Conservatives, Explain Ron Paul's Loss to Me

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Since this is the only place where I can find an actual group of conservatives . . .

Have you tried Free Republic?

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

first of all, i think you might want to look up "comprehensive".

i think you're wrong but i don't mind engaging on some discussion on stuff. but all you're doing is asserting, you're not explaining anything. it's like you're only giving me the opening sentence, and the rest of the paragraph is missing.

for the sake of simplicity, let's go point by point. for shits n giggles we'll start with the "education system", as you put it. first, how are you defining that system, what does it encompass? next, what's wrong with it, exactly? show me some charts, give me some stats, some history of where it was, where it is, where it seems to be going. simply saying "it's fucked, man!" doesn't really make for a good dialogue, yeah?

Here are some links to check out.

This one has a pretty cool chart.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

This is a general over all ranking.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html

And here is the meat of our discussion in a nice info graphic format, spending vs performance.

http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/

If you have the time there is this 40 min youtube vid that goes even more in depth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

There is also a documentary on instant play (netflix) called "The Cartel" and it's all about how city, state and federal funding for education does not end up going to education but other garbage.

I genuinely don't think there is much dispute that in general the education of children in the US has been on a steady decline for years, beyond the teachers unions that is.

I'm NOT against education, however considering other countries are doing it better for less, I think it's pretty safe to assume that it is NOT the funding. But there is a lot that plays into that. Parents, culture, our system structure in general etc. The only thing the gov. can control however is the system structure. They can try all they want but they really can't legislate parenting and culture right?

So...that's why I think this...

"In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama promised even more spending on education and for his Race to the Top initiative – a stimulus program that will be carried forward as the Obama Administration’s version of his predecessor’s “No Child Left Behind” Act – as a way to “win the future.” "

Is complete and utter bull fuckin' shit. It's not the lack of funding. I live right down the road from an 18 million dollar HS that is absolutely palatial, football stadium, gym, labs...the works. It's 10 times nicer than the school I went to. Here is the clincher, I live in the sticks...they don't have enough students (tax base) to keep the lights on in that Taj mahal of a High School. And every year they bitch about not having enough money for education....that is why the kids come out of HS half illiterate and in need of at least one or two semesters of remedial math at the CC to even think about going to a university right? Not enough funding.... I call BS.

The kids don't get the money...contractors and admin do, I think that's criminal as hell.

I also think the "no child left behind" and any other "everyone get's a gold star and a HS diploma!!" programs are horrible. Not everyone is meant for academia, or destined to become an astronaut/brain surgeon and I think those programs are a disservice to those that are capable of being brain surgeons as well as those who should be nurtured in a vocational setting.

A lot of socialist nations in the EU have already fixed the money problems with a voucher system, attaching the money to the kid, not the building. This also makes the educators become competitive to get more kids to bring their money to their school....they have to EARN their paycheck by being the best educators, not by teaching a standardized test and handing out gold stars. We could simply just copy and implement a system like theirs.

In the end they are doing it better, for less. Why do we insist on pouring more money into a broken system instead of evaluating and changing policies that are dragging it down? We are the United States of America...we should be doing it better, cleaner and cheaper than the other guys.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Real simple: Alleged Racist background, left wing foreign policy, wacko perceptions, lack of vitality, and no knowledge of geopolitics or understanding of the benefits of strategic proximity.

And Romney does??

At least Paul has an understanding of freedom and personal responsibility/accountability. He also has a plan to at least attempt to get a grip on our spending problem....unlike Cpt. Obamacare...I mean Romney care...wait...which one are we talking about I can't tell the diff

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

http://www.peaceproject.com/sites/default/files/LS15_SureYouCanTrustTheGovernment.jpg

They would NEVER lie to the people....

Good one.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And Romney does??

At least Paul has an understanding of freedom and personal responsibility/accountability. He also has a plan to at least attempt to get a grip on our spending problem....unlike Cpt. Obamacare...I mean Romney care...wait...which one are we talking about I can't tell the diff

His so-called "left-wing foreign policy" was the foreign policy of the Old Right before the Eisenhowers and neo-cons took over.

As for the "racist" stuff....well, sadly, he didn't do a good enough job earlier of weeding out the bigots. Lesson learned.

The rest of the objections are a mix of subjectivity, conventional wisdom (which is bullshit as always), and other prejudices.

But I think that Obama's campaign would have had a lot less ammo to send Ron Paul's way than Mitt Romney's. Controversial, yes, but honest, intelligent, and dynamic. And after all of the neo-con, chicken-hawk wars, the public might be ready for a candidate who favors the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. The one we should never have abandoned in 1917.

Not to mention the war on drugs. Support for that is fading fast.

The trouble is that many on the Right would have trouble voting for Ron Paul, because of his mix of Libertarian and paleo-conservative ideas. Neo-cons like those at National Review run the Party and they would rather lose the general election than allow Ron Paul to be President. So it wasn't going to happen. You can't win as a Republican if huge numbers of Republicans won't vote for you.

Either result would have screwed the GOP. They're fucked this election, when ironically the weak economy should have given them the keys to DC.

Not that it matters. As I said before, Obama will wish that he'd lost by the time the Republic finishes collapsing. He will be the last President of the United States.

And from the ashes.....who knows?

 

[unregistered]

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The real lesson of World War Two was that if we had stayed out of World War One, it wouldn't have happened at all.

In any case, I have a great deal of respect for the soldiers. And the Second World War was probably inevitable, sadly, given the circumstances. But it didn't have to happen, if only that prick Wilson had kept his word and minded his own business in 1917. Note that there was never any mention of the British blockade of Germany in his sanctimonious call to arms.

World War Two was the exception. Without it, the Cold War could have been avoided, too. And much of our Cold War foreign policy with it. We could have followed the Monroe Doctrine, which demanded our non-intervention as well as that of Europe. But Wilson had his own vision and we followed it into bankruptcy and ruin. Bush just took that vision further than most.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

I'll just say this. Our present foreign policy came about as a result of lessons learned in the reality of WWII. The "strategic proximity" we enjoy today, and which Paul would have compromised, was paid for in the blood of tens of thousands of American sons.

I get that, I really do....but we now have the power to wipe any country we want off the face of the planet repeatedly at the push of a button. That hard line security is in place, and we could stand to shake a good chunk of the bases that are nothing more than run down dilapidated money pits that just exist and soak up money we don't have to spend.

As for the foreign policy...fuck them, we have handed out TRILLIONS over the years and they just keep coming back with their hands out. The international welfare has got to GTFO. We need to help ourselves before we go all "save-a-hoe" /world police on other nations...

His so-called "left-wing foreign policy" was the foreign policy of the Old Right before the Eisenhowers and neo-cons took over.

As for the "racist" stuff....well, sadly, he didn't do a good enough job earlier of weeding out the bigots. Lesson learned.

The rest of the objections are a mix of subjectivity, conventional wisdom (which is bullshit as always), and other prejudices.

But I think that Obama's campaign would have had a lot less ammo to send Ron Paul's way than Mitt Romney's. Controversial, yes, but honest, intelligent, and dynamic. And after all of the neo-con, chicken-hawk wars, the public might be ready for a candidate who favors the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. The one we should never have abandoned in 1917.

Not to mention the war on drugs. Support for that is fading fast.

The trouble is that many on the Right would have trouble voting for Ron Paul, because of his mix of Libertarian and paleo-conservative ideas. Neo-cons like those at National Review run the Party and they would rather lose the general election than allow Ron Paul to be President. So it wasn't going to happen. You can't win as a Republican if huge numbers of Republicans won't vote for you.

Either result would have screwed the GOP. They're fucked this election, when ironically the weak economy should have given them the keys to DC.

Not that it matters. As I said before, Obama will wish that he'd lost by the time the Republic finishes collapsing. He will be the last President of the United States.

And from the ashes.....who knows?

OMG that would just be epic if Obama went down as the POTUS that crashed the US (which imo it's already fucked we just haven't hit the bottom yet)...I would laugh my ass off. He's got my vote just for yuks.

The real lesson of World War Two was that if we had stayed out of World War One, it wouldn't have happened at all.

In any case, I have a great deal of respect for the soldiers. And the Second World War was probably inevitable, sadly, given the circumstances. But it didn't have to happen, if only that prick Wilson had kept his word and minded his own business in 1917. Note that there was never any mention of the British blockade of Germany in his sanctimonious call to arms.

World War Two was the exception. Without it, the Cold War could have been avoided, too. And much of our Cold War foreign policy with it. We could have followed the Monroe Doctrine, which demanded our non-intervention as well as that of Europe. But Wilson had his own vision and we followed it into bankruptcy and ruin. Bush just took that vision further than most.

WWII came with it's perks though....technology and the space race it spawned along with the security of MAD. With out it we would not be anywhere nearly as technologically advanced as we are now, nor would we have near the understanding of our natural world/universe.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I get that, I really do....but we now have the power to wipe any country we want off the face of the planet repeatedly at the push of a button. That hard line security is in place, and we could stand to shake a good chunk of the bases that are nothing more than run down dilapidated money pits that just exist and soak up money we don't have to spend.

As for the foreign policy...fuck them, we have handed out TRILLIONS over the years and they just keep coming back with their hands out. The international welfare has got to GTFO. We need to help ourselves before we go all "save-a-hoe" /world police on other nations...





OMG that would just be epic if Obama went down as the POTUS that crashed the US (which imo it's already fucked we just haven't hit the bottom yet)...I would laugh my ass off. He's got my vote just for yuks.

Well, it will be tragic for millions, so I'm not laughing. I prefer a softer, transitional end to the State. But whatever will be, will be. C'est la vie. and all that.

And he will go down as the last POTUS. The end is much sooner than people realize. The present spending is unsustainable and it's only a matter of months now before the creditors realize that we can never pay them back in a thousand lifetimes. Then the shit is gonna hit the fan.

And not just for the Feds....without Federal hand-outs, people won't be so generous about muny bonds and then cops won't be on the beat anymore. Trash collectors will stop collecting trash, firemen won't put out fires, and I think that you can get the picture. Nasty business, the sudden, final collapse of any empire. Won't be any prettier for us than it was for the Romans or the Soviets.

That's the lesson of history that we can never escape. One that Huntsman, to his credit, indicated that he understood during the debate and Santorum proved that he didn't realize. The money just isn't there. We're borrowing from foreign lenders (and American ones...U.S. bonds, anyone?) and the piper will want to be paid soon.

And when we go down, we'll take a lot of countries with us. The Canucks might make it, but they might not, too. Any country dependent on foreign aid is fucked. And Israel will have no choice but to fight for its survival. Literally.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I get that, I really do....but we now have the power to wipe any country we want off the face of the planet repeatedly at the push of a button. That hard line security is in place, and we could stand to shake a good chunk of the bases that are nothing more than run down dilapidated money pits that just exist and soak up money we don't have to spend.

As for the foreign policy...fuck them, we have handed out TRILLIONS over the years and they just keep coming back with their hands out. The international welfare has got to GTFO. We need to help ourselves before we go all "save-a-hoe" /world police on other nations...





OMG that would just be epic if Obama went down as the POTUS that crashed the US (which imo it's already fucked we just haven't hit the bottom yet)...I would laugh my ass off. He's got my vote just for yuks.




WWII came with it's perks though....technology and the space race it spawned along with the security of MAD. With out it we would not be anywhere nearly as technologically advanced as we are now, nor would we have near the understanding of our natural world/universe.

Well, not at the same rate, that's true. We looted much from the Nazis. Then again, those asshats had it coming.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Well, it will be tragic for millions, so I'm not laughing. I prefer a softer, transitional end to the State. But whatever will be, will be. C'est la vie. and all that.

And he will go down as the last POTUS. The end is much sooner than people realize. The present spending is unsustainable and it's only a matter of months now before the creditors realize that we can never pay them back in a thousand lifetimes. Then the shit is gonna hit the fan.

And not for the Feds....without Federal hand-outs, people won't be so generous about muny bonds and then cops won't be on the beat anymore. Trash collectors will stop collecting trash, firemen won't put out fires, and I think that you can get the picture. Nasty business, the sudden, final collapse of any empire. Won't be any prettier for us than it was for the Romans or the Soviets.

That's the lesson of history that we can never escape. One that Huntsman, to his credit, indicated that he understood during the debate and Santorum proved that he didn't realize. The money just isn't there. We're borrowing from foreign lenders (and American ones...U.S. bonds, anyone?) and the piper will want to be paid soon.

And when we go down, we'll take a lot of countries with us. The Canucks might make it, but they might not, too. Any country dependent on foreign aid is fucked. And Israel will have no choice but to fight for its survival. Literally.

Meh I hope it blows the fuck up like god damn Z day or the second coming of christ. Shake some stupid before things settle down eh? I'll always have currency b/c I grow it, I'm a survivalist and I have a knack for avoiding/getting out of tight spots. I would be laughing when suddenly years of reality TV, and collecting worthless material shit finally fucks everyone in the ass.

Well, not at the same rate, that's true. We looted much from the Nazis. Then again, those asshats had it coming.

Yea...I'm sure we would have figured it out eventually but deff not nearly as fast. Nazis had it coming..we gained a grip of medical info from them and Unit 731 (japan) as well. We wouldn't know half of what we know now if it weren't for their sadistic medical experiments.

 

[pete]

Here are some links to check out.

This one has a pretty cool chart.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

This is a general over all ranking.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html

And here is the meat of our discussion in a nice info graphic format, spending vs performance.

http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/

If you have the time there is this 40 min youtube vid that goes even more in depth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

There is also a documentary on instant play (netflix) called "The Cartel" and it's all about how city, state and federal funding for education does not end up going to education but other garbage.

I genuinely don't think there is much dispute that in general the education of children in the US has been on a steady decline for years, beyond the teachers unions that is.

I'm NOT against education, however considering other countries are doing it better for less, I think it's pretty safe to assume that it is NOT the funding. But there is a lot that plays into that. Parents, culture, our system structure in general etc. The only thing the gov. can control however is the system structure. They can try all they want but they really can't legislate parenting and culture right?

So...that's why I think this...

"In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama promised even more spending on education and for his Race to the Top initiative – a stimulus program that will be carried forward as the Obama Administration’s version of his predecessor’s “No Child Left Behind” Act – as a way to “win the future.” "

Is complete and utter bull fuckin' shit. It's not the lack of funding. I live right down the road from an 18 million dollar HS that is absolutely palatial, football stadium, gym, labs...the works. It's 10 times nicer than the school I went to. Here is the clincher, I live in the sticks...they don't have enough students (tax base) to keep the lights on in that Taj mahal of a High School. And every year they bitch about not having enough money for education....that is why the kids come out of HS half illiterate and in need of at least one or two semesters of remedial math at the CC to even think about going to a university right? Not enough funding.... I call BS.

The kids don't get the money...contractors and admin do, I think that's criminal as hell.

In the end they are doing it better, for less. Why do we insist on pouring more money into a broken system instead of evaluating and changing policies that are dragging it down? We are the United States of America...we should be doing it better, cleaner and cheaper than the other guys.

much better, now we have stuff that's debatable.

first off, your links seem to the US pretty much is sucking cock when it comes to science and math. but hey it looks like we have a 99% literacy rate, hard to bitch about that.

anyway yeah we spend a lot per kid, and it def looks like other countries are doing it better for less. but now let's talk about the money. you say it goes to contractors and admin - can you be more specific? also, can you verify where the money goes, and how much goes there? remember there's 3 perspectvies: you're talking about straight-up funding from the federal gov't (dept of ed); there's money from the state-level depts of ed; and then you've got the 'extra' money, the bonuses that the fed gives to school systems based on performance criteria met.

I also think the "no child left behind" and any other "everyone get's a gold star and a HS diploma!!" programs are horrible. Not everyone is meant for academia, or destined to become an astronaut/brain surgeon and I think those programs are a disservice to those that are capable of being brain surgeons as well as those who should be nurtured in a vocational setting.

can you lay out the parameters of bush's NCLB program, and obama's subsequent education program? honestly i don't really know what they entail, but i know they're performance-based on some levels. anyway, i i know those programs are similar but different... can you explain how they suck, specifically?

A lot of socialist nations in the EU have already fixed the money problems with a voucher system, attaching the money to the kid, not the building. This also makes the educators become competitive to get more kids to bring their money to their school....they have to EARN their paycheck by being the best educators, not by teaching a standardized test and handing out gold stars. We could simply just copy and implement a system like theirs.

how exactly are they attaching money to the kid? i don't follow you.
anyway, it's my understanding that programs that try to foster competitiveness among teachers hasn't worked with either republican or democratic administrations because the teachers unions oppose them, unilaterally. is that really the case? i haven't researched it.

but in general, the way america is different than europe and other countries with regards to many things is that, well, we're a lot different. america is huge, but it's also divided into states. so you've got a big overlord saying one thing, and smaller lords often contradicting them. and then the powerful teachers unions have a say.
maybe each state should come up with it's own system, and the fed should just pony up a set amount per kid? and then only step in when the state has demonstrated that it can't get its shit together?

i don't know. but my larger point was that it's easy to say "oh why don't we do healthcare like this country, or why don't we handle drugs like that country, or education like this country?" and the reason we don't is because (in my opinion) american politicians like to be stubborn and insist that we do things OUR way, because nobody is like us and we can solve our own problems.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

much better, now we have stuff that's debatable.

first off, your links seem to the US pretty much is sucking cock when it comes to science and math. but hey it looks like we have a 99% literacy rate, hard to bitch about that.

True but reading is only half the battle. We can't be competitive until we get our math and science squared away.

anyway yeah we spend a lot per kid, and it def looks like other countries are doing it better for less. but now let's talk about the money. you say it goes to contractors and admin - can you be more specific? also, can you verify where the money goes, and how much goes there? remember there's 3 perspectvies: you're talking about straight-up funding from the federal gov't (dept of ed); there's money from the state-level depts of ed; and then you've got the 'extra' money, the bonuses that the fed gives to school systems based on performance criteria met.

That is (as in the case of most corruption) a tangled web, a quagmire if you will of vanishing money. There are documentaries and such that scratch at the surface and they run 90-120 min. I can't give you a legit answer here on a forum as it would take me months of investigation and many pages to lay it out. Thankfully there are documentaries about where people have done this already. Like that doc I mentioned earlier called "The Cartel"...

But the bottom line is class rooms are not getting the cash, the teachers don't get paid squat, but contractors are making a killing putting up these megaplex schools and the admin (school board, superintendents etc.) rolling in the AMG 550 certainly aren't hurting either. Prob a kick back from the contractor they hired to build that 18million dollar HS but no one knows because the money vanishes and they "need more funding".

can you lay out the parameters of bush's NCLB program, and obama's subsequent education program? honestly i don't really know what they entail, but i know they're performance-based on some levels. anyway, i i know those programs are similar but different... can you explain how they suck, specifically?

Another huge document that is public info, google if you want the nitty gritty but it basically says schools only get funding if kids are passing a standardized test. So the schools started teaching their respective base line test's, not educating them for the sake of having a well educated individual ready to enter the work force or higher education....all they care about is that test so they can get the money. IMO it's criminal...a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

how exactly are they attaching money to the kid? i don't follow you.
anyway, it's my understanding that programs that try to foster competitiveness among teachers hasn't worked with either republican or democratic administrations because the teachers unions oppose them, unilaterally. is that really the case? i haven't researched it.

Attaching the money to the kid via vouchers. Kid get's the same as all the others...a little pice of paper each year, and when they go to the school they turn it in and the school get's it's funding per student. There is no limitation on what school you go to beyond the number of seats. Obviously the good schools grow and do better b/c people want their kids to go there and they fill all the seats, and the shitty ones fail. They have vocational schools/programs (someone has to be a plumber/electrician/mechanic/HVAC right?) which help turn the not so academic into productive members of society. As well as general schools, and advanced academia institutions ALL competing for those vouchers and filling the needs of those with them in various ways.

Of course the teachers unions oppose this idea, and they will deny that vouchers work to the end of the EARTH despite all the data thrown in their face. Why? Because it put's their paycheck in danger....they will have to compete like a mother fucker to keep their jobs and they don't like that idea.

Btw most teachers working in a voucher system make a pretty penny more than our average public school teachers....but it's far from a guaranteed paycheck also.

but in general, the way america is different than europe and other countries with regards to many things is that, well, we're a lot different. america is huge, but it's also divided into states. so you've got a big overlord saying one thing, and smaller lords often contradicting them. and then the powerful teachers unions have a say.

That is a whole diff bag of shit that reaches FAR beyond our education system but it does have it's effects it I agree.

maybe each state should come up with it's own system, and the fed should just pony up a set amount per kid? and then only step in when the state has demonstrated that it can't get its shit together?

Personally I think the fed just needs to GTFO and let the states handle it. If a state doesn't want to educate their kids...fine, they won't have many people living there for long now will they? They will will be FORCED to make a vested interest in their own people because no one else will. The people of the community will be in control of their own destiny.

But I could also see a federalized system where the state has no say in the matter working as well. Part of the state vs. fed issue is that the left foot often doesn't know what the right foot is doing and they end up stepping on their own dicks. We need to simplify our system one way or another and lose some bureaucratic BS.

i don't know. but my larger point was that it's easy to say "oh why don't we do healthcare like this country, or why don't we handle drugs like that country, or education like this country?" and the reason we don't is because (in my opinion) american politicians like to be stubborn and insist that we do things OUR way, because nobody is like us and we can solve our own problems.

That's just it...we are not solving any problems, we are just throwing cash at them and it has not worked one bit in the last 30-60 years depending on what policy you are discussing and it wont work because a new politician says it will. Time to get ballsy, do some innovative thinking and implement some REAL change, try something different. Because if we just keep throwing cash at the status quo we will crash and burn.

A lot of the problems are very similar to our health care if you just replace schools/unions with insurance/big pharma....corrupt and criminal as all fuck at the expense of the citizenry and to the benefit of an elite hand full.

Speaking of different (ADD moment) why the fuck is the US still using the standard measurement system? Why are we not metric? It's more accurate, easier to use and universal from other countries, science, military etc...the civilian population of the US are the only tards still using it.

What you don't understand is that those nuclear weapons you want to anchor your foreign policy on are basically useless. They are political weapons we don't have the will to use. We only have a theoretical ability to wipe somebody of the face of the Earth. Our foreign policy has to be based on realities like logistics, lines of communication, supply, and the ability to defend them.

Ok...I'll buy that...but even so we don't need a lot of these money pits to accomplish that goal. I.E. the dozens of eastern EU bases still standing guard to protect us from the soviet threat...I think considering the changing times we can shed some truly unnecessary weight, at the very least re apply it to somewhere more useful, like R&D of bad ass weapons. I'm pro military...it's one of the few things being discussed that is ACTUALLY in the constitution. But even still, you and I both know they can still get a superb job done even if they trimmed some fat off the budget.....and there is fat.

 

[Hubs_in_hose]

It is very easy to explain why Ron Paul doesn't win National Elections.

Look at it this way: Imagine Ron Paul and Barak Obama on the same stage in a debate.

It will not matter what either one of the men say because the average voter (if they are watching) will say "who is the bitter OLD guy with the President?"

Regardless your political leanings in the face to face match up Ron Paul makes Barak Obama look youthful, energetic, and presidential. Ron Paul just looks like a bitter old man.

People like to say that age doesn't matter for president. But I tell those people that they are wrong. John McCain's age was a huge point of consideration and he was in his late 60's in 2008. Ron Paul will be 77 by election day. The general voting populous will not vote for Ron Paul.

I wish RAND Paul were running. He could take the standard and I think would be great.

I will not vote for Obama. I want Gary Johnson to have a shot, but if his campaign gets totally marginalized then I will vote for Romney.

If ever there was an election where Libertarians or other "third party" candidates had a shot it was 2010 and this year. It is a shame that the only thing that Demo's and Repub's agree on is that they should be the only two options and anyone that says any different is shouted down by both sides.

If you want REAL election reform open the process to all the third parties and let them ALL have a say. We are not a Republican or Democrat country, there is a LOT of "other" out there.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'll just say this. Our present foreign policy came about as a result of lessons learned in the reality of WWII. The "strategic proximity" we enjoy today, and which Paul would have compromised, was paid for in the blood of tens of thousands of American sons.

What is this "strategic proximity"? Is that a term for having military bases around the globe?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I wish RAND Paul were running. He could take the standard and I think would be great.

I will not vote for Obama. I want Gary Johnson to have a shot, but if his campaign gets totally marginalized then I will vote for Romney.

Of course it will be marginalized, because, among the American people, Libertarianism is a marginal position. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in deep denial. See the 2011 version of the Pew Political Typology. The Pew Center has been doing it every few years since the '80s, and now, for the first time, there are enough "Libertarians" to rate their own category -- but, they only make up 9% of the public, 10% of registered voters. And these are almost all of them moderate libertarians, not the sort who would think of voting for Johnson or joining the LP -- the appeal of that kind of radicalism is narrower still. Just accept it.

If you want REAL election reform open the process to all the third parties and let them ALL have a say. We are not a Republican or Democrat country, there is a LOT of "other" out there.

Okay, once again, if you don't like the two-party duopoly, there are things you can do about it! Better things, I mean, than wasting your vote on a third-party candidate in any election under our present system.

The problem with our present system for electing Congresscritters or members of any multimember policymaking body, from any third-partisan's point of view, is that a first-past-the-post single-member-district system naturally forces a two-party system. Consider: Suppose, in your state's next election to the state legislature, 10% of the voters vote Libertarian (or substitute Green, or Socialist, or Constitution Party, whatever, same mechanics apply) -- how many Libertarians get elected? None, because there are not enough Libertarians in any one district to form a plurality (majority = 50%+; plurality = more votes than any other candidate gets -- which is all you need to win). No political party, therefore, can make it save by being a "big tent" party -- which leads to the confusion as to, e.g., just what the GOP stands for these days, when it includes libertarians and paleocons and neocons and theocons and bizcons and those factions don't always see eye-to-eye. That is why America has always had a two-party political system, except when it had a one-party system. There is no room for more than two.

If you don't like that, join FairVote and fight for proportional representation. Under a PR system (which most of the world's democracies use, in one form or another), if the Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get (more or less) 10% of the seats.

See also:

Instant-Runoff Voting: For filling a single seat, presidency, governorship, etc.; though it could also be used to elect legislators. The way it is now, if there are more than two candidates in the race, you have to pick just one -- which presents the "spoiler" problem -- in 2000, a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore and vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. With IRV, you get to rank-order the candidates by preference; if your first choice does not get a majority, your vote still counts to elect your second choice. E.g., you could have voted "1 -- Buchanan; 2 - Bush; 3 - Gore; 4 - Nader"; or, "1 - Nader; 2 - Gore; 3 - Bush; 4 - Buchanan"; or whatever order-of-preference seems best to you.

Electoral fusion: Simply, one candidate running as the nominee of more than one party (and, perhaps, on more than one ballot line). This strengthens a third party by putting it in a position to offer its endorsement to a major-party candidate (conditional, presumably, on the candidate adopting public positions somewhat closer to the third party's), which could make all the difference in close races. Fusion is now illegal in most states, however.

Electoral fusion was once widespread in the United States. In the late nineteenth century, however, as minor political parties such as the People's Party became increasingly successful in using fusion, state legislatures enacted bans against it. One Republican Minnesota state legislator was clear about what his party was trying to do: "We don't propose to allow the Democrats to make allies of the Populists, Prohibitionists, or any other party, and get up combination tickets against us. We can whip them single-handed, but don't intend to fight all creation."[3] The creation of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party made this particular tactical position obsolete. By 1907 the practice had been banned in 18 states; today, fusion as conventionally practiced remains legal in only eight states, namely:

Connecticut
Delaware
Idaho
Mississippi
New York
Oregon
South Carolina
Vermont

In several other states, notably New Hampshire, fusion is legal when primary elections are won by write-in candidates.

The cause of electoral fusion suffered a major setback in 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party that fusion is not a constitutionally protected civil right.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Okay, once again, if you don't like the two-party duopoly, there are things you can do about it! Better things, I mean, than wasting your vote on a third-party candidate in any election under our present system.

The problem with our present system for electing Congresscritters or members of any multimember policymaking body, from any third-partisan's point of view, is that a first-past-the-post single-member-district system naturally forces a two-party system. Consider: Suppose, in your state's next election to the state legislature, 10% of the voters vote Libertarian (or substitute Green, or Socialist, or Constitution Party, whatever, same mechanics apply) -- how many Libertarians get elected? None, because there are not enough Libertarians in any one district to form a plurality (majority = 50%+; plurality = more votes than any other candidate gets -- which is all you need to win). No political party, therefore, can make it save by being a "big tent" party -- which leads to the confusion as to, e.g., just what the GOP stands for these days, when it includes libertarians and paleocons and neocons and theocons and bizcons and those factions don't always see eye-to-eye. That is why America has always had a two-party political system, except when it had a one-party system. There is no room for more than two.

If you don't like that, join FairVote and fight for proportional representation. Under a PR system (which most of the world's democracies use, in one form or another), if the Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get (more or less) 10% of the seats.

See also:

Instant-Runoff Voting: For filling a single seat, presidency, governorship, etc.; though it could also be used to elect legislators. The way it is now, if there are more than two candidates in the race, you have to pick just one -- which presents the "spoiler" problem -- in 2000, a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore and vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. With IRV, you get to rank-order the candidates by preference; if your first choice does not get a majority, your vote still counts to elect your second choice. E.g., you could have voted "1 -- Buchanan; 2 - Bush; 3 - Gore; 4 - Nader"; or, "1 - Nader; 2 - Gore; 3 - Bush; 4 - Buchanan"; or whatever order-of-preference seems best to you.

Electoral fusion: Simply, one candidate running as the nominee of more than one party (and, perhaps, on more than one ballot line). This strengthens a third party by putting it in a position to offer its endorsement to a major-party candidate (conditional, presumably, on the candidate adopting public positions somewhat closer to the third party's), which could make all the difference in close races. Fusion is now illegal in most states, however.

The current big money ----> public office holder/legislator will never allow any of that to happen. It would take an ENORMOUS public outcry to over ride the power of cash.

It's cool though....the best reform is a forced one. They need to crash the country....plain and simple before any of this will change. Things like term limits, getting lobbyist out of DC/state/local legislatures, and true voting/political process reform won't happen until it all comes falling down and we are forced to re construct it. And until those real reforms happen we can bitch about all the other crap all we want....nothing will change.

 

[Sean Renaud]

^^^ Please stop posting. You are a danger to reality itself.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The current big money ----> public office holder/legislator will never allow any of that to happen. It would take an ENORMOUS public outcry to over ride the power of cash.

It's cool though....the best reform is a forced one. They need to crash the country....plain and simple before any of this will change. Things like term limits, getting lobbyist out of DC/state/local legislatures, and true voting/political process reform won't happen until it all comes falling down and we are forced to re construct it. And until those real reforms happen we can bitch about all the other crap all we want....nothing will change.

Sounds like you're talking about a Cloward-Piven strategy.

 

[MechaBlade]

AGAIN

Do a google search for news items
Mitt Romney 44.4 Million items
Ron Paul 108 thousand.

When I use quotes I get 18 million and 9 million respectively.

Paul's isolationist foreign policy, which I like in THEORY, is the primary cause if I had to guess.

I can see dems and pubs rallying behind that.

google Ron Pauls crazy quotes or Ron Pauls crazy positions and you'll know why he never stood a chance.

Holy shit, this explains it. Ron Paul is a truther who wants to legalize heroin. (http://townhall.com/columnists/john...an_never_be_president_in_12_quotes/page/full/)

 

[MechaBlade]

I have nothing to contribute...

Just wanted to say, Hey Mecha! Glad to see you're still around.

Holy shit, 1hf. Nice to see you, too!

....

*fap fap fap... swwwerve*

 

[MechaBlade]

Real simple: Alleged Racist background, left wing foreign policy, wacko perceptions, lack of vitality, and no knowledge of geopolitics or understanding of the benefits of strategic proximity.

I never thought of his anti-war stance as "left wing" but I guess it could be seen that way.

It will not matter what either one of the men say because the average voter (if they are watching) will say "who is the bitter OLD guy with the President?"

McCain came pretty close to beating Obama.

I agree that there should be more two parties, though.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I agree that there should be more two parties, though.

There won't be until we change the electoral system. Our present system forces everyone who seriously wants to make a difference to huddle under one of no more than two big tents.