paul Ryan proposes. If Romney gets elected we're screwed.
I mean... More screwed than any other Republican candidate? I would prefer him over any of the others.
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?
Dark567
 
Posts: 3431
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 Princess Marzipan » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:19 pm UTC

We're screwed eventually anyway. If a Republican doesn't win this year, one'll win eventually.
"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
Bananas are fish who attack divers inland
 
Posts: 7719
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: So Romney is the One

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:22 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:For those of us that didn't follow the primary, what does this Romney guy stand for nowadays?
What I'm getting so far is that he's changed his mind a lot, and mostly towards christian extremist positions.


I'd suggest reading this:

Garm wrote:Also, too: here's this truly awesome article about Romney's positions that deserves reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opini ... omney.html
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 3648
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:10 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:We're screwed eventually anyway. If a Republican doesn't win this year, one'll win eventually.
I mean... I think screwed is a bit harsh. Honestly I think we over estimate the power a president has over our everyday lives.
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?
Dark567
 
Posts: 3431
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 Diadem » Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:23 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:We're screwed eventually anyway. If a Republican doesn't win this year, one'll win eventually.
I mean... I think screwed is a bit harsh. Honestly I think we over estimate the power a president has over our everyday lives.

The president alone? Perhaps not that much.

But you already have a conservative parliament, a conservative scotus, many completely conservative state governments. Add a conservative president, and many states will become unlivable for a great many people.

Though I really shouldn't be saying 'conservative' in the above. I should say "right wing fundamentalist". These guys are further removed from conservatism than the average socialist.
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: 4935
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:37 pm UTC

If you want to get technical, the way conservatism is used in American politics is not the same as actual conservatism. A conservative is on the spectrum of a radical; it is not on the 'left-right' spectrum at all, but rather how about how cautious one should be about implementing change.

Moderate: this watch isn't broken so don't fix it
Conservative: the watch works while broken so don't fix it
Progressive: the watch isn't broken but I think I can improve it
Radical: replace the watch entirely regardless of whether or not it works
Regressive: we should be using sundials instead

The Founding Fathers were radicals, replacing the old system of Monarchy with something that had never been done before on a large scale, quasi-Democracy where all rich white men were citizens. A few decades later, the people that wanted only rich white men to be citizens were the conservatives, and the people that wanted all white men to be citizens were the radicals. Then the all white men were the conservatives, and the all men were radicals. Then all men were conservatives, and all people were radicals...

It's the same thing with 'liberal'. Liberalism is about free expression and exchange of ideas, education, freedom, and so forth. It is not about the 'social justice' movement. You know who were true Liberals? Most of the founding fathers. And today they would be practically regressives. Arch-conservative liberals.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:00 pm UTC

By the time a conservative president gets elected SCOTUS might have seen liberal replacements tilting the court another way, and he may face the situation that Obama faces with split houses.

I think the real way in which we're screwed is that the policy has become "obstruct everything unless it comes from your party, because if the other party does good it'll get attributed to them and help in re-election". Government will stagnate except for in those rare occassions in which one party presence is overwhelming.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.
User avatar
Lucrece
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:02 pm UTC

Corey Robin argues, rather convincingly, that Conservatism is borne out of reaction to the policies of the left.

George Nash, author of The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945 defines Conservatism by the following:
"...resistance to certain forces perceived to be leftist, revolutionary, and profoundly subversive of what conservatives at the time deemed worth cherishing, defending, and perhaps dying for.


Currently it seems that what has been deemed cherishing and defending can be summed up by "Rich People." It's not a facet of society that we're trying to hang on to. It's not a hankering toward a simpler time. It's pretty much all about rich people.

Nash also warns not to confuse Conservatives with the Radical Right so take that for what it's worth. I think we currently have a bunch of radicals who have claimed the mantle of conservatism.

I balk at your classification of the various veins of political thought. I understand your model is crude but Progressives aren't looking to fix a system that isn't broken, they're acknowledging that problems exist where others will not. Sure, sometimes you get some shitty shit that comes out of that were someone does try to fix something that's working fine (I think Basic Human Decency grew out of one of these mischaracterizations) but you can't seriously think that our society is ticking along just fine. Or do you?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:31 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:If you want to get technical, the way conservatism is used in American politics is not the same as actual conservatism. A conservative is on the spectrum of a radical; it is not on the 'left-right' spectrum at all, but rather how about how cautious one should be about implementing change.

Moderate: this watch isn't broken so don't fix it
Conservative: the watch works while broken so don't fix it
Progressive: the watch isn't broken but I think I can improve it
Radical: replace the watch entirely regardless of whether or not it works
Regressive: we should be using sundials instead

It's more complicated than that. Conservative means the same thing the deep south of the US as it does in, say, Sweden. But in the deep south of the US, they want to keep (almost) everything as it is, while in Sweden they want to change things. And conservatives in, say, Egypt, are very different from their US counterparts in some ways (they have a very different religion for example), yet they are clearly recognizable as related political movements.

I think you can compare it with the compass directions. Imagine you're somewhere in Alaska, and you have a friend in Scandinavia. Both of you are pointing south. So clearly, you both have the same position, right? Yes. But you're also pointing directly away from each other! Meanwhile your other friend in Hawaii is pointing to the north, which is the opposite direction from you, yet you are pointing towards the same point.

Imagine politics as the northern hemisphere (not a full globe, for this analogy to make sense). You are standing in your current society pointing towards what you want society to look like. South corresponds to conservatism, north to progressivism. This means that regardless of where you are, progressives all have roughly similar goals (the further north you go the more the closer together you get), conservatives can have radically different goals. Yet they are clearly recognizable as a group. And where they want to go is clear based on where they are, so that given a random society you can always tell which positions are conservative and which are progressive. And sometimes more moderate conservatives will be pointing north, if they happen to be very far to the south already. This doesn't make them progressive though.

I'll be the first to admit that this analogy has many flaws. But I think it's a good explanation of why conservatives are clearly one group while sometimes wanting different things, and sometimes wanting things to change in different directions.
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: 4935
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:49 pm UTC

Garm wrote:I balk at your classification of the various veins of political thought. I understand your model is crude but Progressives aren't looking to fix a system that isn't broken, they're acknowledging that problems exist where others will not. Sure, sometimes you get some shitty shit that comes out of that were someone does try to fix something that's working fine (I think Basic Human Decency grew out of one of these mischaracterizations) but you can't seriously think that our society is ticking along just fine. Or do you?


The system we have now is clearly broken, so a person doesn't have to be progressive to want to fix. Hell, it may very well be broken enough that even conservatives admit it needs to be fixed.

Again, my view of conservatism is on the spectrum of "how much should we change how fast". It's just as possible to have conservative Communists (the Communist party of Russia was VERY conservative post-Stalin, and it was a progressive/radical (Gorbachev) that ended it) as it is to have conservative Monarchists or conservative Capitalists.

Progressives and radicals are not always evil or a bad thing. Just that radicals often have ideas with little basis in reality as to how their proposals will actually work (e.g., Anarcho-Capitalists, etc), and while progressives want to improve things what they implement may not always be worth the cost or it may even be a detriment. Likewise, conservatives are not always bad; sometimes the way things are done are done for good reasons, though they can cause a kludge of a system to last for too long.

Let's take an example. Country D is run by a dictatorship. Other countries are thinking about what to do. Sanctions take a long time to work, and they tend to hurt innocent civilians more than the rulers. Invasion could work, but a lot more people will die in the process. Or you could do nothing so as to not hurt the civilians now, and just hope that eventually things will get better. If you say 'invade and liberate', you are either a radical or progressive. If you say 'sanction', you are a moderate. If you say 'ignore', you are a conservative. Think about how many parts of the 'left' will complain that we aren't invading genocidal dictatorships (Sudan), that we are invading (Iraq), that we aren't/weren't sanctioning (South Africa), that we are sanctioning (Cuba, Burma), etc. This doesn't mean that all those people aren't necessarily in agreement that dictatorships shouldn't exist.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:59 pm UTC

There is also, what I think is an interesting wrinkle in the consumption habits of progressives. Your stereotypical progressive eschews and despises big box stores like Walmart because of the economic change they bring, edging out small 'mom-and-pop' stores that are more traditional. They prefer organic foods that are 'natural' and made without 'chemicals' which they so despise. They don't trust genetically modifies foods despite the billions of people that rely on them. Environmental protection is generally thought of as a progressive cause, but the desire to not see environment not be changed my human industry is a fundamentally conservative, or even regressive one. Really though, "conservative," "liberal," "progressive," and the like have gotten so far from their original meanings that it is probably safe to ignore where they come from.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...
User avatar
folkhero
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:22 am UTC

Those words mean what the people that use them to identify themselves and others with want them to mean. The whole "invade Islamic theocracies and spread democracy" would seem radical, and yet here we are with so many conservatives claiming it a conservative position.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.
User avatar
Lucrece
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:29 am UTC

Apparently it's now the position of some Conservatives to damage the environment by driving Hummers and such. I'd call that a reactionary position to a stance articulated by leftists. :) It's amazing how many people are motivated by the reason "it'll piss off a 'liberal.'"
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:03 am UTC

Garm wrote:Apparently it's now the position of some Conservatives to damage the environment by driving Hummers and such. I'd call that a reactionary position to a stance articulated by leftists. :) It's amazing how many people are motivated by the reason "it'll piss off a 'liberal.'"


Maybe it's an extremely reactionary response to the creation of fossil fuels millions of years ago. The Carboniferous Period depleted our atmosphere of its natural CO2, dammit!
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:52 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Progressives and radicals are not always evil or a bad thing... Likewise, conservatives are not always bad


Reactionaries, on the other hand, are always bad, and the current GOP is pretty much just a mix of kinda-reactionary and extremely-reactionary.
Jonesthe Spy
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:23 am UTC

Reactionaries are not truly on the conservative/radical spectrum, though they might be similar to conservatives. Reactionaries are not always in and of themselves inherently a bad thing; sometimes the people in charge are doing something abhorrent, and the reactionary is the one who most adamantly refuses to go along. Reactionaries are only "bad" when they are reacting to what you have declared to be best.

Both the OWS and the Tea Party movements are "reactionary". The Tea Party started as a reaction to the perceived wasteful spending of late term Bush and early term Obama; the perception was that trillions had been spent/loaned to the very people whose incompetence/malice caused the economy to collapse in the first place. Then it got hijacked by Evangelicals. The OWS was started for similar reasons; with the exception of the CEO of GM being forced to resign there was practically no justice whatsoever for the economic crisis. And of course, the OWS protest got hijacked by all the various groups that are always protesting (or at least that's how it came across in the news).

OT
Spoiler:
I'm sure there is a Newtonian law about actions and reactions, but I'm not a poli-sci major. Never did like poly-sci; not the courses, those were kind of fun, the people who majored in it. It's barely above comparative literature as far as real-world usefulness.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:59 am UTC

Since the primary is for all practical purposes considered over now, do people have any guesses on who Romney will pick for a running mate? Rubio is always put at the top of everyone's list, due to being an almost perfect foil to Romney (very conservative, young, hispanic) while also being very popular in Florida. Despite that, I don't think it'll be him, or any of the (ex) governors (Christie, Jindal, Pawlenty, etc.) floated around either, as they all are either a poor political fit or just not tested enough to be tossed on a presidential campaign. So I guess, basically, I have no idea on who I actually expect it to be, but I expect it won't be anyone that is currently seen as likely. Anyone have better guesses?

CorruptUser wrote:Both the OWS and the Tea Party movements are "reactionary".

You keep using these words in their historical context and definition. I'm sure you're completely correct about those uses as well, but you're missing a vital fact: that's not how those words, when used politically, mean anymore.

Yes, both OWS and the tea party were reacting to something, but that does not make them both political reactionaries. The tea party of the now (though not necessarily the tea party of the protests), in a nutshell, wants to regress several social progresses, reverting more to a "traditional" social structure; they want to remove government from anything that goes opposite that traditional structure, while keeping it in place for things that enforce it (e.g. the military). OWS, also in a nutshell, wants to fix income and political inequality -- it wants to progress past the current imbalances, and wants to use government to fix them.

It doesn't matter what being politically conservative meant in the early 19th century when discussing modern politics: it only matters what it means now.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:36 pm UTC

Considering that OWS is trying to stop/reverse increasing income disparity, OWS is technically regressive.

Anyway, I use the words for what they mean because if we keep changing the words everything becomes impossible to understand. Any works from more than a decade ago become incomprehensible. Words mean what they mean, and people will try to attach themselves to words with positive connotations and their opponents will try to turn those words into pejoratives. No. Enough is enough. We must stop this. Whenever someone uses the word completely out of context or pretty much the opposite of what it means, stop them. Correct them. Yes, you may be called so many various things, but you must fight the good fight. This does not mean you have to become a grammar-fascist; constantly complaining about a misplaced comma or a typo or a new word, but you have to stop people from saying things are ironic when things are the exact opposite of ironic.

So when someone refers to someone else as a "damn Liberal", explain how there is actually nothing liberal about that person's policies. When someone insists that they are a "good conservative", explain how their policies are anything but conservative. When someone calls Obama a socialist, ask that person which part of Obama's policies involve employee ownership of the means of production (other than GM).
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:59 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:ask that person which part of Obama's policies involve employee ownership of the means of production (other than GM).
Um, why doesn't GM count? The way that was managed was a serious rewriting of contract law, and not for the better.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.
User avatar
Vaniver
 
Posts: 9415
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:35 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Anyway, I use the words for what they mean because if we keep changing the words everything becomes impossible to understand. Any works from more than a decade ago become incomprehensible. Words mean what they mean, and people will try to attach themselves to words with positive connotations and their opponents will try to turn those words into pejoratives. No. Enough is enough. We must stop this. Whenever someone uses the word completely out of context or pretty much the opposite of what it means, stop them. Correct them. Yes, you may be called so many various things, but you must fight the good fight. This does not mean you have to become a grammar-fascist; constantly complaining about a misplaced comma or a typo or a new word, but you have to stop people from saying things are ironic when things are the exact opposite of ironic.

Except you're fighting for what the words meant a century ago. You'd be just as right to correct people who use "decimate" to mean anything other than "to remove one tenth". Or if you told someone they were wrong to use "gentleman" to mean something other than a member of the landed nobility. You'd only be right in a completely different century than the one you're speaking in. Language evolves, words evolve. The meaning changes with time, and you can't change that. When speaking on modern politics, liberal and conservative do not mean what they meant in the decades following the French Revolution. Sticking to those old definitions makes you, not the people you're speaking with, the incomprehensible one.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:47 pm UTC

Conservative still has a semblance of its original meaning. Just listen to the Dead Kennedy's song "MTV Get Off the Air", they use the word correctly. Liberal didn't lose its original meaning until the 60s in the US; in Europe, it mostly means what it used to mean centuries ago. Radical still has the same meaning, at least outside of politics.

It's only in politics have the words had their meanings twisted. Don't let a bunch of politicians ruin language. When a politician lies, call him out on it. When s/he starts using pejoratives, counter them. Don't just sit back and do nothing.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:57 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:It's only in politics have the words had their meanings twisted.

And if you want to use the words when speaking about politics, and wish to be understood, you should use the modern definitions. Just like if you talk to people about organic food. Sure, you'd be right if you pointed out that all food is organic in the scientific sense (with all foods containing carbon), but you wouldn't actually succeed at communicating with that person. I happen to particularly dislike that example, but I also enjoy communicating something that makes sense to the people I'm talking to, so I don't make a fuss about it. It's already a lost war, and insisting on fighting it doesn't help make people understandable. Everyone here knows what is meant when someone says "Romney is too conservative".

You have made the point that modern US politics doesn't use the words as per their original definitions anymore multiple times. All it serves to do now is act as an impediment to discussion on the topic.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby emceng » Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:06 pm UTC

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120410/D9U285F81.html

Well it is pretty much over. The much worse candidate is bowing out. Too bad the whole field was a pile of awful.
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: 2966
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:20 pm UTC

emceng wrote:http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120410/D9U285F81.html

Well it is pretty much over. The much worse candidate is bowing out. Too bad the whole field was a pile of awful.

Clears the way for the Ronpaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:46 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Clears the way for the Ronpaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
The opposite, actually. I think Paul was counting on Santorum draining Romney's votes and delegates.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.
User avatar
Vaniver
 
Posts: 9415
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dauric » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:03 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Роберт wrote:Clears the way for the Ronpaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
The opposite, actually. I think Paul was counting on Santorum draining Romney's votes and delegates.


The Ronpaul sits in his darkened sanctum caressing "Fluffy" as he contemplates his last plan to secure world domination. It was to have been perfect, setting the misguided acolyte of the Risen Lord and their followers to drain The Romney and convert his own followers to the cult of the Conservative Society. But the Ronpaul had not accounted for an important detail: The zombie leaders of the Risen Lord's cult required to consume brains and flesh for sustenance, and the Romney was in fact the M1-1T Politibot, it's brain made of aluminum powder would provide the cult of the Risen Lord no nutrients to renew their expended powers had they even been able to penetrate the perfectly shaped Plasticine hair-shaped access cover.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. Later, Garrus was eaten by a shark. It is believed that the Point has perished in the accident. Back to you Bob.
User avatar
Dauric
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: If I knew this with any accuracy I wouldn't know if I was going to get a speeding ticket.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:02 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Роберт wrote:Clears the way for the Ronpaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
The opposite, actually. I think Paul was counting on Santorum draining Romney's votes and delegates.

If you thought I was being serious with that many exclamation marks AND ONES trailing my sentance, I... I don't know if you should be using the internets.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:06 pm UTC

Poe's Law; sarcasm on the internet has a chance to be taken seriously equal to the percentage of serious arguments in the topic.
Poe's Strong Law; if a conversation goes on long enough, Poe's Law will eventually be triggered.
Poe-Godwin Law; if Poe's Law is discussed for at length, eventually Godwin's Law will also be invoked.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby ++$_ » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:20 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Poe's Law; sarcasm on the internet has a chance to be taken seriously equal to the percentage of serious arguments in the topic.
Poe's Strong Law; if a conversation goes on long enough, Poe's Law will eventually be triggered.
Poe-Godwin Law; if Poe's Law is discussed for at length, eventually Godwin's Law will also be invoked.
You know who liked to make up laws?

Hitler.
++$_
Mo' Money
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:32 am UTC

Romney is one lucky candidate. His republican opponents always seem to do the one that he needs most at the moment. At the very least, he no longer has to spend a bunch of money in California, New York, and Texas.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:48 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Romney is one lucky candidate. His republican opponents always seem to do the one that he needs most at the moment. At the very least, he no longer has to spend a bunch of money in California, New York, and Texas.


It's almost like those Republicans are in cahoots with one another in some bizarre attempt to ensure Romney wins the presidency.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:01 am UTC

lutzj wrote:It's almost like those Republicans are in cahoots with one another in some bizarre attempt to ensure Romney wins the presidency.

Well, not going to analyze all of their actions, but at least this one is a pretty smart move on Santorum's part. The only way he would think he had a chance of winning the nomination now would be if he was completely delusional. So it's to his advantage to exit at the time where: (1) Romney is least likely to win the presidency (2) Santorum is least likely to be blamed for that, and (3) Santorum has not been hit with any embarrassing defeats that would weaken him for future runs at office.

Pennsylvania was trending in Romney's favor, and Santorum wouldn't want to end his campaign on that note, so I think (3) won out over (1) and (2) in this case. I can't see him being a credible candidate for 2016 (assuming Obama wins) or 2020 (if Obama loses), since there are a lot of republicans that stayed out of this election that appeal far more to their electorate, but this is the choice that gives him the best chance he can have for those elections.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:39 am UTC

Роберт wrote:If you thought I was being serious with that many exclamation marks AND ONES trailing my sentance, I... I don't know if you should be using the internets.
I didn't think you were being serious, but I think the subject of whether or not Paul can win should be taken seriously, and so I was serious.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.
User avatar
Vaniver
 
Posts: 9415
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:19 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:The only way [Santorum] would have chance of winning the nomination now would be if he was completely delusional.
This is how I read that. It made me think "wow, this forum REALLY hates GOP primary voters".
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:43 pm UTC

Image

Image
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.
User avatar
Lucrece
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:02 am UTC

Роберт wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:The only way [Santorum] would have chance of winning the nomination now would be if he was completely delusional.
This is how I read that. It made me think "wow, this forum REALLY hates GOP primary voters".


Yeah, I haven't seen too many religious fanatics on these forums, and they seem to make up a huge chunk of the Republican base, so pro-Republican posters tend to be few and far between. Only Libertarians and Monetarists on these forms tend to think that the Repubs could at best be the less repulsive party at this point.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:46 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... pathy-gap/
This post brought up a good point that we've been debating about. That Romney is a gaffe machine with regard to his wealth or caring about poor people. Statistically, it doesn't matter, or more broadly don't let a single variable predict the whole election.
User avatar
sardia
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Whammy » Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:55 am UTC

sardia wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/romneys-empathy-gap/
This post brought up a good point that we've been debating about. That Romney is a gaffe machine with regard to his wealth or caring about poor people. Statistically, it doesn't matter, or more broadly don't let a single variable predict the whole election.


Yeah, not that surprising. The gaffes are fun to watch and poke fun at for a while, make some jokes on late night shows, but that's about it. Like the article said, in the long run party identification is probably more important and most likely influences the way people perceive candidates; so people who already think Romney is out of touch will always think he's out of touch, and those who don't will always don't.
User avatar
Whammy
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:34 pm UTC
Location: Southern United States

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:51 pm UTC

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/ ... slide.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.
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?
Dark567
 
Posts: 3431
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

PreviousNext

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: icanus, leady and 5 guests