What are
/r/ronpaul's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/ronpaul:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/ronpaul:
Google Docs
BuzzFeed
YouTube
Yahoo! Finance
The Free Dictionary
Khan Academy
Wiki Answers
Imgur
The New York Times
Google News
Drudge Report
MarketWatch
Google Search
Metacafe
The most popular reviews in /r/ronpaul:
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 6 ...They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Edit: Definition of Arrest
Here's the relevant bit from the above article: A person is under arrest when the police physically "seize" him. The officer must physically seize the person or the person must submit to the officer's control. However, only a minor restraint on the person's liberty to come and go, or the use of "legal authority" is necessary to constitute an arrest.
These images show elections being stolen.
The left side of the graph shows small precincts. These are the ones that cannot be gamed - if 15 people show up to vote in a precinct, they might know each other, and know how their group voted.
Along the horizontal axis, you see how the candidates perform in larger and larger precincts. Statistically, these lines should always be near flat (A candidate's turnout in a precinct should not have any correlation with the number of people who vote in that precinct.)
These graphs show a steady, mathematically consistent degradation in Paul's turnout, based on the number of people who vote in a particular precinct. This is an optimal model for a "least tampering, guaranteed outcome" algorithmic vote switching mechanism.
The below document shows consistent, statistically incredible data on a state by state basis, going back to the 2008 primaries.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit?pli=1#
It is not lazy supporters who show up for rallies for hours, then fail to vote. It is not faithless young supporters. These elections are being stolen.
This is what I got from a previous post: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?authkey=CKT21ZkH&hl=en_US&key=0AjQBwcCtzwG8dEdGUWZjS1FwTW8wTzVyOEJ6dmg4cHc&authkey=CKT21ZkH&hl=en_US&f=true&noheader=true&gid=1
(Sorry about the abnormally large link)
UPDATE:9% Gingrich, 48% Paul, 33% Romney, 10% Frothy (587 total votes)
Link for the typing impared (lazy). Need to get this thread upvoted to the top and get everyone to vote. He hasn't finished below second so far this year on drudge and this is no time to start.
Edit: Looks like Drudge took down their poll and didn't post a final tally (again). Anyone get a screenshot sometime after 6:30 CST?
It already exists my friend.
If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year) started it all.
Join the Facebook page
Here's the Maine Caucus results as presented on the Bangor Daily News site:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AuY6j4GH8THydHNjdU80M0Q5TDY0ZVN4cmVYQUJjc1E
It was embedded here:
What exactly is the official position on how these errors were made?
Still lots of zeros there. These towns didn't caucus?
How did they get these results so wrong?
Who is...
>
@
Well who ever it is... I just sent them this:
It looks like you're trying to scam money from people trying to donate to Ron.
You better hope they put you in a jail cell, fore your own protection. I will persionly donate to the legal defense fund of any body that puts a bullet threw your scull.
More highlights from Daily Paul:
>Robert Wezel: "What is your favorite Murray Rothbard book?" Gary Johson: (after saying he had read Rothbard earlier in the inverview) "If I said I had read Murray Rothbard, I have NOT read Murray Rothbard."
>Robert Wenzel: "What about Ludwig von Mises?" Gary Johnson: "well uhh.. you know I have just read excerpts from Von Mises; look Bob if your out to catch me you've got me, you know you've got me, hook line sinker, you know I'm not sure.."
>Robert Wenzel: "What about Henry Hazlit, do you have a favorite of one of his books?" Gary Johnson: (Changes the subject, I guess he couldn't remember "Economics in One Lesson" at the time.) (Then comes back with) "...Henry Hazlitt, no I have no read Henry Hazlitt."
Gary appears to be a level 1 newb libertarian.
NOTHING wrong with that. We all were all level 1 at one time. But to say that he will "carry on the Ron Paul revolution" and ride his coattails is just ridiculous.
I feel like a bit like Nader w/ Gore voters at the moment, but that's OK :)
>seeks to further enslave us into the serfdom we've grown up in.
>Serfdom
This word, I don't think you understand what it really means. Here is a helpful definition.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/serfdom
>A member of the lowest feudal class, attached to the land owned by a lord and required to perform labor in return for certain legal or customary rights.
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/serfs.htm
>Medieval Serfs were peasants who worked his lord's land and paid him certain dues in return for the use of land, the possession (not the ownership) of which was heritable. The dues were usually in the form of labor on the lord's land. Medieval Serfs were expected to work for approximately 3 days each week on the lord's land. A serf was one bound to work on a certain estate, and thus attached to the soil, and sold with it into the service of whoever purchases the land.
>The daily life of a serf was hard. The Medieval serfs did not receive their land as a free gift; for the use of it they owed certain duties to their master. These took chiefly the form of personal services. Medieval Serfs had to labor on the lord's domain for two or three days each week, and at specially busy seasons, such as ploughing and harvesting, Serfs had to do do extra work. The daily life of a serf was dictated by the requirements of the lord of the manor. At least half his time was usually demanded by the lord. Serfs also had to make certain payments, either in money or more often in grain, honey, eggs, or other produce. When Serfs ground the wheat he was obliged to use the lord's mill, and pay the customary charge. In theory the lord could tax his serfs as heavily and make them work as hard as he pleased, but the fear of losing his tenants doubtless in most cases prevented him from imposing too great burdens on the daily life of the serf.
Obama has raised more money than all the GOP candidates combined generally, so it doesn't really surprise me that this is also true for the financial sector.
Edit: Actually, I just ran the numbers, and it's no longer true that Obama has more from finance than the other candidates combined, though he does still have more money overall than all of them combined. I threw the data into a Google Docs spreadsheet if anyone is interested. This is all from OpenSecrets.org (same source linked by OP).
The daily caller is no friend of Ron Paul. Tucker Carlson owns it and helped to associate Ron Paul with the Bunny Ranch. That being said Watch The vote 2012!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHhRdEwxWXp1VlpuaWRxSXpNUkxkOWc6MA
Read rule 15. It makes it very clear that states can bind their delegates.
According to the free dictionary:
>unit rule n. A rule of procedure at a national politcal convention under which a state's entire vote must be cast for the candidate preferred by a majority of the state's delegates.
And to keep this in perspective.. here's his top 10 attack ads against Romney.
I guess he would say he "took one for the team" again.
You make it sound like the confusion and destabilization is by accident...
Remember, in 2008 the neoconservatives shut down their state GOP convention and turned out the lights when it became clear that McCain wasn't going to win. What we saw this past weekend in NV wasn't the result of local decisions gone awry, it was the result of a last ditch effort to retain power.
Just watch...... In 2016 NV will be voting by primary using electronic voting machines with no paper trail.
The idea of getting "Big Money is out of Politics" is both illogical fear-mongering and anti-libertarian.
Illogical fear-mongering: Bernie Sanders has no money while Hillary Clinton has boatloads. Sanders is seriously giving Clinton a run for her money nationwide and currently leads in NH by 10 points. Jeb Bush has tons of big-money backers and he's plummeted in the polls. Trump isn't using his money to buy supporter at all, he gets it for free simply by being rich and famous (it would be hard to ban that) and by constantly saying outrageous things that get him free media attention. The current campaign is evidence that having wealthy supporters can't buy you the Presidency.
anti-Libertarian: What people who say this really mean is, give the state the power to suppress free speech. Don't let rich individuals or companies run political ads. Or even worse, forcibly tax people to give money to government-approved candidates for office. This is suppression of free speech is one of the most statist things I've ever heard. Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" explains why it's so important to let people spread their free speech; otherwise the only speech that is heard will be that of the state.
I tend to like Bernie on personal freedoms and not fighting wars. But he'd take us further away from libertarianism economically than just about any other candidate, promising "free money" to any interest group who will support him.
>On-line polls are meaningless toys. They are not polls, they are ads.
When CNN says "go to www.CNN.com/blahblahblah to vote" but then they open it with 54 votes and call it concluded. Or use a different obscured poll instead of the one they said to "go to"! THEY made that poll relevant by announcing it, yet if the results dont match they just twist them, or use different ones that show what they want.
> I have no idea what you are talking about
I do, and I have research the hell out of it. Do the same and you'll see, here this should help understand the electronic voting system: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit?pli=1
Were talking about all of them, Maine included
I gave it my best... it's a count of only states that have had their state conventions - an absolute count of confirmed delegates going to the RNC.
One thing I noticed... look at how many delegates Paul has from caucuses compared to the other candidates... shows how the grassroots can really be effective!
Are you a violent person? I know that I don't appreciate people invading, spying, supplying weapons to my enemies, etc.
Antagonizing people/nations does not create a good environment for clear-headed discussion and negotiation.
Removing your aggressive forces from the other guys' region is not an act of weakness. For a historical example - remember the Soviet Union
>The instability inside the US encouraged the Soviet Union to overextend itself around the world-which helped hasten its defeat. Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan was as costly to it as Vietnam was to us. However, the Soviet economy proved much less resiliant than the American economy.
They overextended themselves. How are we not doing the same, while continuing to generate an overall climate of tension, terror and aggressive militarism that benefits NO ONE.
You might want to look at how bound delegates are released.
https://sites.google.com/site/republicanselect/then-there-were-six/a-brokered-convention
The numbers simply aren't there. Paul is far too behind, and most of the delegates are party faithfuls, not not the new to join Paul supporters.
It won't be a brokered convention anyways. As long as Romney does half as good as he has in the past, he will lock up the nomination before the convention.
I used this one here. I've gone through a lot of different programs for downloading YouTube videos, and this one is by far my favorite. It automatically imports your videos into iTunes if you have it too!
Also, if you are more comfortable downloading from CNET here is that link.
Thank you. I was just about to post this, and ask where the OP got their information. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fox-business-network-adds-encore-presentations-of-marquee-business-programming-2012-02-09
>Currently one of the leading judicial analysts on television, Judge Napolitano will continue his role on both FOX Business and FOX News, providing key legal insights surrounding the growing intersection between Washington and Wall Street. In addition to co-hosting The Five on FNC, Eric Bolling will also lend his unparalleled expertise on oil and energy stemming from more than 20 years on the trading floor to both networks as a commodities contributor
IMHO, jump right into Economics for Real People, and then let the other usual recommended texts flesh out a prior understanding. Any and all won't hurt, so long as you start from what's essentially, IMHO, a cliff notes for Human Action (Sowell's EFRP).
Also, in the interest of full disclosure the completely non-Austrian book, IMHO, that are the best for the layman is Naked Economics. Now, I wouldn't recommend reading it before EFRP, or hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, because where you need to, you won't stop and wonder ... "why?"
But after those two short texts, jump right into naked economics for an overview of mainstream thought in a Chicago and neoclassical way, and then look into Hazlitt's Failue of New Economics. After just four books, and especially, as you are now able to absorb them, after What has government done to our money, and finally, Man economy and state as your first "academic" text", you'll be better at arguing and understanding economics than most people with degrees. From there alone, you could move right into to profound and awarded texts liek The Use of Knowledge in Society, Socialism from Mises, and the Counterrevolution of Science from Hayek.
Yes. He looks like fucking Richard Belzer.
To everyone wondering, those are his words. A spokesman said he has taken control of his Twitter and those are his tweets.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/why-ron-pauls-twitter-is-getting-a-little-more-in
Does this document carry any weight? Not sure if watchthevote2012.com is credible, but I like what they are saying.
WatchTheVote2012 Results Ron is still up by 10% something is fishy here!
hate to see it but ron paul's getting killed https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuO0mBQIbc6cdFltbWdTSnFFOG9va3VvUHVuR3QwTWc&rm=full#gid=1
Edit: apparently the site was hacked and results have returned to normal, RP still winning
I am trying to get Chuck Norris' official endorsement for Ron Paul. He has said great things about Dr. Paul in the past. Chuck on Paul
I sent out letters to his reps this week.
Not seeing any. I've disabled adblock and noscript. Are they still up are are they perhaps region-linked? Can someone take a screenshot? aviary is a good Fx addon to take a whole page screenshot.
No you don't need my permission, I'm giving you advice because when you don't have your facts right it makes you look stupid. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ron-paul-wins-louisiana-caucus-145300817.html Is finance Yahoo unbiased enough for you? Considering delegates is all that matters this is interesting too. http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/
I'm a little confused. The Federal Reserve runs the printing press? I thought the fractional reserve system was what increased the money supply. Doesn't the Federal Reserve buy securities to lower the interest rate in order to incentivize loan-taking, which increases the money supply? If anyone could explain to me where I'm wrong, that would be really great.
i.e. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/no-fed-does-not-print-money-just-explain-150433185.html
I don't have an account on that CIA storefront.
Uh ... you're either misinformed or deliberately misreading the purpose of that Order. The issue was that silver was rising in price for industrial uses, which went against the government's fixed exchange rate and resulted in people trading in their certificates for silver and depleting the United States reserves. Sale of silver at artificially low prices = bad.
Read this contemporary article, or this economic report from the President himself:
> I again urge a revision in our silver policy to reflect the status of silver as a metal for which there is an expanding industrial demand. Except for its use in coins, silver serves no useful monetary function.
> In 1961, at my direction, sales of silver were suspended by the Secretary of the Treasury. As further steps, I recommend repeal of those Acts that oblige the Treasury to support the price of silver; and repeal of the special 50-percent tax on transfers of interest in silver and authorization for the Federal Reserve System to issue notes in denominations of $1, so as to make possible the gradual withdrawal of silver certificates from circulation and the use of the silver thus released for coinage purposes. I urge the Congress to take prompt action on these recommended changes.
Kennedy didn't support the issuance of silver certificates, he wanted to stop it, and one way to do that was to take the power away from the Fed (and I should add that at the same time he took away their silver powers, he gave them the power to issue small denominations, a net win for them). All this information, with citations, is available on Wikipedia.
Four years ago, my mom called him "extreme". I told her if she didn't think we needed some extreme changes, she wasn't paying attention.
She'll be caucusing for RP on the 17th.
Bonus: She sent me a copy of Capitalism and Freedom just the other day.
A great primer would be Meltdown by Thomas Woods Jr. It goes through the recent financial collapse in pretty plain English. It'll give you a great introduction into why Ron Paul says the things he does on economic policy.
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is great at understanding economic policy. One you won't get in a traditional utilitarian approach to policy.
The thing about Austrian economics is it's hard to not delve into the philosophical side. After a certain point you'll want to read things such as The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard, because Austrian economics realizes that we're studying human action. A typical economist's drive for 100% scientific objectivity will diminish the subjective nature of human decisions.
Mises.org has a ton of books for free in pdf format. Human Action and Man, Economy, and State are of course the big comprehensive ones, but poke around the website. YouTube has a MisesMedia channel with lectures.
My personal favorite lecturers are Walter Block, Robert Murphy, Jeff Tucker, and Tom Woods.
Read and watch whatever interests you, anything from these guys share perspectives with Ron Paul. There's so much out there (and 99% of it free), dive in!
In a nutshell that economies should not be managed by a central authority, that order best emerges naturally from the bottom up as opposed to being imposed from the top down by technocrats, and that when analyzing any economic question be sure to take into account the long run and the unseen effects, not just the short run and the seen effects. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is an awesome, clear and short intro to free market economics. Read the daily articles on Mises.org as well.
Any idea why your link has slightly different figures than the figures on the watchthevote2012.com site?
No, these results are coming from reliable sources, not just Paul fans. There is only 1 county so far that Romney has beaten Paul, and it was only by 4 votes. The released numbers are only for the smaller counties who held caucuses earlier in the week, but it does give a good indication for the rest of the state:
Establishment liberal disinformation.
Meanwhile back in reality:
Endocrine hormone disruptors (estrogen mimickers) like BPA are polluting the environment and damaging animal life.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935103000860
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12919782
Stop being trendy idiots and try actually researching what the crazy person says. You'll find, unfortunately, that he's right far more than he's wrong.
Is that the best you've got. Can't argue in the current topic so you'll try to impress with that desperate link between the newsletters and Ron Paul.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-facts-that-dont-jibe-with-ron-paul-being-a-rac-41xp
How long are you going to beat that dead horse?
The media has distilled the broader idea into a soundbyte so us dumbed down 'muricans can have something to repeat.
While gold is an ideal material to base a currency on Dr. Paul is more concerned with eliminating the Federal Reserve and it's fractional banking system.
The current system allows the Fed to inflate the money supply, and use other measures to 'stabilize' the economy. A job it's been an abject failure at for 99 years.
The real idea is to abandon Keynesian principles for Austrian School ones, but that's to heady for most people so instead of trying to educate people so they can think about it and debate both on the merits...the media went with gold standard which is easier to digest, and makes people think they understand it (at least a little) because everyone knows what gold is.
These 3 segments are the best Ron Paul videos I've ever seen. Very highly recommended for folks to watch, whether you're a Paul supporter who wants an expanded explanation on his views, or if you just want to learn about Paul's views in general outside of 30-second debate answers.
This is more information related to number 2 above:
I thought I might add this link about Google's First Employee leaving to go to work at the Khan Academy.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400086,00.asp
Here is a link to the Khan Academy itself. If you've never heard of it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I know I was.
This makes me want to be a teacher. First, I would teach WHY as well as WHAT and WHEN. You can't understand the context of history without understanding why something happened.
Secondly, I wouldn't use multiple choice EVER. Short answer all the way. Heck, maybe even make 'em write whole paragraphs every now and then. Does it make it harder to grade? Absolutely, but guess what? You're a teacher. Your job is to make sure your students are learning. Multiple choice answers are the byproduct of lazy teachers.
I'd also take a cue from Khan Academy and use whatever software he's using to better illustrate concepts.
When you're getting results like what is shown in this video, it's obvious you're not doing your job. It sickens me.
EDIT: I'd also explain that while they may not care about what they're learning now, they'll thank me when they're at some cocktail party and they're in some conversation with someone and they can impress people with their superior intellect.
JFK had two SS dudes to stand on the back bumber of his limo.
The SS ordered those two man off of the bumper to facilitate his murder.
See: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/262729/jfk_secret_service_call_off/
Women are on average less interested in general facts and less knowledgeable than men:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289601000642
Most science, politics, and economics discussion on the internet involve men for example.
There are of course very knowledgeable women, but the general differences in gender psychology explains why very rational candidates like Paul don't do as well as smooth-talking candidates that make empty emotional appeals.
The 20% of Paul's donors who are women are the smart/knowledgeable ones. The rest will base their vote mostly on the candidate's demeanor and a superficial knowledge of the candidates' positions and record.
Yeah I've read that too. :)
Paragraph 4 "GOP hopeful Ron Paul...": http://mashable.com/2012/01/03/presidential-candidates-social-media/?utm_campaign=Feed:%20Mashable%20%28Mashable%29&WT.mc_id=obinsite
I have found my answer here and it also includes him admitting that he isn't an absolute expert on everything technology related.
Everyone has limitations. If you would like my two cents, I would say it is unwise to put everything on the republican/democrat scale. I was really offended by this comment, and then perplexed that it received positive feedback. I have done my research, and it seems that Dr. Paul understands the complexities of the issue. I think the truly ridiculous thing is to blindly accept what an ideology tells you to think, even one that appears to be mostly correct. I would suspect that he would appreciate hearing dissenting voices on this more than he would someone toeing the libertarian line blindly and without thought on immediate impacts.
I believe scientific research is very important, when it's applicable research.
May I ask what you're researching? If I consider it valuable I'd be happy to donate to your ChipIn or Flattr funds.
I don't support a government job just because it's a government job, but I don't want it dissolved for that reason alone either. If I think you're doing a good service, I'd be happy to pay for it voluntarily, without the need for government force, and I bet you can get plenty more people here who are willing to back their words with actions.
So, what kind of research are you doing?
Not sure about Texas, but many states have "open" primaries -- IOW you don't actually register a party affiliation.
It is just that when you vote in a primary election you can only vote in ONE party's primary (i.e. you pick it at the time of the voting).
EDIT -- Here's apparently the skinny on Texas party primaries:
>The Texas primary is semi-open, meaning that you do not have to register with a political party on your voter registration. On the primary election day, you simply request the ballot for the party primary in which you want to vote, and they will mark your voter registration card. You will get a new registration card every 2 years, so even if it gets stamped "Republican," by the next major primary you will have a blank one again.
The total population of Europe at the time was some where in the neighborhood of 70 million.
But you are correct that it was a significant event that resulted in mass death.
Bad conditions could improve short-term productivity, but they will eventually lead to injuries, dropping morale, and the better workers leaving for better conditions elsewhere. In the end, the sweat-shop conditions will be too costly to a business in a free market. Workers would just go work for a competitor or start their own business. In the past, however, businesses would try to create conditions (usually by lobbying for favorable laws or using outright force) to prevent such competition from developing. They'd sabotage competitors, block them from accessing markets, get laws passed to raise startup costs, etc., while making deals among themselves to not grant concessions to workers. The proper role of government would be to prevent such market interferences and uses of force, instead of granting favors to either party to get votes (as they are now).
I realize these ideas a hard for a lot of people to swallow. We've been getting government-approved history and economic lessons for a long time. The TV and film industries have been supporting these views for decades. But when you start digging, you find there's a bigger picture, and the parts start to fit together far better than the approved tale.
You might want to start with "Economics in One Lesson" by Hazlitt if you haven't read that one yet. If there's a particular interest you have (labor, environment, civil rights, war, etc.), I may be able to point you to something on that particular topic.
Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a Free Society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.
The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important.
They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention.
For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.
-Milton Friedman "Capitalism and Freedom"
Economics: Read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson for a plain words explanation of what free market economics is all about.
Notice the word FREE... it is synonymous with the word LIBERTY. Heavy words that Ron Paul takes very seriously and uses as cornerstones to his campaign and ideals.
For some fun videos showing the Libertarian viewpoints on Economics and also including Healthcare and Welfare check out these links:
Property: http://youtu.be/c6J730PqBik
Plunder: http://youtu.be/TJIMqwJI2uI
>It will far exceed any cost they will incur covering pre-existing
If true then shouldn't we expect premiums to decrease in the future? Can you direct me to a source that supports this?
Regarding the myth that premiums are rising as a result of the ACA, Lori Robertson (managing director of Factcheck.org) has also said, "If you have a health condition you may see a decrease. If you don't, you may see an increase."
If the number of people that do not have any conditions "far outnumbers the ones with pre-existing conditions", does that not mean that the majority of people will see their premiums rise?
According to this calculator, contributing $2k every year from 18 to 65 will only get you 1 million dollars if you assume 8% growth in the stock market every year. That's the same as assuming that the Dow will rocket all the way up to 450,000 from its current value of about 12,000.
I haven't seen any results from the MS county conventions yet. I'm trying to get some information together on this googDoc. If anyone has information on your counties, please let me know or leave a comment on the document.
Thanks!
They just published the list of delegates and alternates. To get an idea how ridiculously stupid the alternate delegate rule is, just look at the sequence of the alternates. One whole precinct of alternates has to be seated before another can be seated. That's just about the least representative thing you could do. :/
This system in every way favors some precincts over others. No even distribution. No representation for smaller precincts where we need to grow the party. Pro-establishment, pro-Republican base. It makes me wonder whose side Don Zimmerman really is on. He recruits the nuttiest of the Ron Paul supporters who come unprepared among the Nominations Committee and make the rest of us look bad. Then he puts through this cluster of an amendment. It's not the first time people have wondered if he's trying to subvert the Ron Paulers. I don't really believe this, but damn, shit like this makes me wonder.
Sure, the idea of pct caucusing is good, but this was exactly the wrong way to do it.
Sorry, I had gone all reductio ad absurdum in an attempt to make this more clear. You're right, by over-simplifying, I change the problem.
So, the problem is, Romney's percentage of the vote correlates to the number of votes cast, rather than population.
See Page 3 - this is Washoe, NV - 369 precincts reporting.
From the smallest to largest precinct (in terms of votes cast), Santorum ranges from 10 - 13%, while Gingrich goes from 26% - 31%. There's no correlation between the number of votes in a precinct and their share of the vote. This is what you'd expect - their share of the vote follows a normal distribution.
With Paul and Romney, this changes. Paul goes from 29% in the precincts with the fewest number of recorded votes, down to 14% in the precincts with the most recorded votes - his share drops by 15%. At the same time, Romney's % increases by 15% - from 33 to 47%.
Again - the other candidates are not affected by any kind of surge due to the total numbers of votes in a precinct, but Paul and Romney are, in equal and opposite measure.
I'm sorry if this doesn't inspire any cause for concern with you. Graphs will rarely sit up and say "I'm fraud", and this is really about as clear as it gets.
Yeah, perhaps. I put an even more modified version that I hope is clearer here.
I also made it plural and tried to include those that would jump to Gary Johnson or simply not vote at all.
According to this Androscoggin is off by 50 votes for Paul. Also, Romney took Cumberland county by a much wider margin than the first ~50% of the vote would suggest. There may be more discrepancies, not sure.
Thanks for finding that.
***These are according to watchthevote2012.com
Also Ron Paul remains in the lead in Maine by 139 votes.
New update, ron paul getting killed
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuO0mBQIbc6cdFltbWdTSnFFOG9va3VvUHVuR3QwTWc&rm=full#gid=1
edit: the link changed for some reason and doesn't include washington and york counties, when it did about an hour ago
Does anyone know why Romney was given 2 delegates in SC according to this spreadsheet if it was winner take all?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At6F8WSpQ1dJdG40YnRVejJfbXFJYzlzNy1aeWcxNFE#gid=0
You may want to check this story out where Ron Paul indicates he'll probably vote for Gary Johnson. If you trusted Ron Paul up until this point, continue to trust him and follow his example.
i agree. cain set himself up for a fed beatdown. sompin' like one of these would be more better:
> Social security, stuff like that?
Entitlements like Medicare and SS are not funded by the regular income tax. They are funded by payroll taxes that are taken out separately. They are also some of the most popular government programs in existence.
Getting rid of the income tax is nearly impossible. Most of what Ron Paul wants do is because it has to be approved by the legislature. The President does not have as much power as people think.
The income tax was created with the 16th amendment to the Constitution. It would take another amendment to get rid of it (like our Prohibition amendment). This is what it takes to do that.
The running commentary was fun.
Pierce MorAn stuffed up big time. Ron Paul is talking about someone taking the life of a baby either one minute before birth, or one minute after and how > For me the one minute before birth and one minute after birth isn't a whole lot different (in terms of the value he places on the life of a baby at birth.
So then Pierce MorAn says: > But you understand that a lot of people with serious religious conviction, it is.
Pierce: We're talking about birth here.
...and then he says...
> They say that life begins at CONCEPTION.
(Emphasis mine). Pierce: Do you honestly believed that conception happens at birth?
PAUL OWNED HIM with: > Life does begin at conception
Pierce MorAn. This is what Conception means:
Would love to get him one for his birthday(RAND we know you're here do it :), I think he would use it https://teespring.com/stores/leftistideologygotohell
Don't want to seem spammy or anything, but it fits this to a T
​
It is bad and politics.
But, here is where Ron Paul says that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther Kings are heroes. That is good enough for me on that question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w
Barack Obama did cocaine. Obama smoked weed. Does that mean that Obama is a cocaine addict that wants to turn us all into drug abusers?
Let's focus on core issues. We will never find a perfect candidate. We should focus on the problems that are our country is facing, not if a candidate wrote something offensive 20 years ago. If not, we should get used to 20% unemployment and pick our Presidential candidates at random.
When the Neocons were warmongering, and candidate 0bama was saying such sane things in his act to gain power, it was very hard to remain a Republican. But I knew something most people did not...
> In a Democracy, the Majority has unlimited power over the Minority. This system of government does not provide a legal safeguard of the rights of the Individual and the Minority. It has been referred to as "Majority over Man".
> In a Republic, the Majority is Limited and constrained by a written Constitution which protects the rights of the Individual and the Minority. The purpose of a Republic form of government is to control the Majority and to protect the God-given, inalienable rights and liberty of the Individual.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_republic_and_a_democracy#ixzz1hGJmDiJN
Any LGBT with half a brain would be a republican.
>what is so wrong with having the federal government help you out here?
=
>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... The Declaration of Independence
Did you get that? The governments only job is to protect your rights. It's not to take from you to "help" me.
You changed changed subject dirt bag. You changed the subject like smug prick because you wanted to lecture me on how I was wrong. You're blocked scum. Read some Ian Kershaw and Robert O. Paxton
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
https://www.amazon.com/Ian-Kershaw/e/B001ITX4WI%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
Not quite true. Aktion T4 was more a killing of those deemed genetically inferior by the NSDAP, though part of it was indeed the idea that these people suck up state resources. However for the "ordinary" German, welfare state got expanded. https://www.amazon.com/HITLERS-BENEFICIARIES-G-C3-96TZ-ALY-dp-0805087265/dp/0805087265/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
really? I can google "obama is an alien" and can come up with enough links too...
Here's a particularly well formatted article stating 22 reasons why Paul isn't a racist... It all depends on what you want to believe, bruh. I could show you a million links to prove otherwise, but in the end, it's up to you.
Winning the majority of available delegates does count as a technical state win is what I've learned over the past couple weeks... Yahoo seems to believe so. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ron-paul-wins-louisiana-caucus-145300817.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ron-paul-wins-louisiana-caucus-145300817.html
Also, I was at the state campaign headquarters when it was announced that we won. We got like 73 or 74% of the delegates. :)
>an infectious idea
Funny you should say that. Now I'm gonna listen to one of my favorite R.P. songs!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1071140/ron_paul_is_a_virus_original_song/
It's got a shitload of youtube awards but I gave you the meta link cuz y.t. is off my A list.
It's a pleasure to meet you, have a nice day. ♥
this is from the official SC GOP calendar
May 5th at 6PM Eastern.
I haven't found if/when FOX will televise this debate.. ?
How about this track record? This one is over a time frame greater than the 6 months Krugman chooses to nit pick at. I would say that Ron Paul's "little to no knowledge of economics" has fared pretty well in his investment choices over the years, wouldn't you?
Oh yeah, that's hillarious. I'll check the times and maybe go. It was only like 20-25 dollars. Nothing like the hundreds Rick santorum wants to hear him speak at a lunch thing - definitely not worth it. Thanks! Edit: He'll be speaking after Jordan Page finishes playing (7:15-8:15) at the Texas Liberty Concert which goes in total from 6:30 to 10 at the River Ranch Stockyards. Directions: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=500+Northeast+23rd+Street+in+Fort+Worth&hl=en&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=44.118686,89.121094&hnear=500+NE+23rd+St,+Fort+Worth,+Texas+76106&t=m&z=16
Oh no. You can upload direct to Imgur and give us a link, with your Android, or I believe straight into Reddit. I think, but I'm not certain, that the Reddit is Fun app does this. Besides, post them when you get home. Newt's not going to be happy with you.
my attention span is total crap, getting through just these is going to be tough. I planned on reading Economics in One Lesson first because I've heard it talked about quite a few times and I figure it would help to understand the latter more effectively. See how I do with these first!
Heh you sound just like me a few years ago. Don't worry, once you graduate with a degree no one on the marketplace is actually interested in, you'll have plenty of time to read to your heart's content! I may be speaking from experience here ;)
The Law and Economics in One Lesson are great books! Consider some audio recordings as well if you don't have much time for "heavy" reading. I for one listened to many great books, including "One Lesson", on my long trainrides to uni. Many of them are free on youtube (and can easily be ripped to an mp3) or on mises.org under audio/video.
Yes, it is interesting how Europe is indeed in many ways the birthplace of libertarianism and certainly of "austrian" economics, yet today it is practically unheard of. I think there is hope though. After all, we're really going all out trying every kind of statism we can think of and keep clamoring for more and more. Once it becomes clear that it will fail terribly, as it inevitably must, maybe the people, and even politicians, will give liberty a real chance..?
Your problem is not with libertarianism, but with Gary Johnson's platform. I understand your concern. I personally find Johnson's budget plan irresponsable. I liked Paul's plan because it preserved the social safety net for those paying into it, while allowing others to opt out. It voluntarized it. The problem with Social Security is that it is built into the system. You can't just take it away from those who have paid into it. People adapt as things do. As a libertarian, I will argue not that it should be immediately eradicated but that it shouldn't have been created in the first place, at least not in its current form. But I can't change the fact that it was, and the only option for a bleeding heart libertarian such as myself is to come up with options, transitions, and program competition.
While I totally respect your decision not to support for Johnson, especially based on your reasoning, I do not thing the platform of one man should sway your opinion of a philosophy. I think that is the danger of making idolatry out of the Pauls, Johnson, and others. Libertarianism is not any person or peoples but a philosophy of ideology, and quite a diverse one at that. I encourage you to read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" and Hayek's "Road To Serfdom."