Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

HOLY SH*T (GOP primaries)

imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com...

Mitt Romney won Maine (39%)
RON PAUL FINISHED SECOND (36%)
Santorum got third (18%)
GINGRICH CAME IN LAST (6%)

Apocalypse?!?!?!
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:41:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
how is it Apocalypse?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

*Paul supporters get really, really mad*
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:49:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

So we should vote for someone who would hurt the econ in the short and long term instead?
kfc
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:54:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:49:28 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

So we should vote for someone who would hurt the econ in the short and long term instead?

No. But I would rather have a candidate that would give us long term economic stability vs. a short term economic high with a very serious hangover.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:07:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

*Paul supporters get really, really mad*

The Great Depression was not the fault of free market economics, like the left falsely accuse, but instead the fault of government intervention in the economy.

http://www.cato.org...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:14:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That makes sense because Paul campaigned a lot there. Trust me Paul will get second place in some primaries, but he will fail to win entirely. Its just one primary anyway.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:14:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:07:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

*Paul supporters get really, really mad*

The Great Depression was not the fault of free market economics, like the left falsely accuse, but instead the fault of government intervention in the economy.

http://www.cato.org...

more sources:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
http://www.investopedia.com...
http://eh.net...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:19:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

*Paul supporters get really, really mad*

This is opposite of what is true. Free market economics rarely produce benefit in the short run, but prevent crashes and produce large growth over a long period of time.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:33:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:19:41 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

*Paul supporters get really, really mad*

This is opposite of what is true. Free market economics rarely produce benefit in the short run, but prevent crashes and produce large growth over a long period of time.

How? Regulation does it by making businesses not do crazy things that will ultimately hurt not only them, but society as a whole. For example, regulation on nuclear power plants prevent another Chernobyl from happening.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:42:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:33:42 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 2/11/2012 6:19:41 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

*Paul supporters get really, really mad*

This is opposite of what is true. Free market economics rarely produce benefit in the short run, but prevent crashes and produce large growth over a long period of time.

How? Regulation does it by making businesses not do crazy things that will ultimately hurt not only them, but society as a whole. For example, regulation on nuclear power plants prevent another Chernobyl from happening.

A business does not profit from doing "crazy" things. The people who owned Chernobyl did not want it to explode. Crazy things and crazy actions are not the result of deregulation, but of other forces.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:50:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:33:42 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 2/11/2012 6:19:41 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

*Paul supporters get really, really mad*

This is opposite of what is true. Free market economics rarely produce benefit in the short run, but prevent crashes and produce large growth over a long period of time.

How? Regulation does it by making businesses not do crazy things that will ultimately hurt not only them, but society as a whole. For example, regulation on nuclear power plants prevent another Chernobyl from happening.

Preventing nuclear explosions is not economic regulation. It is regulation, but does not require a government to perform. The very act of having an unsafe nuclear powerplant is an act of aggression.

Businesses have no incentives to do "crazy" things without regulation. The most recent crash was a result of regulation screwing with incentives, to make doing foolish things profitable.
Even still provided they acquired their money peacefully, they can use it to wipe their bottoms for all I care. They have no responsibility outside of not harming people.

Regulations also massively increase corporatism. The more regulated an industry, the more expensive it is to compete, and thus the higher barriers of entry to the market are.
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:06:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:14:54 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
That makes sense because Paul campaigned a lot there. Trust me Paul will get second place in some primaries, but he will fail to win entirely. Its just one primary anyway.

Ohhhhhhhh, I see. I didnt know he campaigned intensively in Maine, that changes things...... And true........
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:06:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:01:39 PM, Ren wrote:
I don't understand.

Did we abolish the electoral college?

Its not that I just thought for a second Ron Paul now had a chance to win and I freaked out, but its good now
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:37:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:06:22 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/11/2012 6:14:54 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
That makes sense because Paul campaigned a lot there. Trust me Paul will get second place in some primaries, but he will fail to win entirely. Its just one primary anyway.

Ohhhhhhhh, I see. I didnt know he campaigned intensively in Maine, that changes things...... And true........

Well I am going off the word of Geo who said way back during the Florida primary that Maine was somehow important and that Paul was campaigning there instead of Florida. I trust Geo with knowing what Ron Paul is up to, but that does not mean Ron Paul is an idiot. I checked the Republican presidential primaries back in 2008 too and Paul got second place in at least 10 of them, but won none.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:51:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How? Regulation does it by making businesses not do crazy things that will ultimately hurt not only them, but society as a whole. For example, regulation on nuclear power plants prevent another Chernobyl from happening :

Why would a business do "crazy things" since doing "crazy things" tends not to be profitable? Who says that businesses don't regulate their own business with a quality and control department?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:05:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:39:39 PM, imabench wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

Mitt Romney won Maine (39%)
RON PAUL FINISHED SECOND (36%)
Santorum got third (18%)
GINGRICH CAME IN LAST (6%)

Apocalypse?!?!?!

Yes, the Republican primaries continue to be quite entertaining, in a poignant sort of way, that is.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:19:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
aPAULcolypse
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:03:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Elephant Watcher posted its article:

"Mitt Romney won the Maine Caucus on Saturday, narrowly edging out Ron Paul. While Romney beat Paul by 3 points among the reporting precincts, so few people vote in the Maine Caucus that it amounted to less than 200 votes. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich placed far behind. The Republican Party of Maine officially declared Romney the winner, even though some precincts have yet to report; some of these precincts may be participating in the caucus outside of the February 4-11th timeframe. Even if, as in Iowa, a later tally gave the victory to Romney's opponent, Romney is the beneficiary of the result here. Since there are no delegates to be won in the non-binding caucus, all of the benefit comes from positive media.

Maine Caucus (84% reporting)
Romney -- 39%
Paul -- 36%
Santorum -- 18%
Gingrich -- 6%

What will Maine's impact be, and what do the results reveal? Overall, little. There are some things to be gleaned, but they point in opposing directions, for a small net impact. Romney won, blunting the "Romney's campaign is falling" narrative. That is balanced by the fact that he won by a small amount. But that, in turn, is balanced by the fact that his nearest competitor was Paul, rather than Santorum, whom he trounced by 20 points. That's good news for Romney, especially since it reinforces the notion that Romney holds an advantage over Santorum in the Northeast. On the other hand, Santorum still has time to rise from his surge; however, Santorum has not been vetted yet. Santorum also takes away good news, since he beat Gingrich, the competing Anti-Romney, by a substantial margin. This, too, is balanced somewhat by the fact that it took place in a Northeastern state where Gingrich was not expected to do well.

As one can tell from the description in the preceding paragraph, the circumstances make for a muddled analysis rather than providing one clear lesson. If Santorum had won, or if Gingrich had beaten Santorum, things would have been interesting.

The first real battle between Santorum and Romney will take place in Michigan, which holds its primary on February 28th. One debate will take place prior to that primary, on February 22nd. Until then, the extent of Santorum's strength won't be fully clear."

So the Maine primary was not really valuable as only 200 people really voted according to EW.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:04:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:37:51 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:06:22 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/11/2012 6:14:54 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
That makes sense because Paul campaigned a lot there. Trust me Paul will get second place in some primaries, but he will fail to win entirely. Its just one primary anyway.

Ohhhhhhhh, I see. I didnt know he campaigned intensively in Maine, that changes things...... And true........

Well I am going off the word of Geo who said way back during the Florida primary that Maine was somehow important and that Paul was campaigning there instead of Florida. I trust Geo with knowing what Ron Paul is up to, but that does not mean Ron Paul is an idiot. I checked the Republican presidential primaries back in 2008 too and Paul got second place in at least 10 of them, but won none.

Also, it has just been found out by Elephant Watcher that 200 people really only voted in Maine. It is sure to vote Democrat.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:39:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why do we bother talking about the Republican Primaries? We all know Mitt is gonna win.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:30:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:39:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Why do we bother talking about the Republican Primaries? We all know Mitt is gonna win.

This.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 12:20:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 11:30:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:39:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Why do we bother talking about the Republican Primaries? We all know Mitt is gonna win.

This.

good point....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:24:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:50:32 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/11/2012 6:33:42 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 2/11/2012 6:19:41 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:44:47 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Yup. Apocalypse. Paul and his libertarian philosophy will maybe increase the economy in the short term, but that will eventually lead to a great big humongous crash. See: Great Depression/Great Recession.

*Paul supporters get really, really mad*

This is opposite of what is true. Free market economics rarely produce benefit in the short run, but prevent crashes and produce large growth over a long period of time.

How? Regulation does it by making businesses not do crazy things that will ultimately hurt not only them, but society as a whole. For example, regulation on nuclear power plants prevent another Chernobyl from happening.

Preventing nuclear explosions is not economic regulation. It is regulation, but does not require a government to perform. The very act of having an unsafe nuclear powerplant is an act of aggression.

Businesses have no incentives to do "crazy" things without regulation. The most recent crash was a result of regulation screwing with incentives, to make doing foolish things profitable.
Even still provided they acquired their money peacefully, they can use it to wipe their bottoms for all I care. They have no responsibility outside of not harming people.

Regulations also massively increase corporatism. The more regulated an industry, the more expensive it is to compete, and thus the higher barriers of entry to the market are.

This
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 10:33:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Paul came in second in New Hampshire and Minnesota... so the eff what?

He's come a close second in a state with less than 5,000 caucasing Republicans and where he theoretically led most of the time (no polling done, so it was guessing) until Romney needed a comeback and pumped money into the state... so the eff what?

If anything, the "Revolution" has failed spectacularly because Paul has failed to compete in primary states (tests of true general election capabilities) and can't win even in the states where he's focused all of his energy.

Ron Paul = Failure, if his goal is to win the GOP nomination, or really even to get a brokered convention. The only way he becomes important is because Santorum and Gingrich will bring the GOP to a brokered convention, not Paul.

So yeah, Ron Paul - who cares?