So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Are you voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Yes
52
31%
No
91
54%
No, I'm a neocon
5
3%
Yes, and I coded the voting machine; expect a landslide
20
12%
 
Total votes: 168

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Vaniver » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:50 pm UTC

mastapsi wrote:Two positions on the Board are currently vacant, so this is a big deal.
I had forgotten about that; that changes things somewhat. I wonder how an Austrian would fare at the Fed (and if one could get past the Senate).

mastapsi wrote:As an added not, I'd like to point out that saying that the President's only holds the veto power marginalizes his role in legislation. The President is considered the most important lobbyist, and he often drafts bills up for consideration. He may not be able to directly propose the bills, but he still in essence does by getting a supporter in Congress to do it for him. Many people forget that even though the President doesn't have direct power, he does have a great deal of influence.
Which is something I would like to change.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Malice » Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:46 pm UTC

mastapsi wrote:And it would be wrong to assume that monetary policy is less important than fiscal. They tend to be of equal power, since the interest rate affects the investment portion of GDP, while fiscal spending contributes to the government portion, which are roughly equal, with government getting a slight favor.

As an added not, I'd like to point out that saying that the President's only holds the veto power marginalizes his role in legislation. The President is considered the most important lobbyist, and he often drafts bills up for consideration. He may not be able to directly propose the bills, but he still in essence does by getting a supporter in Congress to do it for him. Many people forget that even though the President doesn't have direct power, he does have a great deal of influence.


I think the point is that... well, look.

Either Congress and the President agree... in which case the President's fiscal and monetary policy will get through.
Or Congress and the President disagree... in which case, the President's monetary policy may or may not get through, but Congress's fiscal policy absolutely won't. The President has certain power to veto spending bills, but uncertain (though substantial) influence over getting monetary policy bills passed.

Therefore, the President's fiscal policy is more likely to be implemented than his monetary policy. So the fiscal policy is the more important consideration.

(Without considering the Fed, of course.)
Image

mastapsi
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:16 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby mastapsi » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:51 am UTC

Malice wrote:
mastapsi wrote:And it would be wrong to assume that monetary policy is less important than fiscal. They tend to be of equal power, since the interest rate affects the investment portion of GDP, while fiscal spending contributes to the government portion, which are roughly equal, with government getting a slight favor.

As an added not, I'd like to point out that saying that the President's only holds the veto power marginalizes his role in legislation. The President is considered the most important lobbyist, and he often drafts bills up for consideration. He may not be able to directly propose the bills, but he still in essence does by getting a supporter in Congress to do it for him. Many people forget that even though the President doesn't have direct power, he does have a great deal of influence.


I think the point is that... well, look.

Either Congress and the President agree... in which case the President's fiscal and monetary policy will get through.
Or Congress and the President disagree... in which case, the President's monetary policy may or may not get through, but Congress's fiscal policy absolutely won't. The President has certain power to veto spending bills, but uncertain (though substantial) influence over getting monetary policy bills passed.


Therefore, the President's fiscal policy is more likely to be implemented than his monetary policy. So the fiscal policy is the more important consideration.

(Without considering the Fed, of course.)


Congress can still get stuff through if need be. Veto overrides do exist, though rarely used, and the President can't always veto stuff he doesn't like, doing so would be akin to political suicide, especially if we end up with a split government again. And the issue of the two vacant seats on the Fed is really big.


Vaniver wrote:
mastapsi wrote:As an added not, I'd like to point out that saying that the President's only holds the veto power marginalizes his role in legislation. The President is considered the most important lobbyist, and he often drafts bills up for consideration. He may not be able to directly propose the bills, but he still in essence does by getting a supporter in Congress to do it for him. Many people forget that even though the President doesn't have direct power, he does have a great deal of influence.

Which is something I would like to change.


What exactly do you mean?

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Vaniver » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:31 am UTC

mastapsi wrote:What exactly do you mean?
I am generally against politics becoming more monolithic, and the office of the president has been experiencing that (and pushing for that) for quite some time. I would like for the Congress to gain more influence and accountability, but as that hinges on a larger number of people becoming nationally known, I don't see it happening much in the near future.*

*It would be interesting to compare the number of celebrities a person knows to the number of politicians they know; it's interesting how many people can name the president's daughters but not the president pro tempore of the Senate.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

mastapsi
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:16 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby mastapsi » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:42 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
mastapsi wrote:What exactly do you mean?
I am generally against politics becoming more monolithic, and the office of the president has been experiencing that (and pushing for that) for quite some time. I would like for the Congress to gain more influence and accountability, but as that hinges on a larger number of people becoming nationally known, I don't see it happening much in the near future.*

*It would be interesting to compare the number of celebrities a person knows to the number of politicians they know; it's interesting how many people can name the president's daughters but not the president pro tempore of the Senate.



Ahh... I see. I agree a little bit. But the reason we don't know the President pro tempore of the Senete's daughters is because he is elected at the state level. The President and Vice-President are the only nationally elected officials.


Regardless, as was stated earlier, the inability to put into play his policies (particularly his monetary ones) do not justify electing him to office for his semi-decent ones. While he has a few good ideas, most of his ideas are stupid and pretty much actively harmful.

Pros:
Repeal of NCLB
Protection of Liberties

Entirely Political (no real Pros or Cons) or questionable policy:
Second Amendment policy
Iraq - Immediate pull out is an unrealistic expectation, but I agree we need to get out.
Abortion

Cons:
Tax policy
Immigration policy
Monetary policy
Globalization policy

While the Pros are good, the Cons should be deal breakers. If any one of those policies went into effect, it would cause considerable damage to our nation's economy. If multiple ones managed it, it could destroy what we have. The stuff in the middle is either political in my opinion or is a questionable policy.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby 3.14159265... » Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:42 am UTC

Ronny talking
Um I don't like him anymore.

Damnit, this dude fooled me for so long. :(

Is there no hope for a sane president, who isn't greedy?

Will there never be peace, and freedom? (This is a serious question, I always thought, you know.. one day...)
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Vaniver » Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:21 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:Ronny talking
Um I don't like him anymore.
Which part of it?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby 3.14159265... » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:24 am UTC

Abortion. He wants federal laws, against it.
I find that issue too complex for any one person to have a clear cut position on it. Specially one such as "Life starts as conception"

He started saying, if we make a mistake we have to correct it. He sticks to his ideas, and doesn't like thinking about new things now though. So he really meant "if we make a mistake in my view, we should correct it in my view."
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Ari
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Ari » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:Abortion. He wants federal laws, against it.
I find that issue too complex for any one person to have a clear cut position on it. Specially one such as "Life starts as conception"

He started saying, if we make a mistake we have to correct it. He sticks to his ideas, and doesn't like thinking about new things now though. So he really meant "if we make a mistake in my view, we should correct it in my view."


I like the whole "life starts at conception" comment. It's hilariously simplified, and any doctor, especially one who's worked around maternal issues should be more responsible than that. Of course life starts at conception, the question is when human rights start from, and what it is that gives us them when we don't apply anywhere near the same standards to animals, and when you can say an abortion does harm to the fetus/baby/child, and when you can say it prevents harm to the mother. None of these are very easy to define, and stupid slogans like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" both get in the way.

It's really the big inconsistency of the Ronpaul's campaign, I think. Even if he doesn't like abortion, to be a consistent libertarian, he needs to at least oppose federal regulation on this matter.

As for your last comment- of course that's what he means. He doesn't have any other point of view to use. The important thing is whether his point of view is flexible to reasoned arguement and evidence- and sadly as someone whose philosophy actually has a fair amount in common with the Ronpaul's, it doesn't look too much like he's very flexible. Still, he's probably about the best and most principled Republican candidate you are likely to get for this election, even if he is stubborn, naive, and idealistic- those traits are actually somewhat useful in politics at the moment.
"Hey %*&^er, offensive communication works fine so long as you do it respectfully." :D
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Vaniver » Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:44 pm UTC

Ari wrote:It's really the big inconsistency of the Ronpaul's campaign, I think. Even if he doesn't like abortion, to be a consistent libertarian, he needs to at least oppose federal regulation on this matter.
Sort of. He's said both things; an interview before gives him as saying "the more controversial an issue is, the more locally it should be decided" which is a sane policy.

The problem is that he also recognizes that the debate about abortion is a debate about when life (and rights, as you point out) begins. This is something that can't be decided locally; if any government entity is going to define when life begins, it should be the federal government (otherwise, it would be possible to cross a state (or county) border to kill a citizen without penalty). Then we get into a debate between idealists and pragmatists; the idealists have stronger philosophical arguments for life beginning at conception than pragmatists have for life beginning at birth, but it's a far more reasonable policy to grant rights at birth.

But, the bottom line is- abortion is most likely not going to become illegal, regardless of who is president. I can't see there being over 60 pro-life senators, and even overturning Roe v. Wade won't stop abortion- it'll just allow some states to make it illegal.

he is stubborn, naive, and idealistic- those traits are actually somewhat useful in politics at the moment
I shudder to say this, but that could describe Bush just as easily.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby 3.14159265... » Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:59 pm UTC

he is stubborn, naive, and idealistic- those traits are actually somewhat useful in politics at the moment

Thats the thing, I thought he was different. I thought he wasn't stubborn, and when presented with good ideas he would accept them.

Truth turned out, that he just his own values, that seemed to correlate with mine.

My only hope now, is that the American/European youth growing up now, begin a trend of thinking in a post-modernistic kind of way. Being able to recognize more than one perspective about the same event, even if that perspective isn't familiar to them.

It is horrible that as a society we think bieng stubborn is a good quality in a leader.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
TheTankengine
Our Fora-father
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby TheTankengine » Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:33 am UTC

Rysto wrote:Bullshit. You just don't have a fucking clue about economics, do you?

This is completely unacceptable.
Anything resembling this remark in the future will result in a permanent SB ban.


Umlaut wrote:As a side note, not telling you to just fuck off has been very difficult. You are generally a hostile nut-basket with ridiculous ideas of what people need and deserve (this is a personal opinion). Of course, that isn't enough. You still feel the need to blanket everyone who happens to share a set of political (not personal) beliefs with your hate. If you want to disagree with people, you can at least show the same respect these "asshole" libertarians show you while you dissect the minutiae of non-issues. I don't think you need to respond ever again to a post of mine, or I to one of yours. Everyone can just take it as writ that you think the opposite politically of everything I say and vice versa.

fjafjan is right, this does not belong here.
Just skip over his posts.
be centered
be compassionate
be interesting

AbNo
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:00 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby AbNo » Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:07 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:*a long personal atatck*


Well, Ihave no idea where my vote will fall for the Primary, but I'm certainly not going to let someone trash a candidate with unfounded rumours.

Post proof or don't post personal attacks, Fja. If you've got into to back it up, post it.

I don't like Gulliani for his anti-RKBA stance, Huckabee for his tax-hikes and pro-amnesty stance, Paul for his wanting to leave Iraq, Romney's a flip-flopper like no one's business, and that's all the people I can think of.

As for the "benefits" of pulling out of Iraq, look at what happened when we left Afghanistan in the 80's.... Instead of getting a pro-US, or at least neutral power structure setup before pulling out of the region, we left abruptly, and the Taliban took over. Because of this, we're having to go back and play Orkin man again in that region.

History, no learning from, doomed, repeat.
Darwin was right, but nanny-staters keep trying to undermine him

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby fjafjan » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:10 am UTC

AbNo wrote:
fjafjan wrote:*a long personal atatck*


Well, Ihave no idea where my vote will fall for the Primary, but I'm certainly not going to let someone trash a candidate with unfounded rumours.

Post proof or don't post personal attacks, Fja. If you've got into to back it up, post it.

I have no idea what post you are talking about, or what claims you are talking about, i'd love to post proof of whatever statement it is you're concerned about.
I don't like Gulliani for his anti-RKBA stance, Huckabee for his tax-hikes and pro-amnesty stance, Paul for his wanting to leave Iraq, Romney's a flip-flopper like no one's business, and that's all the people I can think of.

As for the "benefits" of pulling out of Iraq, look at what happened when we left Afghanistan in the 80's.... Instead of getting a pro-US, or at least neutral power structure setup before pulling out of the region, we left abruptly, and the Taliban took over. Because of this, we're having to go back and play Orkin man again in that region.

an immediate and inconsiderate withdrawl would probably do alot of harm in many ways correct, but basically Obama has all the right awnsers on getting out of Iraq. It cannot be solved just by "staying the course", in order to reach a solution negotiations with the relevant parties, Syria, Iran, maybe other arab states, must be held.
But your comparison with Afghanistan is in many ways not at all valid, first of all the rise of extremist forces there were caused but an invasion not my America but by Soviet. And not only was it soviet invaded but few to none efforts were taken to promote democracy and a pro american goverment there, a misstake which not necessarily would be repeated in Afghanistan.


the idealists have stronger philosophical arguments for life beginning at conception than pragmatists have for life beginning at birth,
Both the egg and sperm are "alive" before conception, the question is what constitutes a human being and I think it is not a very strong philosophical argument that a human being is created when a different kind of cell is created.

Pros:
Repeal of NCLB
Protection of Liberties

I disagree, the Ronpaul is far a more ardent protected of states rights than he is of personal rights, for example he wants to get rid of civil rights, which could lead to segregationalist policies within a state if they wanted them, which certainly does not protect the liberties of black people, nor does his abortion ban protect the liberties of women, etc. Generally he supports having far more oppressive state goverments than the federal one is right now.

I also think you missed "foreign policy" on the con one (excepting Iraq, since that I agree is atleast slightly more dubious) since withdrawing from the UN and generally being isolationist is a horrible horrible foreign policy.

He thinks it isn't an issue for politicians to decide, and says so. Although it would be nice to have a candidate with more scientific literacy, that isn't the deciding question of the day, as much as regional school boards would want you to believe.

But he would most likely not oppose state goverments implementing it, which is where it might actually be relevant.

And yet, "murder should be illegal" is a very controversial statement when one gets down to the question of whether or not abortion is murder.
Which I stated is not a question of the existance or importance of the law, but how it should be interpreted, reasonable people can disagree about what exactly the human rights entail, but reasonable people do not disagree they are fundamentally reasonable rights.

This is the part where you keep in mind that you're not voting for a legislator in chief, but the holder of the veto pen; fiscal policy matters more than monetary policy (and I like to think Paul knows that what the gold bugs want is unworkable, even if it's something Austrian economics approves of).

Except what you fail to realize is that a "do nothing president" ie a lame duck, is incredibly harmful in and of itself.

Second you have things like the Ronpaul being a pretty religiously unreasonable person aswell meaning that he is likely to appoint some pretty crazy judges, and almost certainly one which would get rid of Roe V wade and generally do quite alot of harm in maintaining a secular society.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Vaniver » Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:41 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:Both the egg and sperm are "alive" before conception, the question is what constitutes a human being and I think it is not a very strong philosophical argument that a human being is created when a different kind of cell is created.
This can be discussed in another thread if you like; it seems tangential to this one.

fjafjan wrote:I disagree, the Ronpaul is far a more ardent protected of states rights than he is of personal rights
I'm not sure I agree. He certainly views rights differently than you do; he would (at least, we would expect the ideal Libertarian to) say that the right to offend is more important than the right to not be offended. That this protects bigots is unfortunate but not fatal to its importance.

fjafjan wrote:But he would most likely not oppose state goverments implementing it, which is where it might actually be relevant.
I fail to see why the federal government dictating school policy is desirable. It is possible that they could enforce some beneficial curriculum, but it is also possible that they could enforce some harmful curriculum. That the Ronpaul pushes for school choice (even if his primary motivations seem to be home-schoolers and parochial schools) is enough for me to excuse an antiquated view of the genesis of organisms; school choice would do far more to help education than enforcing evolution (which is already the norm, since it's right).

fjafjan wrote:Which I stated is not a question of the existance or importance of the law, but how it should be interpreted, reasonable people can disagree about what exactly the human rights entail, but reasonable people do not disagree they are fundamentally reasonable rights.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. How can we agree "murder is bad" without defining "murder"?

fjafjan wrote:Except what you fail to realize is that a "do nothing president" ie a lame duck, is incredibly harmful in and of itself.
I believe, as implied before, that a weak president does more for the stability and safety of a secular democracy than a strong president. What is harmed by a lame duck president?

fjafjan wrote:Second you have things like the Ronpaul being a pretty religiously unreasonable person aswell meaning that he is likely to appoint some pretty crazy judges, and almost certainly one which would get rid of Roe V wade and generally do quite alot of harm in maintaining a secular society.
I do not see the appointment of constructionists to the Supreme Court as a bad thing, even if it means a few decisions will not go the way I want them do; enacting those legal changes through Constitutional methods is far more palatable to me than judicial fiat.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
jakebw
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:37 pm UTC
Location: Northampton, MA
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby jakebw » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:59 am UTC


stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby stephen » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:53 pm UTC

As a non-US based observer I have a few comments regarding the US presidential elections.

1) I think the worst outcome for the world is an Obama victory. The fact that he opposed the Iraq war when presented with overwhelming evidence which suggested that the war should be initiated strikes of both cowardice and naivity.
2) I think that Hillary Clinton would be the best democratic candidate as she has both the political history and experience to govern the world's largest military superpower correctly. She also rightly places the interest of business (which provides jobs) at a similar level to the interest of the rights of the individual (unlike John Edwards).
3) I think McCain would be the best president for the next 4-8 years as he has military experience (he was awarded a purple heart and supported the troop surge long before it was implimented - and it has proven to be successful), is relatively moderate in his views, and his historical ability to stand up to people who need to be opposed is unmatched.
4) Short of McCain, the republican candidate that I think would be the best is Huckabee, because even though he has religious leanings, you know exactly where he stands on each issue.
5) I think that Rudi Giulliani would make the worst possible republican candidate as his record prior to the emotionally influential September 11 attack was extremely poor.

So in short, I would prefer a republican candidate over any of the democratic candidates (with the exception of Giulliani), with Obama being the worst candidate that America has at the moment.

User avatar
Invisible_Insane
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:53 pm UTC
Location: Ithaca. Occasionally Brooklyn.
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Invisible_Insane » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:08 pm UTC

stephen wrote:As a non-US based observer I have a few comments regarding the US presidential elections.

1) I think the worst outcome for the world is an Obama victory. The fact that he opposed the Iraq war when presented with overwhelming evidence which suggested that the war should be initiated strikes of both cowardice and naivity.
2) I think that Hillary Clinton would be the best democratic candidate as she has both the political history and experience to govern the world's largest military superpower correctly. She also rightly places the interest of business (which provides jobs) at a similar level to the interest of the rights of the individual (unlike John Edwards).
3) I think McCain would be the best president for the next 4-8 years as he has military experience (he was awarded a purple heart and supported the troop surge long before it was implimented - and it has proven to be successful), is relatively moderate in his views, and his historical ability to stand up to people who need to be opposed is unmatched.
4) Short of McCain, the republican candidate that I think would be the best is Huckabee, because even though he has religious leanings, you know exactly where he stands on each issue.
5) I think that Rudi Giulliani would make the worst possible republican candidate as his record prior to the emotionally influential September 11 attack was extremely poor.

So in short, I would prefer a republican candidate over any of the democratic candidates (with the exception of Giulliani), with Obama being the worst candidate that America has at the moment.

1) You'd think the US would have had significantly less trouble acquiring international support if they had "overwhelming" evidence.
3) The troop surge has yielded little political progress. It is a temporary solution, and if I am correct, while US casualties may have diminished from their mid-2007 levels, they are still higher than they were in the previous year. If no political progress is being made, I don't see how the sacrifice of American lives is worth it.
4) I don't think being aware of someone's position on every issue qualifies them for the position.
5) Duh.
God is to Microsoft as Human Nature is to Windows Vista.

A.B.
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:36 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby A.B. » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:51 pm UTC

1) One can have a principled opposition to war, regardless of any "evidence". If you point to me "overwhelming evidence" that a bus contains three dangerous murderers, I would not throw a grenade to take them out. War makes innocent victim, I do not believe making innocent victims to kill a criminal is morally acceptable. Although I don't know what Obama's stance exactly is, you are taking war for granted, it's not.

2) There is no arbitrage between "business interest" and "individual right", law is about solving conflicts by finding which conflicting party is in his right. Besides, the argument of "creating jobs" is meaningless, jobs are not "created", you're following a lump of labor fallacy. The fact is, we need labor to get things done, and that's unfortunate. What does happen is that some laws artificially restrict the demand for labor, which produces lower wage. Hillary Clinton said about global warming that it could have a positive side because of "all the jobs it would create". I think that illustrates your fallacy.

3) How is military experience relevant? Moderation is not always good. Assume you plan to make a cocktail with cranberry juice, gin, pineapple juice and poison. Should you put extremely little poison or a moderate amount?

4) I think the Ronpaul is by far the best candidate, but I wouldn't vote for him (nor anyone though).

5) Agreed.

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Rorgg » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:10 pm UTC

I'm an independant and a moderate -- in the 2006 elections, I voted D for state congress, R for governor, and I in a futile throwaway vote for Congress because I couldn't conscionably vote for either.

Even though he's notably to the left of me politically, I'm going to take a Dem ballot on Feb 5 and vote Obama. While I may not agree with all of his stances, I think he's shown an excellent process on how to make decisions. He shows real willingness to work across political lines, and actually has a track record to support it. And it certainly helps that we agree on the issues I'm really concerned about -- science, energy, and environmental issues -- that should, in theory, be apolitical.

Paul has the same exclusionary strike against him as Huckabee does: he doesn't believe in evolution. Past that, I really don't care. It shows that the candidates are unwilling to objectively assess overwhelming evidenciary data in favor of preconceived notions, and that's an absolute bar to my vote.

A.B.
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:36 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby A.B. » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:49 pm UTC

Rorgg wrote:Paul has the same exclusionary strike against him as Huckabee does: he doesn't believe in evolution. Past that, I really don't care. It shows that the candidates are unwilling to objectively assess overwhelming evidenciary data in favor of preconceived notions, and that's an absolute bar to my vote.


None of the candidate is an atheist, that shows all of them are unwilling to objectively assess overwhelming evidenciary data in favor of religion. Shouldn't that bar your vote?

What should determine your vote is how confident you are on the policies that will be taken. Since the issues are more or less known before hand, the ability to objectively assess a problem becomes an irrelevant proxy to judge a candidate.

For example, assume you decide banning jello is the right thing to do, because it is a health threat. You could vote for a candidate who claims jello should be banned as a creature of the devil subverting youth.

The only thing that matters to make a decision is how well you can forecast the attitude of the president in a given circumstance. A bible fundamentalist for example. while irrational, would be highly predictable and could, by random chance, happen to fit your positions.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Yakk » Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:25 am UTC

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca

Why did the Ronpaul choose to publish rather racist and otherwise crazy pamphlets under his own name?

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.")


Take, for instance, a special issue of the the Ronpaul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage.


So the newletters didn't like black people.

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."


Even international black people.

In addition, the Ronpaul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by "patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson"--as one of the newsletters called her--who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: "I can't vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police's tricks and crimes," the newsletter said, adding, "Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL."


And he sold rather whacky Waco conspiracy tapes...

In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.


But he knew nothing about it! Honestly!

What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos"--estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.


And can't a politician go visit crazy-ass people a few times and talk on their radio show, 3 or so times per year, without seeming to imply any support for those crazy-ass people?

I maintain: the Ronpaul looks like a nutjob.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

A.B.
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:36 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby A.B. » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:15 am UTC

Yakk wrote:the Ronpaul looks like a nutjob.


So? A presidential office is not a brownie point nor a virtue contest. The only question that matters is: how would that affect his policy. I for example would rather like to see a president who believes in flying bananas and world peace than a sane president chosing to go to war.

Mind you, I do not like the Ronpaul as a person, not at all, nor would I vote for him, but I insist that unless they translate into actual policies the few opinions he voiced on MLK are irrelevant. So the question is, if the Ronpaul is indeed a racist, what kind of "racist" policies would he suggest?

Last but not least, I also have contempt for MLK, I also have contempt for Nelson Mandela (both socialists) and I do believe that a large portion of the black population in LA is indeed on welfare. Does that make be a "racist" and if so, why?

User avatar
Invisible_Insane
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:53 pm UTC
Location: Ithaca. Occasionally Brooklyn.
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Invisible_Insane » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:22 am UTC

A.B. wrote:Last but not least, I also have contempt for MLK, I also have contempt for Nelson Mandela (both socialists) and I do believe that a large portion of the black population in LA is indeed on welfare. Does that make be a "racist" and if so, why?


If your contempt for King, Mandela, and people in LA arises from the fact that they are black, then yes, you are a racist.
God is to Microsoft as Human Nature is to Windows Vista.

A.B.
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:36 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby A.B. » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:46 am UTC

Invisible_Insane wrote:If your contempt for King, Mandela, and people in LA arises from the fact that they are black, then yes, you are a racist.


1) Wow wow I never claim I had any contempt for any people in LA
2) I agree with you, but fortunately, I am a rational person and be sure they don't arise from this. So I'm not a racist \o/.
3) But maybe the same goes for RP, I don't know. Since he is a libertarian, he is bound to reject Mandela and MLK as socialist leaders. Granted his depiction of MLK day has "hate whitey day" does cast doubt on this interpretation.

If you want my honest opinion, I do think he tends to be have a xenophobic bias, shown particulary by his immigration policy, but I believe calling him a racist is far fetched.

User avatar
Invisible_Insane
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:53 pm UTC
Location: Ithaca. Occasionally Brooklyn.
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Invisible_Insane » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:07 am UTC

Didn't mean to suggest you had contempt for people in LA; bad phrasing on my part.

Personally, I haven't really given that much thought to the Ronpaul. I listened to this interview with him on public television and I think a lot of things he's saying are definitely correct: US spending on war/defense IS out of control, etc. I just disagree with the way he thinks such things should be corrected, and since I think the current system of elections doesn't really give him much of a chance of winning his party's nomination, I've more or less dismissed him. Sort of like Dennis Kucinich, who I mostly agree with, nuclear power and some other stuff excepted.
God is to Microsoft as Human Nature is to Windows Vista.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Yakk » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:37 am UTC

A.B. wrote:3) But maybe the same goes for RP, I don't know. Since he is a libertarian, he is bound to reject Mandela and MLK as socialist leaders. Granted his depiction of MLK day has "hate whitey day" does cast doubt on this interpretation.


I actually laughed out loud.

You don't think that calling MLK day "hate whitey day" might be some indication that his view of MLK is somewhat tainted by an issue of race? Just maybe? Perhaps? Some chance? A slight tendency? An itty bitty correlation? Some relation?

Maybe a bit of doubt?

...

Now, you can disagree with someone without having contempt for them. You can also have knee-jerk contempt for anyone with a different political opinion than you.

The knee-jerk contempt reaction is a quality I wouldn't want in an executive position like the President.

And I don't want a nutjob in an executive position, regardless of their positions. Nutjobs should not be given power, even if they profess a plan that you think will bring peace and harmony to the world.

It is an executive position whose first job is making sure that the metaphorical trains run on time, and only after that happens is the executive free to go make the world a better place. Nutjobs are not someone I'd trust to run my train schedule. Racist xenophobic conspiracy theorist nutjobs even moreso.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Yakk » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:40 am UTC

the Ronpaul's response:
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”


I consider part of the moral responsibility for producing a paper under your own name, and not having any by-lines, includes being tarred with the text of the publication, and not being able to dodge all consequences by saying "I'm sorry, but I didn't mean any of that which I allowed to be published under my name".

No, you don't get a free lunch. Not yours.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

A.B.
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:36 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby A.B. » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:24 am UTC

Yakk wrote:You don't think that calling MLK day "hate whitey day" might be some indication that his view of MLK is somewhat tainted by an issue of race? Just maybe? Perhaps? Some chance? A slight tendency? An itty bitty correlation? Some relation?


This is actually an accusation of racism towards white people that would be expressed on MLK day, presumably by a significant, or vocal part of the black population. I have absolutely no idea if this is true or not, it might or it might not. This is not, per se, a racist statement, just a balless, unsupported, vague accusation.

Yakk wrote:Now, you can disagree with someone without having contempt for them. You can also have knee-jerk contempt for anyone with a different political opinion than you.


I don't believe in political opinions, I think there are correct moral stances on right, and incorrect ones that live no room for opinion. I have contempt for socialist policies, not because I disagree with them but because I hold they are inherently evil. But that might take us a bit far.

Yakk wrote:The knee-jerk contempt reaction is a quality I wouldn't want in an executive position like the President.


Well it depends. Take an extreme case, assume a president has a knee-jerk reaction against serial rapists who cut little girls in pieces and eat them. I don't find that a bad thing. I'll restate my thesis for the fourth time, it doesn't really matter what a president believes, what matters is what his expected actions are.

Yakk wrote:And I don't want a nutjob in an executive position, regardless of their positions. Nutjobs should not be given power, even if they profess a plan that you think will bring peace and harmony to the world.


But "sane" political ideas are define by the current political spectrum and state provided education, don't you find it's a bit easy to label as nutty rare political ideas? Claiming political opponents are mad is an age-old political tactic that peaked in the USSR.

Yakk wrote:It is an executive position whose first job is making sure that the metaphorical trains run on time, and only after that happens is the executive free to go make the world a better place. Nutjobs are not someone I'd trust to run my train schedule. Racist xenophobic conspiracy theorist nutjobs even moreso.


What would you think of a president that barred blacks from Princeton, that professed admiration for the KKK and sent many thousand americans to their death against their will ? That's Woodrow Wilson.

What would you think of a president who claimed to have a great admiration for Benito Mussolini the italian fascist leader, sent many thousand americans to their death against their will, forcefully prevented people to buy foreign products, seized all the money in the country by force and replaced it with a devaluated currency ? That's F.D.R

What would you think of a president who started a massive war sending thousands of unwilling americans to their death, created the first concentration camp in modern history, suspended Habeas Corpus, introduced the first tax on income ? That's Abe Lincoln.

Hardly anyone consider these presidents to be nutjobs. Odd world, odd world.

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby stephen » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:16 am UTC

A.B. wrote:1) One can have a principled opposition to war, regardless of any "evidence". If you point to me "overwhelming evidence" that a bus contains three dangerous murderers, I would not throw a grenade to take them out. War makes innocent victim, I do not believe making innocent victims to kill a criminal is morally acceptable. Although I don't know what Obama's stance exactly is, you are taking war for granted, it's not.


Obama was opposed to the war on Iraq from the beginning and voted against it. A leader of a country needs to be able to make tough decisions which may lead their people into war. A majority of the senate, including Hillary Clinton voted for the war on Iraq. A "principled opposition" to war is what Brittain tried in 1938.

Invisible_Insane wrote:1) You'd think the US would have had significantly less trouble acquiring international support if they had "overwhelming" evidence.


Gaining unanimous support in the UN is very difficult for anyone to do on any issue. Do not forget that each country has their own interests, which may give them reason to vote one way or another.

3) The troop surge has yielded little political progress. It is a temporary solution, and if I am correct, while US casualties may have diminished from their mid-2007 levels, they are still higher than they were in the previous year. If no political progress is being made, I don't see how the sacrifice of American lives is worth it.


Well according to the latest reports, the troop surge is breaking the back of Al Qaeida in Iraq. Wasn't one of the goals of the war on Iraq to help stop terrorist activities in the country? The point of the surge is to cut down US casualties and reduce to amount of terrorist attacks in the country to a level which allows the US to work with Iraq to train its own forces to protect and manage itself. It seems to be working.

4) I don't think being aware of someone's position on every issue qualifies them for the position.


No, but it does give you an understanding of the way in which they will make decisions. You can accept or reject them based on that. Mike Huckabee is a man of conviction and I happen to agree with many of his views. So I like him as a candidate.

Rysto
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Rysto » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:28 am UTC

Obama was opposed to the war on Iraq from the beginning and voted against it. A leader of a country needs to be able to make tough decisions which may lead their people into war. A majority of the senate, including Hillary Clinton voted for the war on Iraq. A "principled opposition" to war is what Brittain tried in 1938.

This is ridiculous. Your argument is that, because going to war in 1938 would have been a good idea, the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? I am at an utter loss.

Have you forgotten that the principle reason for the invasion -- Iraq's supposed cache of Weapons of Mass Destruction -- has been proven to have been completely and totally false?

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby stephen » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:08 am UTC

Rysto wrote:
Obama was opposed to the war on Iraq from the beginning and voted against it. A leader of a country needs to be able to make tough decisions which may lead their people into war. A majority of the senate, including Hillary Clinton voted for the war on Iraq. A "principled opposition" to war is what Brittain tried in 1938.

This is ridiculous. Your argument is that, because going to war in 1938 would have been a good idea, the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? I am at an utter loss.

Have you forgotten that the principle reason for the invasion -- Iraq's supposed cache of Weapons of Mass Destruction -- has been proven to have been completely and totally false?


Do you not see that this is a fallacious arguement? The evidence at the time suggested that Iraq had a cache of WMDs. A majority of the Senate supported going to war with Iraq, including some leading Democrats (most notably Hillary Clinton). You simply cannot say that because we have information now which is greater than the information that we had in the past, that based on the information at the time the decision should not have been made.

My real arguement is this: if Obama voted against the war, even when presented with evidence that suggested he should go to war, under what conditions will he go to war?

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Azrael001 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:48 am UTC

AbNo wrote:As for the "benefits" of pulling out of Iraq, look at what happened when we left Afghanistan in the 80's.... Instead of getting a pro-US, or at least neutral power structure setup before pulling out of the region, we left abruptly, and the Taliban took over. Because of this, we're having to go back and play Orkin man again in that region.


I haven't read the whole thread, and this post isn't about the Ronpaul, but I am hearing a lot about the USA being the ones in Afghanistan fixing things up. While the liberation of Afghanistan may have been a unilateral effort, it is currently the Canadians who are fighting the Taliban insurgents, and the Canadians who are building the new government. We (we as in Canadians, I am not actually in Afghanistan) have been forced to extend our stay there because none of the other allies are willing to take their turns policing the region. I would just like to see credit given where credit is due.
23111

User avatar
williamager
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:32 am UTC
Location: Aldeburgh, Suffolk (actually US...)
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby williamager » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:43 am UTC

stephen wrote:
Rysto wrote:
Obama was opposed to the war on Iraq from the beginning and voted against it. A leader of a country needs to be able to make tough decisions which may lead their people into war. A majority of the senate, including Hillary Clinton voted for the war on Iraq. A "principled opposition" to war is what Brittain tried in 1938.

This is ridiculous. Your argument is that, because going to war in 1938 would have been a good idea, the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? I am at an utter loss.

Have you forgotten that the principle reason for the invasion -- Iraq's supposed cache of Weapons of Mass Destruction -- has been proven to have been completely and totally false?


Do you not see that this is a fallacious arguement? The evidence at the time suggested that Iraq had a cache of WMDs. A majority of the Senate supported going to war with Iraq, including some leading Democrats (most notably Hillary Clinton). You simply cannot say that because we have information now which is greater than the information that we had in the past, that based on the information at the time the decision should not have been made.

My real arguement is this: if Obama voted against the war, even when presented with evidence that suggested he should go to war, under what conditions will he go to war?


It's important to remember the information that was being presented to Congress. I recall speeches where Colin Powell and others quite clearly stated, in considerable detail, that Iraq had a number of dangerous things. Does anyone else here remember the speech about train-based weapons labs? My memory seems to suggest that these were indicated as existing beyond any possible doubt. Congress was no doubt given even further, more detailed information about other threats. When a case is presented against a country by those who should be trusted authorities, I can understand, to some extent, support for a war, though without full details I can't give a clear opinion on this specific case. From my admittedly cursory understanding of the situation, the main problem appears to be with the aftermath of the war. If someone testified to the police about an (actually unpleasant) neighbour's habit for building bombs to kill random people, going into great detail and speaking with complete certainty, and, after the neighbour was killed in a surprise raid, absolutely nothing was found to suggest that the story was at all true, I expect that person would find themselves in no small amount of trouble.
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby stephen » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:36 pm UTC

williamager wrote:
stephen wrote:
Rysto wrote:
Obama was opposed to the war on Iraq from the beginning and voted against it. A leader of a country needs to be able to make tough decisions which may lead their people into war. A majority of the senate, including Hillary Clinton voted for the war on Iraq. A "principled opposition" to war is what Brittain tried in 1938.

This is ridiculous. Your argument is that, because going to war in 1938 would have been a good idea, the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? I am at an utter loss.

Have you forgotten that the principle reason for the invasion -- Iraq's supposed cache of Weapons of Mass Destruction -- has been proven to have been completely and totally false?


Do you not see that this is a fallacious arguement? The evidence at the time suggested that Iraq had a cache of WMDs. A majority of the Senate supported going to war with Iraq, including some leading Democrats (most notably Hillary Clinton). You simply cannot say that because we have information now which is greater than the information that we had in the past, that based on the information at the time the decision should not have been made.

My real arguement is this: if Obama voted against the war, even when presented with evidence that suggested he should go to war, under what conditions will he go to war?


It's important to remember the information that was being presented to Congress. I recall speeches where Colin Powell and others quite clearly stated, in considerable detail, that Iraq had a number of dangerous things. Does anyone else here remember the speech about train-based weapons labs? My memory seems to suggest that these were indicated as existing beyond any possible doubt. Congress was no doubt given even further, more detailed information about other threats. When a case is presented against a country by those who should be trusted authorities, I can understand, to some extent, support for a war, though without full details I can't give a clear opinion on this specific case. From my admittedly cursory understanding of the situation, the main problem appears to be with the aftermath of the war. If someone testified to the police about an (actually unpleasant) neighbour's habit for building bombs to kill random people, going into great detail and speaking with complete certainty, and, after the neighbour was killed in a surprise raid, absolutely nothing was found to suggest that the story was at all true, I expect that person would find themselves in no small amount of trouble.


I don't understand your point here. You seem to pose an analogy very similar to what actually happened (except that in the actual case it was more than just one person's word and there would have been supporting evidence) and then do not explain what your position is. :?

Oh, and Australia are also fighting in Afghanistan at the moment.

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Rorgg » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:31 pm UTC

What should determine your vote is how confident you are on the policies that will be taken.

That is, in fact, not what will determine my vote. But if it did, the Ronpaul would still be at the bottom of the list.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Indon » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:11 pm UTC

stephen wrote:Do you not see that this is a fallacious arguement? The evidence at the time suggested that Iraq had a cache of WMDs.


That evidence which consisted of Saddam being reluctant to cooperate with the UN, just as he'd been reluctant many times before, and a snippet of CIA-provided evidence which seemed awfully well-timed, considering the obvious Iraq-hostile stance of the White House.

Admittedly, I'm _very_ liberal, but when I heard that I immediately thought it was blatant fraud designed by the politically corrupt to get us into a war for the purpose of profiteering by said corrupt individuals.

Things happened to have turned out in keeping with that rather out-there scenario. They didn't have to, though, and even if Saddam did have WMD's, if you thought the White House was trying to set Iraq up for a war we obviously had no reason to enter, that doesn't make you a coward regardless of if you're right or wrong.

At worst, for me at least, it would have meant I didn't trust the integrity of my president and his staff as much as they deserved.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

illuminati1113
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:05 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby illuminati1113 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:20 pm UTC

stephen wrote:My real arguement is this: if Obama voted against the war, even when presented with evidence that suggested he should go to war, under what conditions will he go to war?


I would hope that, as president, its not really his decision whether to go to war. I suspect though, that he will go whenever he thinks it is politically expedient. This is with regard to international, and domestic, politics. He will probably avoid unfavorable wars if for no other reason that to separate himself from Bush politics.

That said, I believe he has given his position on the matter several times. I just don't remember quite what it was.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Yakk » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:31 pm UTC

A.B. wrote:I'll restate my thesis for the fourth time, it doesn't really matter what a president believes, what matters is what his expected actions are.


Expected is the wrong word: it implies high probability. Anyone who expects to be able to predict someone else's actions in the multi-year future with high probability is being silly.

Rather: I find that someone lending his name to racist tracts and off-the-wall conspiracy theory tracts to have executed at the least ridiculously poor judgement, and at the worst racist and paranoid sentiments. I am unwilling to trust such an individual with exectutive power over a small company, let alone the US exectutive branch.

But "sane" political ideas are define by the current political spectrum and state provided education, don't you find it's a bit easy to label as nutty rare political ideas?


First, drastic changes to society are dangerous. Even if the change is a good one, the execution can quite easily cause more damage than the results of the change.

So "making what we have work better" in an incremental manner is a solid idea.

Then revamp things one thing at a time, being careful about it.

Massive revamps? Even if the end state is better, there are costs to rebuilding society along other lines. Paying all those costs at once by engaging in a massive revamp is expensive.

So supporting the status quo with some small improvements? A good default position for an executive to take. Fixing everything at once will break more than it fixes.

Claiming political opponents are mad is an age-old political tactic that peaked in the USSR.


And Hitler liked puppies, so liking puppies is bad?

I don't believe in political opinions, I think there are correct moral stances on right, and incorrect ones that live no room for opinion. I have contempt for socialist policies, not because I disagree with them but because I hold they are inherently evil. But that might take us a bit far.


And having you in any kind of position of power would be disasterous, even if you where right on every major political issue, because you'd cause more damage from your contempt than you'd benefit people from your right answers.

In other words, your position that you should have contempt for people who hold different positions is inherently evil.

stephen wrote:Obama was opposed to the war on Iraq from the beginning and voted against it. A leader of a country needs to be able to make tough decisions which may lead their people into war. A majority of the senate, including Hillary Clinton voted for the war on Iraq. A "principled opposition" to war is what Brittain tried in 1938.


And what if Obama looked at the evidence and said "Bush is on crack, this evidence is unconvincing"? What if the evidence was on the cusp of being convincing?

Do you know what evidence the Executive branch showed the Senate?

If someone takes "secret evidence" whose contents we are unable to judge, and produces the right answer -- isn't that evidence of better judgement than producing the wrong answer? Even if more people produced the wrong answer than the right answer from the same "secret evidence"?

Well according to the latest reports, the troop surge is breaking the back of Al Qaeida in Iraq. Wasn't one of the goals of the war on Iraq to help stop terrorist activities in the country?


A war doesn't get credit for stopping terrorist activity when nearly all of the terrorist activity it stops was induced by the war. :)

The point of the surge is to cut down US casualties and reduce to amount of terrorist attacks in the country to a level which allows the US to work with Iraq to train its own forces to protect and manage itself. It seems to be working.


I've read a neat opinion that the "paying militia members 10$ per day to guard instead of fight" might be a huge part of the downswing in violence.

My real arguement is this: if Obama voted against the war, even when presented with evidence that suggested he should go to war, under what conditions will he go to war?


Prove the bolded statement. Do you know what evidence Obama was shown?

All I know of is the voting record of the Senate -- and that's just evidence that it was convincing to other people who later on where proven wrong, not that the evidence was sufficient to go to war.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby mosc » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:36 pm UTC

Did the Ronpaul actually come down against evolution? T/F?
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests