I live in a very liberal part of a liberal state (go Maryland! Yay same-sex marriage) but politics rarely came up. I do remember my history teacher getting really angry at Bush for his pronunciation of Iraq (it's "ee-rock" not "ai-rack") but that's about it. But especially when it came to economics I remember people had fairly mixed views on things.
And no, it's not Democrat or Republican. It never was. There is good and there is bad. There is effective and there is more effective. Things may not be black and white, but real people get fucked over by policies. Conservatives are on the wrong side of social issues, and we have lots of proof to back us up. They have none. But social issues are easy. Economics and foreign policy are absurdly difficult. We can't have case studies and such and there are almost no control groups.
It's not about extremes imo. It's just about idiocy and bad reasoning. Michael Moore is on the left but he's slimey lying jackass. You need to call out your own side sometimes to legitimize your own views.
Anyway, I don't believe that most universities lean left just because of some teacher's influence. I think it tends to come with culture and knowledge. Most of my friends in uni in subjects from philosophy, math, medicine... - they say their teachers simply don't talk about it.
Something tells me that when a Yale student organization held a "White Out" rally in 1997 (an occasion when a number of minority students dressed in "white face" and opined that the university should get the "white out of Yale"), it wasn't because they were emboldened by their superior culture and knowledge. The left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to sheltering and excusing its idiots, bigots, and authoritarian stooges. See the uproar over Limbaugh's most recent stupid comments vis a vis the non-story of Maher calling Palin the c-word last year.
Post-1960s, universities tend to be leftist due to self-selection among the faculty. Basically, once leftists get a foothold, they tend to marginalize dissenting viewpoints in every way imaginable, most of them likely unconscious; anyone who has had the misfortune of being a conservative English or Sociology major can attest to that discomfort. Lest I pick on the lefties too much, right-wingers do the same thing--there's a reason why there are very few leftists working at Bob Jones University. The difference is mainly one of scope and scale.
I most say that im impressed by how many retards actually live in USA. How can people such as Mitt Romney get support by both media, people and politican? His view on politic, religion, homosexuallity and war is just so wrong that it makes me wanna puke. People such as Mitt Romeny are curropted people and they strive for power by using religion as their manipulation tool to get their hands on big corporation and money which will then lead to war.
All of the swedish people that have knowledge about the candidates consider Mitt Romney to be one of the biggest retards to step on earth together with gingrich och santorum. Even the swedish "white trash" people look down on them in shame and disgust. To think that the most powerfull country in the world is still soooo far behind in some questions in comparision to other countries just makes me wanna laugh and at the same time im thankfull to never live in such country as USA where these kind of people that are so DUMB can still have such big impact on society.
He also said that he loved Sweden and praised us for our socalism country. He maybe should get his facts straight before even opening his mouth regarding other countries and their stance in politics. Sweden was mostly a socialism country during the 1950-1990 but since then we have changed by much and is mostly ruled by Liberal conservatism view.
On March 08 2012 08:10 _zEK wrote: I most say that im impressed by how many retards actually live in USA. How can people such as Mitt Romney get support by both media, people and politican? His view on politic, religion, homosexuallity and war is just so wrong that it makes me wanna puke. People such as Mitt Romeny are curropted people and they strive for power by using religion as their manipulation tool to get their hands on big corporation and money which will then lead to war.
All of the swedish people that have knowledge about the candidates consider Mitt Romney to be one of the biggest retards to step on earth together with gingrich och santorum. Even the swedish "white trash" people look down on them in shame and disgust. To think that the most powerfull country in the world is still soooo far behind in some questions in comparision to other countries just makes me wanna laugh and at the same time im thankfull to never live in such country as USA where these kind of people that are so DUMB can still have such big impact on society.
He also said that he loved Sweden and praised us for our socalism country. He maybe should get his facts straight before even opening his mouth regarding other countries and their stance in politics. Sweden was mostly a socialism country during the 1950-1990 but since then we have changed by much and is mostly ruled by Liberal conservatism view.
Uhm. Did you mean Santorum? Mitt Romney hasn't really been running on much religious grounds at all. On homosexuality, he was actually a proponent of gay rights until he wanted to run for a national election as a republican. Obviously he wouldn't be considered conservative enough if he was still pro gay rights. But he's been relatively silent on social issues and focusing on jobs.
As far as liberal conservative and socialist. These terms seem to mean different things in different countries, so I wouldn't take much offense.
On March 08 2012 08:10 _zEK wrote: I most say that im impressed by how many retards actually live in USA. How can people such as Mitt Romney get support by both media, people and politican? His view on politic, religion, homosexuallity and war is just so wrong that it makes me wanna puke. People such as Mitt Romeny are curropted people and they strive for power by using religion as their manipulation tool to get their hands on big corporation and money which will then lead to war.
All of the swedish people that have knowledge about the candidates consider Mitt Romney to be one of the biggest retards to step on earth together with gingrich och santorum. Even the swedish "white trash" people look down on them in shame and disgust. To think that the most powerfull country in the world is still soooo far behind in some questions in comparision to other countries just makes me wanna laugh and at the same time im thankfull to never live in such country as USA where these kind of people that are so DUMB can still have such big impact on society.
He also said that he loved Sweden and praised us for our socalism country. He maybe should get his facts straight before even opening his mouth regarding other countries and their stance in politics. Sweden was mostly a socialism country during the 1950-1990 but since then we have changed by much and is mostly ruled by Liberal conservatism view.
you're right. i am not too sure how incredibly dumb most americans are. but to point out some peoples sway on their votes. 1) oh he looks good, im gonna vote for him 2) he sounded great in that debate, im gonna vote for him 3) hes middle aged, and always in the news, ill vote him 4) hes funny, ill vote for him. 5) more ridiculous ones, more than over the candidate itself
in most of history, from many nations over the world (ancient greece, ancient china, ancient rome) only EDUCATED and INTELLIGENT people were able to participate in politics. not the mass. but in America, people who think they got a GED or simple college degree thinks theyre are to make such decisions.
this is why politics should be left to the elite. because people CANNOT/UNABLE to make intelligent decisions.
On March 08 2012 08:10 _zEK wrote: I most say that im impressed by how many retards actually live in USA. How can people such as Mitt Romney get support by both media, people and politican? His view on politic, religion, homosexuallity and war is just so wrong that it makes me wanna puke. People such as Mitt Romeny are curropted people and they strive for power by using religion as their manipulation tool to get their hands on big corporation and money which will then lead to war.
All of the swedish people that have knowledge about the candidates consider Mitt Romney to be one of the biggest retards to step on earth together with gingrich och santorum. Even the swedish "white trash" people look down on them in shame and disgust. To think that the most powerfull country in the world is still soooo far behind in some questions in comparision to other countries just makes me wanna laugh and at the same time im thankfull to never live in such country as USA where these kind of people that are so DUMB can still have such big impact on society.
He also said that he loved Sweden and praised us for our socalism country. He maybe should get his facts straight before even opening his mouth regarding other countries and their stance in politics. Sweden was mostly a socialism country during the 1950-1990 but since then we have changed by much and is mostly ruled by Liberal conservatism view.
you're right. i am not too sure how incredibly dumb most americans are. but to point out some peoples sway on their votes. 1) oh he looks good, im gonna vote for him 2) he sounded great in that debate, im gonna vote for him 3) hes middle aged, and always in the news, ill vote him 4) hes funny, ill vote for him. 5) more ridiculous ones, more than over the candidate itself
in most of history, from many nations over the world (ancient greece, ancient china, ancient rome) only EDUCATED and INTELLIGENT people were able to participate in politics. not the mass. but in America, people who think they got a GED or simple college degree thinks theyre are to make such decisions.
this is why politics should be left to the elite. because people CANNOT/UNABLE to make intelligent decisions.
First of all, nice English you have going for yourself there, sir Elite. I call you elite because if you're not, what makes you qualified to state a thing such as this? Second of all, you do realize the legitimacy of the ruler (or, in modern times, the government) is kind of important and a point where democracy truly shines? Lastly, remember the quote? "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. ". (And incase you're wondering, it is not a democracy if you leave it up to the elite to vote or rule).
The good thing about (representative) democracy is that we get to elect people who are, generally speaking, smarter and will do a better job at governing than we would ourselves. Not only that, but you get to choose who these people are. That America has a broken system doesn't mean that the general idea of democracy is bad but rather that a reform is needed. A big one. But that's just my opinion.
On March 08 2012 08:10 _zEK wrote: I most say that im impressed by how many retards actually live in USA. How can people such as Mitt Romney get support by both media, people and politican? His view on politic, religion, homosexuallity and war is just so wrong that it makes me wanna puke. People such as Mitt Romeny are curropted people and they strive for power by using religion as their manipulation tool to get their hands on big corporation and money which will then lead to war.
All of the swedish people that have knowledge about the candidates consider Mitt Romney to be one of the biggest retards to step on earth together with gingrich och santorum. Even the swedish "white trash" people look down on them in shame and disgust. To think that the most powerfull country in the world is still soooo far behind in some questions in comparision to other countries just makes me wanna laugh and at the same time im thankfull to never live in such country as USA where these kind of people that are so DUMB can still have such big impact on society.
He also said that he loved Sweden and praised us for our socalism country. He maybe should get his facts straight before even opening his mouth regarding other countries and their stance in politics. Sweden was mostly a socialism country during the 1950-1990 but since then we have changed by much and is mostly ruled by Liberal conservatism view.
Uhm. Did you mean Santorum? Mitt Romney hasn't really been running on much religious grounds at all. On homosexuality, he was actually a proponent of gay rights until he wanted to run for a national election as a republican. Obviously he wouldn't be considered conservative enough if he was still pro gay rights. But he's been relatively silent on social issues and focusing on jobs.
As far as liberal conservative and socialist. These terms seem to mean different things in different countries, so I wouldn't take much offense.
Yeah I think he might have been confused... Not to mention if Romney wanted to use religion as a manipulation tool, he wouldn't choose to be Mormon. That alone turns off many of the extreme christians in the US.
It's also important to note that many Americans have a different definition of socialism than Europeans. It may not be technically accurate, but the meaning of words change over time.
Calling Americans "retards" is just over the top and probably shouldn't be tolerated on teamliquid.
On March 08 2012 08:10 _zEK wrote: I most say that im impressed by how many retards actually live in USA. How can people such as Mitt Romney get support by both media, people and politican? His view on politic, religion, homosexuallity and war is just so wrong that it makes me wanna puke. People such as Mitt Romeny are curropted people and they strive for power by using religion as their manipulation tool to get their hands on big corporation and money which will then lead to war.
All of the swedish people that have knowledge about the candidates consider Mitt Romney to be one of the biggest retards to step on earth together with gingrich och santorum. Even the swedish "white trash" people look down on them in shame and disgust. To think that the most powerfull country in the world is still soooo far behind in some questions in comparision to other countries just makes me wanna laugh and at the same time im thankfull to never live in such country as USA where these kind of people that are so DUMB can still have such big impact on society.
He also said that he loved Sweden and praised us for our socalism country. He maybe should get his facts straight before even opening his mouth regarding other countries and their stance in politics. Sweden was mostly a socialism country during the 1950-1990 but since then we have changed by much and is mostly ruled by Liberal conservatism view.
you're right. i am not too sure how incredibly dumb most americans are. but to point out some peoples sway on their votes. 1) oh he looks good, im gonna vote for him 2) he sounded great in that debate, im gonna vote for him 3) hes middle aged, and always in the news, ill vote him 4) hes funny, ill vote for him. 5) more ridiculous ones, more than over the candidate itself
in most of history, from many nations over the world (ancient greece, ancient china, ancient rome) only EDUCATED and INTELLIGENT people were able to participate in politics. not the mass. but in America, people who think they got a GED or simple college degree thinks theyre are to make such decisions.
this is why politics should be left to the elite. because people CANNOT/UNABLE to make intelligent decisions.
First of all, nice English you have going for yourself there, sir Elite. I call you elite because if you're not, what makes you qualified to state a thing such as this? Second of all, you do realize the legitimacy of the ruler (or, in modern times, the government) is kind of important and a point where democracy truly shines? Lastly, remember the quote? "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. ". (And incase you're wondering, it is not a democracy if you leave it up to the elite to vote or rule).
The good thing about (representative) democracy is that we get to elect people who are, generally speaking, smarter and will do a better job at governing than we would ourselves. Not only that, but you get to choose who these people are. That America has a broken system doesn't mean that the general idea of democracy is bad but rather that a reform is needed. A big one. But that's just my opinion.
I do not know why you are making a personal attack on my english. Is it because you were offended by my statements? I know not, and that is for the curious to ponder.
I am not saying that US Representative Democracy is bad, but it has become to a point where amendments have allowed ineligble people in the past to vote. Is this a good thing? Sure. It is progressive, I agree. We have allowed people who were once underaged to vote. The classification of a human, and US citizen to vote. But is this really good for something so much more important? Picking a candidate who is a warmonger, and cherishing another because of what he speaketh was smooth? Are the decisions of picking politicians intelligent by the voters? We vote to represent but in many instances this is not the case.
Now the reform you speaketh of? Reforming what? Reducing the lobbyists infleunce? Following pure theoretical keynesian or classical economics? Should we just randomly test if X idea works, and how it influence Y? Should engineers or physicists rule such realm?
Elitism is facism. But facism is not elitism. It was an idea tried in Germany, and during that time a lot of people died. But it was probably the strongest nation behind US and the Soviet Union in terms of scientific advancements. And oh yeah, SU was running on Communist rule. So these three top nations were one US Rep, Commnuism, and Facism. Well which one was the best was quite obvious because freedom was free as long you can pay up.
But elitism who thrived for power is one which doomed to failed. However, electing elites through the power of citizens is quite a different proposal. The elites can be removed if the voters are intelligent. Are there flaws? Certaintly. But elites are the best because I rather have one who is a Ph.D in Physics than one who has a Ph.D in Environmental Science.
On March 08 2012 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: It's not about extremes imo. It's just about idiocy and bad reasoning. Michael Moore is on the left but he's slimey lying jackass. You need to call out your own side sometimes to legitimize your own views.
Why do you say that? I'd be surprised if you could explain why yourself.
It didn't get much notice amid the buildup to Super Tuesday. But after conservative outcry over his support for raising the minimum wage, Mitt Romney quietly reversed his position this week.
"There's probably not a need to raise the minimum wage," the Republican front-runner told CNBC's Larry Kudlow on Monday.
As recently as January, Romney said he was in favor of a hike in the minimum wage. "My view has been to allow the minimum wage to rise with the CPI [Consumer Price Index] or with another index so that it adjusts automatically over time," he told a staffer for a labor-backed group that supports a raise. And he confirmed that stance last month, telling reporters: "I haven't changed my thoughts on that."
Romney took the same position as governor of Massachusetts, an office he held from 2003 to 2007, and as a candidate for president in 2008.
As Yahoo News reported last month, Romney's support for a minimum wage raise—something Democrats have been pushing for and Republicans have generally opposed—provoked a furor on the right. "All it does is give the base another reason to be unenthusiastic about him," conservative publishing magnate Steve Forbes, who made his own bids for the GOP nomination in 1996 and 2000, told us.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Club for Growth and several other major conservative players also slammed Romney's stance, arguing that raising the minimum wage makes small businesses less likely to hire workers. A 1993 study by the economists Alan Krueger—now President Barack Obama's top economic adviser—and David Card found no such effect.
On March 08 2012 08:10 _zEK wrote: I most say that im impressed by how many retards actually live in USA. How can people such as Mitt Romney get support by both media, people and politican? His view on politic, religion, homosexuallity and war is just so wrong that it makes me wanna puke. People such as Mitt Romeny are curropted people and they strive for power by using religion as their manipulation tool to get their hands on big corporation and money which will then lead to war.
All of the swedish people that have knowledge about the candidates consider Mitt Romney to be one of the biggest retards to step on earth together with gingrich och santorum. Even the swedish "white trash" people look down on them in shame and disgust. To think that the most powerfull country in the world is still soooo far behind in some questions in comparision to other countries just makes me wanna laugh and at the same time im thankfull to never live in such country as USA where these kind of people that are so DUMB can still have such big impact on society.
He also said that he loved Sweden and praised us for our socalism country. He maybe should get his facts straight before even opening his mouth regarding other countries and their stance in politics. Sweden was mostly a socialism country during the 1950-1990 but since then we have changed by much and is mostly ruled by Liberal conservatism view.
you're right. i am not too sure how incredibly dumb most americans are. but to point out some peoples sway on their votes. 1) oh he looks good, im gonna vote for him 2) he sounded great in that debate, im gonna vote for him 3) hes middle aged, and always in the news, ill vote him 4) hes funny, ill vote for him. 5) more ridiculous ones, more than over the candidate itself
in most of history, from many nations over the world (ancient greece, ancient china, ancient rome) only EDUCATED and INTELLIGENT people were able to participate in politics. not the mass. but in America, people who think they got a GED or simple college degree thinks theyre are to make such decisions.
this is why politics should be left to the elite. because people CANNOT/UNABLE to make intelligent decisions.
First of all, nice English you have going for yourself there, sir Elite. I call you elite because if you're not, what makes you qualified to state a thing such as this? Second of all, you do realize the legitimacy of the ruler (or, in modern times, the government) is kind of important and a point where democracy truly shines? Lastly, remember the quote? "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. ". (And incase you're wondering, it is not a democracy if you leave it up to the elite to vote or rule).
The good thing about (representative) democracy is that we get to elect people who are, generally speaking, smarter and will do a better job at governing than we would ourselves. Not only that, but you get to choose who these people are. That America has a broken system doesn't mean that the general idea of democracy is bad but rather that a reform is needed. A big one. But that's just my opinion.
I do not know why you are making a personal attack on my english. Is it because you were offended by my statements? I know not, and that is for the curious to ponder.
I am not saying that US Representative Democracy is bad, but it has become to a point where amendments have allowed ineligble people in the past to vote. Is this a good thing? Sure. It is progressive, I agree. We have allowed people who were once underaged to vote. The classification of a human, and US citizen to vote. But is this really good for something so much more important? Picking a candidate who is a warmonger, and cherishing another because of what he speaketh was smooth? Are the decisions of picking politicians intelligent by the voters? We vote to represent but in many instances this is not the case.
Now the reform you speaketh of? Reforming what? Reducing the lobbyists infleunce? Following pure theoretical keynesian or classical economics? Should we just randomly test if X idea works, and how it influence Y? Should engineers or physicists rule such realm?
Elitism is facism. But facism is not elitism. It was an idea tried in Germany, and during that time a lot of people died. But it was probably the strongest nation behind US and the Soviet Union in terms of scientific advancements. And oh yeah, SU was running on Communist rule. So these three top nations were one US Rep, Commnuism, and Facism. Well which one was the best was quite obvious because freedom was free as long you can pay up.
But elitism who thrived for power is one which doomed to failed. However, electing elites through the power of citizens is quite a different proposal. The elites can be removed if the voters are intelligent. Are there flaws? Certaintly. But elites are the best because I rather have one who is a Ph.D in Physics than one who has a Ph.D in Environmental Science.
What the fuck? So who defines what an elite is? You? Other "elites"? Are you going to create a new social class?
The reforms I hinted at have to do with getting rid of the two-party system. Probably dumping the president as well, although that's not required. The overall aim would be to up the representation of different opinions in the senate and the house. (This would be accomplished simply by switching to a PR voting system) There are a looot of other changes I would like to implement but this thread is about the republican nominations and this post is off topic enough as it is.
And as far as your English goes... To present the idea you did would require you to be an elite yourself or your argument simply carries no weight (as you are just one among the many non-elites who, according to you, shouldn't have a say or politically matter).
There are other problems in the US too, apart from how the political system is built in itself. One of the absolutely biggest ones would be the media, and specifically the so called right wing media. They're doing an excellent job of splitting the country in two camps, rich vs poor, (organized) religion vs non-(organized)religion. They deliberately withhold information, spread disinformation and in general present inaccurate world views, but ones which either further their cause or are more in line with what the world 'is to them'. I'm aware I'm being quite vague here and not presenting any clear examples but I 1. Don't have time to write an essay and 2. Think that it's obvious to anyone informed that I am on the ball here. And in all of this I would say that religion is a giant stopping block for social progress in the US. There's nothing nice about "holding on to traditional values" when it's repressing other people, robbing them of their negative freedoms which the US claims to hold so dearly.
On March 08 2012 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: It's not about extremes imo. It's just about idiocy and bad reasoning. Michael Moore is on the left but he's slimey lying jackass. You need to call out your own side sometimes to legitimize your own views.
Why do you say that? I'd be surprised if you could explain why yourself.
On which point? Michael Moore? You don't have to look very far to see how Michael Moore is constantly lying about all the statistics in his videos. Many of his statistics not only have no sources, but are blatantly false. It's incredibly impressive how few of his claims he can actually back up. He also constantly misrepresents the other side. And not in a satirical way but a just sort of false way. Some of interviews have suspicious content that make it seem like the interviewees could possibly be responding to a different question.
Not to mention that many of his arguments are completely vapid appeals to emotion. Not the kind of emotion that presents any kind of argument. Seriously, holding the picture of the little girl to Heston in Bowling for Columbine? What the fuck is that shit? Not to mention the entire second half of Farenheit 9/11.
I may be a liberal, but I don't put up with this crap. He makes all liberals look bad and he directly undermines everything liberals actually stand for. You should detest him more than Ann Coulter because he's on your side.
The only actual example you gave is a situation in which Moore was completely in the right. Charlton Heston held an NRA rally in the town in which that little girl was killed in response to the killing. It was a disgusting act with absolutely no justification behind it at all.
On March 08 2012 08:10 _zEK wrote: I most say that im impressed by how many retards actually live in USA. How can people such as Mitt Romney get support by both media, people and politican? His view on politic, religion, homosexuallity and war is just so wrong that it makes me wanna puke. People such as Mitt Romeny are curropted people and they strive for power by using religion as their manipulation tool to get their hands on big corporation and money which will then lead to war.
All of the swedish people that have knowledge about the candidates consider Mitt Romney to be one of the biggest retards to step on earth together with gingrich och santorum. Even the swedish "white trash" people look down on them in shame and disgust. To think that the most powerfull country in the world is still soooo far behind in some questions in comparision to other countries just makes me wanna laugh and at the same time im thankfull to never live in such country as USA where these kind of people that are so DUMB can still have such big impact on society.
He also said that he loved Sweden and praised us for our socalism country. He maybe should get his facts straight before even opening his mouth regarding other countries and their stance in politics. Sweden was mostly a socialism country during the 1950-1990 but since then we have changed by much and is mostly ruled by Liberal conservatism view.
User was warned for this post
liberal and socialist mean different things in American politics. "Socialist" means a society with high taxes and redistribution of wealth on a large scale via social programs. Sweden most definitely fits the bill for the American definition of socialist.
Romney is not running on a religious basis either... he's mormon, which is actually a religious minority in the United States.
BOISE, Idaho — Ron Paul’s top strategists are confused and frustrated that the wild enthusiasm they see at their campaign rallies and events is not translating into votes.
Thousands turned out to see the Texas congressman at events in Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota in the days before Super Tuesday. Paul said publicly and believed privately that he could win all three states outright. When the votes were counted, though, he finished third in Alaska and Idaho and second in North Dakota.
Paul may still emerge with a big chunk of delegates in the GOP nominating race, but the candidate’s much-hyped focus on caucus states has yet to yield an outright victory in any state.
This gap between dreams and reality came to a head during a Wednesday morning conference call for senior staff when the discussion turned to why the campaign keeps underperforming its own forecasts.
“They count the numbers and then they count the votes,” said Doug Wead, a Paul senior adviser who was on the call. “Did they get overconfident? … We’re digesting that.”
Despite his lack of success, Paul is unlikely to get out of the race anytime soon. He often says he is leading a “movement” and his campaign is concentrated on amassing delegates rather than winning the nomination, though the two are not mutually exclusive.
Paul admits his “chances are slim” to win the GOP nod (that’s how he put it on CBS last Sunday), but the lawmaker and his team feel zero pressure to exit the race. A slowdown in fundraising would force them to scale back their ambitions, but that wouldn’t stop their campaign.
Brushing aside growing questions about his viability from pundits who have long written him off, Paul is forging ahead with his retail campaigning. He’s catching a breather Wednesday and Thursday but will campaign in Kansas on Friday and Saturday ahead of that state’s caucuses this weekend.
But the core problems of his campaign remain.
Repeatedly all year, Paul supporters have had plenty more bark than bite. More than 9,000 caucused at the Taco Bell Arena here on Boise State University’s campus Tuesday night, for example. Electioneering is allowed, and the Paul backers were the loudest and most energetic when each side got a chance to cheer. But when the voting began, it was Mitt Romney who won — and won easily on the first ballot with 52 percent of the vote to Paul’s 22 percent.
The campaign identified 24,000 supporters in Nevada but a comparatively paltry 6,175 actually turned out to caucus for Paul. He finished third behind Newt Gingrich, who ran an embarrassingly inept campaign.
On March 08 2012 14:30 Silvertine wrote: The only actual example you gave is a situation in which Moore was completely in the right. Charlton Heston held an NRA rally in the town in which that little girl was killed in response to the killing. It was a disgusting act with absolutely no justification behind it at all.
Except the movie just dangles the little girl's picture in front of you and has Moore chasing Heston around telling him to apologize. What the fuck? That's not an argument. It was completely vapid and no substance. Moore could have had a decent point, but then he acts like a clown, and tries to shove a dead little girl's picture in somebody's face. Moore isn't in the right. You seem to think that because Heston is a prick, Moore can do whatever he wants and still deserve respect. I'm not talking about Heston. I'm talking about Moore.
There were more serious problems with his more recent works, especially Fahrenheit 911. I found a great article that actually goes through the film and goes through the first half with good detail, and how it's a total mess with its message (did bush plan 9/11? Did the Saudis? Or maybe the Taliban?). Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it at the moment. I do remember a clip that has Rumsfield saying "[inaudibleness] missile hit the towers" which seems to imply some kind of Truther sentiment, except that a plane is a missile when you use it to destroy buildings, and this is expected terminology from a military man. Here's an article I found with a quick google search that's OK, but not as good: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html.
Anyway, considering I can't seem to find that article, I'm just gonna drop this tangent. Feel free to do your own research though. You don't have to look far to find a good refutation of Moore's points. The real point, regardless of Moore, is you should call out your own side when it's acting stupid. Stupid people on your side make you look stupid.
BOISE, Idaho — Ron Paul’s top strategists are confused and frustrated that the wild enthusiasm they see at their campaign rallies and events is not translating into votes.
Thousands turned out to see the Texas congressman at events in Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota in the days before Super Tuesday. Paul said publicly and believed privately that he could win all three states outright. When the votes were counted, though, he finished third in Alaska and Idaho and second in North Dakota.
Paul may still emerge with a big chunk of delegates in the GOP nominating race, but the candidate’s much-hyped focus on caucus states has yet to yield an outright victory in any state.
This gap between dreams and reality came to a head during a Wednesday morning conference call for senior staff when the discussion turned to why the campaign keeps underperforming its own forecasts.
“They count the numbers and then they count the votes,” said Doug Wead, a Paul senior adviser who was on the call. “Did they get overconfident? … We’re digesting that.”
Despite his lack of success, Paul is unlikely to get out of the race anytime soon. He often says he is leading a “movement” and his campaign is concentrated on amassing delegates rather than winning the nomination, though the two are not mutually exclusive.
Paul admits his “chances are slim” to win the GOP nod (that’s how he put it on CBS last Sunday), but the lawmaker and his team feel zero pressure to exit the race. A slowdown in fundraising would force them to scale back their ambitions, but that wouldn’t stop their campaign.
Brushing aside growing questions about his viability from pundits who have long written him off, Paul is forging ahead with his retail campaigning. He’s catching a breather Wednesday and Thursday but will campaign in Kansas on Friday and Saturday ahead of that state’s caucuses this weekend.
But the core problems of his campaign remain.
Repeatedly all year, Paul supporters have had plenty more bark than bite. More than 9,000 caucused at the Taco Bell Arena here on Boise State University’s campus Tuesday night, for example. Electioneering is allowed, and the Paul backers were the loudest and most energetic when each side got a chance to cheer. But when the voting began, it was Mitt Romney who won — and won easily on the first ballot with 52 percent of the vote to Paul’s 22 percent.
The campaign identified 24,000 supporters in Nevada but a comparatively paltry 6,175 actually turned out to caucus for Paul. He finished third behind Newt Gingrich, who ran an embarrassingly inept campaign.
Ron Paul for Alaska campaign chief Evan Cutler harbors other suspicions.
"People were turned away at the polls that were registered to vote due to confusion among the poll volunteers. Voter registration databases were outdated. Younger voters, voters of a certain demographic were turned away," Cutler said, adding that the campaign had conducted exit polling across the state and that numbers reported by the state party leaders "didn't jibe."
The allegations didn't stop there. Cutler also accused party bosses of levying "poll taxes" of at least $50 for participation in post-vote district conventions. The Paul campaign even accuses Alaska GOP Chairman Randy Ruedrich of rigging his own district via teleconference to make sure Mitt Romney -- the state establishment Republican choice -- won a majority.
An email Cutler sent Ruedrich was forwarded to Alaska Dispatch. "There were some other complaints about the process in your own district," it said. "According to the reports I received, when the District Convention convened there were 7 delegates in your cohort and 7 in the Ron Paul one. Instead of letting people vote then, I was told you instead called supporters from your side one by one until you had enough people on the Romney side on the phone to take all the delegate slots. …"
Did it really happen? "Absolutely not," Ruedrich said in an interview Wednesday night. "It just isn't true, absolutely not true. We did not vote via teleconference even though it would have been fully appropriate."
Ruedrich says that he and another party worker left his district's polling place "to process state data from the preference poll. When we issued an all-data-in report, we returned to the convention because it was still in process. We participated in the vote in person."
Ruedrich went on to refute the poll tax allegations, the disenfranchisement, the other things Paul supporters were whispering. He said complaints were common for a constituency that failed to achieve its objective. But he also said the Paul campaign's accusations were something more than just sour grapes.
"This is a little bit more severe," he said.
While the he-said, she-said continues, one thing is certain: the Alaska Republican Party's rules are labyrinthine. Who knew that people could vote via teleconference in a district convention? Doesn't that seem like a recipe for accusations of preference or vote-weighting?
"It's fully appropriate," Ruedrich said.
The Paul campaign doesn't think so and Cutler said he and other up-and-coming young Republicans weren't pleased with the way Ruedrich was managing the state's GOP.
"Ruedrich and others are bending their own rules for Romney. It's not fair. There's a history of game playing in Alaska's Republican Party. People shouldn't be disenfranchised. They shouldn't have to pay to play. … Ruedrich should probably go," Cutler said.
Alaska's Republican presidential poll is conducted solely by party bosses like Ruedrich and isn't overseen by the state's Division of Elections. Cutler isn't the first conservative to call for Ruedrich's head.
But much mightier politicians (including Sarah Palin) have taken him on, only to be frustrated again and again.
Tele-conventions. That's pretty dicey. Note the comment on the paper from Evan Cutler correcting the article. Fun stuff.
On March 08 2012 14:30 Silvertine wrote: The only actual example you gave is a situation in which Moore was completely in the right. Charlton Heston held an NRA rally in the town in which that little girl was killed in response to the killing. It was a disgusting act with absolutely no justification behind it at all.
Except the movie just dangles the little girl's picture in front of you and has Moore chasing Heston around telling him to apologize. What the fuck? That's not an argument. It was completely vapid and no substance. Moore could have had a decent point, but then he acts like a clown, and tries to shove a dead little girl's picture in somebody's face.
No, Moore made clear arguments in the discussion which Heston had absolutely no answer for :
Moore isn't in the right. You seem to think that because Heston is a prick, Moore can do whatever he wants and still deserve respect. I'm not talking about Heston. I'm talking about Moore.
I was responding to the single example you gave. For some reason you find it incredibly unfair that Moore evoked the death of that little girl. I was simply explaining how it was entirely appropriate considering that Heston held an NRA rally in her and Moore's town in response to her dying. How is that not a disgusting act? How does it have any meaning at all? If you can't explain that then Moore's point stands.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it at the moment. I do remember a clip that has Rumsfield saying "[inaudibleness] missile hit the towers" which seems to imply some kind of Truther sentiment, except that a plane is a missile when you use it to destroy buildings, and this is expected terminology from a military man.
There is absolutely no indication in the film that 9/11 was an "inside job".
I'm hearing a lot of disdain for Moore without a single reasonable explanation of anything he's ever done wrong. My point is don't make false equivalencies. Whether you agree with him or not comparing him to Coulter is absurd.
EPT
