EPTCan someone explain this to me.
Republican nominations - Page 195
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
stfouri
Finland272 Posts
Can someone explain this to me. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On December 30 2011 20:26 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Coming from a Pro-Obama supporter and already playing the race card eh? ![[image loading]](http://www.free-emoticons.co.uk/emoticons/Roll_eye/rolleye0014.gif) You must feel like a douche after watching this. Isn't this essentially an "I have a black friend"? | ||
|
MethodSC
United States928 Posts
On December 31 2011 06:40 koreasilver wrote: Isn't this essentially an "I have a black friend"? The ad was not created by the Paul campaign, it was created by his supporters group. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On December 31 2011 06:43 MethodSC wrote: The ad was not created by the Paul campaign, it was created by his supporters group. It was created by a PAC, and those are only nominally independent from the actual campaign. PAC's are what you use for self-aggrandizing promo's and for the negative ads, so you can later on claim that you had nothing to do with it, legally speaking. Pretty much every PAC that endorses a candidate coordinates their policy with the actual candidate. PAC's like this raise their money from the exact same group of people as the actual candidate, and the divide between the campaign and the PAC is superficial. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
On December 31 2011 06:47 Derez wrote: It was created by a PAC, and those are only nominally independent from the actual campaign. PAC's are what you use for self-aggrandizing promo's and for the negative ads, so you can later on claim that you had nothing to do with it, legally speaking. Pretty much every PAC that endorses a candidate coordinates their policy with the actual candidate. PAC's like this raise their money from the exact same group of people as the actual candidate, and the divide between the campaign and the PAC is superficial. On what basis do you make that claim? You are accusing everybody of illegal activity without a shred of evidence. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On December 31 2011 06:50 dogabutila wrote: On what basis do you make that claim? You are accusing everybody of illegal activity without a shred of evidence. On the basis of what has become common practice in US politics and what the various major newsmedia in the US write about it. The independence between PAC's and campaigns exists only in strict legal terms. Campaign staff and PAC staff actively interact, PAC leadership is usually made up out of close friends or aides of a candidate and they all wear multiple hats in all of this and PAC's are taking over certain roles that historically have been part of the actual campaign, because while campaigns have money issues, PAC's face less regulation and therefore less problems raising it. Let's not pretend they are actually independant or don't act in direct support of the candidates. Just a quick search on the NYTimes website (can probably link you similar stories from any serious news organisation). For example: Article on Romney's PAC's NYTimes editorial that explains it better then I could This isn't an attack on just Paul, or just Republicans, everyone on both sides does it, because it is allowed. I personally don't care very much about the 'ethical' aspects of it, but pretending that PAC's are independent when all they're doing is solidifying/supporting a single candidate is simply not in line with reality. Just go to their website, http://www.revolutionpac.com/, and tell me if you think they're honestly independent (have a look at the people on the 'advisory board'). There's a difference between the FEC interpretation of 'independent' and 'coordinating' then the one we all use in the real world. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4338 Posts
On December 26 2011 06:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: EDIT: Since Perry and Gingrich failed to meet requirements to be on the ballot in Virginia it will Romney versus Ron Paul. Gincrich is looking to change the law in Virginia to have him included on the ballot. It won't matter though , he is done.Down to 5th in Iowa. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 31 2011 10:02 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Gincrich is looking to change the law in Virginia to have him included on the ballot. It won't matter though , he is done.Down to 5th in Iowa. He was done when he shot to the front of the pack last month. Peaked too early to be the anti-Romney. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On December 31 2011 06:27 aksfjh wrote: But he's not a hot dog either. He's no different than any other politician, taking any support he can get to get into office. The ends justify the means. He still plays the smoke and mirrors game with his views, showing many of his unusual stances in positive light. The only thing protecting him is the media not taking him seriously. Now that he may win 1 state, they're finally digging deep and he's having to defend himself, and his hands look just as dirty as the others. Do you expect him to not try to get elected? Of course he is going to present his views in a positive light. He is different from the other candidates because his views are actually his views. They aren't positions that were carefully calculated in order to increase his chance to get elected. The fact is that he has some positions that dramatically decrease his electability and if he were every other politician he wouldn't be so stupid to keep bringing them up on a national stage. He has won of the best records on limited government and he could be a front runner if he pandered to the masses and stuck to talking points instead of ranting about the Fed, inflation, blowback, and whatever else. If he only cared about getting elected like every other politician, then he really sucks at his career choice and should have stuck with being a doctor. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On December 31 2011 06:11 aksfjh wrote: How is that playing the race card? Ron Paul is basically being supported by groups NO candidate should be a part of. He doesn't even condemn them, only wishes they would change their views while supporting him. Also, I don't support any candidate. But that's cool, keep peddling your Paul youtube videos and eating up everything these Paul newsletters feed you. So, because Ron Paul is winning support from people he doesn't agree with, then he should tell them to fuck off? Says the Obamabot. Anyways If you want proof that this is a smear campaign that the media is trying to hard. Take a look at this: And for like koreansilver that live in ignorance saying that Ron Paul has only one black friend. Lulz Look at the racist laughing at a wheel chair bound black lady! ![[image loading]](http://www.5k.com/RonPaulRacist1.jpg) | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On January 01 2012 05:15 aksfjh wrote: In case you haven't been watching Fox News enough, the only thing a GOP win in Iowa will get you these days is a prime time tv slot. With some of the most outlandish right wingers in the state, it is far from a proving grounds for a general election. Unless you think Huckabee would have been a better candidate than McCain in the general... Did McCain win? No. Who knows if Huckabee would have been better? And most people in this thread don't get their news from Fox. In fact, most people here don't get their news from any of the MSM outlets. It's all biased garbage that only serves as propaganda for the masses. In order to form a truly objective opinion about any of these candidates, you can't listen to the media, and you can't listen to the candidates themselves. Instead, you listen to their actions. The things that they have done, their voting records in Congress, bills they've passed, their performance as Governor, and other things. Romney's actions don't match up with his words, and that makes him a liar (or a poltician). Ron Paul's actions do match up with his words. That makes him honest, and consistent. Regardless of his policies (some of which I disagree with), I support him because he's honest and forthright. He says what is on his mind and he's real about it. We need an honest president. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On December 31 2011 06:43 MethodSC wrote: The ad was not created by the Paul campaign, it was created by his supporters group. Then it's a "he has a black friend". It's essentially the same thing. I have no opinions on this but videos like that doesn't really say anything, and I find it incredibly amusing that our local propagandist is so unfamiliar with what I'm saying that he took it this literally. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On January 01 2012 09:07 koreasilver wrote: Then it's a "he has a black friend". It's essentially the same thing. I have no opinions on this but videos like that doesn't really say anything, and I find it incredibly amusing that our local propagandist is so unfamiliar with what I'm saying that he took it this literally. Propagandist? you are cute with your words. Anyways, It's not "I have one black friend" if you even saw my other post above you instead of being willfully ignorant to the facts. @aksfjh Way to ignore me again, after bringing up your past support of Obama. Mr I have no affiliations. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
I agree with the majority of this article. The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views. Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits? I do disagree with the whole "Democrats hate Ron Paul" thing, though; Ron Paul is one of the most popular Republican candidates amongst independents and Democrats alike. Which is one of the things that is keeping Paul in the Iowa race. | ||
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
I disagree with Ron Paul being only non-interventionist rather than isolationist, but regardless of that, Obama ending the Iraq War (even if he wasn't the original person to pledge it) trumps that politically. Obama didn't end the war in Iraq, and it's a massive misunderstanding of his foreign policy to believe that he did. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html The short of it is that Obama tried to convince Iraq to allow the United States to maintain a small presence in spite of the agreement hammered out with Bush, but Iraq insisted that he abide by the original 2008 agreement. Faced with no alternative short of forced occupation and the PR disaster that would follow, Obama was forced to abide by their decision. In classic politician fashion, Obama then claimed that he fulfilled his campaign promise to bring the troops home. Why anyone would trust this disingenuous, authoritarian thug is beyond me. His foreign policy virtually mirrors that of Bush, and his domestic policy is even worse, as he has expanded on Bush's historic disregard for habeas corpus by executing American citizens without trial. One of those American citizens was a 16-year-old boy. In a just world, Obama and Bush would share the same cell for the rest of their lives, and Obama would be forced to watch as the Rangers kick the shit out of the White Sox year after year. The best that we can hope for, however, is that Ron Paul humiliates him in multiple debates and then banishes him to emeritus status in the south side of Chicago. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4338 Posts
Are the US funded mercenaries still in Iraq? I believe they were called blackwater but have changed their name due to the bad reputation (killing civilians etc) | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On January 01 2012 13:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Are the US funded mercenaries still in Iraq? I believe they were called blackwater but have changed their name due to the bad reputation (killing civilians etc) They are now known as "Academi" and they are no longer allowed to operate in Iraq due to the number of controversial things there. The Iraqi Gov't banned them in 2007. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 01 2012 10:05 Voros wrote: His foreign policy virtually mirrors that of Bush. No, it certainly doesn't. Of course, you'd have to stop shouting "THEY'RE BOTH INTERVENTIONISTS THEY'RE THE SAME" and dig a little deeper to notice the differences. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
I've been on a vacation all week using my phone to reply. I kinda had to pick and choose what I responded to. Anyways, long ago I responded to the same comment about the exact same post. Basically, I form my opinions independently of each situation. In that specific situation, along with others throughout the year, I have sided with Obama on many ideas and approaches. I formed those opinions based on the information that was available to me. Had I been politically aware before 2007ish, I probably would have agreed with many things Bush did as well, and called nonsense when I saw it. I do not believe this overall makes me an Obama supporter, since I would gladly take another candidate with a myriad of different views on things like social welfare, science and technology investment, and military investment. However, if you'll notice, the only candidate on the GOP side who even hints at this stuff is Huntsman, and he'll never get the air time to be properly vetted. @ryanAnger: I believe a well informed opinion comes from taking information from a plethora of sources. This allows me to understand actions and events from varying points of view, and make my own conclusions. The comment about Fox, specifically, was more of a "don't you pay attention to the news channels?" and not "lololol Foxsheep!" As for Paul vs Romney, I'm not a big fan of either. Paul has conviction and a steady ideal that he follows religiously, but that's not what I envision a leader to be. At the same time, Romney seems to change his views very opportunistically, which is also something I feel isn't exactly great for a leader. I envision a leader to have strong convictions and directions, but always open to intelligent criticism and direction from the people he or she represents. It's a tight rope between staying your ground and giving into pressure, which neither candidate exemplifies. Of course, this is just how they hold their views, and not what their views are, which also holds a lot of sway in who I would vote for. Anyways, Happy New Year to all of you. I know we all have our own beliefs and ideals when it comes to politics, but I wish you all the best and hope we all win in the end! :D | ||
| ||
