[zk]

[quote=markmax33]

Like I said the youth are voting your view point out. I don’t need to call you names, your ideas will expire.
[/quote]

What ideas and viewpoints are those? I don’t think you even know what my view point is. You’re too busy spouting venom and nonsense to pay attention to anybody else’s viewpoint.

[quote=markmax33]

How is it paranoia when Ron Paul got 89 seconds out of 1.5 hours in the first CBS debate while polling in 2nd or 3rd? [/quote]

That’s not what I was calling you paranoid about. Pay attention.

[quote=markmax33]

I state facts that should make the news and you just poke at me? I’m not sure that’s proper blog etiquette here.[/quote]

I’m not poking at you for stating facts “that should make the news,” whatever that means. I’m poking at you because you’re a liability to the very man you venerate, and you don’t even realize it. Assuming, of course, that your “hundreds of conversions” are bullshit, which I am, in fact, calling them.

[zk]

[quote=aldante]I find it hilarious that the pundits here are talking about a certain candidates “electability” as if the whole idea of the primaries are not to find that out. And yes I am referring to the media “pundits” as well as those “pundits” here. The “electability” argument is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to sway public opinion. And as I have mentioned before if the voters in each state of the primaries are not the ultimate voice of who is electable then why have the primaries?
[/quote]

I don’t think your logic quite adds up here. The primaries are to nominate a candidate from each party to run in the general election. Not to decide who is electable in the general election. There’s a difference.

[quote=aldante]
So those here and in the media call some one “extreme” and “unelectable” , knowing that people want to be reasonable and elect a candidate who can change the policies of the current administration. In a way it’s being the judge, jury, and executioner of the argument. In other words it’s a fallacy. I will not buy into that.
[/quote]

Are you saying that people who say Paul (or Santorum or whoever) is not electable are doing it because they don’t wan Paul or Santorum to get nominated? I’m not sure I understand what you think the motivation is behind voting for (or trying to sway someone to vote for) an electable candidate rather than that person’s ideal candidate. Please expound.

[quote=aldante]

IMHO, the primary debate should be about the ideas each candidate brings to the table. Hash those out with logic, facts, and mature discussion.
[/quote]

I agree. But let’s say that your ideal candidate can’t win in the general election. So your options are to have your ideal candidate win the nomination and then lose to what is, to you, a worse option (the other party’s candidate), or to vote for your less-than-ideal candidate who, to you, is a better option than the other party’s candidate. I would think a reasonable person would go for option B, as it would result in the best possible winner in the general election for that person. Obviously you don’t agree with that, and I’m curious as to why.

[quote=aldante]
But to discuss someone’s “electability”? Come on people.
[/quote]

As I say in the above paragraph, electability is important, and I’m curious why you think it shouldn’t be discussed.

[zk]

[quote=markmax33]
I won’t fall for your trap and use caps here or call you names or tell you to crawl back under a rock. This is a very insensitive, inaccurate statement. [/quote]

Trap? Your paranoia is amusing.

Why would you tell me to crawl back under a rock? Do you think that only people under rocks “nod, smile, listen, pretend they don’t think you’re a lunatic, maybe even pretend to agree with you, especially if you seem a bit unstable, and go about their day when they’ve managed to shake you?”

[zk]

[quote=markmax33]
Zk,
Obviously you can’t read facts. Some dude created a horrible youtube video, created a new account and put Ron Paul’s name on it and it makes news? You are even troll enough to repost a retarded story like that? Good job! Why don’t we talk about the real national threat, the national debt? I would bet you anything this was a Huntsman fan trying to make the news as a last ditch effort to get him in the spot light. It ain’t news, keep trying…[/quote]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
Markmax, please stop foaming at the mouth for just a minute and actually try to understand what other people are saying. ZK very obviously wasn’t posting that story because of the specific Huntsman video. He was posting it because the article made the point that certain Ron Paul supporters, by acting obnoxious and irrational and overzealous, are actually hurting Paul’s chances of winning.
[/quote]

OK, pretend I said that, because that’s what I’d have said (although I might not’ve been as nice).
[quote=markmax33]

I respectfully disagree with this statement. A few posts before he called me out:
[/quote]

[quote=zk]
The republicans’ main objective seems to be to defeat Obama. So I don’t understand why Jon Huntsman isn’t getting more votes. He and Romney are the only two, in my opinion, who have a chance in hell of beating Obama. Heck, I’d consider voting for Huntsman, and I think a lot of moderates would.
[/quote]

[quote=markmax33]
He is clearly a Huntsman sympathizer and brought that up for a reason. I don’t know how in the world that Youtube video should even be looked at as news. I’m offended anyone made it news. It only incentivizes the creator to make more crap like this.
[/quote]

Your logic is, as usual, faulty. First of all, I didn’t “call you out.” I didn’t mention you. I didn’t even mention Paul. I said Huntsman and Romney are the only ones who had a chance of beating Obama. How is that calling you out? When I called you a pathetic troll who likes to ride around on a high horse and would probably enjoy jacking off to Ron Paul porn, THAT was calling you out.

Using the word “sympathizer,” while possibly technically accurate, connotates something different. I think it’s possible he’d make a good president. I’d consider voting for him.

You think that because I’d consider Huntsman, I must have pointed to that article “for a reason,” but you don’t state what that reason is. Of course I pointed to that article for a reason. That reason is that the article pointed out what I’ve said about you in several posts: Your type of obnoxious, ridiculous posts have hurt Ron Paul more than they’ve helped him. I thought it might be interesting to you to know that I’m not the only one who thinks that.

I agree that the video of Huntsman was only one (possibly spurious) data point in the case the author of the article was making, and shouldn’t turn anyone off from Paul. But you put it together with all the other data points, and it starts to paint a picture of a segment of Ron Paul supporters who are doing Paul more harm than good. THAT is the point. Try to remember that.

[quote=markmax33]

I have converted 100s of people to Ron Paul fans in conversations.
[/quote]

Ah, the sweet naivete of youth. markmax, you know what mature people sometimes do? They nod, smile, listen, pretend they don’t think you’re a lunatic, maybe even pretend to agree with you, especially if you seem a bit unstable, and go about their day when they’ve managed to shake you.

[quote=markmax33]
This is point I am making about the article, a few extreme supporters or people posing as supporters shouldn’t be taken seriously or as part of the campaign.
[/quote]

You agree that extreme supporters shouldn’t be taken seriously. I take it, then, that you don’t consider yourself an extreme supporter (meaning a supporter who says/does extreme things, not one who supports to an extreme degree). If that’s the case, then you still don’t understand how you’re coming across.

[zk]

markmax, I was going to stop feeding your trollness, but I saw this and couldn’t help but think of you. There’s a lesson here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/ron-paul-supporters-and-that-awful-huntsman-attack-ad/2012/01/06/gIQAPfswfP_blog.html

One quote from the article that seems especially appropriate: “Stop doing this! You’ve crossed the line from self-parody into campaign liability.”

[zk]

The republicans’ main objective seems to be to defeat Obama. So I don’t understand why Jon Huntsman isn’t getting more votes. He and Romney are the only two, in my opinion, who have a chance in hell of beating Obama. Heck, I’d consider voting for Huntsman, and I think a lot of moderates would.

It’s only a matter of time before the religious right holds less power. Kids these days are more enlightened about social matters than their grandparents. If the republicans want to win in ’12, I think they’re going to have to get ahead of the game and get behind a social moderate. If they eschew a candidate like Huntsman because he’s socially moderate, they’re in for a disappointment.

Romney has gotten more socially conservative, and I think that would hurt his chances in the general election. And besides, he really does seem like quite a dick to me. Not sure how good a reason not to vote for him that is. But it probably won’t help his chances in the general election.

I’m not sure how good a chance Romney would have in a general election. But I think, despite what any current polls may say, that Huntsman would have a shot at winning.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Um… so is there such a thing as Ron Paul porn?
[/quote]
Why sure there is.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/07/ron-paul-porn/214153/

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And how in God’s name did you know about it?[/quote]

I was reading one of markmax’s posts, and I was getting really turned on by the very idea of Ron Paul. So I googled it. And there it was.

[zk]

[quote=markmax33]I can’t wait to laugh in your face one day when a Libertarian wins. You old men will fade into the background soon enough. There’s not much time left for you all.[/quote]

I see now. You don’t even really want Ron Paul to win. Otherwise you wouldn’t be being such a fool. Turns out you’re just a troll. And the only thing more pathetic than a troll is a troll who loves to ride around on a high horse, like you.

If I put up a link to some Ron Paul porn will you spend your days jacking off to it and stop posting here?

[zk]

An excellent article about the difficulty of keeping off weight (and the relative ease of losing it).

[zk]

[quote=paramount]That’s what is so great about Ron Paul, he is the only Republican (or democrat) who transcends right and left politics.[/quote]

Good point. I like Ron Paul, to a degree. Part of what I like about him is that he is not a social conservative (like most republicans) and he is not a tax and spend liberal (like most democrats). The only thing worse than a tax and spend liberal is a borrow and spend conservative. And these are our choices.

I think (and have for a long time) that it’s time for a new political party in this country. Perhaps we could call it the “pragmatic libertarian party.” It would be socially liberal as it would be free of the religious baggage that the right lugs around. It wouldn’t think that government is a cure for everything as some on the left do. But it would be pragmatic. It would understand that some things should be publicly funded. There is a role for government, and that role should be played strongly and efficiently. Easier said than done, obviously. But to base your platform on common sense and pragmatism rather than on idealism would be a good start.

For just one instance, the free market. The free market is a powerful force. But if you let it run rampant without any oversight or regulation, there would be too much manipulation, deceit, power grabbing, monopolization, and outright thievery for it to work the way that those who idealize the free market would like to think it would work. So you use common sense and the government performs an oversight and regulatory function while letting the free market gain your economy as much as it can.

Why wouldn’t such a party get a substantial portion of the vote? Why couldn’t it win congressional seats and the presidency? (Not a rhetorical question).

[zk]

[quote=paramount]

You’ve got it all backwards, your totally wrong.

It’s not Ron Paul’s idealism; it’s the ideals the country was founded upon that underlies Ron Paul’s platform – as outlined in the Constitution.

[/quote]

It’s still idealism. You can work within the constitution and still come up with pragmatic policies. Or you can work within the constitution and skew all your decisions and policies toward libertarian ideals, practical or not.

[zk]

[quote=paramount]

The difference being the “other” republican candidates idealism is driven by the central bank, whereas Ron Paul’s idealism is driven by the Constitution.

[/quote]

This reminds me of Babs’ line from Animal House. “If you’re not going to try, I’m just going to stop.” Come on, paramount. Think just a little bit before you start typing. Nobody’s idealism is driven by the central bank.

[quote=paramount]

I much prefer Ron Paul’s brand of idealism.[/quote]

And herein lies the problem. It seems most (certainly the loudest) Americans today want their brand of idealism and not what will fix the country.

[zk]

Seriously, though, Ron Paul’s problem is the same problem as the republican party’s in general. Pragmatism has completely gone out the window and been replaced by idealism.

Libertarianism, applied practically, could work to a degree. As could liberalism and conservatism. The problem is that everybody wants to score points with the ideologues among their constituents. And nobody wants to come up with an actual, workable plan for our country.

Why is this? Why do pragmatists and centrists hold so little sway in our country?

[zk]

[quote=poorgradstudent]In many situations regulated markets are by far the most efficient way to create wealth and avoid monopolies.[/quote]

*gasp!*
markmax, are you still there? Are you ok? poorgradstudent, what have you done?

[zk]

[quote=markmax33][quote=zk]I’d like to see Romney get the nomination. I would get a kick out of fundamentalist christians having to choose between a democrat and a mormon.[/quote]

All those disgruntled christians would go vote for the most christian guy in the race running as a 3rd party candidate. Ron Paul would not only steal many votes from the Republicans but there are a ton of independents and liberals out there dying for another option. All he needs is 34%+ in a 3 man race![/quote]

markmax, you’ve clearly got a lot of time and energy for this, and that’s admirable. But if you really want to help Ron Paul, you have to stay closer to reality (“All those disgruntled christians would go vote for the most christian guy in the race running as a 3rd party candidate” – Really?) and also get your facts straight. And, while I’m on the subject, stay away from the sweeping, incorrect proclamations that you sometimes make. One characteristic of successful campaigning is to get people to want to be with you, be on your side. You, for the most part, are not doing that. You come across as an abrasive know-it-all who doesn’t know it all. For Ron Paul’s sake, tone it down a bit.

[Author]

Posts