Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Ron Paul would definitely not win.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

He might have if he were the nominee. It's hard to say. The social conservatives would have a hissy fit, of course. The economic conservatives, on the other hand, would fall in love with him.

[Leafsnail]

Every poll of him vs Barack Obama I've seen has him being crushed (other than than the hilariously cherrypicked ones on www dot RON PAUL dot com).  He generally also polls worse in those than Romney did in Romney vs Obama polls.

Basically a Republican candidate cannot afford to lose the social conservative base.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The issue is that those polls aren't in a vacuum. Everyone knew that the game would come down to Obama v. Romney, and that would alter the results. If everyone knew that it was RON PAUL RON PAUL or Obama, the social conservatives might have changed their tune, if grudgingly.

[misko27]

The issue is that those polls aren't in a vacuum. Everyone knew that the game would come down to Obama v. Romney, and that would alter the results. If everyone knew that it was RON PAUL RON PAUL or Obama, the social conservatives might have changed their tune, if grudgingly.

Might is the keyword. The thing is he might end up splitting it instead, either gaining socials to spite Obama, or else non-voting. They Are a powerful demographic in the base.

[Nadaka]

This may be old news. You know how "waterboarding isn't torture"? Turns out the US actually prosecuted and convicted several Japanese officials for torture using waterboarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

[Euld]

Yep, the US government is still hypocritical as fuck    Bush definitely didn't help in that department.  Then again, considering torture was instrumental in catching Osama bin Laden, I guess Obama looked the other way too.

[RedKing]

I think I've come to the conclusion that a certain level of hypocrisy is unavoidable when trying to govern and safeguard a large country. Pragmatism trumps idealism, and most of the time that's for the greater good that it does. 

[Nadaka]

Yep, the US government is still hypocritical as fuck    Bush definitely didn't help in that department.  Then again, considering torture was instrumental in catching Osama bin Laden, I guess Obama looked the other way too.

Except that torture wasn't instrumental to catching Osama bin Laden. It was the result of a lot of intelligence, only some of wich involved torture. And the CIA says that it is not irreplaceable, or even necessarily the fastest and most effective method capable of doing the same thing.

[SalmonGod]

I think I've come to the conclusion that a certain level of hypocrisy is unavoidable when trying to govern and safeguard a large country. Pragmatism trumps idealism, and most of the time that's for the greater good that it does. 

Do you actually mean hypocrisy, here?  As in doing one thing while saying another?  As in forcing other people to live to standards that you don't hold for yourself?  I doubt hypocrisy is what you actually mean here.

I think what you mean to say is that you don't believe in absolutes.  This is also where "idealism" is a horribly abused word.  Idealism isn't about denying reality, it's about working towards a better reality.  Someone who bases their decisions on the assumption that the world operates according to their ideals is simply an idiot, not an idealist.  An ideal isn't meant to be fully realized, or else it wouldn't be called an ideal.  An ideal is a conceptual model, and reality can never match the purity of an idea.  Nobody should expect an ideal to ever be fully realized, any more than an artist should expect to produce a work that cannot be improved on.

When pragmatism calls for action counter to ideals, reasonable people understand.  When you expect others to be tolerant of your own pragmatism but do not extend that tolerance to others, that is hypocrisy and I don't understand how it can be argued for.

[GlyphGryph]

Yep, the US government is still hypocritical as fuck    Bush definitely didn't help in that department.  Then again, considering torture was instrumental in catching Osama bin Laden, I guess Obama looked the other way too.

Seconding the "No, it really wasn't".

Hell, torture hasn't even been successful as the best method of interrogation, and interrogation wasn't the key to how they figured out where he was anyway.

[Pnx]

I think in the end they found and caught him mostly by bribing people.

[Euld]

Hm.  Guess I'm quite wrong, and I'm ok with that ^_^

[Nadaka]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fiscal-cliff-accelerate-millionaire-deaths-201648757.html

Ok... so a pending rise in the inheritance tax seems destined to "advance the death rate" of elderly millionaires, so that their inheritors can take advantage of the lower tax rate.

People actually think like that?

People actually think like that!

[Truean]

It's all the rage in estate planning. For a while now, you sorta can't pick up a legal article about estate planning without them mentioning the difference in the exemptions and the rate of tax.

Most of the time I hear this as a joke between lawyers--something about it being a good year to die before the estate tax stuff hits....

I think they're kidding. I really hope they're kidding.