EPTRepublican nominations - Page 204
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TheHansBecker
United States117 Posts
| ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
On January 04 2012 06:27 kwizach wrote: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ To tell you the truth I don't have the time to check all of that because I've got exams soon and I hardcore study , but one thing jumped in my face http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/510/support-network-neutrality-on-the-internet/ , now I don't really know much about this but if SOPA passes , I guess Obama can oppose it right? So if SOPA passes hopefully this politifacts dissappears right ? I only say what I heard other people said which coincides with my intuition and reason because it's impossible to research everything you hear/support and have free time for a good show or some sc2 action -_- and study or work so ... Also I beg of you to watch the video Stef made about Ron Paul , I just posted in the previous page . It's a pretty direct and "extreme'' explanation but still , there are only facts , nothing falls in subjectivity or anything , while you can give counter-arguments to what he says you are merely rationalizing horrible actions from an utilitarianism point of view ( which is nowhere near any principle of human morality ) | ||
|
Sipher
United States333 Posts
On January 04 2012 06:48 bOneSeven wrote: To tell you the truth I don't have the time to check all of that because I've got exams soon and I hardcore study , but one thing jumped in my face http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/510/support-network-neutrality-on-the-internet/ , now I don't really know much about this but if SOPA passes , I guess Obama can oppose it right? So if SOPA passes hopefully this politifacts dissappears right ? I only say what I heard other people said which coincides with my intuition and reason because it's impossible to research everything you hear/support and have free time for a good show or some sc2 action -_- and study or work so ... Also I beg of you to watch the video Stef made about Ron Paul , I just posted in the previous page . It's a pretty direct and "extreme'' explanation but still , there are only facts , nothing falls in subjectivity or anything , while you can give counter-arguments to what he says you are merely rationalizing horrible actions from an utilitarianism point of view ( which is nowhere near any principle of human morality ) This rationale is how misinformation is spread. People hears a statement, and checks it with one's own intuition to see if it makes sense or not, instead of a reliable source. And then this person proceeds to regurgitate misinformation (or perhaps even correct information) without even checking if it is truthful or not. I've seen people even defend heresay to extremes..only to find out: "Well I heard it from so and so.." Look, this is not an attack at you specifically; this is more a general observation of a phenemona I am sick of seeing. If you (general you) haven't checked to see if it is true, then fine; keep it to yourself, or at least preface your statement with something like: "Now I haven't researched this myself...", perhaps someone else will have the time to do the research for you (more specific to forum conversations instead of its "real-life" counterpart). Side note/fact: In Florida, if one is an Independent, he/she is not allowed to vote in either Republic or Democractic primaries..I find this highly upsetting as I have to change my party affiliation if I want to vote for the Republican Primary (I also had to do this to vote for the Democratic Primary 4 years ago).. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On January 04 2012 06:21 xDaunt wrote: In case you Ron Paul supporters need a bigger hard-on for the guy, go check out the informal poll that Drudge is hosting. Ron Paul is scoring huge. (www.drudgereport.com) You've probably already mentioned it, but who is your preferred gop candidate? you seem quite conservative, so i'm curious. | ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
On January 04 2012 07:24 Sipher wrote: This rationale is how misinformation is spread. People hears a statement, and checks it with one's own intuition to see if it makes sense or not, instead of a reliable source. And then this person proceeds to regurgitate misinformation (or perhaps even correct information) without even checking if it is truthful or not. I've seen people even defend heresay to extremes..only to find out: "Well I heard it from so and so.." Look, this is not an attack at you specifically; this is more a general observation of a phenemona I am sick of seeing. If you (general you) haven't checked to see if it is true, then fine; keep it to yourself, or at least preface your statement with something like: "Now I haven't researched this myself...", perhaps someone else will have the time to do the research for you (more specific to forum conversations instead of its "real-life" counterpart). Side note/fact: In Florida, if one is an Independent, he/she is not allowed to vote in either Republic or Democractic primaries..I find this highly upsetting as I have to change my party affiliation if I want to vote for the Republican Primary (I also had to do this to vote for the Democratic Primary 4 years ago).. I don't hold any strong position on specific facts , just a general view of the world , so if you can provide with quick and reasonable information I may easily change my pov on certain things . And imo , I don't get into hardcore knowledge and spread missinformation , usually true information appeals by it's mere simplicity and easy to approach by the rational mind . If I hear for example US was involved in Libya because of economic interests that seems highly reasonable to me so I will say that's whats up until I find out something else ( - check it out Libya is in a worse state than 1 year ago - ) . If you wanna be hardcore about it you could say that no1 should talk about any field politics/economics/pharmaceutics etc if you are not a specialist in that field because you will butcher the original information and send out poor infos , and that is true but in the end this is how we communicate , with poor understandings of different fields because no1 has the time to be a specialist in more than 2 fields ( and I believe that take a huge chuck on ure time to master 2 fields ) . So in this case if people would only resume at their mastered field the general forums would be empty .. Also , even field specialists are really biased , being in 2nd year of college I observe the teacher's inevitable arrogance , as well as my student mates , as they are strongly loyal to specific ideologies . They are cool people in real life and all but while at school it's easy to discern that everyone has formed their opinion strongly , laughing at specific things which I find not amusing at all ( Our teacher laughed out load talking about Braveheart historycal accuracy which tells me that he fermly believes that history as we know it is history as it unfolded , which I believe even it would be true I wouldn't bet my life that's as it's been thought , also ridiculizing other actions , well I'm hardly amused at school anyways ) . You could easily observe this in the academic environment of archeology , and how much the idea of the societies older than 15k years were received with heavy aggression because it would turn the status quo of the field upside down - and now we have great archeological discoveries in Turkey and Mexico just in 2011 that suggest evidence of advanced civilations . All in all , we jerk around ideas on which we don't hold a strong handle on + 90+% of specialists are already biased anyways so when new information appears most of them ignore it because all they have studied becomes useless ( the only field where this is not the case is in medicine ) . My conclusion is , don't get mad on other people's thoughts , even with extreme differences of opinion we could build a strong community if we respect each other's values ... even if we don't understand them ( I'm talking about soft issues , not issues such as what you feel about sending kids to kill overseas or sending peacefull people in cages because they sell or use "god"-made plants ) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 04 2012 07:38 darthfoley wrote: You've probably already mentioned it, but who is your preferred gop candidate? you seem quite conservative, so i'm curious. At this point, probably Romney. I've leaned towards other candidates at various points, including Cain, Perry, and Gingrich. If Santorum catches fire, I may take a second look at him. None of the candidates is particularly captivating. | ||
|
Sipher
United States333 Posts
On January 04 2012 08:03 bOneSeven wrote: I don't hold any strong position on specific facts , just a general view of the world , so if you can provide with quick and reasonable information I may easily change my pov on certain things . And imo , I don't get into hardcore knowledge and spread missinformation , usually true information appeals by it's mere simplicity and easy to approach by the rational mind . If I hear for example US was involved in Libya because of economic interests that seems highly reasonable to me so I will say that's whats up until I find out something else ( - check it out Libya is in a worse state than 1 year ago - ) . If you wanna be hardcore about it you could say that no1 should talk about any field politics/economics/pharmaceutics etc if you are not a specialist in that field because you will butcher the original information and send out poor infos , and that is true but in the end this is how we communicate , with poor understandings of different fields because no1 has the time to be a specialist in more than 2 fields ( and I believe that take a huge chuck on ure time to master 2 fields ) . So in this case if people would only resume at their mastered field the general forums would be empty .. Also , even field specialists are really biased , being in 2nd year of college I observe the teacher's inevitable arrogance , as well as my student mates , as they are strongly loyal to specific ideologies . They are cool people in real life and all but while at school it's easy to discern that everyone has formed their opinion strongly , laughing at specific things which I find not amusing at all ( Our teacher laughed out load talking about Braveheart historycal accuracy which tells me that he fermly believes that history as we know it is history as it unfolded , which I believe even it would be true I wouldn't bet my life that's as it's been thought , also ridiculizing other actions , well I'm hardly amused at school anyways ) . You could easily observe this in the academic environment of archeology , and how much the idea of the societies older than 15k years were received with heavy aggression because it would turn the status quo of the field upside down - and now we have great archeological discoveries in Turkey and Mexico just in 2011 that suggest evidence of advanced civilations . All in all , we jerk around ideas on which we don't hold a strong handle on + 90+% of specialists are already biased anyways so when new information appears most of them ignore it because all they have studied becomes useless ( the only field where this is not the case is in medicine ) . My conclusion is , don't get mad on other people's thoughts , even with extreme differences of opinion we could build a strong community if we respect each other's values ... even if we don't understand them ( I'm talking about soft issues , not issues such as what you feel about sending kids to kill overseas or sending peacefull people in cages because they sell or use "god"-made plants ) I can agree with your viewpoint in this way. Perhaps I am taking it too extremely. My apologies if I came off mad, because I'm not. And I do respect your opinion, and even others' opinions who I can't even begin to see why someone would think the way they do (I'm referencing tea-partiers in this specific case). Just because I bring up a difference I see with someone else, or a nitpick such as I described in my earlier post, does not mean I am mad or angry at someone on the other end of my rant. I'm merely voicing my opinion as well. I wasn't even voicing disagreement with your points of view on the politics side of your post earlier. I just took exception to the fact that there are people who blindly argue facts. As I can see now, I don't believe you fit in this category, as I had assumed earlier. I don't have much to add to the original discussion of the thread, so I will stop now; although I will say I am leaning towards Romney or Paul as of now. But, I am happy to see a reply such as yours to what I wrote. You mentioned you have exams coming up soon, so good luck and adieu. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 04 2012 05:53 Sulla wrote: So being pro market and against most interventions makes you non pragmatic and not putting any thought into an economic policy ? That's an interesting bias right there. But even so, implementing pro market views isn't simple in any country nowadays, because you need a planned transitional period in order to gradually remove people's dependence on certain services, give them time to readjust etc. Apparently Ron Paul has this kind of plan, I don't know if it's any good though. That's not what I said at all. What I said is that if you consistently place a set of principles (be it free market, be it communism, be it socialism) over the realities you are facing and don't take the result of previous policies into account, you will be a poor leader and a terrible president. The hardest thing to do for a coach in football is changing the tactic that got you there halfway through the champions league/superbowl finals (pick whatever you consider football), yet it is an essential quality for a US president. I don't want anyone in the most powerful position in the world, the US presidency, that consistently places ideology over pragmatism, and I'd say history agrees with me on that (take carter and w. bush to start with). A prime example of pragmatism would have been the TARP-bailouts. Noone wanted to reward bankers for fucking up, yet it was a necessary evil for the greater good, and the sane people on both sides of the isle (dems and republicans) all supported it. The situation that required the bailouts in the first place should never have occurred, but once you're at that point, a future presidential candidate should see that retaining at least a resemblance of financial stability and guaranteeing the savings of 'joe the plummer' takes precedence over your principles. That's not to say that you can run a presidency on 'what the people want' and the result of polls alone, as clinton tried at certain points in his presidency, but when push comes to shove, you do what works, not what your ideology tells you to. Survival of the union before ideology. (And as a disclaimer, my personal ideology is what is a mix of socialism/libertarianism, which is weird in US terms but perfectly possible in the Netherlands due to the abundance of parties we have here. I believe in personal freedom, which, bluntly put, also includes the freedom not to get shot and the freedom not to live in dire poverty.) | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On January 04 2012 03:51 bOneSeven wrote: wow , does that mean that Obama's campaign costed like 85,000,000 $ !? Jeesus ... Also about propaganda ... I prefer propaganda from individuals than from the media . The media is owned by 3 corporations , hmm , well it was so a few years ago Idk now , and now they all mock and isolate Ron Paul depending on the case or time . Why would they do so ? Why don't they do this for the other candidates ? Sure all of the get mocked at times for their retarted mistakes , but the focus on Ron Paul is much greater . Banks and corporation heavily supported Obama and now the same corporation have gotten bigger or survived in times when they shouldn't have ... Obviously his agenda is heavily directed by special economic interest . Now Ron Paul wants to end the FED and cut taxes and reduce foreign operations , say whatever you want about this but one thing is for sure , this would heavily damage the richest corporations in America , so he is getting heat from the media , the same media owned by the same corporation that get money of specific activities . It's impossible to be objective here anyways , libertarians such as myself will support Ron Paul even tho I disagree on some points with him , and rationalist reductionists will never support him because they already transfered loyalty to a specific ideology . I think this debate is useless and ultimately the better appealing idea will win the election , and I think after all this frustration and lack of trust in the US government , the people want someone like Ron Paul in office ... If Obama gets elected again .. this would mean that the american people are suffering of amnezia , everything he has said he will do , he did not do ( I know some things that he promised were impossible ultimately because he alone can't change that much , but in some cases he could have intervened and made change for the best , passing NDAA is a strong example of it ) . It is not so much an attack on propaganda, but if you want to do it, then my point is: Use comparable numbers and keep them up to date. You can always find good points for your particular view and use them without resorting to fabricating numbers or misrepresenting facts. | ||
|
SuperFanBoy
New Zealand1068 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On January 04 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote: If Obama had done nothing over the past three years, then I think you'd be right. However, Obama now has a substantial record of performance and people have had a good look at how he operates and what he wants to get done. I posit to you that the 2010 elections were about more than just people "overreacting to the world not being as they'd like it to be." 2012 is going to be same deal. Obama still has a lot of people who actually like him, as opposed to Romney who most people seem to think is more the lesser evil imo. Personally, I think Obama is a shoe-in just because he's incumbent. It's like a flipped Bush vs Kerry. Kerry wasn't exciting, even though Bush had low approval ratings (if I'm not mistaken). I'd like to see Ron Paul do well. Obama vs Ron Paul? That sounds like legitimately interesting debates. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
Going with Santorum myself, I think the evangelicals are going to bring it home for him. Paul 2nd, Romney 3rd. Media talks about how incredibly this win was for a couple of days. Any other takers? (To make it clear, this is who do you THINK will win. Not who do you want to win.) | ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
I hope Ron Paul wins the nomination , even if you disagree with him you gotta admit that debates between him and Obama would be way cooler than debates between Obama and the rest of the candidates ^^ . If Ron Paul doesn't win , I'm gonna be paranoid and say the votes were fixed ( well not fixed , favored , after a % you can't really fool people ) because a political analyst( she appears often on CNN) actually said that they would try to do anything to stop Ron Paul from getting the win , and we have history and evidence of faking of votes .. slightly just so it can help . On the same note , if Ron Paul wins , I will say he got a huge % :D If nothing dirty happens Ron Paul wins 100% , he has gotten more and more support every day while he was in 1st/2nd place in most pool few weeks ago , so I don't see how he couldn't fairly win . heh , does any1 know when we get the results ? Should I stay up late? Where can I get the info from firsthand ? | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
Just because you're pumped up about your candidate or think he is going to win doesn't mean that he will. They don't poll everyone, and no one has any idea how the unpolled majority will act. Also, obviously violence is a big no no :p | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 04 2012 09:51 bOneSeven wrote: Sipher it's np I never take personal offence , I just advice people to not get turned up on debates on the internet :D for their own peace of mind, even in class whenever a debate is getting fired I stop talking and observe other people get so mad^^ . I hope Ron Paul wins the nomination , even if you disagree with him you gotta admit that debates between him and Obama would be way cooler than debates between Obama and the rest of the candidates ^^ . If Ron Paul doesn't win , I'm gonna be paranoid and say the votes were fixed ( well not fixed , favored , after a % you can't really fool people ) because a political analyst( she appears often on CNN) actually said that they would try to do anything to stop Ron Paul from getting the win , and we have history and evidence of faking of votes .. slightly just so it can help . On the same note , if Ron Paul wins , I will say he got a huge % :D If nothing dirty happens Ron Paul wins 100% , he has gotten more and more support every day while he was in 1st/2nd place in most pool few weeks ago , so I don't see how he couldn't fairly win . heh , does any1 know when we get the results ? Should I stay up late? Where can I get the info from firsthand ? I recommend fivethirtyeight and the NYTimes liveblog, to be found here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/live-blogging-the-iowa-caucuses/#more-21769 http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/results/live/2012-01-3 For the record tho, Ron Paul has not been holding a lead in the polls and is not favored to win this. Romney is, based on polling information, but the Iowa caucusses are always flaky due to the relatively small number of people that show up and the way the caucusses are organized. On January 04 2012 10:01 Saryph wrote: I really don't get people like that youtube video posted earlier in this thread, where the radio host stated 'if Ron Paul doesn't win then the caucus was fixed, and we need to get our guns and shoot people who disagree with us.' Just because you're pumped up about your candidate or think he is going to win doesn't mean that he will. They don't poll everyone, and no one has any idea how the unpolled majority will act. Also, obviously violence is a big no no :p It's just youtube conspiracy theorists. No matter what happens, they were right to begin with. They need to be disregarded completely in any normal discussion. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/jet_fuel.png) | ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
On January 04 2012 10:02 Derez wrote: I recommend fivethirtyeight and the NYTimes liveblog, to be found here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/live-blogging-the-iowa-caucuses/#more-21769 http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/results/live/2012-01-3 For the record tho, Ron Paul has not been holding a lead in the polls and is not favored to win this. Romney is, based on polling information, but the Iowa caucusses are always flaky due to the relatively small number of people that show up and the way the caucusses are organized. It's just youtube conspiracy theorists. No matter what happens, they were right to begin with. They need to be disregarded completely in any normal discussion. + Show Spoiler + I'm against aggression in any way shape of form , saying that votes would be fixed would only mean that I believe that would happen , I wouldn't take offensive action if he'd loose or anything , just giving out my intuition on this .. For those who said they should go out with guns and stuff , they are f*cking nuts ^^ + Show Spoiler + About 9/11 , I was really suspect of what happened and said it is impossible to really figure out who was involved in it's engineering because it was chaos at that time , and nothing like that ever happened so I just didn't care about it . But one thing that bugs my mind , and this argument stays really strong for the idea that the terrorist couldn't have done is simply the skill required to those moves , especially on the pentagon , the maneuver pulled for hitting the pentagon is physically impossible , and every experienced pilot would tell you the same thing , so the idea would be that it was controled by the computer . Official records will tell you the terrorist had minimal training in flying some small planes , so thinking they just got in there and flew the planes like FlaSh plays BW would be highly unlikely. What upsets about 9/11 is how aggressive people get over this subject , the "conspiracy" nuts call all the other people sheeps and the other guys call the other people psychos :D. For example here in Romania where no sentiment is involved in 9/11 even college teachers don't say 100% that terrorist could pull that off -- in USA people say 100% no chance about it the terrorist did it ; here they say sure the terrorists did it but can't really know for sure --, still no1 positions themselves on a strong position because .everything gets tricky | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On January 04 2012 10:02 Derez wrote: I recommend fivethirtyeight and the NYTimes liveblog, to be found here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/live-blogging-the-iowa-caucuses/#more-21769 http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/results/live/2012-01-3 For the record tho, Ron Paul has not been holding a lead in the polls and is not favored to win this. Romney is, based on polling information, but the Iowa caucusses are always flaky due to the relatively small number of people that show up and the way the caucusses are organized. It's just youtube conspiracy theorists. No matter what happens, they were right to begin with. They need to be disregarded completely in any normal discussion. + Show Spoiler + I'm confused, I thought that Ron Paul was in the lead in polls and that all the media outlets were using a poll from Saturday over and over again so they wouldn't have to show him as being in first. Edit: Hopefully CNN's reporting maintains those proportions. Ron Paul with 43% of the votes (all 21 of them, 9 for him) rofl | ||
|
SuperFanBoy
New Zealand1068 Posts
On January 04 2012 09:46 Derez wrote: Caucusses open in 15 minutes. Place your bets now, who will be the winner? Going with Santorum myself, I think the evangelicals are going to bring it home for him. Paul 2nd, Romney 3rd. Media talks about how incredibly this win was for a couple of days. Any other takers? (To make it clear, this is who do you THINK will win. Not who do you want to win.) why do evangelicals vote for Santorum when the guy is a neo-con who loves wars... since when did Jesus support wars? lol | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 04 2012 10:31 Risen wrote: I'm confused, I thought that Ron Paul was in the lead in polls and that all the media outlets were using a poll from Saturday over and over again so they wouldn't have to show him as being in first. Out of the last 9 polls, Ron Paul has only been first in a single poll, which was a PPP poll, which was one of three polls released on january first. In the other two Romney had the lead. Most polling predictions gave the lead to Romney before today, altho Nate Silver has been making a case for Santorum on 538. That said, CNN has the first entrance polls (people that entered the caucusses), which you can find here.. It's an interesting read, but can still go any way imaginable due to the volatility of the causus process. Not to mention that Iowa voters aren't even bound to a candidate and are allowed to vote for pretty much anyone at the convention. If Romney wins, it will establish him as the frontrunner (with NH coming up). If Paul or Santorum win, it will establish them as at least somewhat viable candidates. On January 04 2012 10:36 SuperFanBoy wrote: why do evangelicals vote for Santorum when the guy is a neo-con who loves wars... since when did Jesus support wars? lol Ever since Jesus hated gay people, same sex marriage and abortion. (I'm not saying he did, but that's what it comes down to with republican value voters). Also, Nate Silver again: Another key finding in the entrance polls so far: almost 30 percent of voters identify as either independent or Democratic, much higher than in 2008 and toward the high range of the estimates that pollsters made in their likely voter models. The entrance polls report that about half of those voters are breaking for Ron Paul. Likewise, the percentage of moderates according to the the exit polls is about 20 percent - twice as high as in 2008 - and those voters so far are breaking for Mr. Paul as well. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On January 04 2012 10:36 SuperFanBoy wrote: why do evangelicals vote for Santorum when the guy is a neo-con who loves wars... since when did Jesus support wars? lol Ironically, CNN was just talking about this, and it appears the Evangelical vote is a lot more split then last election. Paul and Santoram were tied in the lead, but there was a lot more spread then when Huckabee got 46%. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wmpeN.png)
