By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics Thread 'Ron Paul quietly amassing an army of delegates while GOP frontrunners spar' and 'Mitt Romney rebounds against the Santorum surge'

Kasz216 on 19 February 2012
Squilliam said:
Kasz216 said:
Squilliam said:
Kasz216 said:
Squilliam said:

A.) Self identification is accurate? The only thing accurate about polls is you get roughly the same answer whether you ask 10,000 people or 10,000,000 people. The only accurate way to poll is to first define what 'conservative' 'liberal' etc are and then ask a bunch of questions and score them. Then you'll have accuracy but only specific to the definitions and weightings used.

B.) It always depends on what you compare. In rough terms the U.S. is equivalent to the rest of the developed world in terms of race relations, sex relations, freedom of speech etc. The very idea of binary thinking such as conservative vs liberal is extremely backwards regardless of how you wish to define them because they can mean very contradictory things.

You cannot say the media is more liberal than the rest of society or vice versa because you cannot actually find an adequate catch all for what a conservative actually means without the term contradicting the reality of the people who self identify as such. How exactly do you mesh the 'conservative' who swears like a sailor, doesn't want government intervention or regulation to impinge on their rights, takes government subsidies anyway for farming and looks forward to the social security check at the end of the month with the guy whom goes to church every sunday, wants strict control over abortion and swearing on TV and wants more control over how people dress because these young people today have no decency?

A) Moderate is an option, so it's not really binary.  And again this is again, irrelevent we're comparing a subset of a population with the population as a whole.

B) You don't have to "mesh" these things.    There are moderates.  To Identify as a liberal or a conservative you cleary have to pass more then a 51% marker.  So it's really irrelevent.  Moderates are there afterall, it's pretty easy to see that on average, many more reporters, then average people have more liberal views or feel stronger about the issues they are liebral on, and hence call themselves liberals.

Almost no reporters consider themselves conservatives.  Seems pretty obvious.

 

Also, no the US isn't roughly equal to the rest of the developed world in terms of race relations, sex relations, freedom of speech etc.    The US is pretty far ahead in 2 out of the 3 categories, with it being about the middle sex relations wise.

Economically europe's actually been quite more conservative then the US for a while not, outside a few of the "trouble" states.

The only place Europe is really more leftwing is the social benefits component.


Heck, even overally taxation tends to be more regressive europeon wise.

So you can have two people @ 55% scores as conservatives whom only agree 10% of the time and yet both are conservative? Really? Bull...

Fact 1: Binary thinking doesn't work and never has to describe humanity.

Fact 2: Land of the free, home of the brave or propaganda doesn't relate very well to reality.

Fact 3: Labels and brands are easily contradictory. You can defend freedom by taking it away, spread democracy with guns and puppet dictators etc.

Just take in these 3 facts and you'll be a better person.

 

 

55% Conservatism in this country would no doubt land you as a "moderate".

So no...  These are going to be more people who agree 75%-85% of the time.

Conservative and Liberal are more extreme terms then Republican and Democrat and are widely seen as such in the United states.

 

Outside which, your 3 facts are well... completely irrelevent to the topic at hand.  It seems like your trying to shoehorn an arguement in a place where it doesn't belong.

Outside which, you are argueing that binary labels are stupid, while ALSO argueing that the US is more conservative then the rest of the OCED based on those same binary labels.


So uh... which is it?

Both and neither.

That kinda makes my point for me.

Like I said though, it wasn't a binary poll, and these are things that have very specific and defined terms in the US.

That WAY more of this specific group identifies as liberal the the public, clearly shows a bias towards liberal ideals. 

Sure, we don't know WHICH liberal ideals... however we do know said ideals are in fact liberal...

and really it's irrelevent what the ideals are, since we are looking for overall bias.  Not Bias in a specific field.

If I used the report to prove there was a liberal bias in regards to say... the economy.  That would be one thing.

However here we are just talking overall themes.



Around the Network
FreeTalkLive on 19 February 2012

Personally, I think Ron Paul would beat Obama if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee. Sadly, outside of the states where the GOP has a libertarian streak (NH, ME, NV, SD...) Ron Paul likely won't/cannot do well and because of that, he won't win the GOP nomination.

Here is a new poll out of Iowa by the Des Moines Register. It shows Ron Paul doing best against Obama in IA, a swing state.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120219/NEWS09/302190047/Iowa-Poll-Obama-trails-trio-from-GOP
Iowa: Paul vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 42, Paul 49 Paul +7
Iowa: Santorum vs. Obama Des Moines Register Santorum 48, Obama 44 Santorum +4
Iowa: Romney vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2
Iowa: Gingrich vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 51, Gingrich 37 Obama +14

Remember, Iowa went 54% for Obama (D) and 44% for McCain (R) in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2008



 

Tired of big government?
Want liberty in your lifetime?
Join us @
http://www.freestateproject.org

Viper1 on 19 February 2012
FreeTalkLive said:
Personally, I think Ron Paul would beat Obama if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee. Sadly, outside of the states where the GOP has a libertarian streak (NH, ME, NV, SD...) Ron Paul likely won't/cannot do well and because of that, he won't win the GOP nomination.

Here is a new poll out of Iowa by the Des Moines Register. It shows Ron Paul doing best against Obama in IA, a swing state.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120219/NEWS09/302190047/Iowa-Poll-Obama-trails-trio-from-GOP
Iowa: Paul vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 42, Paul 49 Paul +7
Iowa: Santorum vs. Obama Des Moines Register Santorum 48, Obama 44 Santorum +4
Iowa: Romney vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2
Iowa: Gingrich vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 51, Gingrich 37 Obama +14

Remember, Iowa went 54% for Obama (D) and 44% for McCain (R) in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2008

So long as we keep grabbing delegates after the caucus votes, Dr. Paul will become the nominee.

Or if Santorum and Gingrich can keep running (yes, they actually help us) all the way to the convention, we'll have our first brokered convention in decades which favors Dr. Paul very much.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Rath on 19 February 2012
FreeTalkLive said:
Personally, I think Ron Paul would beat Obama if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee. Sadly, outside of the states where the GOP has a libertarian streak (NH, ME, NV, SD...) Ron Paul likely won't/cannot do well and because of that, he won't win the GOP nomination.

Here is a new poll out of Iowa by the Des Moines Register. It shows Ron Paul doing best against Obama in IA, a swing state.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120219/NEWS09/302190047/Iowa-Poll-Obama-trails-trio-from-GOP
Iowa: Paul vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 42, Paul 49 Paul +7
Iowa: Santorum vs. Obama Des Moines Register Santorum 48, Obama 44 Santorum +4
Iowa: Romney vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2
Iowa: Gingrich vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 51, Gingrich 37 Obama +14

Remember, Iowa went 54% for Obama (D) and 44% for McCain (R) in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2008

 

There is no way Paul can sway people whose opinions are liberal or moderate fiscally. He's extremely fiscally conservative.



Viper1 on 19 February 2012
Rath said:
FreeTalkLive said:
Personally, I think Ron Paul would beat Obama if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee. Sadly, outside of the states where the GOP has a libertarian streak (NH, ME, NV, SD...) Ron Paul likely won't/cannot do well and because of that, he won't win the GOP nomination.

Here is a new poll out of Iowa by the Des Moines Register. It shows Ron Paul doing best against Obama in IA, a swing state.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120219/NEWS09/302190047/Iowa-Poll-Obama-trails-trio-from-GOP
Iowa: Paul vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 42, Paul 49 Paul +7
Iowa: Santorum vs. Obama Des Moines Register Santorum 48, Obama 44 Santorum +4
Iowa: Romney vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2
Iowa: Gingrich vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 51, Gingrich 37 Obama +14

Remember, Iowa went 54% for Obama (D) and 44% for McCain (R) in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2008

 

There is no way Paul can sway people whose opinions are liberal or moderate fiscally. He's extremely fiscally conservative.

He already has to some degree.  Look at how many democrats co-signed his audit the fed bills.   His monetary policy has made a lot of people that are normally fiscal moderates to look deeper into the monetary aspects, not just general finances.    

Hell, look at his college age following.  That demographic has historically been very fiscally moderate yet they are the biggest demographic for end the fed support.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
Rath on 19 February 2012
Viper1 said:
Rath said:
FreeTalkLive said:
Personally, I think Ron Paul would beat Obama if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee. Sadly, outside of the states where the GOP has a libertarian streak (NH, ME, NV, SD...) Ron Paul likely won't/cannot do well and because of that, he won't win the GOP nomination.

Here is a new poll out of Iowa by the Des Moines Register. It shows Ron Paul doing best against Obama in IA, a swing state.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120219/NEWS09/302190047/Iowa-Poll-Obama-trails-trio-from-GOP
Iowa: Paul vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 42, Paul 49 Paul +7
Iowa: Santorum vs. Obama Des Moines Register Santorum 48, Obama 44 Santorum +4
Iowa: Romney vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2
Iowa: Gingrich vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 51, Gingrich 37 Obama +14

Remember, Iowa went 54% for Obama (D) and 44% for McCain (R) in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2008

 

There is no way Paul can sway people whose opinions are liberal or moderate fiscally. He's extremely fiscally conservative.

He already has to some degree.  Look at how many democrats co-signed his audit the fed bills.   His monetary policy has made a lot of people that are normally fiscal moderates to look deeper into the monetary aspects, not just general finances.    

Hell, look at his college age following.  That demographic has historically been very fiscally moderate yet they are the biggest demographic for end the fed support.


College age generally has large numbers of people towards the ends of the social and fiscal policy spectrums. Young people have strong opinions that moderate with age.



Kasz216 on 20 February 2012
Rath said:
Viper1 said:
Rath said:
FreeTalkLive said:
Personally, I think Ron Paul would beat Obama if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee. Sadly, outside of the states where the GOP has a libertarian streak (NH, ME, NV, SD...) Ron Paul likely won't/cannot do well and because of that, he won't win the GOP nomination.

Here is a new poll out of Iowa by the Des Moines Register. It shows Ron Paul doing best against Obama in IA, a swing state.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120219/NEWS09/302190047/Iowa-Poll-Obama-trails-trio-from-GOP
Iowa: Paul vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 42, Paul 49 Paul +7
Iowa: Santorum vs. Obama Des Moines Register Santorum 48, Obama 44 Santorum +4
Iowa: Romney vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2
Iowa: Gingrich vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 51, Gingrich 37 Obama +14

Remember, Iowa went 54% for Obama (D) and 44% for McCain (R) in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2008

 

There is no way Paul can sway people whose opinions are liberal or moderate fiscally. He's extremely fiscally conservative.

He already has to some degree.  Look at how many democrats co-signed his audit the fed bills.   His monetary policy has made a lot of people that are normally fiscal moderates to look deeper into the monetary aspects, not just general finances.    

Hell, look at his college age following.  That demographic has historically been very fiscally moderate yet they are the biggest demographic for end the fed support.


College age generally has large numbers of people towards the ends of the social and fiscal policy spectrums. Young people have strong opinions that moderate with age.

While i agree here.  I do think he could convince quite a few people who a fiscal moderates, if only because there hasn't been anything resembling a fiscal moderate in the US in a  LONG time.

I think the window has closed on Paul, but if he were 20 years younger... i wouldn't be surprised if he would of got elected in one of the next 2 elections.


It's interesting in that I think in the next couple years you'll see Ron Paul rush to become a "King Maker" on the libretarian stage... and try and pass on the reigns to someoen else, probably his son, but there are always others in the Libretarian part.

The thing about Ron Paul that you probably don't get in New Zealand is there are a lot of people who support... well Ron Paul.  Not so much Libretarians in general.  He just has some kind of weird force of will that gets people behind him, and without him, there is like 1/4th the support.

It was the Same with Ralph Nader and the green party.  Without Ralph, they're jokes, even though policy wise they're the same.

 

Why Ron Paul holds this kind of Charisma... I can't say honestly, I like the guy, but he's far from what I'd consider charismatic, i mean, no offense meant to him, but if i'm not looking at the TV when i hear him speak, i think it's an old woman talking.



justinian on 20 February 2012
Squilliam said:
badgenome said:
Squilliam said:
badgenome said:
Squilliam said:

Isn't that the same as Democrats vs Bush Jr? We didn't see any decent candidates until Bush was out either.

Yeah. In fact, Mitt Romney is startlingly similar to John Kerry, and if Kerry couldn't unseat an unpopular Bush (though Bush only became epically unpopular during his second term), I don't see how Romney stands a chance against a similarly unpopular Obama who will have the media working overtime for him.

I suspect the bigger problem is that the Repub candidates have to appease the nutty core of their party, I.E. the ones who bother to vote in primaries when in reality they need to appeal to independents/moderates who aren't affilliated. Elections aren't won by appealing to your base, essentially X % of people will vote Republican anyway, the swing voters win elections. By the time they do actually manage to have a candidate, that person will be dripping with all the dirt and promises made to people who don't matter to the cause anyway and Obama can run a relatively clean campaign in comparison and pick apart all the various promises and indiscretions bought up.

I can't really comment on the media situation as I don't watch the news!

I don't really think so. Assuming it's Romney who wins, he's as bland and inoffensive as a politician can get. Even when he panders, he does it in a remarkably bloodless way. That lifeless, John Kerry like image is what's going to do him in because the most telegenic guy wins, period. That and the fact that it's incredibly hard to beat an incumbent. For all voters' bitching about how much they hate Washington insiders and all their giving Congress a 9% approval rating, 90% of incumbents cruise to reelection. Except for 2010 when it was a veritable bloodbath for incumbents and only 85% won.

That is probably caused by flaws in the human psyche. People naturally elect tall, handsome, charismatic men as leaders and this isn't because physical attributes make a better person but because they like people with better physical attributes. The ironic thing is that whilst you can claim that humans are smarter than computers, computers often make the better decisions due to the fact that 2+2 = 4 always for a computer.

For example:

Sportscaster: That was a fantastic 3 under par though the player will be disapointed he didn't match his previous 7 under the previous day.

Computer: The player regressed to the mean of his average performance.

This is without doubt the post that describes modern democratic politics best.

The right man for the job is often overlooked because he doesn't look the part, something in his past etc.,

Whereas the worst possible candidate could be elected because he ticks the popular media boxes.

 





FreeTalkLive on 20 February 2012
Rath said:
FreeTalkLive said:
Personally, I think Ron Paul would beat Obama if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee. Sadly, outside of the states where the GOP has a libertarian streak (NH, ME, NV, SD...) Ron Paul likely won't/cannot do well and because of that, he won't win the GOP nomination.

 

There is no way Paul can sway people whose opinions are liberal or moderate fiscally. He's extremely fiscally conservative.


The former chair of the Belknap County New Hampshire Democratic Party and the current head of New Hampshire Peace Action switched just to vote for Ron Paul.  The both said that less wars was there number one issue and that he is best on the issue.

Anti-war Ron Paul attracting support from local left

By Michael Kitch

Nov 22, 2011 12:00 am

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/node/123860/18661

"I would definitely call myself a progressive," said Will Hopkins of Belmont, who returned from a tour as infantryman in Iraq to become executive director of New Hampshire Peace Action, a group seeking to end foreign wars and cut defense budgets. "I supported Obama in 2008, but I'm supporting Ron Paul. That's where I'm putting my eggs this year," he said. "A lot of folks in the peace movement are taking a close look at Paul."



 

Tired of big government?
Want liberty in your lifetime?
Join us @
http://www.freestateproject.org

Mr Khan on 21 February 2012
Kasz216 said:

While i agree here.  I do think he could convince quite a few people who a fiscal moderates, if only because there hasn't been anything resembling a fiscal moderate in the US in a  LONG time.

I think the window has closed on Paul, but if he were 20 years younger... i wouldn't be surprised if he would of got elected in one of the next 2 elections.


It's interesting in that I think in the next couple years you'll see Ron Paul rush to become a "King Maker" on the libretarian stage... and try and pass on the reigns to someoen else, probably his son, but there are always others in the Libretarian part.

The thing about Ron Paul that you probably don't get in New Zealand is there are a lot of people who support... well Ron Paul.  Not so much Libretarians in general.  He just has some kind of weird force of will that gets people behind him, and without him, there is like 1/4th the support.

It was the Same with Ralph Nader and the green party.  Without Ralph, they're jokes, even though policy wise they're the same.

 

Why Ron Paul holds this kind of Charisma... I can't say honestly, I like the guy, but he's far from what I'd consider charismatic, i mean, no offense meant to him, but if i'm not looking at the TV when i hear him speak, i think it's an old woman talking.

He also isn't much to look at. When Newt Fricking Gingrich is more telegenic than you, you know you've got a problem...



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.