South Carolina: Newt Cancels Event Over Low Attendence; Ron Paul Gains Endorsements

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Maverick74:

No, a truther is someone who believes in 100% of their conspiracy.

So, everything that is not the official story is a conspiracy? Really?

Did you not just say that both sides are full of hypocrites?

Why dismiss truthers as a conspiracy out of hand? Believe it or not, I did not dismiss birthers out of hand. I listened to what they had to say. I saw it was based in racism, THEN, I dismissed it.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

... I listened to what they had to say. I saw it was based in racism, THEN, I dismissed it.

LOL!

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from RCG Trader:

So, everything that is not the official story is a conspiracy? Really?

Did you not just say that both sides are full of hypocrites?

Why dismiss truthers as a conspiracy out of hand? Believe it or not, I did not dismiss birthers out of hand. I listened to what they had to say. I saw it was based in racism, THEN, I dismissed it.

Nice strawman RCG. I actually believe a LOT of what truthers say. What happens is as soon as I question one thing, ONE THING, about their version, they go apeshit on me and tell me I'm a member of the CFR or some other bullshit. A "truther"' is someone who drinks "their" kool aid and allows for no other version of a story except theirs. You cannot reason with a truther. You cannot debate a truther. You cannot question a truther. That's the difference Ron. Believe me, I have met a lot of truthers and some of them I do call my friends. I have a lot of experinece with these people. You see it here on this forum as well. That Cold kid that keeps spamming ET and getting banned. Bearice. EMR, spamming that child porn all over ET. These people are sick Ron and they need help. That is the length they go to. Now, not all truthers are as bad as those names I mentioned. But the items I listed above they are definitely guilty of.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from RCG Trader:

Jeezus, if you call Newt a liberal, you have definitely said all you need to say. But I have an open mind. Please clarify to me what a "liberal', both social and fiscal, is, to you.

Ron, Newt is a great salesman. He talks right wing but thinks left wing. He is a lot like Clinton. Both are masters of politics. Let me clarify. Newt is a "big government liberal" in that he truly believes in his fiber that government is the answer to our problems. Some of these are conservative based. For example on foreign policy and immigration. But he also believes government should run the economy. He believes government should have a large role in perpetuating the welfare state. He believes the government can fix the environment. He believes the government can end poverty. These are all liberal constructs Ron.

You will never here Newt talk about making government smaller. If he wants to make one dept smaller, he'll make two bigger. He does pander to the tea party, being the smart politician he is, he knows he can steal that voting block from Romney. But make no mistake about it, he hates them. Newt prides himself as being an "intellectual" and he knows that crowd is beneath him. But he still wants their votes.

I know Newt very well. I've been following him since 94 with his "contract with America". Newt may not be pro-choice and pro gay, but in terms of running the government and what role he thinks government should have in our lives, he is absolutely a big government liberal.

BTW, Newt is so clever that he has convinced everyone he is from the south since he ran for Congress from Georgia. But the guy was born and raised in the north, in PA.

 

[Epic]

Quote from Maverick74:

Ron, Newt is a great salesman. He talks right wing but thinks left wing. He is a lot like Clinton. Both are masters of politics. Let me clarify. Newt is a "big government liberal" in that he truly believes in his fiber that government is the answer to our problems. Some of these are conservative based. For example on foreign policy and immigration. But he also believes government should run the economy. He believes government should have a large role in perpetuating the welfare state. He believes the government can fix the environment. He believes the government can end poverty. These are all liberal constructs Ron.

You will never here Newt talk about making government smaller. If he wants to make one dept smaller, he'll make two bigger. He does pander to the tea party, being the smart politician he is, he knows he can steal that voting block from Romney. But make no mistake about it, he hates them. Newt prides himself as being an "intellectual" and he knows that crowd is beneath him. But he still wants their votes.

I know Newt very well. I've been following him since 94 with his "contract with America". Newt may not be pro-choice and pro gay, but in terms of running the government and what role he thinks government should have in our lives, he is absolutely a big government liberal.

BTW, Newt is so clever that he has convinced everyone he is from the south since he ran for Congress from Georgia. But the guy was born and raised in the north, in PA.

I would state it just a bit differently. Newt doesn't believe that the government can do all those things. He believes that he personally can do all those things if the government just does what he says.

You are absolutely correct. Newt is mostly socially conservative, but he possesses the core attribute of a big government politician. Any time that a person truly believes that he is the only one smart enough to fix the problems, we can pretty much guarantee that once in power that person will act to control everything. This is the driver for big government. The idea that he can make handle things better than the people can.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from Epic:

I would state it just a bit differently. Newt doesn't believe that the government can do all those things. He believes that he personally can do all those things if the government just does what he says.

You are absolutely correct. Newt is mostly socially conservative, but he possesses the core attribute of a big government politician. Any time that a person truly believes that he is the only one smart enough to fix the problems, we can pretty much guarantee that once in power that person will act to control everything. This is the driver for big government. The idea that he can make handle things better than the people can.

Right. You probably stated it better. If you listen to him, I mean really listen to him, better yet, actually read what he writes. He wants to build massive programs in government. All run by him of course. See this is why I tell RCG he is really a liberal. It's really at the very core of a liberal's belief system. That the government has the ability to "fix" or "correct" man's flaws and create a more equal and just world. I never bought into that. True, man is full of flaws. Some are racist, some are greedy, some are corrupt, some are just outright cruel. But the problem is, government has to become all those things to stop him. So you are never really getting rid of all those sins, you are simply transferring them from the individual who has very little power, to the government who has absolute power. I rather have the individual hold those sins. Certainly not Newt or Obama.

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from Maverick74:

Right. You probably stated it better. If you listen to him, I mean really listen to him, better yet, actually read what he writes. He wants to build massive programs in government. All run by him of course. See this is why I tell RCG he is really a liberal. It's really at the very core of a liberal's belief system. That the government has the ability to "fix" or "correct" man's flaws and create a more equal and just world. I never bought into that. True, man is full of flaws. Some are racist, some are greedy, some are corrupt, some are just outright cruel. But the problem is, government has to become all those things to stop him. So you are never really getting rid of all those sins, you are simply transferring them from the individual who has very little power, to the government who has absolute power. I rather have the individual hold those sins. Certainly not Newt or Obama.

I like what you say, and I see the conundrum within. Getting past Newt, Obama etc. to the core. The flaws of mankind tend to get transferred upward to those in charge. Ala Caesar, hell even Caligula at the extreme. Those old terms like power courrupts and all that are so very true today. The power elite, from the much maligned free masons, to the tri-lateral commision, and I guess the Bilderberg group, all seem that they know what is best for everyone in the world. The hell with the people that actually make up the world, right? Well, of course this can lead to the proverbial riots in the streets, which I don't think we'll see with either party winning the upcoming election. But in this day of instant information, world wide, and a broader base of education, you would think we, meaning you and me, and even the extreme right and left, would have some say in the future of our Nation.

Thus the conundrum, we vote as democracy, but we are limited in our choices. Do we want a kingdom, or a republic? Do we want total captialism, or the much feared extremes of socialism? Damnit, I want votes to actually count, more choices, not just pluralism based on the most votes for A or B, but the chance to try C, D, E, and all that.

I'm sorry, a bit too much, but I think you're one of the guys on here who get what I mean.



c

 

[Epic]

Quote from cgroupman:

I like what you say, and I see the conundrum within. Getting past Newt, Obama etc. to the core. The flaws of mankind tend to get transferred upward to those in charge. Ala Caesar, hell even Caligula at the extreme. Those old terms like power courrupts and all that are so very true today. The power elite, from the much maligned free masons, to the tri-lateral commision, and I guess the Bilderberg group, all seem that they know what is best for everyone in the world. The hell with the people that actually make up the world, right? Well, of course this can lead to the proverbial riots in the streets, which I don't think we'll see with either party winning the upcoming election. But in this day of instant information, world wide, and a broader base of education, you would think we, meaning you and me, and even the extreme right and left, would have some say in the future of our Nation.

Thus the conundrum, we vote as democracy, but we are limited in our choices. Do we want a kingdom, or a republic? Do we want total captialism, or the much feared extremes of socialism? Damnit, I want votes to actually count, more choices, not just pluralism based on the most votes for A or B, but the chance to try C, D, E, and all that.

I'm sorry, a bit too much, but I think you're one of the guys on here who get what I mean.



c

I've been giving a lot of thought to the preferential vote system in Australia recently. I believe it might be time for something like this in America.

The main elements of the operation of preferential voting are as follows:

• Voters are required to place the number "1" for the candidate of their choice, known as their "first preference".
  
• Voters are then required to place the numbers "2", "3", etc., for the other candidates listed on the ballot paper, in order of preference.
  
• The counting of first preference votes, also known as the "primary vote", takes place first. If no candidate secures an absolute majority of primary votes, then the candidate with the fewest votes is "eliminated" from the count.
  
• The ballot papers of the eliminated candidate are re-allocated amongst the remaining candidates according to the number "2", or "second preference" votes.
  
• If no candidate has yet secured an absolute majority of the vote, then the next candidate with the fewest primary votes is eliminated. This preference allocation continues until there is a candidate with an absolute majority. Where a second preference is expressed for a candidate who has already been eliminated, the voter's third or subsequent preferences are used.

I really like it because it doesn't discourage the running of a third party candidate like our system. Image the current election, let's say that Romney wins the nomination and goes to face Obama. Paul supporters really want him to run indie, and I think that he actually wants to also. But under the current system he won't do it because of the consequences of pretty much handing the election to Obama. Or at least that is the conventional wisdom. I'm not arguing the validity of that assumption, but I am saying that with preferential voting, it would be pointless speculation.

Example:

First round...
Obama--- 40%
Romney---35%
Paul --- 25%

Conventional wisdom says that Paul was the Romney spoiler, and Obama wins with a plurality. But with preferential voting, the next look is at Paul's ballots for the #2 choice. Let's say that conventional wisdom is right and that 60% of Paul's support listed Romney as #2, with 15% listing Obama, and the rest not choosing a #2.

Second round...
Obama--- 44%
Romney--- 50%

Paul then isn't discouraged from being a spoiler, and is encouraged to run nationally. We are now steered toward having legitimate third party contention.

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from Epic:

I've been giving a lot of thought to the preferential vote system in Australia recently. I believe it might be time for something like this in America.

The main elements of the operation of preferential voting are as follows:

• Voters are required to place the number "1" against the candidate of their choice, known as their "first preference".
  
• Voters are then required to place the numbers "2", "3", etc., against the other candidates listed on the ballot paper, in order of preference.
  
• The counting of first preference votes, also known as the "primary vote", takes place first. If no candidate secures an absolute majority of primary votes, then the candidate with the fewest votes is "eliminated" from the count.
  
• The ballot papers of the eliminated candidate are re-allocated amongst the remaining candidates according to the number "2", or "second preference" votes.
  
• If no candidate has yet secured an absolute majority of the vote, then the next candidate with the fewest primary votes is eliminated. This preference allocation continues until there is a candidate with an absolute majority. Where a second preference is expressed for a candidate who has already been eliminated, the voter's third or subsequent preferences are used.

I really like it because it doesn't discourage the running of a thrid party candidate like our system. Image the current election, let's say that Romney wins the nomination and goes to face Obama. Paul supporters really want him to run indie, and I think that he actually wants to also. But under the current system he won't do it because of the consequences of pretty much handing the election to Obama. Or at least that is the conventional wisdom. I'm not arguing the validity of that assumption, but I am saying that with preferential voting, it would be pointless speculation.

Example:

First round...
Obama--- 40%
Romney---35%
Paul --- 25%

Conventional wisdom says that Paul was the Romney spoiler, and Obama wins with a plurality. But with preferential voting, the next look is at Paul's ballots for the #2 choice. Let's say that conventional wisdom is right and that 60% of Paul's support listed Romney as #2, with 15% listing Obama, and the rest not choosing a #2.

Second round...
Obama--- 44%
Romney--- 50%

Paul then isn't discouraged from being a spoiler, and is encouraged to run nationally. We are now steered toward having legitimate third party contention.

I reviewed the Australian voting system a few years back, something must have changed. I will take some to time to check it out again.

One of my favorites is the U.K. with only 30 days or so of election season. Great for the U.S. - but probably not good for the media, they need the endless, mindless commercials from candidates and their PACS it seems. I guess that, in some weird way, helps the economy.


c

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from cgroupman:

I reviewed the Australian voting system a few years back, something must have changed. I will take some to time to check it out again.

One of my favorites is the U.K. with only 30 days or so of election season. Great for the U.S. - but probably not good for the media, they need the endless, mindless commercials from candidates and their PACS it seems. I guess that, in some weird way, helps the economy.


c

For the record, we have that in the US. It's called a runoff election. But it's only at the state level. Here are the 8 states that currently use that format: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas.