Ron Paul's candidacy


by Char. Limit
Tags: candidacy, paul
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#487
Feb8-12, 02:51 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Dotini View Post
Yes, sir. The scenario I have in mind has the current candidates continuing to score delegates such that, come the convention, none of them have sufficient numbers to take the nomination on the first ballot. This allows a unification candidate to be presented by the party elders on subsequent ballots. I mentioned Daniels, but there are several others who might fit the role.
That's not possible without cooperation of the existing candidates. In many states those delegates are committed in writing to voting for the winning candidate in their state, unless that candidate releases them.
SoggyBottoms
SoggyBottoms is offline
#488
Feb8-12, 10:13 PM
P: 61
Quote Quote by CAC1001 View Post
Not really. That's a common stereotype, but it isn't true. One look at the media in Europe and one will see that the Europeans have a rather limited worldview given how their media leans almost entirely socially-democratic. It isn't like in the U.S., where you have firey polemic on both ends of the spectrum. This is because the Europeans don't trust the free-market to handle the issue of media, and thus entrust it to the government, in the idea that the government running the media will ensure it is fair, balanced, objective, etc...but which often results in it being unfair, unbalanced, and completely subjective. Media that is run by the private-sector, they regulate very stringently.
There is plenty of right wing media in Europe, but if by right wing media you mean overweight windbag demagogues, then yes, you're going to find less of it, because apparantly there's no market for that in Europe.
lisab
lisab is offline
#489
Feb8-12, 10:54 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,914
Quote Quote by SoggyBottoms View Post
There is plenty of right wing media in Europe, but if by right wing media you mean overweight windbag demagogues, then yes, you're going to find less of it, because apparantly there's no market for that in Europe.
At least, that's what the media says .
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#490
Feb9-12, 11:09 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Yes obviously smugness has long been the way to go there.
SoggyBottoms
SoggyBottoms is offline
#491
Feb9-12, 11:19 AM
P: 61
That doesn't make any sense.
lpetrich
lpetrich is offline
#492
Feb9-12, 03:17 PM
P: 514
Returning to the OP, Wikipedia now has a collection of the Republican primary results. This page's maintainers will update it as more states vote.

Mitt Romney now has over half the delegates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum about 1/6, and Ron Paul about 1/10. Looking back to 2008, Ron Paul is now doing better than he had in 2008 in delegate fraction.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#493
Feb10-12, 02:15 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by SoggyBottoms View Post
There is plenty of right wing media in Europe, but if by right wing media you mean overweight windbag demagogues, then yes, you're going to find less of it, because apparantly there's no market for that in Europe.
I think there's still a market for it in Europe, but less so in Europe than in America. Let's not forget that the US was originally populated and continues to be replenished, to a certain extent, by people who couldn't make it in their home countries.

Anyway, the real reason I replied to you is your username, SoggyBottoms, which reminded me of the Smucker's ads -- "With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good!"

With a name like SoggyBottoms, you had better be good.
Jasongreat
Jasongreat is offline
#494
Feb10-12, 02:49 AM
P: 75
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I think there's still a market for it in Europe, but less so in Europe than in America. Let's not forget that the US was originally populated and continues to be replenished, to a certain extent, by people who couldn't make it in their home countries.
Come on thomas,is that true or a common missconception? The US is populated by people who thought their chances better in America than in thier home country. For the most part in early history most those who came here, came because the country they were leaving was oppressive, mostly religiously, in america your abilities were all that counted. I enjoyed one of Franklins letters to a frenchman, he pretty much said you can find mechanics, masons, blacksmiths, carpenters, pretty much any trade, in america, the one thing you wouldnt find is an athiest.

For the most part immigrants came here because of religious oppression in their home country, second to that scientific oppression. See Joseph Priestly. Today I would agree that religion takes second place to those just wanting a better life, but to sy they couldnt make it in their home countries is dissengenious. Did Einstein come because he couldnt make it in his home country?
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#495
Feb10-12, 04:15 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Jasongreat View Post
The US is populated by people who thought their chances better in America than in thier home country. For the most part in early history most of those who came here, came because the country they were leaving was oppressive, mostly religiously, in America your abilities were all that counted.
I don't see anything in your statement that counters mine. I think that, other than sheer adventurers and financed profiteers, the bulk of the people who migrated to the US did so because they weren't, and foresaw no prospects of being, successful in their home countries. They were the poor, the tired, the hungry, the oppressed, etc. To a certain extent that I don't know enough about to quantify. So I could be a bit off wrt that notion. But I don't think it would be correct to call it a myth, as I think it's, essentially, an accurate characterization of a significant portion of the people who have migrated to the US, and an accurate characterization of a significant portion of portion of the people who are, in current times, migrating to the US.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#496
Feb10-12, 04:18 AM
P: 1,414
We'd better get back on Ron Paul, or somebody will close the thread. Paul seems to be doing a little better than he did 4 years ago, which I suppose he would consider a victory in terms of his avowed aim of running for president in order to get a certain message into the mainstream.
Jasongreat
Jasongreat is offline
#497
Feb10-12, 04:47 AM
P: 75
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
We'd better get back on Ron Paul, or somebody will close the thread. Paul seems to be doing a little better than he did 4 years ago, which I suppose he would consider a victory in terms of his avowed aim of running for president in order to get a certain message into the mainstream.
I would have to agree, but I dont think Paul is running for president, that it is his message he cares about. There are more people now than in a long time actually discussing topics they would have thought taboo years ago. What does it mean to be conservative? What is the difference between an isolationist and a non interventionist? Is a military establishment neccesary?

It is a discussion we havent seen in years, Goldwater was the last that I know of(i wish I could say remember but it was a bit before my time). It seems to me at about that time modern conservatives went against conservatism, we have had a few republican presidents going down the not-so-conservative path, a couple completely down the wrong path, Paul is bringing that message back. Though I do feel that message still has a long long way to go.

Thanks for reminding me of the topic, I do get carried away sometimes. :)
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#498
Feb24-12, 10:12 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Jasongreat View Post
I would have to agree, but I dont think Paul is running for president, that it is his message he cares about. There are more people now than in a long time actually discussing topics they would have thought taboo years ago. What does it mean to be conservative? What is the difference between an isolationist and a non interventionist? Is a military establishment neccesary?

It is a discussion we havent seen in years, Goldwater was the last that I know of(i wish I could say remember but it was a bit before my time). It seems to me at about that time modern conservatives went against conservatism, we have had a few republican presidents going down the not-so-conservative path, a couple completely down the wrong path, Paul is bringing that message back. Though I do feel that message still has a long long way to go.

Thanks for reminding me of the topic, I do get carried away sometimes. :)
The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.

The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.
turbo
turbo is offline
#499
Feb24-12, 11:06 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.

The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.
Paul's past is a bit troublesome, for average voters. He has gone well beyond Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty" standard, in my opinion. At some point, we have to have to filter out the nuts and the extremists, or we just can't have fair and free elections.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#500
Feb24-12, 11:34 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
Paul's past is a bit troublesome, for average voters. He has gone well beyond Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty" standard, in my opinion. At some point, we have to have to filter out the nuts and the extremists, or we just can't have fair and free elections.
I don't know. I mean "nuts and extremists" would seem to characterize the GOP candidates. Except maybe wrt Romney. But then he is a Mormon. An extremely rich Mormon.

Paul's past is a bit more than troublesome for me. I find myself coming around to Evo's view that the guy is just a nut case.

The system does seem to filter out extremists. In Paul's case it seems that that's a good thing. But I'm not sure that that's always the case.
turbo
turbo is offline
#501
Feb25-12, 12:26 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Paul's past is a bit more than troublesome for me. I find myself coming around to Evo's view that the guy is just a nut case.

The system does seem to filter out extremists. In Paul's case it seems that that's a good thing. But I'm not sure that that's always the case.
I don't think that the GOP primary system is doing a good job filtering out extremists. If we are going to pretend that we have a two-party system in the US, at least we ought to have marginally electable candidates if both parties. I don't see that basic benchmark in the GOP, which is pretty sad.
AlephZero
AlephZero is offline
#502
Feb25-12, 08:27 AM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 6,344
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
If we are going to pretend that we have a two-party system in the US, at least we ought to have marginally electable candidates if both parties.
An op-ed piece in the UK Financial Times made the comment that the Democrat party has effectively redefined itself from being the "industrial working class party" to "the billionaires, academics, minorities, and single women party". The consequence of that shift was to drive the white working class to the Republicans, which is now split into the "Rotary Club Wing" of its traditional upper-middle-class membership base, and the new "Burger King Wing".

It draws the analogy with Humphrey and Wallace for the Democrats in 1968, where the Wallace faction moved to Republican after 72, and forecasts that similarly many "Romney Republicans" will be Democrats in 2016.

The FT piece didn't make any comparison with the UK, but I think there is a similarity, except that in the UK's multi-partys system, the white working class who felt abandoned by the Labour Party's shift to "New Labour" have tended to join new minority right wing parties (e.g. the UK Independence Party and the British National Party) rather than join up with the tranditional Conservatives.
Galteeth
Galteeth is offline
#503
Feb26-12, 02:26 PM
P: 320
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.

The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.
Could you be a bit more specific?
Dotini
Dotini is online now
#504
Feb26-12, 06:28 PM
PF Gold
P: 487
I'm interested in recent reports that say Paul's organization is taking over the GOP at the grassroots delegate level, installing many people in ongoing positions of influence and authority in the party infrastructure. They say these delegates will play a powerful role not only at the convention, but well beyond. Maybe Paul is crazy - crazy like a fox!

I think I'm starting to enjoy this,
Steve


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