Print

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

[Aqizzar]

Thread too long; didn't read.

Ron Paul is growing on me...

Not to take a 2x4 to a rotting horse carcass, but I have a feeling the only reason the second statement remains true is because of the first statement.  Don't bother asking for an explanation, just go back and read, everything is there and doesn't need to be litigated again.

[Capntastic]

I haven't compiled this huge Libertarians.txt file to hoard it all to myself, Aqizzar!!  (It's why I had that Rothbard quote handy so quick.  That dude is a real master of sounding dignified while saying things that, when put in a real world context, as abysmal.)

[G-Flex]

You have a Libertarians.txt file and haven't given it to me yet? What is wrong with you? Upload that or somethign!

[Capntastic]

Like the Constitution, it's a living document.

[RedKing]

Like the Constitution, it's a living document.

Complete with pseudopods and a voracious hunger.


I'm beginning to wonder if Buffalo Wild Wings is secretly orchestrating the entire primary, because every time it seems like we might have a clear front-runner putting this thing to bed, they say something so completely boneheaded that it boggles the mind that they're actually running for office. Yesterday's example? Mitt Romney saying that he's "not concerned about the very poor."

Granted, in context it's not quite as bad, (saying that he wasn't concerned because there's a social safety net there), but it's still bad. And it's a soundbite that couldn't be more custom-made for attacking Romney as a billionaire who doesn't give a shit about the average American. Can someone just get him to say, "Let them eat cake" and finish out the picture?

Expect to see Gingrich take that quote and run like hell with it. Also, Rush Limbaugh is upset with Romney over that quote too, but for a different reason: how dare Romney suggest that it's okay to HAVE a social safety net? 


New poll data!
Nevada:
Romney: 45
Gingrich: 25
Santorum: 11
Paul: 9

[Karlito]

I'm surprised Paul isn't doing better in Nevada, which has always had a strong libertarian bend, or maybe his support has always been confined to the dudes who live in trailers out in the middle of the desert and put up giant "Vote Paul" signs next to the highway. 

Anyway, do you think his small drop in numbers is a result of the bad press that's been coming out, or just that it's now becoming clear that he really, really, really isn't going to win the nomination.

[mainiac]

I don't think either of those things have ever mattered in the past with Paul voters.

[RedKing]

I think it's more that the Romney-Gingrich dustups have consumed all the available media attention, and in doing so kind of leave Santorum and Paul on the sidelines, going "Hey, we're still an option too, y'know!"

It's like you have to constantly remind me people that they have more than two candidates to choose from, or else they just completely tie into the "pick your side" 1v1 contest. Kind of a tangent here, but I've always felt that our affinity for the two-party system was dramatically entrenched by the Cold War and the bipolar worldview it created. Us v Them. Americans have a real hard time with multipolarity and shifting alliances. But if you look prior to WWII (especially the latter half of the 19th century), we had a number of significant third parties. Postwar, almost none of note.


I never thought I'd say this, but I'm grudgingly coming to respect Rick Santorum as a person. Not as a politician, mind you; and gods know I wouldn't vote for him in a million years. But here's the thing: he's run a clean, old-fashioned kind of campaign. No blitz of negative ads, no jet-setting all over the country, no big flashy photo ops, no spin doctoring. He's putting in the hours going door-to-door, speaking at the Rotary Clubs and town halls, and for the most part he's stuck to his guns, foul and bigoted as they may be. Kinda reminds me a bit of Jesse Helms in that respect. You might have hated the man, and he might have hated you, but at least he was open and honest about it.

[PTTG??]

Someone as backwards and regressive as Santorum cannot be respected. He is actively destructive to the people of his state and the nation in general. I don't care how sincerely he kisses those babies.

All that said, I am hoping that the republicans win this year. I think that after two or three years of republican rule I'd be able to get most of my state to secede. Then we join up with Cascadia and ship out the conservative minority if they won't assimilate. With the most productive farming regions in the nation, the most productive technology industries, and access to pacific ocean trading partners, we'd be a fantastically strong force.

[Leafsnail]

Anyway, do you think his small drop in numbers is a result of the bad press that's been coming out, or just that it's now becoming clear that he really, really, really isn't going to win the nomination.

Or maybe Libertarians aren't actually the silent majority and it remains a fringe view within and without the Republican party.

[mainiac]

It's like you have to constantly remind me people that they have more than two candidates to choose from, or else they just completely tie into the "pick your side" 1v1 contest. Kind of a tangent here, but I've always felt that our affinity for the two-party system was dramatically entrenched by the Cold War and the bipolar worldview it created. Us v Them. Americans have a real hard time with multipolarity and shifting alliances. But if you look prior to WWII (especially the latter half of the 19th century), we had a number of significant third parties. Postwar, almost none of note.

Our two party system is deeply entrenched in the fact that we have a first past the post district voting system with no alternative representation.

The two party system is hardly a creation of the cold war.  Yes there was some tumult in the progressive era but that actually resulted in the progressives or socialists wining control of congress or the presidency and it mostly ended before the Russian revolution even started, let alone the cold war.  And the two party system dates back to Washington administration with the only real disruption being during the Lincoln presidency and during 1932-1938 when the democrats were so dominant that we were a defacto one party state. <flaming removed>

[RedKing]

I did say "dramatically entrenched", not "created by". But whatever....luv u too, bro.

[Dutchling]

Well, that's now in the quotes thread .

[mainiac]

I did say "dramatically entrenched", not "created by". But whatever....luv u too, bro.

Aw, how can I stay mad at you?

[GreatJustice]

Like the Constitution, it's a living document.

Complete with pseudopods and a voracious hunger.


I'm beginning to wonder if Buffalo Wild Wings is secretly orchestrating the entire primary, because every time it seems like we might have a clear front-runner putting this thing to bed, they say something so completely boneheaded that it boggles the mind that they're actually running for office. Yesterday's example? Mitt Romney saying that he's "not concerned about the very poor."

Granted, in context it's not quite as bad, (saying that he wasn't concerned because there's a social safety net there), but it's still bad. And it's a soundbite that couldn't be more custom-made for attacking Romney as a billionaire who doesn't give a shit about the average American. Can someone just get him to say, "Let them eat cake" and finish out the picture?

Expect to see Gingrich take that quote and run like hell with it. Also, Rush Limbaugh is upset with Romney over that quote too, but for a different reason: how dare Romney suggest that it's okay to HAVE a social safety net? 


New poll data!
Nevada:
Romney: 45
Gingrich: 25
Santorum: 11
Paul: 9

Paul supporters in Nevada intentionally don't vote due to shenanigans that occurred in 08 (specifically, the McCain campaign found all the Paul supporters via robocalls and then had the state GOP lock them out of the nomination process). Anyhow, the polls in 08 of Nevada all showed him with around 8% and he came out with 14%, so Nevada polls (Actually, all of these caucuses at that) are unreliable.