Print

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

[Nadaka]

It is wrong for me to proselytize Gary Johnson to the libertarians I know even if I don't approve of him based on his economic policies?

That's a matter between you and Ayn Rand's vengeful ghost.

Ayn Rand's ghost doesn't believe in the afterlife, but it would conflict with her philosophy of self interest if she refused to benefit from it.

Seriously though: I just had a lengthy facebook discussion where I vigorously argued that Gary Johnson was a better libertarian than Ron Paul.

[Zrk2]

In case you guys haven't heard Bashmann's out.

And Gary Johnson is a better Libertarian than RP, see: Gay rights.

[ECrownofFire]

Now, aren't the Iowa caucus delegates going to be winner-take-all, so that Romney and Santorum basically split delegates?

Delegates are split 7-7-7 between Romney, Santorum, and Paul.

In case you guys haven't heard Bashmann's out.

And nothing of value was lost.

[MaximumZero]

So, I'll be eligible for election in the 2020 election...who's with me?

[RedKing]

Meanwhile, Rick Perry's response to events?

"Man, screw Iowa. We're headed for South Carolina, where they have actual primaries and actual Republicans."

That's that good ol' Texas charm shining bright...like when he made the comment (in Texas) that he'd had roadkill that tasted better that Carolina barbecue. Sure, he was just playing to the crowd, but this is the 21st century. We're gonna hear about that. And lemme tell ya, if there's one uniting factor that works across partisan lines round here, it's barbecue. You insult our 'cue, you best pack your shit up and head back to Brisketville, son.

[Aqizzar]

Meanwhile, Rick Perry's response to events?

"Man, screw Iowa. We're headed for South Carolina, where they have actual primaries and actual Republicans."

Which is still retarded, because South Carolina is an open-primary state, so his core argument that he lost because Iowa lets Democrats and Independents into the Republican caucus is nonsensical.

Now, aren't the Iowa caucus delegates going to be winner-take-all, so that Romney and Santorum basically split delegates?

Delegates are split 7-7-7 between Romney, Santorum, and Paul.

Is that true?  Mathematically, I figured it'd be 6/6/5, but I haven't seen a real story.

[Sirus]

Aqizzar, he's basically making a No True Scotsman fallacy. The people of Iowa didn't support him, so they aren't TRUE Republicans. The people of South Carolina, who (may) support him, ARE True Republicans. It's stupid and alienating, but it seems to be a favorite tactic among certain politicians.

MaxZero, I'd support you!

[Blargityblarg]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Rick Perry apparently openly eats roadkill.

[RedKing]

Stupid and alienating seem to be par for the course for Perry.


I saw something that said it would be a 50-50 split for Santorum and Romney, Based on congressional districts won. +1 delegate to Romney for the outright win, because they have an odd number of pledged delegates to award. Paul supposedly gets zilch because despite his ~21% share, he didn't win any Congressional districts. I'll have to hunt for that piece...

[Strife26]

So, I'll be eligible for election in the 2020 election...who's with me?

It's 35 to run for president, right? Suppose that I can lend you my support, then. 28, though. That'll be my year.


However, with campaigning starting earlier every cycle, don't you think that your exploratory committee is a bit behind the power curve?



Anyway, I'm going to hold out hope for a Ron Paul victory, just on the reasoning that it'll certainly change all sorts of stuff. And for the sheer hilarity of it _{and with hope that I might get some really awesome deal to get cut loose from the army when he cuts it with a chainsword.}

[Leafsnail]

Aqizzar, he's basically making a No True Scotsman fallacy. The people of Iowa didn't support him, so they aren't TRUE Republicans. The people of South Carolina, who (may) support him, ARE True Republicans. It's stupid and alienating, but it seems to be a favorite tactic among certain politicians.

I dunno, No True Scotsman is effectively retroactively editing a statement to defend it (so "People with brown hair never do bad things" can easily be made into one by claiming that true brown haired people don't do bad things, turning your statement from a testable one into an expression of a weird definition).  This is more like "Waaaah!!  You guys suck.  These guys are cool though, so I'll just go hang out with them!  Screw you."

[FearfulJesuit]

I'd love to run for President someday, but the fact that I am a socialist (and wed this with Christianity no less), as well as my very open rejection of patriotism outright, make victory unlikely.

But I might run just to make people think.

[Sirus]

Aqizzar, he's basically making a No True Scotsman fallacy. The people of Iowa didn't support him, so they aren't TRUE Republicans. The people of South Carolina, who (may) support him, ARE True Republicans. It's stupid and alienating, but it seems to be a favorite tactic among certain politicians.

I dunno, No True Scotsman is effectively retroactively editing a statement to defend it (so "People with brown hair never do bad things" can easily be made into one by claiming that true brown haired people don't do bad things, turning your statement from a testable one into an expression of a weird definition).  This is more like "Waaaah!!  You guys suck.  These guys are cool though, so I'll just go hang out with them!  Screw you."

It is kinda retroactive. Perry spent money in the Iowa campaign, probably hoping to get the nomination or at least place highly enough to still have good odds. Iowa obviously wasn't impressed, so the "actual Republicans" comment is basically a screw-you to Iowa.

[Osmosis Jones]

Aqizzar, he's basically making a No True Scotsman fallacy. The people of Iowa didn't support him, so they aren't TRUE Republicans. The people of South Carolina, who (may) support him, ARE True Republicans. It's stupid and alienating, but it seems to be a favorite tactic among certain politicians.

I dunno, No True Scotsman is effectively retroactively editing a statement to defend it (so "People with brown hair never do bad things" can easily be made into one by claiming that true brown haired people don't do bad things, turning your statement from a testable one into an expression of a weird definition).  This is more like "Waaaah!!  You guys suck.  These guys are cool though, so I'll just go hang out with them!  Screw you."

Ahh, so the NTS is gonna show up after Perry gets thrashed in SC?

[GlyphGryph]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Rick Perry apparently openly eats roadkill.

Wait. Is this a bad thing for some reason? Because I'm honestly not seeing why. If anything, this is a plus in my book. And it's not something that's uncommon, I know plenty of people who do it.

Also, MaxZero, you have my support. I don't know your policies, but you have my support.