Mainstream Media: "There Are Still THREE Republicans In This Race"
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Uh.
No conspiracy here, right folks?
WTF.
CNN and FOX are repeatedly broadcasting that there are THREE Republicans left running:
Romney
McCain
HUCKABEE
WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO GOT THREE TIMES MORE VOTES THAN HUCKABEE IN YESTERDAYS MAINE CAUCAUS !?!
WTF WTF WTF
And why would Rupert Murdoch exclude Ron Paul from his Wallstreet Journal "Republican Q4 Fundraising Totals" graph? Gee i don't fucking know. MAYBE BECAUSE RON PAUL GOT MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM!??!
I don't know who makes me more sick.
Them, or those of you who can't even fucking see it.
:(
No conspiracy here, right folks?
WTF.
CNN and FOX are repeatedly broadcasting that there are THREE Republicans left running:
Romney
McCain
HUCKABEE
WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO GOT THREE TIMES MORE VOTES THAN HUCKABEE IN YESTERDAYS MAINE CAUCAUS !?!
WTF WTF WTF
And why would Rupert Murdoch exclude Ron Paul from his Wallstreet Journal "Republican Q4 Fundraising Totals" graph? Gee i don't fucking know. MAYBE BECAUSE RON PAUL GOT MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM!??!
I don't know who makes me more sick.
Them, or those of you who can't even fucking see it.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Well this board is rapidly teaching me that there is a divide in the electorate ...
there are those that can't see
and those that just don't care.
i don't mean the apathetic ones whose condition has aroused out of years of disenfranchisement.
i mean the ones who think everything is somehow hunky-dory, and when they see this happening they think its just some innocent corporate gimmick. Or they are genuinely unconcerned about the destruction of the constitution and personal rights. They don't get this way intentionaly, i think they are actualy so ignorant they aren't really even sure what they are saying.
But i have been in so many "discussions" on this board where the person responding to my argument basicaly tells me that i'm an idiot for caring about the constitution, or for being concerned with the loss of our soverign rights. Or to even get all stupid-philosophic (by the way, i think philosophy is for the birds, by and large, be pragmatic about life folks, don't spend it on the couch with a pipe analysing it to your own satisfaction, pfft) about it, telling me ... "huh huh ... actualy, huh ... you don't have any natural rights." Well fuck off with that mess. If there is anything real and of worth in this world that i will fight tooth and nail for ... it is that you and I as people fundamentaly have a natural right to be free, and to determin the course of our own destiny so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others.
People who can't even ackowledge something that inherent in the human experience, imho, shouldn't even bother with philosophy. They are so lost in their own ability to think, that they have lost sight of real truth ... they take the study as little more than just some silly semantic game to be played for the delight of their own reason.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well.
There is the medias "right to tell lies", and then there is the right of the public to have an honest election.
You can not deny that the media in many ways IS the election. They get the official results spoon fed to them, THEY dissemenate it at their will, and they host all the debates, and all political discussion of any mass importance\reach ...
at the point where your private company is allowed to RUN the process, that is where i think some form of legal recourse comes.
I'm not saying have a regulatory agency, heavens no. No more corrupt owned beauracracy. I'm talking about HOLD THEM LIABLE!
If these fuckers are given the PRIVELAGE of being THE ones who get the results and hold the debates, and shape the public perception of who won and who did not win ... at THAT point, they need to be on the hook TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for damages if they are manipulating democracy.
Of course this is all a fairy tale dream, cause the entire fabric of our legal system and media is basicaly owned by "them", and they won't give us the verdict we want, and they won't give us the publicity we need. All though at the local trial level, jurors sure seem to be waking up. Once you sit them down in the courtroom and tell them up is not down and down is not up, they seem to vote it rigth. The fact that we have had 2 accquitals and 1 hung jury in the last 4 months over tax "evasion" is proof of that. The people know what fish smells like, and when they catch a whiff, you can't just say "its roses and waffles".
Yup.
Its gonna be a long fight from the grassroots, straight to the halls of congress. And i smell it coming.
And i'm not sure why you are saying what reads like you don't think it is of worth to inform the people that their media is an agent of enorrmous corruption that gets its agenda straight from the top, and is used to shape them in to moronic button pushers that will vote ONLY for the 2 or 3 candidates that THEY put in the race.
These people own 99% of the horses in all the races in town, and it sounds like your saying i'm a fool for trying to wise people to that?
Anyhow.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ugh.
You want to tax the internet?
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
And Maine got Paul exactly 0 delegates, despite a 19%. Which I think is fucked up, but is how the game is played in many primaries, particularly on the rep side.
Huckabee has a lot more delegates than Paul so far. So this is a very minor conspiracy if any...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Those are national delegates, which in most cases, have yet to be elected.
And in states like Maine and Nevada, it is actualy Ron Paul who will probably end up getting at least half of them.
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
In any case, Paul doesn't get fair treatment, because he's a fringe candidate, which never get any fair press in your media, and which the system is almost designed to keep out of any influence. And in any case, if the conspiracy is not mentioning him as the also-ran third placed guy, it is a pretty minor conspiracy I'd say. It's pretty clear for all that it's between McCain and Romney now, and they chose to highlight Huckabee over Paul. (Which if what you say is correct they may be more tied)
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich were "fringe" candidates, buddy. People that pull in <1% of the vote.
And not to deride them, because some of their positions are of utmost virtue, but their support truly was very confined.
Ron Paul is consistently pulling 10-20%, and he is winning\fighting 2nd for multiple caucauses. Just because you find the system convoluted (when really what it does is insulate the process from direct decision by idiots, and puts in the hand of another class of the electorate that is actualy motivated and informed about politics enough to get directly envolved, by putting their time and travel where their mouth is) ... just because you don't get the rules of the game, doesn't mean Ron Paul isn't doing well in it. HE IS. And it is DESPITE THE SYSTEM!
You seem to want to marginalize anything you don't understand, and that is just a defense mechanism.
If you don't understand it, it must not be right, huh?
The media and the process is controlled (as much as control is truly possible in a quickly dying yet still screaming & kicking republic) by the monied elite. Maybe overthere in Norway you can't see it yet. But here in America it is glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain (which unfortunately is about 15% of the public).
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What you say is exactly what I mean by how democratic is that? (And I cant help but wondering how fair you would have thought that system had it been a disadvantage for Paul...) Elite rule, you're all for that then? I had the impression that is precisely the problem you have with the US government. Or is it just the wrong elite that rules? What happened to one man, one vote?
And I'm sure Paul is doing good relatively speaking, and his supporters are playing the game and whatnot. That does not change the fact that he is at best 3rd a long distance behind the two front runners total. Even if he does pull 10-20% in a couple of states. (notably the ones romney get over half in so far) That is not deriding, just stating fact. His consistent national prognosis hovers around 5%. You consistently overstate your case when talking about Paul.
Again, I am not marginalizing, your system are. I am just reality-checking you a bit.
America has always been subject to the monied elite, since you havent had any other elites. But there are few other places where money so glaringly obvious run politics as over by you. That said, I have little faith in direct conspiracies, as your system is just outdated and conservative in many small ways. (Delegates being free to do as they please a glaring example, as is one-man-pr-district which keeps any minority dissent out of any office) Paul suffers for it, as does all fringe/outside mainstream candidates. Paul gets more media than the other fringes, notably on the net. But also in a time where the reps are disgruntled and disagreeing on the way forward, opening for novel candidates. (Kinda like Nader in 2000 I suppose) Also notice what he seems to get the most voted for, is being the only rep decidedly against the war, as evident in the clip you posted in another thread. That's when he got spontaneous applause from the crowd.
Anyway. There is no conspiracy needed to curb Paul, because he is a radical candidate that stands little chance to gather a majority. Your whining is also mostly that he doesnt get mentioned as the 3rd guy. Well maybe he should at that. But if the goal is to fundamentally change america, a presidential run within the system you despise and wish to overthrow is not the way to go about it.
Again, I am not belittleing Paul in any way, I am acting here as a reality check.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I like how you say the system is rigged against such candidate, which IS a conspiracy ... but then spend the rest of your time saying there is no conspiracy.
Thats an interesting take on the subject.
And if you don't advocate our system, what do YOU think i should be pushing for? Anarchy? Socialism? Anarcho-Communism?
No thanks. I think the republic is a fine mode.
I just believe it has been grossly perverted by wealth-mongers, war-mongers, and psychophants.
Those people will seek control in ANY system. A true republic is probably the best system for combating them, which is why OUR founders chose it. However, they warned us we must ALWAY be on guard against attacks on our liberty, and we have flatly failed in that regard.
Now is the time to step up the fight.
And I believe that the caucaus system with all of its delegates electing is a highly sophisticated way of KEEPING democracy in action, not suppressing it.
The fact that hundred & thousands of REAL supporters have to get ACTIVELY involved to get a candidate in to the general election is exactly the reason "fringe" candidates stand a chance, not the reason they face hardship.
If the candidates were truly determined by DIRECT democracy we would get MISinformed sheep picking the very scumbags you and i abhor on the basis of lies fed to them by the very people that own both the candidates AND the media. With a caucaus process that requires real supporters to show up and cast votes for other REAL supporters who then in turn have to vote for yet ANOTHER round of REAL supporters who then have to go to a national convention and vote for whichever candidate they were elected to support ... at which point if one candidate gets 50% of the vote the candidate is chosen, OTHERWISE they go to 2nd and 3rd rounds of voting where they are FREE to pick whomever they see fit ... at THAT point you have REAL protection of liberty, because some corporation couldn't just buy the vote of a mass of stupid fucks sitting on their couch ... it was a process filtered through layers of real eople who understand the issues enough to be involved.
You may call that elistist. I call it securing the repbulic by ensuring that when real people really want it, they can secure change simply by becoming active. The real elitists would be MUCH happier if the idiots watching the idiot box were the only determiners of the elections outcome. Because they control those peoples brains. Fortunately those people don't seem to care enough about their opinions to stick around and get elected as delegates on behalf of their candidates. Ron Paul supporters are SERIOUS about liberty, not just passive participants with misinformed points of view.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I do call that elitist, and I am surprised that you do not see the status quo support that such a system is. How prone and open to pressure and bribery it is. You dont have to bribe a nation, if you can only bribe these 10 Ohio guys, you have it in your pocket... Democracy means everyone has a say, not just the ones you deem appropriate to vote. (and agree with you I suppose) The US republican model is not set for democracy but representational elite rule. Which you seem to support, as long as (what you deem) the right guys are being the elite.
One man, one vote. Everyone should have a say in what goes on around them. Yes, even the "stupid sheep". I'd say particularly the stupid sheep should have the vote. Whether they want to use their vote is their business. That said, I am against enormous democracies like the US precisely because the bigger it is, the more intransparent and removed from the people it becomes. Hence it's easier for a small elite to run business completely.
That is my position anyway. And you might see why I dont particularly care what rich white men decided 200 years ago.
(edit) There is a difference between structural and institutional restraints and influences on a system and a direct conspiracy. The way you talk, it seems like Hillary and McCain meets secretly to discuss how they are gonna shut up Ron Paul and stop his message.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well history is not on your side.
the Fabian Social Democrats were one arm of the very elite you think i am in support of. But your answer to the problem IS one of the creations of the problem.
The Social Democrats and the Fasicsts were just two sects of the same cult. Sometimes they clashed over the best means for achieving their power, but the basic tenants of their philosophy were more similar than not.
"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing a NEW WORLD ORDER." - ADOLF HITLER
Thats not exactly what i call good company.
I've had read many of the words of my countries founding fathers, and while they were by no means perfect, their writings reflect that their concerns for the rights of the common man were of great importance. That is something rare in political history. Our constitution guarantees the people UNLIMITED rights, and is established at the most basic level around the protection of INDIVIDIUAL LIBERTY.
That makes America one of less than a dozen soverign states in history that have ever attempted such a feat.
For you to call it a system that was made to protect the elite is not exactly truthful.
Any system can be manipulated by those with massive resources and influence ... America has held on longer than most, and that is saying something.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You don't beat Ghandi, Condi, Barack, Billary, Greenspan, Lincoln, Franklin, and Malcom X for the #1 Political Bestseller on AMAZON if you are "fringe" ... just FYI.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As do most constitutions in the western world. And judging from what you say above, I'd say you read a bit too much of what they said 200 years ago, and way too little of and about anything more recent.
Europe alone holds a lot more nations than that the have just as nice things on pieces of old paper.
I outlined how the system can be abused very easily by removing it all one more step away from the people. Those with the "unlimited rights" but who are so stupid it's a good thing that they only get to pick an elite who can then pick sensibly for them. :rolleyes: You dont see any democratic problem at all with that? Voting in people who then vote in the offices, and are free to do so at their own discretion? Everyone has unlimited rights, but everyone shouldn't have their vote worth the same?
Certainly, but the systems differ in just how easy and simple it is. And I thought you were deriding and crying the doom of your fine system on a daily basis here.
But you havent gotten yourself out of my elitist argument yet, just avoided it and used the opportunity for slandering my stated political leanings in a highly uninformed way. How is it not elitist, and how is it not removing the decisions from the citizens by going through intermediary delegates? That's just like the Senate, meaning it's only function is to conserve the power structure as it is and halt change or at least delay it for as long as possible.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Now for what "social fascists" would mean here, wikipedia again:
Here social democrats are coupled with fascists by the Communist International, because they were in the way of the revolution, which was perceived to be imminent. So you side with the communists of the 20s and 30s?
Anyway, just there for you to read, my man.
(edit) Just alittle bit more info: Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
the citizens you are claiming to be disenfranchised by the caucaus process are the same citizens that have to show up by the thousands in a state of any size and sit through a process of some rigor (ie more than just pushing a button) ... there is nothing tyranical or oppressive about a layered election where people have to elect other people. That is representative democracy. You are arguing in favor of direct democracy which is something i'm pretty sure your country doesn't have ... nor most any country in the modern west ... but hey, you said it, i don't read much and i'm uninformed, so prove me wrong ...
AND YOU are missing the point.
Direct democracy at the national level is something ANTITHETICAL to the Republic. It is something which the founding fathers of America HATED! [although we do have direct democratic processes at the state and local level]
The idea that a bunch of stupid people could ruin it for the few that realy understood liberty was the VERY REASON they picked a constitutional representative republic over the dumb idea the masses know best. [except in Switzerland, where they have some how managed to beat the odds. God bless the Swiss!]
"That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity…". -- Alexander Hamilton
So answer that.
What you want me to do is scrap the very political virtues that my founding fathers fought to establish and protect.
I don't want to overturn the ideas this country was founded on, i want to restore them. What i want to overturn is the ESTABLISHMENT that has gained power and perverted our system.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
And I am not necessarily advocating direct democracy, particularly not concerning so many people. What I dont see the need for is the intermediary level between the people, and the office, unless it is for avoiding big, popular changes as long as possible until they are inevitable. If there is to be representational democracy, then people should directly choose their candidate or party.
Should democracy be direct then it should be in small local units.
You want to go back to the republic of 1776, meaning elite rule. The elite may be as enlightened, understanding and ideal as you want, but it will still be elite rule. Representational elite rule where the people can choose who from the elite should rule. That is the republic of 1776, and that is what you are advocating here. A "good elite" is still just as much an elite.
Me, I'm stuck on one man, one vote, I'm afraid. And concerned that "stupid sheep" should most definitely be involved.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I don't think we will be reaching consensus anytime this century, dan.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep disputing the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
You either don't agree that the individual is more important than the masses ... as in, if i don't believe in god i shouldn't be forced to pray in school by the "godly" masses ... or you just don't accept that the US Republic was properly designed to protect the individual.
And i am plenty aware of the tenents of modern day socialist theory. As far as i'm concerned it is a way for the patricians & central planners to subisidize the businesses and interestes that THEY deem fit, after being voted in to power by the deliberately misinformed plebians.
The Ron Paul people are PROVING you wrong as well, Dan. You are sitting here acusing me of supporting the elite, and acusing the design of the delgate system of supporting the elite, but it is currently proving to be the ONLY REASON RON PAUL HAS A CHANCE AT WINING.
Do you not see the ireconcilable discrepancy in that line of thought? You say it is a system designed to protect the elite, and yet it is the very thing that stands to bring the elite to their knees!
The vote they can buy is the vote of the mass of idiots in front of the TV. THOSE ARE THE BOUGHT VOTES, because THEY OWN the box!
The people going out to caucaus and organizing to get "our" guys to the national convention are the ones proving that a constitutional republic was the right choice!
So sorry, i don't see that to be the case at all.
In fact, Romney has been widely accused by the Ron Paul supporters of BUSING IN VOTERS FROM OTHER STATES ... which is why there is a belief that he does so poorly at the delegate selection stage ... because the out of state voters can not legaly be delegates, but they can in some states vote without showing proof of reisdency!
Now THAT is buying the vote, my friend!
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So, the legitimacy of the system depends on Paul's chances of winning? As long as the dicrepancies are in Paul's favour, they must be good and proves that the system works? I somehow dont think you'd be cheering that part too much if it was McCain who was looking to benefit from it.
Which is pretty much your reasoning it seems. That system looks to benefit Paul disproportionally, Paul is a great constitutionalist, hence if he gets the edge there, the system works! Nevermind that if it turns out that with 5% of votes and 10% of delegates (for instance) he is getting more than he should, and does not represent as much of america as his delegates can make. If you are in favour of zealous people counting more than others, you are being elitist.
You are still not adressing how this delegate business is not taking power further away from the "disinformed plebs". And frankly the position you take is elitist to the core. As long as you consistently refer to the uninformed "sheep" and how the system must work around their "uninformedness". This is precisely why you are in the position you are and have the elite you do have, that constant disregard for the public at large. You just want a new Ron Paul elite to replace the Clinton/Bush elite. A new elite to uphold the republic of 1776.
Whereas I say fuck the elite and let people run things themselves democratically either through representation or directly, and preferably in small local units that are close to people and their concerns.
But enough of this. You could also read up on what various groups on the left actually stand for today, but I dont think you're gonna. You are happy enough to read some slander and take it as truth it seems. You have the inklings of a start further up in the thread if interested.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
the primary/caucus system as it stands is stupid, imho
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
...leaving many people without the chance to even vote for their preferred candidate. why should the results of iowa, new hampshire, michigan, south carolina and florida determine who the rest of us even get a chance to consider?
ron paul could be finished by tomorrow night, leaving half of america without the chance to vote for him. or not. not a paul supporter myself, but i don't think he should be out of the race before the majority of america can voice their opinion on him, or anyone else who's out by now (thompson, giuliani, edwards).
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
Ok, I'm very sick and running a fever, but I felt compelled to respond. Just because someone does not share your views on the matter, it does not mean they are 'genuinely unconcerned about the destruction of the constitution and personal rights.' This is an ad hominem if I've ever seen one and does nothing to help your 'cause.'
The best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution, to look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. Now this isn't to say that it doesn't beg the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the possible justices, but you and other libertarians seldom get this far.
I've posted this before, but here's a little something from one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Who is telling you you are an idiot for caring about the constitution? Could it be they only disagree with your 'plain meaning?' Well intentioned people can disagree on 'plain meaning' endlessly, as we can see in any non-unanimous court decision. Just because one does not agree with you doesn't mean they don't care about it.
As for 'getting all philosophical'..........one can't really avoid that when discussing libertarianism, esp when concepts such as 'natural rights' or 'negative rights' are being discussed. ffg and I had a good debate on this very issue. You see, you have to get to the meat of the matter because Libertarianism, though morally austere, has a certain plausibility. But is my opinion that once you look at the philosophical arguments, it is mistaken. Communism looks plausible on the surface as well.
As far as your negative rights, I would argue that libertarianism limits liberty. Like I mentioned above, I have had extensive debates with ffg about this. I'd be willing to discuss this with you (or find old threads with ffg and I) if you are interested.
There is really no reason for the ad hominem attacks. I (and I'm sure others) listen to you and others like you and consider your case. The attacks are counter productive. Trust me, I get as frustrated as you, but that doesn't mean we can't all have a reasonable debate on the issue. It is much more fun that way.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I hope you feel better :(
Me too! Thanks Jlew.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein