EPTRepublican nominations - Page 187
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IOWA_CAUCUSES_HACKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-19-18-28-32 | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On December 20 2011 16:13 BlackJack wrote: Video claiming to be by Anonymous threatening to hack Iowa caucus has GOP officials worried http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IOWA_CAUCUSES_HACKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-19-18-28-32 This is how the mainstream media is reacting towards recent polls on Paul being in 1st with 23%  They basically wanna discredit Iowa as much as possible if Ron Paul wins. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 15:14 ryanAnger wrote: This is completely true, and I feel like not enough people actually care or know who to vote into Congress, but the right President with the right policies is a good start. @Whitewing, refer to 2 posts above yours regarding the Dept of Education. It literally does nothing of value. Also, I understand you reservation about the economy, but Ron Paul as President wouldn't abuse his Executive powers like Obama has by creating legislation to manipulate the economy based on his own economic beliefs. According to the Constitution (remember, Ron Paul is the "champion of the Constitution") the Executive branch has NO say about what the economy does. That's basically all up to Congress, through their legislation, and the businesses, and the consumers. And again, I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but it doesn't matter what Paul's economic beliefs are because he's not going to act on them as President. And 2 years ago I would have whole-heartedly agreed with you that being a creationist also meant you were irrational, and illogical, and most likely dull, but I've since overcome my prejudice and understand that you can have faith and still maintain a rational, logical way of thought. I read it, I consider one of it's primary functions to be of significant value (civil liberties in schools). I also understand what would happen if public education were completely left up to the states and the federal government took a hands off approach to it, and it would not be pretty. * Enforcing Civil Rights Legislation in our public schools This is VERY important.Obama didn't create legislation, he proposed some, and congress passed it. That's how the system works. Further, there's a substantial amount of evidence suggesting that the stimulus bill would have worked if it were bigger, but it was cut down too much in compromise to get it passed. Deficit spending during a recession is a well understood concept. Your next paragraph also completely contradicts your statement regarding Obama. Further, it's not true that the president has no say on the economy: he has the right to veto any bill regarding it congress puts forwards. He has no control over the budget. Being a creationist does mean you are irrational and illogical. It means that you subscribe to a belief that is illogical and irrational, and it is at the very center of your values and decision making. Thus, everything you do is tainted by an illogical belief. It does not mean that you can't make decisions with good results in other areas, nor does it mean you're always wrong about everything by any means, but it does mean you are incapable of making decisions based on good information. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On December 20 2011 16:13 BlackJack wrote: Video claiming to be by Anonymous threatening to hack Iowa caucus has GOP officials worried http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IOWA_CAUCUSES_HACKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-19-18-28-32 I believe the anon twitter feed laughed at this, someone or somebody claiming to be anon to direct blame? | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 15:20 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Did you even read my posts at the top on the DOE and his economic theories being ECHOED by this years Economic Prize winner. I read it, some of the things he says are similar to Ron Paul's position, but just being of a similar mind in a few regards isn't sufficient to say his position is the same as Ron Paul's, I wouldn't call this echoing. Further, his point regarding the stimulus isn't quite right: there are a multitude of published studies from prestigious organizations like the Princeton Review that have argued that the stimulus failed due to being too small, but was still a good idea. His point about economists not agreeing is correct, because economists on the whole never agree with one another. There is never consensus. One should note that he's arguing directly with other nobel prize winners (like Paul Krugman). He's right about this: “Policymakers can’t manipulate the economy by systematically ‘tricking’ people with policy surprises. Central banks, for example, can’t permanently lower unemployment by easing monetary policy, as Sargent demonstrated with Neil Wallace, because people will (rationally) anticipate higher future inflation and will (strategically) insist on higher wages for their labor and higher interest rates for their capital.”, but that isn't actually disagreeing with anyone really, it's just stating an obvious fact. Nobody is pushing for 'tricking' people, and we all know about the liquidity trap and the failure of monetary policy. He isn't arguing with anybody here, nobody disagrees with this. Legitimate fiscal policy is called for, which is exactly what the stimulus was. He's right that the gold standard required more discipline, because there were fewer options and decisions to be made: that's a direct result. You have more options, you make more and more varied decisions. However, a gold standard isn't necessary, what is necessary (in my opinion) is to require a balanced budget over a set period of time. The biggest issue is the failure to properly tax long term capital gains and the absurdly low income tax on the super rich. Taxing both of those things (especially long term capital gains, 15% is stupidly low) would raise a TON of money, and we keep letting the super rich walk away without paying significant taxes on their easily earned money. Believe me: investors will not stop investing if taxes go up, as long as they can earn a profit through investment they will invest. On the whole, the only thing he said that agrees with Ron Paul and not every other candidate is about the gold standard. This isn't exactly the Austrian Economics that Ron Paul adheres to, other than the segment about the gold standard. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
Being a creationist does mean you are irrational and illogical. It means that you subscribe to a belief that is illogical and irrational, and it is at the very center of your values and decision making. Thus, everything you do is tainted by an illogical belief. It does not mean that you can't make decisions with good results in other areas, nor does it mean you're always wrong about everything by any means, but it does mean you are incapable of making decisions based on good information. Problem: Everyone is irrational and illogical when it comes to their own beliefs. This is what differentiates us. You, for example, if you believe capitalism is awesome, will likely tend to agree with evidence that suggests that capitalism is awesome, and dismiss that which is contrary. Religious people may in fact be irrational and illogical about their religious beliefs, but rational and logical about other things. Likewise, you are rational and logical about certain things, but when it comes to your core beliefs, you likely do not hold them up to the same scrutiny that you would to any other belief. This is the case with people in general. Which is why it just so happens that people that are religious can also be considered quite intelligent, even if we take the position that they are irrational to be a factual truth. In fact, a Christian or a Muslim or even a Hindu is quite capable of making decisions based on good information. They reject other religions because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove them. The only thing they lack here is applying their own intellectual criticisms towards themselves; a quality that you will find in nearly all of humanity. I can say with a great deal of certainty that there's probably some sort of ideology that you subscribe to that conflicts with a great deal of information. Your conclusion would seem to be that you are incapable of making decisions based on good information. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On December 20 2011 18:27 shinosai wrote: Problem: Everyone is irrational and illogical when it comes to their own beliefs. This is what differentiates us. You, for example, if you believe capitalism is awesome, will likely tend to agree with evidence that suggests that capitalism is awesome, and dismiss that which is contrary. Religious people may in fact be irrational and illogical about their religious beliefs, but rational and logical about other things. Likewise, you are rational and logical about certain things, but when it comes to your core beliefs, you likely do not hold them up to the same scrutiny that you would to any other belief. This is the case with people in general. Which is why it just so happens that people that are religious can also be considered quite intelligent, even if we take the position that they are irrational to be a factual truth. I can say with a great deal of certainty that there's probably some sort of ideology that you subscribe to that conflicts with a great deal of information. Your conclusion would seem to be that you are incapable of making decisions based on good information. I do not think that a belief in creationism and a belief in capitalism can be compared at all. It is true that we all have different values and thus see different sides of many issues but that is because 99% of all issues have multiple sides. There are completely rational reasons to value and prioritize almost any political point of view. The reason creationism is such a sticking point is that there is no two sides to the issue. Its not even like a belief in god which is so abstract that cant be argued at all. A person who believes in creationism willing forsakes a mountain of evidence in favor of a very specific and quantifiable falsehood. This is VERY dangerous in a leader. Every good student knows that HOW you get to an answer is as important if not more so than the answer itself. Even if I like his policies as I see them now based on what I know, will he be able to adjust his policies if they turn out to not work? If new evidence appears that strongly suggests he go against one of his long held beliefs will he be able to change course or will he ignore the evidence as he does with evolution? | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 18:27 shinosai wrote: Problem: Everyone is irrational and illogical when it comes to their own beliefs. This is what differentiates us. You, for example, if you believe capitalism is awesome, will likely tend to agree with evidence that suggests that capitalism is awesome, and dismiss that which is contrary. Religious people may in fact be irrational and illogical about their religious beliefs, but rational and logical about other things. Likewise, you are rational and logical about certain things, but when it comes to your core beliefs, you likely do not hold them up to the same scrutiny that you would to any other belief. This is the case with people in general. Which is why it just so happens that people that are religious can also be considered quite intelligent, even if we take the position that they are irrational to be a factual truth. In fact, a Christian or a Muslim or even a Hindu is quite capable of making decisions based on good information. They reject other religions because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove them. The only thing they lack here is applying their own intellectual criticisms towards themselves; a quality that you will find in nearly all of humanity. I can say with a great deal of certainty that there's probably some sort of ideology that you subscribe to that conflicts with a great deal of information. Your conclusion would seem to be that you are incapable of making decisions based on good information. You 'might' be right, but in this case I doubt it, since the core of my beliefs is rationality and logic itself. I've, at various times in my life, been forced to abandon or change previous core beliefs because I could not find a good reason to logically continue with it. I constantly evaluate my own values on a regular basis. My beliefs are simple: I believe in the scientific method. Everything else follows from that and the opinion that I like the human race, and want it to do well. Further, my argument mentioned specifically that religion is at the core of people's values when they are religious, thus every decision is based at least in some part on that fact (since it colors their world views significantly). The important part here is "core". Being wrong isn't a big deal, but when you base who you are as a person and base almost every decision you make in some part on a fallacious concept (it's fallacious in the sense that it has no evidence to support it, thus is logically infeasible. It might be right, but we have no way of knowing that it is, therefore must assume that it is not until shown otherwise. This is the logical position to take on any particular idea). Is my belief in the scientific method misplaced? Perhaps, but it's the only thing that actually makes logical sense and follows reason. | ||
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
I do not think that a belief in creationism and a belief in capitalism can be compared at all. It is true that we all have different values and thus see different sides of many issues but that is because 99% of all issues have multiple sides. There are completely rational reasons to value and prioritize almost any political point of view. The reason creationism is such a sticking point is that there is no two sides to the issue. Its not even like a belief in god which is so abstract that cant be argued at all. A person who believes in creationism willing forsakes a mountain of evidence in favor of a very specific and quantifiable falsehood. This remains a silly non-argument for the reasons spelled out above. Ron Paul is a 70-something evangelical Christian who graduated from an evangelical college fifty years ago. Among this population, it is common if not expected to be a creationist, and virtually no one in that community would believe in evolution unless they specialized in a related field. Of all the criticisms of Paul I've read, this one's right up there with the worst. It's even goofier when you recognize that Paul is campaigning on the promise of stripping the executive branch of its power over education--the philosophical centerpiece of his campaign is that the President and his appointees should not have undue power over the states, including (but not limited to) the education of students within public schools. Whether you believe him to be a genius or idiot, Paul's entire campaign is focused on the singular goal of reducing the power of his branch. Given the abuses we've witnessed from the last couple of presidents, you'd think this would be a huge attraction, creationist beliefs or no. | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On December 20 2011 16:40 Whitewing wrote: I read it, some of the things he says are similar to Ron Paul's position, but just being of a similar mind in a few regards isn't sufficient to say his position is the same as Ron Paul's, I wouldn't call this echoing. Further, his point regarding the stimulus isn't quite right: there are a multitude of published studies from prestigious organizations like the Princeton Review that have argued that the stimulus failed due to being too small, but was still a good idea. His point about economists not agreeing is correct, because economists on the whole never agree with one another. There is never consensus. One should note that he's arguing directly with other nobel prize winners (like Paul Krugman). He's right about this: “Policymakers can’t manipulate the economy by systematically ‘tricking’ people with policy surprises. Central banks, for example, can’t permanently lower unemployment by easing monetary policy, as Sargent demonstrated with Neil Wallace, because people will (rationally) anticipate higher future inflation and will (strategically) insist on higher wages for their labor and higher interest rates for their capital.”, but that isn't actually disagreeing with anyone really, it's just stating an obvious fact. Nobody is pushing for 'tricking' people, and we all know about the liquidity trap and the failure of monetary policy. He isn't arguing with anybody here, nobody disagrees with this. Legitimate fiscal policy is called for, which is exactly what the stimulus was. He's right that the gold standard required more discipline, because there were fewer options and decisions to be made: that's a direct result. You have more options, you make more and more varied decisions. However, a gold standard isn't necessary, what is necessary (in my opinion) is to require a balanced budget over a set period of time. The biggest issue is the failure to properly tax long term capital gains and the absurdly low income tax on the super rich. Taxing both of those things (especially long term capital gains, 15% is stupidly low) would raise a TON of money, and we keep letting the super rich walk away without paying significant taxes on their easily earned money. Believe me: investors will not stop investing if taxes go up, as long as they can earn a profit through investment they will invest. On the whole, the only thing he said that agrees with Ron Paul and not every other candidate is about the gold standard. This isn't exactly the Austrian Economics that Ron Paul adheres to, other than the segment about the gold standard. I'd be curious to know what state you had your schooling in, because where I am from (Georgia) the efforts by the federal government to improve our education have miserably failed, not only on a graduation rate/overall schooling sense but also with regard to many civil liberties. One just has to look at the absolute paucity of opportunities inner-city Atlanta kids get to understand this fact. I have little doubt that a larger state (or county) guided effort could produce the same results if not much better considering they understand the issues more. As for economic issues: you and others keep proposing that Keynesianism and deficit spending during a recession works. I'd like to know how you rectify this with dwindling resources, rising gas prices, and ever-increasing debt. The problem with deficit spending is, well, the deficit. You have to pay that debt down eventually, which is why we find ourselves in a debt crisis across the world right now. I'm not going to mention Europe again because it is worse off than us, but the US is at over 100% debt / GDP. Under Obama's presidency, $4.4 trillion was issued--that's was a 40% increase from the beginning balance of $10.5 trillion. More spending would've equaled even more debt, and at that point the only way out would be inflating it away, which leads us back to the problem of monetary policy again. And, what is there to prove that added stimulus would have successfully helped with the recession (can you point me to an article?) Where would this extra money have gone? | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 21 2011 01:46 allecto wrote: I'd be curious to know what state you had your schooling in, because where I am from (Georgia) the efforts by the federal government to improve our education have miserably failed, not only on a graduation rate/overall schooling sense but also with regard to many civil liberties. One just has to look at the absolute paucity of opportunities inner-city Atlanta kids get to understand this fact. I have little doubt that a larger state (or county) guided effort could produce the same results if not much better considering they understand the issues more. As for economic issues: you and others keep proposing that Keynesianism and deficit spending during a recession works. I'd like to know how you rectify this with dwindling resources, rising gas prices, and ever-increasing debt. The problem with deficit spending is, well, the deficit. You have to pay that debt down eventually, which is why we find ourselves in a debt crisis across the world right now. I'm not going to mention Europe again because it is worse off than us, but the US is at over 100% debt / GDP. Under Obama's presidency, $4.4 trillion was issued--that's was a 40% increase from the beginning balance of $10.5 trillion. More spending would've equaled even more debt, and at that point the only way out would be inflating it away, which leads us back to the problem of monetary policy again. And, what is there to prove that added stimulus would have successfully helped with the recession (can you point me to an article?) Where would this extra money have gone? I live in Texas where we largely ignore anything from the federal government we can. Our education system sucks balls as well. It's not that DoEducation doesn't know what it's doing, it's that NOBODY does. Inner cities across the nation struggle with school standards regardless of federal intervention because it's a difficult problem to solve. The problem with deficit spending in 2008 is that we already had 2 unfunded wars and a military budget that is out of control. We had no room for adequate deficit spending. We had to settle for less. | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On December 21 2011 01:57 aksfjh wrote: I live in Texas where we largely ignore anything from the federal government we can. Our education system sucks balls as well. It's not that DoEducation doesn't know what it's doing, it's that NOBODY does. Inner cities across the nation struggle with school standards regardless of federal intervention because it's a difficult problem to solve. The problem with deficit spending in 2008 is that we already had 2 unfunded wars and a military budget that is out of control. We had no room for adequate deficit spending. We had to settle for less. This is a fair point. My case was that the DoEd is a superfluous institution that doesn't really do anything worthwhile. If neither the states nor the federal government can solve the problem, I don't see why getting rid of the DoEd is contended so vehemently by people. By no means am I saying that the wars were not a huge burden on our deficit--of course they were. However, they were continued, and in 2009 I believe at least $800 billion in new deficit spending can be directly linked to Obama. Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Ron Paul is set on cutting the federal budget, and I think his plan is aggressive but sound. The main problem with Obama is that he serves the same people that Bush did, perhaps to an even larger degree (if you look at who Obama received campaign funding from, it is hilarious). Ron Paul would in essence do away with all of the bailout stuff, which by my guess most everyone agrees was a huge failure. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On December 20 2011 15:50 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: ![[image loading]](http://www.conservativecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/TheRoadToSerfdom.jpg) Just picked this up as my winter break book. Has anybody else read this? Word has it that even Keynes was deeply moved by the book and largely in agreement with its philosophical ideas. Austrianism FTW. Keynes was a fan of Hayek but the book isnt really in reference to pure Austrianism. The context of the book is post WW2 Britain and its government driven economy. It is not directly about socialist programs such as what a country like Sweden uses, although there might have been an update briefly talking about it. It's an important read but it's not a one sided issue, as there are some flaws in his thinking as well. And ultimately, it's not particuladly relevant to either side at the moment. Most politicians, regardless of party, shy away from statutory laws and sunset clauses. Ron Paul becoming president wont impact that unless he just vetos everything and shuts down all productivity. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The man would be a despot. There's a difference between reforming the judicial review process and undermining the entire system because of popularity. The Court system is generally left alone because it swings both ways. Neither liberals or conservatives want to give up a safeguard for when they're the weaker party. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote: Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run. Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. | ||
|
Gryffes
United Kingdom763 Posts
On December 21 2011 05:20 Jibba wrote: I want to point out that Gingrich's idiotic remarks are the result of his ghastly personality. No competent campaign manager would've allowed him to say that and damage their reputation but he chased the rest of his staff away and replaced them with yes men and friends. Not only is it a terrible position in general but it's one that would get him crushed in the general election against a constitutional scholar like Obama. The man would be a despot. There's a difference between reforming the judicial review process and undermining the entire system because of popularity. The Court system is generally left alone because it swings both ways. Neither liberals or conservatives want to give up a safeguard for when they're the weaker party. Gringrich isn't acting on a level 1 thought process. He says something batshit insane, that is however lapped up by the base, gets media coverage he couldn't afford to buy, then if/when he secures the nomination it never happens. It's called politics. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote: Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice. right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't... In the end if you ask the people they'll tell you that their costs of living have been going up by significantly more than 5% a year lol. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bXcty.jpg)
