Print

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

[Leafsnail]

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

Whether he did well with the poorest demographics is irrelevant for any number of reasons  (and keep in mind, this trend continued even in other states like New Hampshire, so it was hardly an anomaly). What matters is that the richer people were, the LESS likely to vote for Ron Paul.

On that note, how many influential rich people endorsed Ron Paul? Yeah, exactly, basically nil. The one exception I can think of would be Peter Thiel, but he's an entrepreneur at heart and is hardly representative of your average rich person.

The fact of the matter is, libertarianism isn't even remotely an ideology for the rich, since libertarianism happens to involve far more change than they would like.

I agree.  Libertarianism of the Ron Paul variety isn't an ideology for the rich, because after the collapse they'd be just as screwed.  It's an ideology for people who don't understand economics.

[GreatJustice]

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

Whether he did well with the poorest demographics is irrelevant for any number of reasons  (and keep in mind, this trend continued even in other states like New Hampshire, so it was hardly an anomaly). What matters is that the richer people were, the LESS likely to vote for Ron Paul.

On that note, how many influential rich people endorsed Ron Paul? Yeah, exactly, basically nil. The one exception I can think of would be Peter Thiel, but he's an entrepreneur at heart and is hardly representative of your average rich person.

The fact of the matter is, libertarianism isn't even remotely an ideology for the rich, since libertarianism happens to involve far more change than they would like.

I agree.  Libertarianism of the Ron Paul variety isn't an ideology for the rich, because after the collapse they'd be just as screwed.  It's an ideology for people who don't understand economics.

I didn't know Krugman was a libertarian!

[Zangi]

How can they have a political marriage when they were married before either of them were in politics?  Or are you saying that they got married because they were planning for Bill to launch a failed bid for state senate two years later?  Is every state senate candidate in the country in a political marriage?

I have never seen any sign they really like each other, so I suspect that it was definitely not a marriage of love at least. Political marriage seems like the most likely candidate.

Perhaps its me... but... I have no problem with political(or economical) marriages if they both consent to it.  Does it really make a difference?  Other then enabling a target for 'moral guardians' to take potshots at?

[Nadaka]

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

Whether he did well with the poorest demographics is irrelevant for any number of reasons  (and keep in mind, this trend continued even in other states like New Hampshire, so it was hardly an anomaly). What matters is that the richer people were, the LESS likely to vote for Ron Paul.

On that note, how many influential rich people endorsed Ron Paul? Yeah, exactly, basically nil. The one exception I can think of would be Peter Thiel, but he's an entrepreneur at heart and is hardly representative of your average rich person.

The fact of the matter is, libertarianism isn't even remotely an ideology for the rich, since libertarianism happens to involve far more change than they would like.

I agree.  Libertarianism of the Ron Paul variety isn't an ideology for the rich, because after the collapse they'd be just as screwed.  It's an ideology for people who don't understand economics.

I didn't know Krugman was a libertarian!

Krugman does not advocate complete deregulation of markets and austerity as a "solution" to recession. He may er occasionally on the other side of the spectrum, but his point of view is generally sound. You don't get to be one of the most respected and referenced sources in economics without some skill.

I value the views of failed fiction author Ayn Rand on economics about as much as I value the views of failed fiction author L. Ron Hubbard on psychotherapy and religion.

[RedKing]

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

Whether he did well with the poorest demographics is irrelevant for any number of reasons  (and keep in mind, this trend continued even in other states like New Hampshire, so it was hardly an anomaly). What matters is that the richer people were, the LESS likely to vote for Ron Paul.

On that note, how many influential rich people endorsed Ron Paul? Yeah, exactly, basically nil. The one exception I can think of would be Peter Thiel, but he's an entrepreneur at heart and is hardly representative of your average rich person.

The fact of the matter is, libertarianism isn't even remotely an ideology for the rich, since libertarianism happens to involve far more change than they would like.

I agree.  Libertarianism of the Ron Paul variety isn't an ideology for the rich, because after the collapse they'd be just as screwed.  It's an ideology for people who don't understand economics.

I didn't know Krugman was a libertarian!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Shinotsa]

Does anyone think we're ready for a female candidate? We mention Hilary and in a page we go from discussing her positions to her marriage. I know she's not exactly a good example because of how her marriage turned out, but we don't exactly scrutinize male candidates for their marriage unless they leave their wife when she has cancer.

Regardless, I'd vote for her whatever her platform purely because it would be the biggest boon to gender equality since suffrage.

[Nadaka]

Does anyone think we're ready for a female candidate? We mention Hilary and in a page we go from discussing her positions to her marriage. I know she's not exactly a good example because of how her marriage turned out, but we don't exactly scrutinize male candidates for their marriage unless they leave their wife when she has cancer.

Regardless, I'd vote for her whatever her platform purely because it would be the biggest boon to gender equality since suffrage.

Dude left his wife while she was dieing... twice.

Bill Clinton went through impeachment because of his marriage.

Roosevelt got flack because his wife was a little butch.

Obama has been criticized for his marriage, some people said it was purely political.

Just about everyone who has an affair in office gets scrutinized.

I think you are reading a little much into this. Hillary Clinton not only had her marriage go bad, but most of us know her first as the wife of Bill Clinton. Her political career came afterwards. Complaining about discussion of Hillary Clinton's marriage would be like complaining about John Glenn's experience as an astronaut.

We don't talk about Sarah Palins marriage the way we do about Hillary's, because it isn't the first frame of reference we have for her.

[RedKing]

We don't talk about Sarah Palins marriage the way we do about Hillary's, because it isn't the first frame of reference we have for her.

That frame of reference being "The woman who can see Russia from her house, but can't name five newspapers."

[Shinotsa]

Does anyone think we're ready for a female candidate? We mention Hilary and in a page we go from discussing her positions to her marriage. I know she's not exactly a good example because of how her marriage turned out, but we don't exactly scrutinize male candidates for their marriage unless they leave their wife when she has cancer.

Regardless, I'd vote for her whatever her platform purely because it would be the biggest boon to gender equality since suffrage.

Dude left his wife while she was dieing... twice.

Bill Clinton went through impeachment because of his marriage.

Roosevelt got flack because his wife was a little butch.

Obama has been criticized for his marriage, some people said it was purely political.

Just about everyone who has an affair in office gets scrutinized.

I think you are reading a little much into this. Hillary Clinton not only had her marriage go bad, but most of us know her first as the wife of Bill Clinton. Her political career came afterwards. Complaining about discussion of Hillary Clinton's marriage would be like complaining about John Glenn's experience as an astronaut.

We don't talk about Sarah Palins marriage the way we do about Hillary's, because it isn't the first frame of reference we have for her.

I did say she was a bad example, mainly because of us knowing her as a first lady. But perhaps the real problem here is that we have a tiny sample. Only three women have ever been close to the white house, and I honestly don't know anything about the first other than she was in Palin's spot a few elections back. Sarah Palin's been scrutinized on whether her job as a mother would interfere with her job (we don't exactly dwell on that for fathers that run) and, while I am sure more would have come up, she sadly turned herself into a joke before she had a chance to get serious.

Another thing that bothers me is that Mitt Romney has TERRIBLE likability scores and always has, yet he was still nominated and is still running. Maybe the fact that Hilary is a woman and not likable has something to do with why she does poorly, but I just can't understand it. Why don't women rally around a candidate that would finally bring proper equality? I went around asking women in 08 why they didn't like Hilary, and most of their answers were "I dunno, she's just a bitch." Hell, I dislike Romney both as a person and for his platform, but if he'd increase my wage from 70 cents for every dollar half of my co-workers make I'd sure as hell vote for him.

[darkrider2]

Obama has been criticized for his marriage, some people said it was purely political.

yeah, well he's been getting a lot of flak quite simply because he's president.

I can't help but feel that if he was white, they wouldn't go around asking for his birth certificate...

Its true. Cause if you're not white you must not be a true born American. As opposed to all the irish/english/german/french/the rest of Europes white people? I guess?

Why the hell is french the only word in there that the autocorrect didn't demand I capitalize?

[MonkeyHead]

Re: Hilary being a bitch...

It never hurt Thatcher, and possibly kept her in power once she got there (Falklands and all that). Though the UK in the 80's and current day USA are very much not the same, save for the dire economic climates.

[mainiac]

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

No I really didn't.  You posted something that was simply untrue, that poor people were more likely to support Ron Paul.  In fact fewer poor people voted for Ron Paul then rich people did in the survey that you posted.

I was trying to explain to you the selection bias that lead to the statistical artifacts you observed.  You can say that you don't like my explanations and that's fine, statistics is thorny and I'm no expert in this data set.  But you can't say that the data is showing something that it is not just because you are assuming a study is random when it most certainly is not.

You say that Ron Paul doesn't get fundraising from the super-rich.  This is true.  But that does not mean he is a champion of the poor.  It just means that his economic agenda is not popular with the rich.  This could be because he is a robin hood champion of the poor but it could also be very well explained by the theory that rich people believe his economic theories are fringe and dangerous.

[GreatJustice]

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

No I really didn't.  You posted something that was simply untrue, that poor people were more likely to support Ron Paul.  In fact fewer poor people voted for Ron Paul then rich people did in the survey that you posted.

I was trying to explain to you the selection bias that lead to the statistical artifacts you observed.  You can say that you don't like my explanations and that's fine, statistics is thorny and I'm no expert in this data set.  But you can't say that the data is showing something that it is not just because you are assuming a study is random when it most certainly is not.

You say that Ron Paul doesn't get fundraising from the super-rich.  This is true.  But that does not mean he is a champion of the poor.  It just means that his economic agenda is not popular with the rich.  This could be because he is a robin hood champion of the poor but it could also be very well explained by the theory that rich people believe his economic theories are fringe and dangerous.

That's why Ron Paul received piles of money from the rich, and the rich provided one of his strongest voting demographics.

Oh wait

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Krugman does not advocate complete deregulation of markets and austerity as a "solution" to recession. He may er occasionally on the other side of the spectrum, but his point of view is generally sound. You don't get to be one of the most respected and referenced sources in economics without some skill.

I value the views of failed fiction author Ayn Rand on economics about as much as I value the views of failed fiction author L. Ron Hubbard on psychotherapy and religion.

Krugman has actually made some fairly brilliant discoveries in the field of economics, but they have nothing to do with the stuff he actually says or posts on the New York Times (which is largely nonsense). It is worth noting, however, that people associated with the government and large corporations are naturally going to glorify someone who says that government spending, corporate subsidies and the present system are good, just like how the King of France presumably surrounded himself with people claiming that he had Divine Right to rule.

Ayn Rand was not a libertarian just like how Karl Marx was not a liberal.

[GlyphGryph]

Wait, did Great Justice just call strawman on himself? I've been having some difficulty following his lines of thought lately, but that's the best I can figure out.

Actually I can't figure out what ANYONE is trying to say to each other any more.

Images are not discussions. Sarcasm is not a valid argument. Come on people, if neutral third parties can't even understand what you're disagreeing about, you really need to step back.

[scriver]

No, he didn't. He's saying mainiac did when mainiac said "you posted something that was simply untrue, that poor people were more likely to support Ron Paul" by showing what he actually wrote, which was "rich people didn't support Ron Paul".