The 2012 election topic. Republican general in full swing

[quote name='Spokker']I'm not advocating for this. I am advocating for a serious look at third-party candidates that split with Republicans and Democrats on the issues they tend to not differ much in. At minimum, I would like to see third-party candidates participate in the debates that would otherwise be between Obama and Romney. Put a Kucinich or Ron Paul in there.[/quote]
Paul is already in there and he sounds like a crazy old racist grandfather when opens his mouth for more than a soundbite.

World: Military engagement, bombs and stuff.

American people: A poor economic climate that both parties had a hand in creating, the most pressing issue being unemployment and underemployment.
Click to expand...
I thought you said that wage inequality didn't exist. If that were true, then there's no such thing as underemployment and that the rate of unemployment is reflective of that.

It is amazing to me that we continue to switch back and forth between the two when they have both proved themselves unable to govern.
Click to expand...
Judging from your posts, you're the last one that should say anything about being a tool.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
[quote name='Spokker']At minimum, I would like to see third-party candidates participate in the debates that would otherwise be between Obama and Romney. Put a Kucinich or Ron Paul in there.[/quote]

Paul is already in there and he sounds like a crazy old racist grandfather when opens his mouth for more than a soundbite.[/QUOTE]

Ron Paul has been in major presidential debates between a Democrat candidate and a Republican candidate? Do you have video of this?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Ron Paul has been in major presidential debates between a Democrat candidate and a Republican candidate? Do you have video of this?[/QUOTE]
:roll:

Paul had his chance in the primaries and if it's ineffectual there, why would you think it would be anymore effective in a presidential debate? Are Paul and Kucinich running as third party candidates? Of course not, so your point is invalid. As long as they're Democrats and Republicans, then they have to play the game if they want a platform. Even Santorum and Gingrich know this, along with their sugardaddies back them.
 
So... Spokker says he wants to see third-party candidates in major presidential debates. You say they're already there. I point out they're not. Then my point is invalid.

Okay then.
 
Well, the argument should be whether or not Ron Paul is a viable third-party candidate.

If he is, maybe he should be in a presidential debate.

However, then he shouldn't be in the Republican primary.

He's trying to have it both ways, and this kind of talk is enabling him.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... Spokker says he wants to see third-party candidates in major presidential debates. You say they're already there. I point out they're not. Then my point is invalid.

Okay then.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...me arguing the effectiveness and practicality of it is sooo off topic. It's not like Nader and Perot were acceptable to to most voters. Hell, let's throw in the Communists, Socialists, and American Nazi party while we're at it to give the illusion of a fairness doctrine or to give different perspectives.

edit: Paul threw his hat in the game and was soundly rejected by the establishment. The only reason why Spokker even threw in Kucinich was to make himself not sound like a LIEbertarian toolbag, just like how you throw in Sanders with Paul. If it was the other way around, you'd say fuck Sanders. His idea of a third party candidate is a LIEbertarian; not a Social Democrat.

edit2: How you interpreted "in there" as literally participating in a presidential debate between Obama and Romney that has never happened instead of understanding that people like Paul and Kucinich do and have participated in the process is beyond me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah...me arguing the effectiveness and practicality of it is sooo off topic.[/quote]
Funny... no one said a word about your rant being off topic.

edit2: How you interpreted "in there" as literally participating in a presidential debate between Obama and Romney [...] is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all surprised that it's beyond you. I mean, nearly those exact words were in Spokker's post... and given your history of not reading people's posts and, instead, giving your own version of what they said, I can completely see how the words he said are beyond you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Funny... no one said a word about your rant being off topic.[/quote]
Which means I didn't move the goal posts.

I'm not at all surprised that it's beyond you. I mean, nearly those exact words were in Spokker's post... and given your history of not reading people's posts and, instead, giving your own version of what they said, I can completely see how the words he said are beyond you.
Click to expand...
The "why" he said what he said is just as important as "what" of what he said. What he explicitly says has implications because words have meaning and context reinforces said meaning. fuck, do I really need to explain this to a fucking adult?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Which means I didn't move the goal posts. [/QUOTE]

You obviously don't know what that means.

Spokker wants third parties represented in national, major presidential debates (i.e.: the ones between Obama and Romney).

You came in, swinging, that Paul is already in these debates.

I, correctly, pointed out that he is not.

You, then, shifted the goal from "Third parties in major presidential debates" to "Third parties in presidential primary debates". Then, you puffed out your chest and pretended that you were right all along.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You obviously don't know what that means.[/quote]
Ha?

Spokker wants third parties represented in national, major presidential debates (i.e.: the ones between Obama and Romney).

You came in, swinging, that Paul is already in these debates.

I, correctly, pointed out that he is not.

You, then, shifted the goal from "Third parties in major presidential debates" to "Third parties in presidential primary debates". Then, you puffed out your chest and pretended that you were right all along.
Click to expand...
In otherwords, my statement of "in there" literally means that Paul has participated in presidential election debates along with Obama and Romney that hasn't happened yet. You seriously think that this is the argument that I was making? Are you shitting me?

What the fuck else would "in there" mean if the debates haven't happened yet?
 
[quote name='dohdough']You seriously think that this is the argument that I was making? Are you shitting me?[/QUOTE]

So, wait... now you're trying to say that you didn't move the goal post the second time because you had already moved it in your first reply? Well, okay then. Good job.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, wait... now you're trying to say that you didn't move the goal post the second time because you had already moved it in your first reply? Well, okay then. Good job.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']What the fuck else would "in there" mean if the debates haven't happened yet?[/QUOTE]
I'll wait while you try to dance around this.

I'm actually implying that I'm done taking you're lead on this because you're not making any point beyond me "literally" saying that Paul has participated in non-existant debates with Obama and Romney.
 
Spokker wants to see third party candidates in the upcoming major presidential debates.
You can twist your incorrect, misleading, purposely distasteful reply to try and make it out to be whatever you want. It's there for anyone to read.
 
What does "In there" mean?

Let's go back to Spokker's post, which you made a direct reply to...
[quote name='Spokker']At minimum, I would like to see third-party candidates participate in the debates that would otherwise be between Obama and Romney. Put a Kucinich or Ron Paul in there.[/QUOTE]

Okay, so here's the first use of "in there".
Spokker is talking about putting Kucinich or Paul "in there". Where is there? Let's look at the proceeding sentence...

"participate in the debates that would otherwise be between Obama and Romney."

Now, I can't say I've watched every single presidential primary debate, but I'm pretty sure Obama and Romney haven't had a single debate between the two of them. Logically, one or the other would have to switch parties. But that hasn't happened.

Therefore, Spokker is obviously talking about the upcoming debates that, without a third party candidate, will be between the two main presidential candidates - incumbent Obama and the likely Republican nomination, Romney - i.e.: Major Presidential Debates.

So, Spokker's original post - to which you made a direct reply saying that Paul is already "in there" - was that he'd like to see Kucinich or Paul "in there" - i.e.: debates between Obama and Romney - i.e.: Major Presidential Debates.
 
Hey dumbshit, it's pretty obvious what Spokker meant. I asked you what I meant as it's pretty obvious that you think that I meant that Paul was literally involved in presidential debates that haven't happened yet, as evidenced by this:

[quote name='UncleBob']Ron Paul has been in major presidential debates between a Democrat candidate and a Republican candidate? Do you have video of this?[/QUOTE]

this:
[quote name='UncleBob']You obviously don't know what that means.

Spokker wants third parties represented in national, major presidential debates (i.e.: the ones between Obama and Romney).

You came in, swinging, that Paul is already in these debates.

I, correctly, pointed out that he is not.

You, then, shifted the goal from "Third parties in major presidential debates" to "Third parties in presidential primary debates". Then, you puffed out your chest and pretended that you were right all along.[/QUOTE]

and this:
[quote name='UncleBob']What does "In there" mean?

Let's go back to Spokker's post, which you made a direct reply to...


Okay, so here's the first use of "in there".
Spokker is talking about putting Kucinich or Paul "in there". Where is there? Let's look at the proceeding sentence...

"participate in the debates that would otherwise be between Obama and Romney."

Now, I can't say I've watched every single presidential primary debate, but I'm pretty sure Obama and Romney haven't had a single debate between the two of them. Logically, one or the other would have to switch parties. But that hasn't happened.

Therefore, Spokker is obviously talking about the upcoming debates that, without a third party candidate, will be between the two main presidential candidates - incumbent Obama and the likely Republican nomination, Romney - i.e.: Major Presidential Debates.

So, Spokker's original post - to which you made a direct reply saying that Paul is already "in there" - was that he'd like to see Kucinich or Paul "in there" - i.e.: debates between Obama and Romney - i.e.: Major Presidential Debates.[/QUOTE]
Tell me how those posts are not indicative of you accusing me of literally saying that Paul has participated in presidential debates with Obama and Romney. Going back to what Spokker said is only relevant if you compare and contrast the context of how we're using "in there." Anyone with less than half a brain should be able to tell that we're using the term differently. I shouldn't need to spell this out to anyone, yet here I am.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What does "in there" mean? It's a simple fucking question.[/QUOTE]

depends on your definition of "is"?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, the argument should be whether or not Ron Paul is a viable third-party candidate.

If he is, maybe he should be in a presidential debate.

However, then he shouldn't be in the Republican primary.

He's trying to have it both ways, and this kind of talk is enabling him.[/QUOTE]

What do you consider to be "Viable" then?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, the argument should be whether or not Ron Paul is a viable third-party candidate.

If he is, maybe he should be in a presidential debate.

However, then he shouldn't be in the Republican primary.

He's trying to have it both ways, and this kind of talk is enabling him.[/QUOTE]

I'm no Ron Paul fan but I really wouldn't fault him for this.

It's not like he's pretending to stand for the GOP's brand of horseshit. He is pedaling his own patented brand of horseshit - now with more crazy.
 
Yeah, I'm talking about the presidential debates. In the past, I would have liked to see an Obama, McCain, Nader debate.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']What do you consider to be "Viable" then?[/QUOTE]

There's a number of criteria, to be sure (i.e., I'd be okay if 'vermin supreme' were omitted from the debates) - but I think (and call me crazy if you disagree) that, if you have a Republican nominee and a Democratic nominee - someone who identifies as a Republican or Democrat and participated in the R/D primary would not count as a third party candidate.

camoor, I don't put him among them necessarily (because the % he draws are largely people who would not vote for any other Republican, yes), but he chose his path and should stick to it. I don't like the idea of double-dipping, or of pretending you're a member of this party one day and then switching (even if only nominally) only when it becomes convenient to you.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hey dumbshit, it's pretty obvious what Spokker meant. I asked you what I meant [/QUOTE]

"I really like Cherry Life Savers."

"I don't like them at all."

"What, are you kidding? Cherry Life Savers are the best! You're crazy not to like them!"

"What? I didn't say I don't like Cherry Life Savers. I said I don't like 'them'."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"I really like Cherry Life Savers."

"I don't like them at all."

"What, are you kidding? Cherry Life Savers are the best! You're crazy not to like them!"

"What? I didn't say I don't like Cherry Life Savers. I said I don't like 'them'."[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']What the fuck else would "in there" mean if the debates haven't happened yet?[/QUOTE]
Still waiting.

And as usual, your analogy sucks. Keep dancing though, I find it amusing.

Here's why:

- If you admit that you interpreted my statement literally, that would just make you look like a dumbass.

- If you admit that I wasn't being literal, that would not only make you look like a tool for harping on it, but you'd also be wrong and I made deeper implications that you're unable to counter.

Feel free to keep doubling down and avoiding those unfortunate facts though.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']There's a number of criteria, to be sure (i.e., I'd be okay if 'vermin supreme' were omitted from the debates) - but I think (and call me crazy if you disagree) that, if you have a Republican nominee and a Democratic nominee - someone who identifies as a Republican or Democrat and participated in the R/D primary would not count as a third party candidate.[/QUOTE]

I'm not quite sure I understand that argument. Are you saying they shouldn't be able to run nationally as an Independent (if they switched parties) if they lost in a Primary System in the same year?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Still waiting.

And as usual, your analogy sucks. Keep dancing though, I find it amusing.

Here's why:

- If you admit that you interpreted my statement literally, that would just make you look like a dumbass.

- If you admit that I wasn't being literal, that would not only make you look like a tool for harping on it, but you'd also be wrong and I made deeper implications that you're unable to counter.

Feel free to keep doubling down and avoiding those unfortunate facts though.[/QUOTE]

DD - I guess you're just going to have to keep waiting. You made an incorrect comment, I pointed it out, and now you're butthurt. Again, you can keep "moving goalposts" as much as you want, but none of it changes the fact that Spokker made a comment, you replied with an ignorant, spiteful reply that either A) was purposely dishonest or B) showed your lack of understanding of his post.

Once again, DD, you'll excuse me if I don't exactly look up to you as a shining example of honesty and integrity in discussion and debate.
 
Shouldn't as a legal prohibition? Nah.

Shouldn't as in "you should accept that you lost already, get over yourself, Joe Liebermann"? Yeah.

Ron Paul is not exactly creating new ideas and narratives at the debates he is in this year - so the idea that plugging him into the national scene as a means of communicating and connecting with the mass public in a way that will cause the public to collectively "get" Ron Paul and lead him into the White House is fucking delusional. It's "no true Scotsman" ill logic - Ron Paul isn't getting a chance because he's not in the general election debates - which ignores that he's had plenty of chances over the years, and he's never come close to succeeding.

But, then, sadly, as soon as you suggest that, the Paulistinians will convert the conversation to conspiracy theories that his ideas are too amazing or revelatory, so he's suppressed from general debates. Which ignores that he's been in plenty of debates thus far and he's not wowed a fucking person who already wasn't horny for Paul.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']DD - I guess you're just going to have to keep waiting. You made an incorrect comment, I pointed it out, and now you're butthurt. Again, you can keep "moving goalposts" as much as you want, but none of it changes the fact that Spokker made a comment, you replied with an ignorant, spiteful reply that either A) was purposely dishonest or B) showed your lack of understanding of his post.

Once again, DD, you'll excuse me if I don't exactly look up to you as a shining example of honesty and integrity in discussion and debate.[/QUOTE]

Literal interpretation it is.

I also find it hilarious that you want to lecture me on honesty and integrity when you have absolutely no scruples.
 
You, of course, are free to take my comment however you want. If you think my belief is a literal interpretation of your comment, then more power to you.

Personally, I'm aiming more at option A from the two I feel provide a more honest analysis of your comment. Even more so after additional follow up from your posts.

And, for the record, I'm hardly lecturing you. Merely stating that I don't see you as someone to look up to.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Shouldn't as a legal prohibition? Nah.

Shouldn't as in "you should accept that you lost already, get over yourself, Joe Liebermann"? Yeah.

Ron Paul is not exactly creating new ideas and narratives at the debates he is in this year - so the idea that plugging him into the national scene as a means of communicating and connecting with the mass public in a way that will cause the public to collectively "get" Ron Paul and lead him into the White House is fucking delusional. It's "no true Scotsman" ill logic - Ron Paul isn't getting a chance because he's not in the general election debates - which ignores that he's had plenty of chances over the years, and he's never come close to succeeding.

But, then, sadly, as soon as you suggest that, the Paulistinians will convert the conversation to conspiracy theories that his ideas are too amazing or revelatory, so he's suppressed from general debates. Which ignores that he's been in plenty of debates thus far and he's not wowed a fucking person who already wasn't horny for Paul.[/QUOTE]

I think for anyone to be considered a viable candidate, and to be able to participate in debates you have to be over 10% in the polls. I don't think Paul would run as a third party though, because he would've done it already. I would figure Newt would be a more likely candidate to run as a 3rd party than Paul. I just don't think he "gets it."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You, of course, are free to take my comment however you want. If you think my belief is a literal interpretation of your comment, then more power to you.[/quote]
Actually, I have proof and demonstrated a pattern.

Personally, I'm aiming more at option A from the two I feel provide a more honest analysis of your comment. Even more so after additional follow up from your posts.
Click to expand...
Prove it. Point out how distasteful and ignorant it was and provide evidence to support your claims, but considering your lack of intellect, you'd prefer to argue over semantics because thats the only thing you have in your toolbox. Quite frankly, its pretty pathetic and pitiful.

And, for the record, I'm hardly lecturing you. Merely stating that I don't see you as someone to look up to.
Click to expand...
And you're an example of someone that should be taken seriously because of honesty? Ha!
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I think for anyone to be considered a viable candidate, and to be able to participate in debates you have to be over 10% in the polls. I don't think Paul would run as a third party though, because he would've done it already. I would figure Newt would be a more likely candidate to run as a 3rd party than Paul. I just don't think he "gets it."[/QUOTE]

Federal funding for election threshold is 5% - so if you get 5% in 2012, you get funded in 2016. One of the reasons I threw away my vote on Nader in 2000.

What do you mean that Newt doesn't get it?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Ron Paul is not exactly creating new ideas and narratives at the debates he is in this year[/QUOTE]
He is the only candidate who brings up certain issues. If I were organizing a debate I would invite him simply to make Romney and Obama uncomfortable, whether he runs third-party or not.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Federal funding for election threshold is 5% - so if you get 5% in 2012, you get funded in 2016. One of the reasons I threw away my vote on Nader in 2000.

What do you mean that Newt doesn't get it?[/QUOTE]

He still thinks he's going to win the Republican nomination, and doesn't understand why he's not a viable candidate (Women hate him for his lack of faith in the opposite sex).

Federal funding may be 5%, but in reality 10% is a lot more viable since you'd only need 10% more from each party to make it an almost even 3-way race. That's very doable, especially in today's political system.
 
I figured Santorum would win here. Romney lost because he's Mormon, plain and simple. Must have been a hard pill to swallow though, with Santorum and Ginrich both being Catholic, but apparently a Catholic is still better than a Mormon. If there had been a WASP they'd have probably won.
 
Yep.

I'm a bit surprised about how the media is still calling it a four way race this morning. It's pretty clear Gingrich is out of it--just won his home state. Paul has never been a legitimate contender.

So at most, it's a two way race. But Santorum has shown he really can't win much other than the deep south and fly over states. Thus he's not likely to beat Romney in many delegate-rich states. He's just getting the bible belt states where people agree with his morals and stance on social issues, and some fly over states for that reason, or not people wanting to vote for a Mormon.
 
[quote name='Spokker']He is the only candidate who brings up certain issues. If I were organizing a debate I would invite him simply to make Romney and Obama uncomfortable, whether he runs third-party or not.[/QUOTE]

Well, then, you're not exactly a partisan moderator, are you?

If you want to make them uncomfortable, invite an alligator.

Paul brings up "certain issues" (impressive specificity there, bub), but the bulk of the public believes him to be either (a) batshit crazy in terms of their validity or (b) astonishingly inane policy decisions that largely appeal to people who believe the illuminati control everything on earth.

Paul screams the loudest and longest about deficit spending and debt growth leading to hyperinflation. Yet it's not happened. At all. Why do people cling to this guy like he's a miracle worker, or something new and substantive? Even where he may be unique, he's still wrong. How many years of stable inflation must we endure before the Paulistinians give up on braying about hyperinflation, the devaluaing dollar, buying up gold, and eliminating the federal reserve?
 
Yeah, lets make an exception for Ron Paul that wouldn't otherwise be made for anyone else because.....he's Ron Paul? If the guy runs as a Republican and loses the primary, tough. If he wants in a debate let him run as an third party candidate. Wait, he's tried that before and did no better? Then STFU about it. For all the braying about the "will of the people" his supporters can't handle it when the people decide they don't give a rat's ass about Paul.
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah, lets make an exception for Ron Paul that wouldn't otherwise be made for anyone else because.....he's Ron Paul? If the guy runs as a Republican and loses the primary, tough. If he wants in a debate let him run as an third party candidate. Wait, he's tried that before and did no better? Then STFU about it. For all the braying about the "will of the people" his supporters can't handle it when the people decide they don't give a rat's ass about Paul.[/QUOTE]
Illuminati conspiracy. Look it up:

http://illuminati_pwnz_j00.com
 
If anyone believes there is some conspiracy against Paul they're paranoid. Being paranoid of persecution when there is no good reason for the persecution is one thing, when you've done nothing to bring it on yourself. However, if you're going to go against the grain, especially in politics, you have to expect most people to ignore you at best, whether you're right or wrong either way.

Let me give an example. There is a story going around of a teacher who left his existing family and quit teaching just to pursue a relationship with a now 18 year old former student of his. These two are paranoid as hell about persecution from the public. The important part is that they can't understand why they might be treated this way, they're completely oblivious.

I'm not saying it's right that someone is persecuting for their beliefs or lifestyle by any means, I'm saying that if you are persecuted, and can't see why, you're delusional.

Or you're just Ron Paul.
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah, lets make an exception for Ron Paul that wouldn't otherwise be made for anyone else because.....he's Ron Paul?[/QUOTE]Invite anybody you want. The point is that you have third-party candidates who run in presidential elections who have platforms that differ where the red and blue candidates are not fundamentally different. For example, Democratic presidential contenders do not run on liberal platforms, they run on right of center platforms. Closer to moderate than the Republican candidates, but not quite left of center.

Here is a good analysis from the Political Compass site for the 2012 election: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

The president has actually moved further to the right since 2008. Here's where he was back then: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

The media can do whatever it wants, but it would be interesting to see some debaters from the other areas of the grid. I think this quote from the second link just about sums it up.
While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']eliminating the federal reserve[/QUOTE]

Question , while I can see the problems with this , whats the harm of Paul's position about auditing the federal reserve?
 
[quote name='StarKnightX']Question , while I can see the problems with this , whats the harm of Paul's position about auditing the federal reserve?[/QUOTE]

Your overlords wouldn't get their blood money.
 
[quote name='StarKnightX']Question , while I can see the problems with this , whats the harm of Paul's position about auditing the federal reserve?[/QUOTE]

I would guess myke isn't against that, I'm definitely not. The bill auditing the Fed was cosponsored by a pretty liberal guy, Alan Grayson.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I would guess myke isn't against that, I'm definitely not. The bill auditing the Fed was cosponsored by a pretty liberal guy, Alan Grayson.[/QUOTE]

Didn't mean to imply that if it came off that way. In most places where I read discussions about the "End the Fed/Audit the Fed" topic , the auditing angle gets ignored completely in favor of talking about how crazy ending the fed would be. So I guess I mistakenly believe because of that that most write off auditing the fed as either equally crazy or unnecessary/a waste of time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really care either way, but Paul only wants to do it so he (in his mind at least) has more ammo to fire in the name of ending the fed. The assumption being that the audit would reveal things that would suddenly make everyone think Ron Paul is right.

I seriously think Ron Paul is the Lex Luthor of modern politics. Except he keeps trying the wrong fucking type of kryptonite.
 
Looks like Santorum won Alabama and Mississippi today. Not that either is surprising. More of a blow to Gingrich's non-existent chances than Romney since Romney isn't going to win many deep south states (if any) in the primary.
 
It would suck to be a conservative in Hawaii. Unless you're only conservative on camera, or one of the Sunday morning conservatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top