Ron Paul's candidacy


by Char. Limit
Tags: candidacy, paul
Galteeth
Galteeth is offline
#55
Sep11-11, 12:26 AM
P: 320
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
I didn't realize that they now teach about ghosts and UFOs in science classes.
Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.

EDIT: And to tie this back to Ron Paul, yes, there are a disproportionate amount of (illlogical) conspiracy theorists who support Ron Paul.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#56
Sep11-11, 12:33 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Quote Quote by Galteeth View Post
Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.
Not to nitpick, but I wasn't the one who made the overly general reference to UFOs and ghosts.

If by ghost people mean the souls of the dead, then this is generally linked to religious or similar beliefs. If one believes in an afterlife, ghosts are just one step away.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#57
Sep11-11, 12:39 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Quote Quote by Galteeth View Post
Honestly there was sort of this impression "If people just heard about Ron Paul they would see what he's saying makes sense."
Paul has been running in Presidential campaigns since 1988. The mistake is in thinking there is something new here.

This reminds of the old saying that every generation thinks they invented sex. Like Amway, Paul just keeps coming around.
Galteeth
Galteeth is offline
#58
Sep11-11, 12:58 AM
P: 320
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Paul has been running in Presidential campaigns since 1988. The mistake is in thinking there is something new here.

This reminds of the old saying that every generation thinks they invented sex. Like Amway, Paul just keeps coming around.

As far as impact, 1988 and 2007 were very different. Paul didn't spark a popular grassroots movement in 1988 or become a household name. Different time, different situation. Also different mediums of communication. The internet has made a huge difference in terms of how ideas are able to propagate without support from corporate media.
phinds
phinds is offline
#59
Sep11-11, 01:52 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,682
Quote Quote by Galteeth View Post
Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.
Actually, I don't think you are nitpicking at all, I think you have made a perfectly legitimate point and I WAS sloppy in my use of terminology. You DO, obviously, understand my intent correctly, but I thank you for pointing out my error. It's the belief in little green men that gets my hackles up.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#60
Sep11-11, 07:19 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.
I think that most US high school students get a very insignificant exposure to science and critical thinking. It's sort of always been that way. You've got the minority who get that stuff at home, or who are intellectually gifted, who get into it. But most kids leave high school pretty ignorant and intellectually unprepared I think. And, not so astoundingly, they become ignorant adults wrt science and modern rational methods of inquiry and critical thinking.
phinds
phinds is offline
#61
Sep11-11, 09:09 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,682
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I think that most US high school students get a very insignificant exposure to science and critical thinking. It's sort of always been that way. You've got the minority who get that stuff at home, or who are intellectually gifted, who get into it. But most kids leave high school pretty ignorant and intellectually unprepared I think. And, not so astoundingly, they become ignorant adults wrt science and modern rational methods of inquiry and critical thinking.
Sad to say, the evidence I see suggests you are right.
fleem
fleem is offline
#62
Sep18-11, 07:34 AM
P: 461
If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles. However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul. Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable. As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference. Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.
Freye
Freye is offline
#63
Sep18-11, 11:03 AM
P: 35
Quote Quote by fleem View Post
If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles. However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul. Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable. As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference. Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.
Ron Paul is not for banning abortion at the federal level, he has said on several occasions that he would leave the decision in the hands of individual states to decide.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#64
Sep19-11, 02:00 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by fleem View Post
If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles.
I'm not sure if he's the only one who realizes them, but he seems to be the only one advocating what I consider to be the obviously best courses of action wrt certain issues.

Quote Quote by fleem View Post
However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul.
Ok, nice sarcasm. But there are a few of Paul's positions that I actually disagree with ... eg., his desire to eradicate all forms of government welfare, his position on a federal death penalty, and his advocacy of prayer in schools.

On the other hand, his positions on the war on drugs, protecting our borders, minimizing military engagements in other countries, immigration, gun possession by US citizens, etc. (what did I leave out?) seem most wise to me.

Quote Quote by fleem View Post
Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable.
Yeah, it makes no sense at all to not vote for someone simply because the 'polls' say he won't win, or to vote for someone simply because the polls say he's the likely winner.
Unfortunately, I think that's why a lot of people vote how they do. And in doing so, their vote really doesn't matter.

But, imho, if one votes for a Republican or a Democrat, then their vote doesn't matter anyway.

I look at it this way: can a US president, especially a Ron Paul sort of president, really direct the course of US governmental actions? I don't know, but I don't think so. Ultimately, it's the US congress that's responsible for the course of events, because it controls the purse strings. And the US congress is firmly aligned with the status quo. Which means that even if Paul got elected, there would be no abandonment of the disastrous War on Drugs, or any significant changes in any of the policies that the US congress has aligned itself with. It's going to be, for the most part, 'business as usual', because that's what the US congress has a vested interest in.

Quote Quote by fleem View Post
As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference.
Imo, the only way for an individual voter to make a difference is to not vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

But of course, that's not going to happen. We're far to ignorant, collectively, to buck the status quo. Probably Mitt Romney, or some other more or less 'centrist' candidate, will get the GOP nomination, and then he'll lose, closely, to Obama. It's all so predictable.

Quote Quote by fleem View Post
Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.
More nice sarcasm. Well, I share your frustration. Who knows, I might end up voting for Paul. Or maybe Nader if he runs ... just on principle, because I admire him and his message, and I don't think he's corrupted, or Paul either for that matter, yet.

More likely though, I probably just won't vote.
fleem
fleem is offline
#65
Sep19-11, 05:36 AM
P: 461
Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/...ia.straw.poll/

Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)

And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.

Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.

... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.
Dotini
Dotini is offline
#66
Sep19-11, 08:24 AM
PF Gold
P: 487
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
(what did I leave out?)
Sound money, obedience to the Constitution, paying off and staying out of debt. Sounds simple, but you seldom hear of it anymore.

Rand Paul, Ron's son, has been elected Senator from Kentucky. When politicians figure out most people want sound, sustainable public policy first and social engineering second, they will vote for more folks like the Pauls. Then the Congress will restore its own proper Constitutional functions, such as the sole power to declare war, abrogated to the Imperial Presidency so many decades ago.

Many otherwise very smart people are put off by Paul's Libertarian ideas on personal liberties, state's rights and personal views such as abortion, evolution, etc. To them I would suggest prioritizing massive life/death issues for our civilization such as War and Debt a little bit higher than whether you do or do not attend church, etc. If it helps, you can recall that Dr Paul is baby doctor with thousands of deliveries to his credit - how can such an individual be anything other than personally pro-life? I'm personally all in favor of a woman's right to choose, but if our nation is bankrupt, spending borrowed billions fighting penniless tribesmen all over the world, there are fewer resources to support whatever domestic interests may float your individual boat.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
lisab
lisab is offline
#67
Sep19-11, 09:54 AM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,915
Quote Quote by fleem View Post
Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/...ia.straw.poll/

Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)

And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.

Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.

... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.
And, good scientists that we are, we should know not to put much trust into straw polls .
Evo
Evo is offline
#68
Sep19-11, 10:18 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,930
Quote Quote by fleem View Post
Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/...ia.straw.poll/

Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)

And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.

Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.

... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.
The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.
Dotini
Dotini is offline
#69
Sep19-11, 11:01 AM
PF Gold
P: 487
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.
Okay, straw polls, etc. are fake. Maybe even national polls have an element of fraud. Is there a better way to determine who should be a candidate or an elected official?

Paul's campaign claims military donations lead the Republican pack at a whopping 71% for Paul the peacenik. Is this also a misleading or meaningless statistic?

http://www.dailypaul.com/179080/if-a...thousand-words

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Galteeth
Galteeth is offline
#70
Sep22-11, 01:54 PM
P: 320
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.
They aren't fake, and what you posted about isn't fraud. What you were referencing is that supporters of ron paul realised that with his passionate supporter base and the organization of the grassroots, they could do well at straw polls. Straw polls are not a neutral sample, but rather a sample of people who are politically enthusiastic. They may not be representative of the GOP elecorate, but they aren't fake. I don't know what you're talking about with regards to fraud. Encouraging people to attend and vote in polls isn't fraud. Fraud would be something illegal or in violation of the pol rules, i.e, manipulating voting machines or interfering with other candidates' votes.
lisab
lisab is offline
#71
Sep22-11, 02:09 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,915
Quote Quote by Galteeth View Post
They aren't fake, and what you posted about isn't fraud. What you were referencing is that supporters of ron paul realised that with his passionate supporter base and the organization of the grassroots, they could do well at straw polls. Straw polls are not a neutral sample, but rather a sample of people who are politically enthusiastic. They may not be representative of the GOP elecorate, but they aren't fake. I don't know what you're talking about with regards to fraud. Encouraging people to attend and vote in polls isn't fraud. Fraud would be something illegal or in violation of the pol rules, i.e, manipulating voting machines or interfering with other candidates' votes.
Straw polls are not representative of the general population, i.e., they aren't statistically valid.

Definition -

Straw poll: an unofficial poll or vote taken to determine the opinion of a group or the public on some issue
DoggerDan
DoggerDan is offline
#72
Sep23-11, 02:08 AM
P: 77
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
Straw polls are not representative of the general population, i.e., they aren't statistically valid.

Definition -

Straw poll: an unofficial poll or vote taken to determine the opinion of a group or the public on some issue
So it's "straw" only because it's unofficial?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Paul Dirac Science & Math Textbook Listings 12
Paul the octopus Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 5
Les Paul General Discussion 10
Ron Paul Current Events 197
The Taz-Cut Con - Paul Krugman Current Events 1