Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[Hallack]

Yeah, RP = Ron Paul.  And on a related happy dance cheerful update.... 55% of the delegation from my county moving on to the district and state conventions is comprised of RP supporters 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

So that's that ... Santorum has stopped campaigning.
I bet the party numbers watchers saw what was happening
to the Female vote, after the No Birth Control fad/craze.
I was hoping he'd stay on, just to make things interesting.

This makes the delegate floor Fight, more about issues.
But that doesn't really affect Romney much at all.
I wonder if the VP selection will target the grumpy
social conservatives , or a swing state special ??

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

the grumpy social conservatives

You mean not everyone is happy with minors having multiple children by different/unknown fathers ... or having a government that forces people to act differently than their core beliefs in matters of life and death? Next they'll complain when we force them take that birth control against their will. Vive la social darwinism! A brave new world is here! I'm so happyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[Libertad]

You mean not everyone is happy with minors having multiple children by different/unknown fathers ... or having a government that forces people to act differently than their core beliefs in matters of life and death? Next they'll complain when we force them take that birth control against their will. Vive la social darwinism! A brave new world is here! I'm so happyyyyyyyyyyyyy

One could argue that evangelical and fundamentalist Christian Republicans want to do this.  What about people against having their tax dollars going to foreign wars, or a state government which advocates the death penalty?  How about the Terry Schiavo case, when the government intervened in the fate of a woman in an irreversible coma?

Social conservatives don't have a very good track record when it comes to letting others live by their own moral and religious beliefs.

[RobbyPants]

the grumpy social conservatives

You mean not everyone is happy with minors having multiple children by different/unknown fathers

You mean the same people who advocate abstinence-only sex ed, which leads to the highest rates in teenage pregnancy?

... or having a government that forces people to act differently than their core beliefs in matters of life and death?

You mean people who want the government to force other people to act according to their own core beliefs?

Next they'll complain when we force them take that birth control against their will.

You mean force employers to provide birth control to people; people who can individually choose whether or not to take said birth control?


God, stop with the strawmen.

[dman11235]

Sarcasm Robby.  I'm assuming.  That's what I saw anyways.  Good deconstruction of it though.

[RobbyPants]

PBMC, if you were being sarcastic and I totally missed it, I apologize.

[Libertad]

I'm pretty certain that PBMC's not being sarcastic.  His previous posts on politics land on the strongly conservative side.

In other news, Santorum's now dropped out of the race.  That pretty much leaves Paul, Gingrich, and Romney.  And Romney's the only real guy that can get the votes, and he's going to pull an "Etch-a-Sketch" and reverse most of his policies.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

PLZ ... please don't take it personally ... 


Romney ran as The Conservative against McCain. 
That wasn't so long ago.  Now he's supposedly not
sufficiently social conservative.  What changed in 4 years?

[bhu]

4 years of pissed off pages and volunteers sticking arsenic and lead in their bosses coffee

[Libertad]

What changed in 4 years?

Romney's very conservative (for now), but place him right next to Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry, and he looks like a bleeding-heart liberal.

[RobbyPants]

What changed in 4 years?

Romney's very conservative (for now), but place him right next to Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry, and he looks like a bleeding-heart liberal.

This is what happens when you get a noticeable amount of Republicans who seriously believe that the reason they lost in 2008 is because their candidate wasn't conservative enough. I don't know. Maybe they feel the 2010 vote enforces this.

[skydragonknight]

And yet so many think that Obama, one of the more moderate democrats I've seen recently, is a socialist/communist just because he has a (D) next to his name. Even with the "Meh" economy the Republicans aren't winning the middle because the whole party (not just the candidates) keeps moving further to the right.

[Libertad]

The Bestiary of GOP, Grand Ol' Predators.

Damn liberals are taking over the RPG industry!

Zoomed in on the blurry preview.  How is Ron Paul a Devil of all things?  His ideology's closer to the Chaotic end of the alignment spectrum (if we group Law/Chaos as authority/anti-authority or collectivism/individualism)!

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Heh.


NPR had on the old Southern Baptist leader
talking up Romney, but insisting on a more
conservative VP choice.  He knows there
are people "inside-the-camp" that are not
gonna vote for a Mormon, unless something
unusual happens.  This wasn't a problem
for Romney Sr. back in the 60s.

  ... whatever.

[RobbyPants]

Heh.


NPR had on the old Southern Baptist leader
talking up Romney, but insisting on a more
conservative VP choice.  He knows there
are people "inside-the-camp" that are not
gonna vote for a Mormon, unless something
unusual happens.  This wasn't a problem
for Romney Sr. back in the 60s.

  ... whatever.

I could have sworn he said the opposite. I thought he said they would vote for a Mormon unless he did something like pick a pro-choice VP or whatever.

Besides, there is a non-zero number* of people who are weary of a Mormon president who also believe that Obama is a secret Muslim. Which do you think would bother this type of voter more?


*No, I'm not saying most Republicans or evangelicals believe this.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

PBMC, if you were being sarcastic and I totally missed it, I apologize.

Accepted. (as such I'm not going to to respond to the posts above this one. Though I do feel they are off the mark).

the reason they lost in 2008 is because their candidate wasn't conservative enough. I don't know. Maybe they feel the 2010 vote enforces this.

That would explain the data. Most liberal Rep vs most liberal Dem -> most liberal Dem. Same most liberal Dem candidate vs left over most liberal Rep candidate -> ?

I'll kindly leave SDK out of this. Something something spread the wealth around something something Medvedev comments against the country, etc
d

PLZ ... please don't take it personally

Nothing personal. I just dislike unfair framings, so I created some more... which happened to serve an explicative purpose too.

Romney ran as The Conservative against McCain.  That wasn't so long ago.  Now he's supposedly not sufficiently social conservative.  What changed in 4 years?

Did anyone really fall for that? Romney is a cold, calculating politician. Nothing more. As for the politico opinions I assume more scrutiny with being the candidate for the general election. Anyways the last men standing against McCain was Huckabee. He even went on SNL and made fun of it. Also his dad never ran for president so there is a more balanced pool.

weary of a Mormon president who also believe that Obama is a secret Muslim. Which do you think would bother this type of voter more?

You mean wary. Your are being too relative. The question isn't about to a specific group, unless you don't care about right and wrong and only want to manipulate voters*. The better question is, assuming that B Hussein Obama were a secret Muslim, would that be better or worse than him or someone else being a Mormon? I believe the answer is four pronged, but I'm curious to see your answer. Just to be extra fair, I think its been proven fairly clearly that America's dark horse leader isn't a Muslim. However digging for the proof is nearly as disturbing.

*I'm not saying all Democrats or pollsters or big media do this. Abusing perceptions is fun!


I nearly dislike being so aware because I am powerless to stop any of this. Misery loving company aside, if the many people in the middle were like me in that aspect, the problem would solve itself. Those on the middle, the far right and the far left who know me IRL think I'm level-headed when I say that 2012 is battle between lex luthor and two-face. No matter who wins, what's going to get better? But if I say that to people without context (depending on where I say this), I'm either a tin foil hat-wearer or a troll from the dark ages. In truth I'm just a person who hordes information. Anyone who looks at my sig realizes that.

But I am scared that the people I speak to, are going to vote without knowing or wanting to find extremely relevant parts about issues that decide their vote. I don't mean to insult the Americans here, but I'd say this says something about Democracy or the steady shit in its left-right spectrum or the modern social structure or something big. Perhaps you guys just caught me at a good time, or perhaps I thought this good deed/extra bit of work would go unpunished. Alas nothing I say here will really matter to anyone either, so excuse me if I hold my future responses unless (as usual) I find something amusing to poke at.

[skydragonknight]

I'll kindly leave SDK out of this. Something something spread the wealth around something something Medvedev comments against the country, etc
d

Interestingly enough, both sides agree that those who benefit from society more than they put in should be forced to put more back into (or take less from) society. It's simply that each side targets a different group (Democrats target the wealthy who abuse the tax code while Republicans target those on government programs). I personally consider them both balanced points in principle, but in practice it's tough to touch either of them without stepping on someone's definition of fair. So doubtful anything will change anytime soon.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Well ...

... Those on the middle, the far right and the far left who know me IRL think I'm level-headed when I say that 2012 is battle between lex luthor and two-face. No matter who wins, what's going to get better? ...

... is hilarious 

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Interestingly enough, both sides agree that those who benefit from society more than they put in should be forced to put more back into (or take less from) society. It's simply that each side targets a different group (Democrats target the wealthy who abuse the tax code while Republicans target those on government programs). I personally consider them both balanced points in principle, but in practice it's tough to touch either of them without stepping on someone's definition of fair. So doubtful anything will change anytime soon.

I appreciate your greater attempt at civil discourse, so I'll again put some more effort in.

Yes politicians play with people's sense of fairness. But they understand it from different directions, hence the contrary actions. I'll grant that one side targets certain people. This is usually referred to as 'class warfare'. Though the direct goal is often said to be "raising revenue," presumable to help those on the low end of the spectrum, ultimate goal is usually hinted to be having no one left who is rich. I trust I don't have to explain who this hurts the overall economy. Granted some on the left would consider this an acceptable price. There is no equality like poverty.

For those taking 'fairness' from a different direction, the direct goal might be 'shrinking government' but the ultimate goal is usually to have those people able to care for themselves thanks to a larger stronger economy. Unfortunately this by necessity (chaos theory anyone?) means more rich people and more 'inequality.' Although those on the far left (who are honest enough to admit to buying votes) might instead say the ultimate goal is the shrinking of a political base for the Democratic party. I do appreciate the honesty that those groups have which is why when I have my ear to the ground for their ideas, some think I'm wearing a tin foil hat.

You are right that the focus is on a different groups of people. Feel free to recharacterize this fairness discussion differently if you think I am not observing it correctly. As for me, I am not a cruel person. If the economics supported the first position, I might be inclined to listen to it more. Unfortunately like a lot of things in economics, the answer admittedly makes most people uneasy. Oddly enough this does not include most libertarians in my experience. Now that I've pretty much alienated everyone, perhaps some non-political people will agree with me.