Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Ron Paul wins in Maine, Nevada and NOW Minnesota
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
yodanole



Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: La Florida

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What does "mass popular will" have to do with Ron Paul? If it were true, he would be in the lead for the nomination.

His recent "success" might as well be a Gold Medal at the Big Frog in a Mudhole Event, for all the good it will do him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ontheway wrote:
Quote:
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted May 6-7, 2012
By Rasmussen Reports


In thinking about the 2012 Presidential Election suppose you had a choice between Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama and independent Ron Paul. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama or independent Ron Paul?



Three-Way Race:

Romney 44%
Obama 39%
Ron Paul 13%


At 13% it's not a three way race.

It is a two way race. 5% or even 10 % of difference would make it a race. At 3X and more than 3 times Ron Paul support it is a decisive trouncing of Paul. He's done. Stick a fork in him and his dreams of power.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
How many of these delegates are bound to Romney? It's my understanding that in the primary states, most are bound based on a statistical breakdown of who won what votes, and some smaller number are unbound.
Actually, no.
FairVote.org wrote:
As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38.
You can find the most recent official GOP rules here.

While the State parties may excommunicate wayward delegates after the convention, the vote of any delegate for any candidate in any round of voting stands as-is at the convention. Or those delegates could simply abstain from the first round to be free and clear in proceeding rounds of voting.
yodanole wrote:
His recent "success" might as well be a Gold Medal at the Big Frog in a Mudhole Event, for all the good it will do him.

You may want to take a good, long look at the above.
And the best part is, the more that Romney says he's got the nomination tied up, the fewer of his "supporters" show up to become/elect delegates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shifter2009



Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="comm"]
jaykimf wrote:


Are you saying that the economic system used by almost the entire world up until 1914 was a "faith based economic religion"? And that it's only sane to support the "tax and spend to prosperity" and "debt as stimulus" system?


You have any conception what life was like for the average person under those previous economic systems? They only work well if your willing to exploit and treat the majority of your populace like shit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shifter2009 wrote:
You have any conception what life was like for the average person under those previous economic systems? They only work well if your willing to exploit and treat the majority of your populace like shit.

What economic systems? You mean laissez-faire capitalism? The system that brought about the industrial revolution and made countries that adopted it extremely affluent, drastically raising the standard of living of average people?

Or did you mean socialism? The system that, followed to its logical conclusion, leads to forced collectivization and control in the hands of few people (resulting invariably in mass corruption, impoverishment, starvation, dehumanization, destruction, and death)?

The former does not require a central bank (though it can function for a period of time in spite of one); the latter, as laid out by Marx, has central banking as a fundamental plank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pegasus64128



Joined: 20 Aug 2011

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
ontheway wrote:
Quote:
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted May 6-7, 2012
By Rasmussen Reports


In thinking about the 2012 Presidential Election suppose you had a choice between Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama and independent Ron Paul. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama or independent Ron Paul?



Three-Way Race:

Romney 44%
Obama 39%
Ron Paul 13%


At 13% it's not a three way race.

It is a two way race. 5% or even 10 % of difference would make it a race. At 3X and more than 3 times Ron Paul support it is a decisive trouncing of Paul. He's done. Stick a fork in him and his dreams of power.


Well, seeing as he's come from nowhere to 13%, I think you're underestimating his chances.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
The former does not require a central bank (though it can function for a period of time in spite of one); the latter, as laid out by Marx, has central banking as a fundamental plank.


This is an extremely important point. Eliminating deficit spending and the centrally planned banking system has NOTHING to do with "robber barons" or monopolies or unions or anything else shifter2009 seems to associate with pre-Keynesian economics.

It has EVERYTHING to do with keeping the United States out of the stimulus/austerity/stimulus drain circling that many countries are facing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ontheway



Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pegasus64128 wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
ontheway wrote:
Quote:
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted May 6-7, 2012
By Rasmussen Reports


In thinking about the 2012 Presidential Election suppose you had a choice between Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama and independent Ron Paul. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama or independent Ron Paul?



Three-Way Race:

Romney 44%
Obama 39%
Ron Paul 13%


At 13% it's not a three way race.

It is a two way race. 5% or even 10 % of difference would make it a race. At 3X and more than 3 times Ron Paul support it is a decisive trouncing of Paul. He's done. Stick a fork in him and his dreams of power.


Well, seeing as he's come from nowhere to 13%, I think you're underestimating his chances.



It's a long-term movement - Indeed, it is a rEVOLution - and that 13% is growing, not shrinking.

To understand how big it is, given the institutional bias towards two party dominance in the US, just go back the last 60 years and look at all the 3rd party or independent POTUS candidates that got over 10% of the vote: Ross Perot. George Wallace. That's all.

In 1948 the Dixiecrats' candidate Strom Thurmond won 39 electoral votes with only 2.5% of the national vote. (Thurmond was excluded from the ballot in most states. Harry Truman (D) was kept off 4 state ballots).

In 2008, Ron Paul was excluded from the R national convention and had a handful of delegates. This year the number of Paul delegates will be in the hundreds, and if the R's don't welcome Ron Paul warmly, if he and those delegates and the legions they represent walk out, the Republican party dies.

Not only is Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party waiting to gather up a share of the dismembered packyderm ...

The Constitution Party is waiting to pick up conservatives who can't stand Romney ... and

The newly formed and still enigmatic Americans Elect Party will be on the ballot possibly in all 50 states - an amazing feat to anyone who understands US politics - and will have millions of dollars to back a Perot styled campaign this year - cleaving the Rs still further down the murky middle of the road.

There is a political realignment underway in America.

Hopefully we can rip apart and destroy forever the Republican party in the very near future. The Democrats could face a similar fate if the Greens, Americans Elect and the Libertarian Party can affect the same tearing inside the Democratic party.

These should be interesting times.


(To understand the impact of what is happening you have to look at the two-dimensional political map and finally throw away that left-right line that represents nothing in reality.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pegasus64128 wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
ontheway wrote:
Quote:
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted May 6-7, 2012
By Rasmussen Reports


In thinking about the 2012 Presidential Election suppose you had a choice between Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama and independent Ron Paul. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama or independent Ron Paul?



Three-Way Race:

Romney 44%
Obama 39%
Ron Paul 13%


At 13% it's not a three way race.

It is a two way race. 5% or even 10 % of difference would make it a race. At 3X and more than 3 times Ron Paul support it is a decisive trouncing of Paul. He's done. Stick a fork in him and his dreams of power.


Well, seeing as he's come from nowhere to 13%, I think you're underestimating his chances.



Since that 13% has not grown much from when people were trumpeting his support a while back, I think he's gone as far as he can go.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/news/la-pn-romney-gallup-gop-nomination-20120112


http://www.gallup.com/poll/152147/gingrich-erases-romney-national-lead.aspx

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_republican_presidential_primary


The first two links are from January of this year and show him at 13% among Republican voters/likely Republican voters

The last one is from March and shows him at 10%.

He has been hovering in that range for months consistently...since January of this year.

Hardly the so-called Ron Paul tsunami/revolution his supporters are so found of stating. When he breaks 20% nationally...let me know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yodanole



Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: La Florida

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ron Paul tsunami? That's funnier than a whole stack of Redd Fox party albums. "Scooter" McGruder ought to get in on this before Chris Rock hears about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yodanole wrote:
Ron Paul tsunami? That's funnier than a whole stack of Redd Fox party albums. "Scooter" McGruder ought to get in on this before Chris Rock hears about it.

Thankfully this is exactly what Romney's few supporters think, so they don't bother showing up to elect national convention delegates.

Don't worry, Ron Paul can't win. No one will vote for him, and you certainly won't hear from him at the convention. Just sit back and watch Dancing with the Stars and be comforted by the fact that Americans more dedicated to the process are shaping your future for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ontheway



Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
pegasus64128 wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
ontheway wrote:
Quote:
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted May 6-7, 2012
By Rasmussen Reports


In thinking about the 2012 Presidential Election suppose you had a choice between Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama and independent Ron Paul. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama or independent Ron Paul?



Three-Way Race:

Romney 44%
Obama 39%
Ron Paul 13%


At 13% it's not a three way race.

It is a two way race. 5% or even 10 % of difference would make it a race. At 3X and more than 3 times Ron Paul support it is a decisive trouncing of Paul. He's done. Stick a fork in him and his dreams of power.


Well, seeing as he's come from nowhere to 13%, I think you're underestimating his chances.



Since that 13% has not grown much from when people were trumpeting his support a while back, I think he's gone as far as he can go.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/news/la-pn-romney-gallup-gop-nomination-20120112


http://www.gallup.com/poll/152147/gingrich-erases-romney-national-lead.aspx

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_republican_presidential_primary


The first two links are from January of this year and show him at 13% among Republican voters/likely Republican voters

The last one is from March and shows him at 10%.

He has been hovering in that range for months consistently...since January of this year.

Hardly the so-called Ron Paul tsunami/revolution his supporters are so found of stating. When he breaks 20% nationally...let me know.



Apples and oranges ...


He was at 10% or 13% among Republican primary voters - only Romney and the dwarves vs. Paul. However, few people realize that he has been running for the nomination, which means aquiring delegates, and not for maximizing polls.

The latest poll is a General Election poll including the great savior Obama - 13% nationwide and rising for Paul. That's a major shift as only two Ind/3rd party POTUS candidates have been over 10% in more than 60 years.

Only:

Perot 92 - 19%
Wallace 68 - 13%

A Ron Paul independent campaign would beat them both, and have a serious shot at victory.


But, actually, it is nearly too late for Paul to run 3rd party or independent- Ballot Access requires at least a year of lead time and $20,000,000 for an independent just to get a candidate's name on the ballot. He would have to grab the Americans Elect Party nomination instead (he is leading, but hasn't accepted, and they will be choosing in the next few weeks) or convince a party that has already nominated to change - although at least 3 parties would probably choose to do that.

The nationwide shift to Paul is a political realignment that will reshape US politics and parties in the next few elections.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yodanole



Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: La Florida

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertarians are people who find the Republican Party too liberal. They have little impact on the Democratic Party except to siphon off Republican support.

Ron Paul woul beat them both as an Independant? Again, it would only deprive Romney of votes he will sorely need.

Paul will strongly shape the next several elections? Some Republicans seem to think he has strong ideas, but feel his support base just isn't there. That could change, but between that and unicorns, the latter probably is the smarter play. If the field expands, split between Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster.

Guys, both crack and meth are bad for you......mmkay? (Where is that emoticon for the burnt fried egg?) Thanks, you guys cheered me up. I'm not sad anymore, but now my sides are hurting.


Last edited by yodanole on Sat May 12, 2012 3:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VisitorQ,

I have been trying to stay out of some of these discussions but what are you ranting about?

Laisse fare (sp?) capitalism did not "create" the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution happened to start in England under a constitutional monarchy. How is that laisse fare capitalism?

And, while England did increase its wealth in the 19th century, how much of that was due to colonization and the subjecting (sp?) of colonized, non-free people from aroudn the world?

It was also a time of great inequality, appalling (sp?) living conditions and a lack of basic democratic freedoms.

After the establishment of a welfare system in England after World War II, it was said that the British people never had it so good. Think about that!

At least, please, get your history at least "relatively" accurate.

There is a big difference between "socialism" and "communism." Communism failed in the Soviet Union. "Socialism" exists in varying degrees in every country on Earth. Laisse fare capitalism has never existed. We can only begin to guess what its effects might be.

Please watch your blanket statements. You are misleading people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
VisitorQ,

I have been trying to stay out of some of these discussions but what are you ranting about?

I wrote a single post of a few sentences in this whole thread. That constituted a "rant" to you? Your own post is actually more of a rant than anything I wrote.

Quote:
Laisse fare (sp?) capitalism did not "create" the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution happened to start in England under a constitutional monarchy. How is that laisse fare capitalism?

Laissez-faire, if you know any basic French, simply means "allow to do". Rather than get into the historical movement as it pertained to England, I simply meant it in that sense - ie. as opposed to protectionism and heavy government regulation that had preceded the industrial revolution. Here's what wikipedia says:

Quote:
In economics, laissez-faire is an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies. The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let [them] do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone." A laissez-faire state and completely free market has never existed, though the degree of government regulation varies considerably.[1][2].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

And laissez-faire most certainly DID lead to the industrial revolution. I can't really be bothered to get into it with you and explain it (since it's frankly something most people should know from like their first year of high school)... But feel free to look it up yourself. I will of course grant, however, that Britain was no free-market utopia during that time (but certainly to a greater degree than previously).

Quote:
And, while England did increase its wealth in the 19th century, how much of that was due to colonization and the subjecting (sp?) of colonized, non-free people from aroudn the world?

Separate issue. I am certainly not condoning colonialism.

Quote:
It was also a time of great inequality, appalling (sp?) living conditions and a lack of basic democratic freedoms.

It was a hell of a lot better than what preceded it. Let's not be so naive as to think the whole era was just a few dark pages from a Dicken's novel.

Quote:
After the establishment of a welfare system in England after World War II, it was said that the British people never had it so good. Think about that!

Britain is a shambles (much like many parts of the US). The welfare state nearly bankrupted the whole country. Think about that.

Quote:
At least, please, get your history at least "relatively" accurate.

Yeah, thanks for your advice. This coming from someone who was just calling the welfare state some kind of golden age Rolling Eyes

Quote:
There is a big difference between "socialism" and "communism." Communism failed in the Soviet Union. "Socialism" exists in varying degrees in every country on Earth. Laisse fare capitalism has never existed. We can only begin to guess what its effects might be.

Communism is just a kind of socialism (ie. the most extreme version). Socialism has been failing people in the West for a very long time. It is always bad, it is just a matter of degree. The parasite can survive longer depending on how strong the host. But as a stand alone system, it has been proven an utter, abysmal failure. Many times.

Laissez-faire capitalism, on the other hand, may not ever have existed purely (devoid of all government interference), but we most do know generally that the less involved the government is, the more prosperous the economy will be. This has been shown quite clearly in history, especially in the US.

We have certainly seen the deleterious effects of government regulation in the US over the years. Just look at the financial crises (cause by government), the high unemployment (caused by government), the inflation (caused by government), and the corporate superstructure of cartels and too-big-to-fails that has taken over (caused by government).

Quote:
Please watch your blanket statements. You are misleading people.

I'm not misleading anyone, and I will not "watch" what I say. If you disagree, then you're free to post any rebuttal you want.


Last edited by visitorq on Fri May 11, 2012 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 3 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International