Election 2012

[kirksnosehair]

Making all kinds of generalizations seems to be the way to go around here.

Delegates:

Romney: 562
Santorum: 249
Gingrich: 137
Paul: 71

Romney has 8 times the delegates that Ron Paul has.  Libertarianism is DOA in American Politics, my friend.  That may be a generalization, but it's also a fact.

[kirksnosehair]

Yep, that's gonna happen right around the same time a giraffe crawls out of my ass and plays "Eruption" on a banjo while whistling Dixie in 7/8

Keep in mind that I don't mean to pry, and I'm only saying this because I care:  Dude, you seriously need to think about changing your diet.

I should eat more foods that whistle in 4/4 

[jsem]

Libertarianism is DOA in American Politics, my friend.  That may be a generalization, but it's also a fact.

Yup. Political action rarely is a means to change the nature of government itself. Libertarians instead need to start practicing the NAP in their personal lives - then you'll see a change of philosophy occurring from the bottom up. Maybe then it'll be possible to also open people's eyes to the violence inherit in the state.

[kirksnosehair]

Well, who is to say what changes can happen over a few generations?  If enough people support it, almost anything can happen.  But I do think if Libertarianism is to become more mainstream, it must jettison some of the perceived philosophical baggage it carries so that it can appeal to a wider demographic.

[jsem]

The actual moral argument is used way too rarely imo. When you're arguing economics, or even the socialist calculation problem, you're just going to end up going back to historical references where there are economic historians who have studied the same thing over a period of time and come up with different conclusions. It becomes an interpretation of data.

[rumborak]

I don't know how well Paul represented the Libertarian mindset, but if he did, I think you can say goodbye to a Libertarian becoming POTUS for a long time. Reality is, not a lot of people see inflation as a giant evil, nor do they want to stand by with crossed arms when it comes to suffering of other people, both domestic and foreign (which RP has called for ceasing both).
Frankly, even though RP supporters now think they've truly "tapped into" that latent Libertarianism of the public, I think reality is that RP is just another non-Romney, and had there been a good GOP candidate, RP would have been at his usual 5%.

rumborak

[jsem]

Ron Paul just doesn't want go around with a gun acquiring that money to help others.

I mean, is it right for you to go around with a gun, door to door, and asking for people's money to help the starving poor? If it's not, why is right to delegate that right to government?

[Scheavo]

Making all kinds of generalizations seems to be the way to go around here.

Delegates:

Romney: 562
Santorum: 249
Gingrich: 137
Paul: 71

Romney has 8 times the delegates that Ron Paul has.  Libertarianism is DOA in American Politics, my friend.  That may be a generalization, but it's also a fact.

It's DOA in Republican Politics, that's for sure.

Also, Romney may have more than all the other candidates, but will he have 1044 (or whatever) to get the nomination?

I'm also not sure whose delegate count to use. There's a lot of disputes and issues going on with delegates this year, and it's really showing major flaws with the nomination process.

[Super Dude]

Ron Paul just doesn't want go around with a gun acquiring that money to help others.

I mean, is it right for you to go around with a gun, door to door, and asking for people's money to help the starving poor? If it's not, why is right to delegate that right to government?

I've always hated that stock scenario. Yes, taxes are compulsory, but it's not like you face a death threat by not handing them over. And also, ffs, it's not like you're really suffering for forking over some small amount of money if you live here in America and can complain about it on a message board. I would understand libertarianism in a place like a third world country with a totalitarian dictator, but here...nah.

[rumborak]

Inb4 the standard "I didn't sign no stinkin' social contract".

rumborak

[rumborak]

Btw, interesting exercise to look at the graphs on Google Trends of the candidate names.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

OK, here's something I don't get about conservative and libertarian discourse lately, particularly on this forum. Why is it that conservatives and libertarians will say that we have to stop getting involved in wars, that the military-industrial complex is one of the main sources of all our foreign policy and economic woes, that we should become more isolationist, etc., and then in the same breath say that we should cut a slew of governmental departments but raise the military budget, because there be dragons out there?

[rumborak]

I think those are two different sets of people.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I was using it collectively, but I have seen it embodied collectively in individuals of both political persuasions.

[Scheavo]

It's Mitt Romney's platform. He's going to cap, balance and cut the budget, but he's also going to increase our military presence, and give out huge tax break.

Of course, he's an etch-a-sketch.

[rumborak]

That was a pretty bad wording I have to say. Playing right into the fears of the base.

rumborak

[jsem]

It's Mitt Romney's platform. He's going to cap, balance and cut the budget, but he's also going to increase our military presence, and give out huge tax break.

Of course, he's an etch-a-sketch.

Uhm. He hasn't said anything about reigning in the military industrial complex afaik.

[antigoon]

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor!

[rumborak]

This is awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bxch-yi14BE

[ZBomber]

 

[Scheavo]

It's Mitt Romney's platform. He's going to cap, balance and cut the budget, but he's also going to increase our military presence, and give out huge tax break.

Of course, he's an etch-a-sketch.

Uhm. He hasn't said anything about reigning in the military industrial complex afaik.

....

 

[jsem]

What am I missing here...

[rumborak]

You guys are talking past each other.

rumborak

[TL]

So a few days ago, I mentioned that I would be running a DTF electoral map projection after a nominee was selected for the Republicans.
Just to save time, I've projected states that are, beyond any reasonable doubt, sure things come election day. I've omitted states where there's even the slightest bit of doubt from this projection. Many of the non-called states will almost certainly go one way or the other, but I'm leaving those ones up for debate here when the time comes. The ones I've called are ones where, no matter who's selected, they'll go the way I'm projecting.

I just wanted to see if anyone here objected to any of these projections.
I'm using that backwards color scheme one again because I like their site. Red is Obama, Blue is Republican (probably Romney), grey is uncalled. Let me know if any of you disagree with any of the called states on this map;


Obama: California, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington

Republican (probably Romney): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

Again, every state not called will be brought up for debate here. I'm just submitting some 'sure things' to save time later.

[bosk1]

Well, there are smart people in California, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, so those should not automatically go to Obama.

[Super Dude]

Smart people indeed. :

[rumborak]

Bosk, on a serious note though: Given the Republican candidates, is any of them really better than Obama? I mean, Romney is like the Wonderbread of the Republicans. Yes it's officially bread, but nobody likes it, and you only eat it because the other stuff is inedible.

Even though I have this nagging suspicion that you actually consider Santorum a viable candidate.


rumborak

[bosk1]

I don't disagree with you, but I would consider Obama the "inedible stuff." 

As far as Santorum, I was just more interested in the dynamic of him running against Romney than anything.  I don't think he is the answer.  There are things I really admire about him, but there are other things that are a turnoff and make me think he is not the right guy at all.  So, on balance, I think I have to favor Romney (although if, against all odds and common sense, Santorum won the nomination and it were Santorum vs. Obama, I would vote Santorum in a heartbeat).  Santorum just seems to have too many issues that are difficult to overlook.  But I have to admit, I do not follow the races all that closely at this stage, so I can't give as many specifics as I would like to to be able to give a detailed rundown on what I like and dislike about him.  Suffice it to say, I don't think he's the right guy.

All in all, I'm pretty disgusted with American politics.  None of the candidates on either side of the aisle ever seem to be good choices, and that goes for the Leg. branch as much as the Exec.

[Scheavo]

What am I missing here...

I'm saying the same thing.

[kirksnosehair]

All in all, I'm pretty disgusted with American politics.  None of the candidates on either side of the aisle ever seem to be good choices, and that goes for the Leg. branch as much as the Exec.

We may be on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but we're in 100% congruity here. 

[bosk1]

All in all, I'm pretty disgusted with American politics.  None of the candidates on either side of the aisle ever seem to be good choices, and that goes for the Leg. branch as much as the Exec.

We may be on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but we're in 100% congruity here. 

I can almost guarantee that if Americans felt like the politicians we elect weren't lying to us, weren't corrupt, and listened to the concerns of the every-day citizen, a lot more of us on either side of the aisle wouldn't mind so much having someone in office who might be more on the opposite side.

[antigoon]

I think that is what attracted a lot of non-libertarians to Ron Paul.

[gmillerdrake]

All in all, I'm pretty disgusted with American politics.  None of the candidates on either side of the aisle ever seem to be good choices, and that goes for the Leg. branch as much as the Exec.

We may be on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but we're in 100% congruity here. 

No matter where (we) stand.....democrat, republican, right, left, conservative, liberal......whatever label that would be placed upon us due to our political leanings......I'd be willing to bet that the majority of us are disgusted with US politics and what it has evolved into. I'd say the career politicians should be ashamed of themselves but that would imply they actually give a crap about the 'real' people in this country.

[snapple]

Quit posting the red as the democrats and the blue as republican. That's just asinine.

[Scheavo]

Obama: California, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington

Republican (probably Romney): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

Again, every state not called will be brought up for debate here. I'm just submitting some 'sure things' to save time later.

I know Mass is most likely going to be the Republican nominees home state, but I find it hard to believe they would vote Republican.