Ron Paul is every computer geek's favorite candidate. The streets here are littered with signs in psuedo-stencil: "Google: Ron Paul". The Geek Libertarian Movement, sheesh. That's fine and all, but I could see why they'd then be suspicious of the flood of votes for a candidate most non-internetters don't take very seriously.
CNBC suppresses Republican Debate Poll - Page 2
Forum Index > General Forum |
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Ron Paul is every computer geek's favorite candidate. The streets here are littered with signs in psuedo-stencil: "Google: Ron Paul". The Geek Libertarian Movement, sheesh. That's fine and all, but I could see why they'd then be suspicious of the flood of votes for a candidate most non-internetters don't take very seriously. | ||
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 16 2007 02:09 HeadBangaa wrote: I hate to break it to you, but it's probably true what they said on the CNBC website link. Ron Paul is every computer geek's favorite candidate. The streets here are littered with signs in psuedo-stencil: "Google: Ron Paul". The Geek Libertarian Movement, sheesh. That's fine and all, but I could see why they'd then be suspicious of the flood of votes for a candidate most non-internetters don't take very seriously. haha those same signs were all over Oregon State's campus the other day. | ||
Aepplet
Sweden2908 Posts
On October 16 2007 01:49 LonelyMargarita wrote: You sound like a Ron Paul fan wanting ANY ATTENTION you can get for him. don't jump to conclusions like that, i don't even know who ron paul is! im just speaking in general. | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 16 2007 01:41 DTDominion wrote: There was no suppression here. Isn't that all that really needs to be said? When you actually poll people who are going to vote, it turns out that Ron Paul has no support. CNBC probably realizes that their poll is unscientific, but what they wanted out of their post debate poll was a representation of what debate viewers thought of what they saw. What happened was that Ron Paul's followers spammed the poll in order to get high vote numbers for the candidate they supported. CNBC decided that the poll was pointless (which it was) and took it down. Considering the backlash they're getting, it probably wasn't smart, but they made the same call I would have made. During the last quarter, ron paul raised $5 million. So don't say that he doesn't have any supporters....in fact, if "internet people" are the only ones supporting him, then that money was probably raised in $5 - $20 increments http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5186260.html | ||
kalami
United States214 Posts
| ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
kalami
United States214 Posts
why don't you articulate on why his philosophies are bad? | ||
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
What do not count as Concrete arguments: 1) Paul is bad. Just like Ayn Rand. 2) Paul's platform is crazy 3) I cannot vote for Paul because of his stance on X (without explaination) I mean might as well get some discussion going here, since very few people seem want to discuss the topic I raised. | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
sorry, i'll take "functional society" over "pipedream theorycrafting" any day here you go, moltke: http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~edfu/essays/others/libertarianism.txt | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 16 2007 02:37 MoltkeWarding wrote: If people are going to discuss Paul's platform instead of the presented topics, I'd like to hear some concrete arguments. What do not count as Concrete arguments: 1) Paul is bad. Just like Ayn Rand. 2) Paul's platform is crazy 3) I cannot vote for Paul because of his stance on X (without explaination) I mean might as well get some discussion going here, since very few people seem want to discuss the topic I raised. Agreed, why don't people like him? Also, what other candidate would you prefer and why? | ||
NoName
United States1558 Posts
GWB has set some worrisome Presidential precedents -- historically extensive secrecy, extensive use of Presidential signing statements, large number of recess appointments, historically large number of political and patronage appointees, political and ideological based influence on previously independent Federal institutions (ie Iraq WMD evidence, Global Warming reports), liberal use of War Powers Acts and other Presidential fiats like torture to bypass Constitutional consideration, Congress and public scrutiny. Nixon was in power 30 years too early. I don't doubt a Democrat President would (mis)use all these new precedents of Presidential power in their own way. I think Ron Paul is the best and perhaps only chance to roll them back. | ||
kalami
United States214 Posts
On October 16 2007 02:38 GrandInquisitor wrote: here you go, moltke: http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~edfu/essays/others/libertarianism.txt cute step 1 come up with pet definition of libertarianism step 2 argue against laid out pet definition step 3 come to any conclusion you want because your entire argument is subjective haha seriously I like how you linked to that like it was the sword to slay the libertarian beast | ||
SilenTLurker
United States250 Posts
On October 16 2007 02:32 oneofthem wrote: support for ron paul is of course considerable, but this is worrisome, not a sign of progress. kinda like the sales figures for rand books. over 30 million? hello dysfunctional, pathological approach to social and political theory. You're an Anarchist, aren't you? So who would you want to be president? As far as I know the only thing Anarchists want to do with the government is get rid of it, so what is it that you don't like about Ron Paul? His stance on governmental social programs? lol | ||
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On October 16 2007 02:43 kalami wrote: cute step 1 come up with pet definition of libertarianism step 2 argue against laid out pet definition step 3 come to any conclusion you want because your entire argument is subjective The essay is only marginally applicable to the Ron Paul platform. There are many things here which would never be parts of a Paul argument. It would be better to scrutiny parts of the actual political platform rather than making an abstract argument against a conjured model of libertarian philosophy. | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
Even if you don't like libertarianism, think of all the things bush has done, and think about how far we are in debt. I think we need a little balance. Also, don't make the mistake of labeling him with someone else's ideas. Try to argue about his specific platform. | ||
EarthServant
United States106 Posts
Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse. In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 16 2007 02:47 SilenTLurker wrote: how do you interpret 'anarchism.' is it closer to 'waaa taxes!' or 'SOCIALISM!!' i'll take the latter. anarchists would rather have a welfare state than say a neoliberal machine. this is oddly matching the evolution of the nonstatist left. You're an Anarchist, aren't you? So who would you want to be president? As far as I know the only thing Anarchists want to do with the government is get rid of it, so what is it that you don't like about Ron Paul? His stance on governmental social programs? lol as for substantive arguments, reading any respectable work in social or political theory should do the trick. i mean, there are not many libertarians, since you can't have a working politcal philosophy without giving at least some attention things like 'property' or 'individuality' libertarian answers to these questions have been lacking, to say the least. but the ideas of liberalism are important, i'll grant that, jsut that they alone cannot make a theory. they have their places. | ||
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Isn't that all that really needs to be said? When you actually poll people who are going to vote, it turns out that Ron Paul has no support. Well, no, since the polling process is extremely biased (see 2nd link in OP) And how many people are actually going to vote? In the primaries turnout rates in many states hover in the 20% range. The other Republican candidates get marginal enthusiasm which will affect their voter turnout rate, while the Paul camp's turnout rate is going to be disproportionately high. Furthermore one does not need a majority to win a primary, and Paul is not going to suffer the attrition that mainstay Republican candidates are going to by stealing votes from each other. What happened was that Ron Paul's followers spammed the poll in order to get high vote numbers for the candidate they supported. CNBC decided that the poll was pointless (which it was) and took it down. If you cannot handle mobilization of support for one candidate or open-ended results, why put up the poll in the first place? Secondly, being marginalized by the mainsteam media makes the online forum the most effective way of bringing publicity to their candidate. Suppression of this kind of political expression is outright imbalanced censorship. It is in effect, the media selecting the winners, rather than allowing an open-ended process to take place. (If Rudy had polled 75% would CNBC have taken the poll down?) It is a sham, really. as for substantive arguments, reading any respectable work in social or political theory should do the trick. i mean, there are not many libertarians, since you can't have a working politcal philosophy without giving at least some attention things like 'property' or 'individuality' which are oddly taken as primary What are you talking about? Is, for instance, Lockean theory respectable in your notes? Calling in the support of "respectable work" on "social or political theory" without further argument merely gives the assertion of erudition without any evidence of it. | ||
SilenTLurker
United States250 Posts
On October 16 2007 03:01 oneofthem wrote: how do you interpret 'anarchism.' is it closer to 'waaa taxes!' or 'SOCIALISM!!' i'll take the latter. anarchists would rather have a welfare state than say a neoliberal machine. this is oddly matching the evolution of the nonstatist left. as for substantive arguments, reading any respectable work in social or political theory should do the trick. i mean, there are not many libertarians, since you can't have a working politcal philosophy without giving at least some attention things like 'property' or 'individuality' libertarian answers to these questions have been lacking, to say the least. but the ideas of liberalism are important, i'll grant that, jsut that they alone cannot make a theory. they have their places. How do I interpret 'anarchism'? I 'interpret' it as free association and direct action. How can you say that "SOCIALISM!!" is "closer" to Anarchism? The core of Anarchy is that people are free to take care of themselves, in "Socialism" you are free to be manipulated by the state. It's the opposite. You want governmental social programs? If that's so, just come out and say it. However, if you really are an Anarchist, you should know that people are able to organize themselves to take care of their social needs without being forced by the state. You should know that the state only hinders social interaction, and that their programs are ineficient garbage that only serve to justify the state's existence. Neo liberal machine? wtf? And I'm not going to respond to convoluted statements with hardly any meaning or relavance to the discussion. I suggest you read this: http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit Try to actually address the questions at hand instead of going on vague philosophical rants. | ||
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On October 16 2007 02:59 EarthServant wrote: Libertarianism - the belief that free market capitalism is the answer to everything - is nuts. This is because there are some things that have values that should not be trivialized with a dollar amount because it is required for the success of all life - such as clean water, certain forests, global ecology, etc., and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many. It only becomes a matter of time before those left behind rise up against those who force them into poverty, its been witnessed time & time again throughout human history. Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse. In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs. Just like kalami said a few posts ago. You came up with a pet definition of Libertarianism and then proceeded to argue against it. I'd say most libertarians consider polution as an infringement on the property rights of others, and that the state should deal with it as it does with many other infringements on private property. Many advocate a carbon tax, for example. Ron Paul isn't basing his platform on Libertarianism anyway, he's basing it on the constitution. At least from what I've heard of him. | ||
| ||