Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Ron Paul announces presidential bid.


Off-Topic Discussions

1,351 to 1,385 of 1,385 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Cheliax

Freehold DM wrote:
Interesting stuff. While I'm not in favor of Iran having nukes, I also don't think we should invade either.

Well Israel is dying to go to war with Iran, so US can just play a support role for Israel and let them duke it out and spend their resources, the US can just drone in when needed and don't deploy any foot troops, that can be done by Israel if they want to go to war with them, which probably will happen anyway.

Maybe Iran hasn't gone to war with anyone except Iraq with the US but they certainly have been funding terrorist groups, just ask Israel what a pain is Iran to them.

I think if I remember correctly Iran almost had taco bell but they were left to fend for themselves and lost against the religious fanatics that now run the country.


Deiros wrote:
Well Israel is dying to go to war with Iran, so US can just play a support role for Israel and let them duke it out and spend their resources, the US can just drone in when needed and don't deploy any foot troops, that can be done by Israel if they want to go to war with them, which probably will happen anyway.

It's almost hard to believe Iran feels a need to develop a nuclear deterrent...

Cheliax

I'm just saying let Iran and Israel duke it out, US needs no involvement unless forced to do so, but that is none of US business.


Delegates


That's not a reality check, that's conspiracy theory.

Yes, everything thing he says about bound and unbound delegates is technically true, but using that to imply that Paul still has a realistic chance of winning is a joke.

First, even by those numbers, and not counting all the proportional bound delegates, Romney still has more bound delegates than Ron Paul would have even if he got all the unbound ones.

Second, does anyone really want a nominee who picks up most of his votes from unbound delegates? Ones who do not vote the way the voters in their state wanted?


From what I understand, Paul has the second highest amount of delegates committed to him, behind only Romney. Whether that gives him realistic chance of winning or not, I doubt it, but I did not get the implication that you did. The only thing that I got from the video is that the delegate totals that one sees on the news channels are way way off.

Second, if the alternative is one of the other three, then, yes, I would be perfectly happy with Paul as the nominee.

Cheliax

You mean the mercenary delegates that are going into sale sooner or later?


That video claimed, IIRC, something like 224 for Romney, ~50 for Gingrich, ~20 for Santorum and only 11 for Paul.

That was only bound delegates and they hadn't bothered to figure out how all of the proportional bound delegates were allotted.

A more complete count of bound or otherwise committed delegates looks something like:
Romney - 319
Gingrich - 113
Santorum - 74
Paul - 23

I haven't seen any reliable claims that Paul has the second highest number of delegates. Just Paul supporters making assumptions about how the unbound delegates are all going to vote for him. Or how they'll all switch to him if Santorum or Gingrich drop out. Or how he'll win in a landslide in a second round of voting when all bound delegates are free to vote as they please.

Of course, these are the same people who were claiming Paul was going to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Not exactly the most reliable sources.

As much fun as a Obama/Paul race would be and as badly as Paul would get trounced, (I wonder if the Paulites would be claiming they could win in the Electoral College. Those delegates aren't legally bound either) it isn't going to happen.

I would also be deeply disturbed about our democracy if Paul won the nomination by flipping delegates when he's getting about 11% of the actual votes. It might be legal, but I bet it would lead to some serious changes in the primary process, since it's blatantly undemocratic.
It's one thing when the popular vote swings one way by a few percent and the delegate count goes the other way, but a hijacking that extreme would be an obvious problem.


thejeff wrote:

I would also be deeply disturbed about our democracy if Paul won the nomination by flipping delegates when he's getting about 11% of the actual votes. It might be legal, but I bet it would lead to some serious changes in the primary process, since it's blatantly undemocratic.

It's one thing when the popular vote swings one way by a few percent and the delegate count goes the other way, but a hijacking that extreme would be an obvious problem.

I think this is what you fail to realize, that the primaries aren't a function of democracy nor do they pretend to be, they are a function of party politics. I don't mean that as some crass and cynical statement, the primaries are put on by the political parties themselves. AFAIK it's simply not a matter of state or federal law but inter-party policy.

It'd be like if the company you worked for had a vote on whether everyone will get free ice cream or cookies for employee appreciation day, and when the votes were tallied it was close enough and they just said "meh cookies are cheaper." Sure it's unethical, but the right to ice cream, let alone your vote being counted, isn't guaranteed you by the company charter.

To me I continue to be amazed that the mainstream media, including conservative media outlets like Faux News, continue to marginalize Paul for being an extremist with "crazy" ideas. Have you heard the absolutely insane s~!$ that Santorum has been saying?

I want Paul to be the nominee, but I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell, and it has nothing to do with delegates, it has to do with where the party wants to go--a radical swing to the right. I also think that Romney is the only one with a shred of a chance of beating Obama, which is good. I just think that if Paul were the Republican nominee, while he would have no chance of beating Obama, he would have a pulpit from which to steer national discourse on topics I DO think that the mainstream left are all for, and possibly force or encourage Obama to adopt some of those stances.

But, ya know, if wishes were horses...

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
...including conservative media outlets like Faux News, ...

Would just like to point out that your response was good until the name calling.

That is all.


meatrace wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I would also be deeply disturbed about our democracy if Paul won the nomination by flipping delegates when he's getting about 11% of the actual votes. It might be legal, but I bet it would lead to some serious changes in the primary process, since it's blatantly undemocratic.

It's one thing when the popular vote swings one way by a few percent and the delegate count goes the other way, but a hijacking that extreme would be an obvious problem.
I think this is what you fail to realize, that the primaries aren't a function of democracy nor do they pretend to be, they are a function of party politics. I don't mean that as some crass and cynical statement, the primaries are put on by the political parties themselves. AFAIK it's simply not a matter of state or federal law but inter-party policy.

This may just be an issue of semantics, but of course the primaries are democratic (or at least pretend to be). They are controlled by the parties, not by the Constitution or by federal or state law, but that doesn't mean they aren't democratic. The rules are arcane and differ from state to state and people generally accept that. As long as the process appears to reflect the will of the people it will be generally accepted. A few unbound or superdelegates swinging the balance between 2 closely matched candidates probably wouldn't be a big issue.

What the Paulites are proposing is far different. The plan is that Paul will go into the convention with a tiny percentage of bound delegates and a tiny percentage of the popular vote and have a majority of delegates switch on the second vote. Allowed by the rules, to handle cases where no candidate has a majority in a multiway split or where candidates drop out or whatever, but very definitely not the intent of the voters.

meatrace wrote:
It'd be like if the company you worked for had a vote on whether everyone will get free ice cream or cookies for employee appreciation day, and when the votes were tallied it was close enough and they just said "meh cookies are cheaper." Sure it's unethical, but the right to ice cream, let alone your vote being counted, isn't guaranteed you by the company charter.

But we're not talking about a close vote. Currently Paul's been getting something like 10% of the vote and only a handful of bound delegates. To use your analogy, it's more like the vote was overwhelmingly for ice cream and the process was in the company (party) charter but there was a clause in the small print that said the CEO could override the results. Why bother having the vote at all? Now the same people who would have been happy with cookies are pissed that their vote for ice cream was ignored.

Then add that the same people making the cookie decision need the support of the employees to stay in charge. Whoever the nominee is, he needs the base to volunteer and to vote in the general. If they feel betrayed, they're not going to turn out. That's what would lead to a change in the process.


Hee hee!

EDIT: I know it's a bit old, but it's such a beautiful page what with the articles running down the right hand side that I just had to share.

Also, I was scrolling through the first couple of pages of this thread and, man, the "hide thread" feature has really taken away some of the fun around here. :(

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Also, I was scrolling through the first couple of pages of this thread and, man, the "hide thread" feature has really taken away some of the fun around here. :(

*blink*

I happened to hit "show" this morning because I accidentally hit a thread with the hide I didn't mean to and opened this out of nostalgia. If by fun you mean hard feelings and trollery, why you have nailed that right on the head!

Also, you are a stooge of the police state!

Also also RON PAUL 2012! Romney has an icecube's chance in Hell of beating Obama, which is why he's being pimped to win the nomination. I have already resigned myself to another four years of Liarrack Hopechange Orilly's disgusting suzerainity. Hopefully there'll be something left by 1-20-17

There, flamebaity enough for you Bolshegobbo? ;)

*hide-blink*


bolshegobbo? I prefer to call him Chairgoblin Doodlebug Zedong.


Remember, santorum fans, Pornography is the cause of most of our problems!

(specifically, we dont have enough porn.)


Patrick Curtin wrote:
If by fun you mean hard feelings and trollery,

You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to...


Jenner2057 wrote:
meatrace wrote:
...including conservative media outlets like Faux News, ...

Would just like to point out that your response was good until the name calling.

That is all.

It isn't really name calling. They say fair and balanced very sarcastically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Remember, santorum fans, Pornography is the cause of most of our problems!

(specifically, we dont have enough porn.)

Lord knows I could use some more.


cranewings wrote:
Jenner2057 wrote:
meatrace wrote:
...including conservative media outlets like Faux News, ...

Would just like to point out that your response was good until the name calling.

That is all.
It isn't really name calling. They say fair and balanced very sarcastically.

I'm not sure how that's name calling either. I mean if Canada doesn't let them broadcast because, ya know, they lie through their teeth on purpose whenever their gums flap, they shouldn't be able to call themselves a news network. At least not without sarcastic quotes around "news"

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course, in Canada, they try to put you in jail if you tell the truth but it hurts someone's feelings. They're far from perfect north of the border as well.

*shrug*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
bolshegobbo? I prefer to call him Chairgoblin Doodlebug Zedong.

I am like a fish amongst the people. Or something.

[Waves little red book]


houstonderek wrote:

Of course, in Canada, they try to put you in jail if you tell the truth but it hurts someone's feelings. They're far from perfect north of the border as well.

*shrug*

Citation Needed.

The only thing I know about is their relatively aggressive hate speech laws. I say relatively because here you can say whatever bigoted crap you want without fear of sanction, where there it's more akin to crying fire in a crowded theater.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
I'm not sure how that's name calling either. I mean if Canada doesn't let them broadcast because, ya know, they lie through their teeth on purpose whenever their gums flap, they shouldn't be able to call themselves a news network. At least not without sarcastic quotes around "news"

Are you being serious? You don't see how saying Fox News is "Faux News" is childish name calling?

Allow me to explain then: it's like going to school with a kid named Johnny Doeflace and calling him Johnny "DOO-face." Added bonus when you have to laugh and explain to everyone "You know, DOO face. Like poop. Cause his face looks like poop. <Nelson laugh> Ha Ha!"

You may think it's clever and witty, but at its heart it's childish name calling. That was my only point.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jenner wrote:
Allow me to explain then: it's like going to school with a kid named Johnny Doeflace and calling him Johnny "DOO-face."

Well, the difference there is in your example the kid constantly brags about how clean his face is, while it is in fact covered in excrement. Pointing out the irony and sheer blind idiot hypocrisy is kind of hard to do with a sophisticated argument, so ridicule is about as effective as anything else.


or:
Is not!


Jenner2057 wrote:
crap

Well, would you prefer Fox "News"? Because, frankly, even referring to them as a news network makes me feel dirty, like I'm just participating in the sham.

The other difference being that Fox isn't a person, it's an organization, without feelings to hurt.

Calling Rush Limbaugh Rush Limpblob would be childish namecalling. Or Mint Rawmoney.

I guess by your definition any clever turn of phrase which YOU don't like is namecalling.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there anything resembling actual news on TV any more?


This is the reason to call it "Faux News"


houstonderek wrote:
Is there anything resembling actual news on TV any more?

nope.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
Is there anything resembling actual news on TV any more?

Sad as it is to say... the daily show with John Stewart.


thejeff wrote:


Second, does anyone really want a nominee who picks up most of his votes from unbound delegates? Ones who do not vote the way the voters in their state wanted?

Yes

I know it's an old question that Ive already answered, but I read this article and thought of this.


I don't live anywhere near the US so my opinion is based solely on the amount of humour it would produce.

I think Ron Paul should become president because he's got a doctorate. Not that this makes him any more qualified. It's just...

DOCTOR PRESIDENT

That's an awesome villain name.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:

I think Ron Paul should become president because he's got a doctorate. Not that this makes him any more qualified. It's just...

DOCTOR PRESIDENT

That's an awesome villain name.

So this conjured up the image of the United States being run by a comic book villain... and then I realized that image wasn't all that different from some of the last few administrations. :[

Ron Paul never had a chance of winning. A fact for which I am profoundly grateful. Not that he was the worst of the lot, but the economy can't afford any of that brand of crazy at the moment.

1,351 to 1,385 of 1,385 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Ron Paul announces presidential bid. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.