Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Primary 2012] Romney triumphs in NH, but his campaign is going South (Carolina) from here

13468999

Posts

  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    TNC continues to kick ass, take names, and deconstruct Ron Paul.

    That was a pretty good read.

    Theft 4 Bread
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Jars wrote:
    why is everyone going to so much work to destroy the worst candidates before they become the candidate. we could have had gingrich as the nominee

    Romney spent $Texas via his SuperPAC to destroy him. And the RNC helped, because they can read a poll like anyone else.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Guitar Hero Of TimeGuitar Hero Of Time Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote:
    KungFu wrote:
    And for a smart guy, and Greenwald can be quite the idiot sometimes :
    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

    Whats so idiotic about that article? He points out that in today's political climate, praising a candidate's stance on something is too often equated with endorsing the candidate. Then he goes on to tear apart the whole "well, he's not worth consideration because of x and y" - not because Ron Paul deserves a pass, but that Obama is not given the same treatment.

    The idiotic aspect of it is that Greenwald builds a giant strawman, claiming that "progressives" oppose Ron Paul not for any rational reason, but because his opposition to some aspects of American foreign policy make pro-Obama "progressives" freak out and quake in fear.

    I get where Greenwald's coming from, since if you have an ultra-isolationist foreign policy stance, and ignore every single aspect of Paul's domestic policy stances other than his stance on drugs, he becomes the magical civil liberties candidate.

    Except, you know, unless you have a uterus and/or enjoy fucking people with the same type of genitals as you.

    I feel like this point of view misses to point of that Greenwald article (as I understand it.)

    No one (in this discussion) is saying that Paul is a magical civil liberties candidate. To suggest that as the goal is to fall in to the trap Greenwald is talking about. All he is saying is that everyone is bad sometimes, so the only way to not be a hypocrite is to allow praise of good aspects of someone's positions even if you disagree with their motivations or other positions.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Except if you praise Obama, in which case you are a robot who should be mocked.

    I hate Democrats.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote:
    KungFu wrote:
    You guys managed to miss the whole point of the article.

    Glenn Greenwald does not support Ron Paul.

    Yes, I admit to not getting that the whole point of an article praising Ron Paul for being the only major candidate to raise important and vital political points doesn't count as "supporting" Ron Paul.

    I'm going to write a 5,000 word essay about how awesome cookies are, the whole point of that essay being, obviously, that I don't like cookies.

    Also? The article wasn't about Ron Paul. It was about those of us who don't like Ron Paul even though he occasionally says things which sound on their face like I would agree with them even if those things are emergent from an overarching doctrine which I ultimately think is abhorrent.

    Greenwald would like to criticize me and others like me for hypocrisy because we can't appreciate shallow, superficial similarities. I happen to think that governance and policy is about more than a ten word answer.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    I feel like this point of view misses to point of that Greenwald article (as I understand it.)

    No one (in this discussion) is saying that Paul is a magical civil liberties candidate. To suggest that as the goal is to fall in to the trap Greenwald is talking about. All he is saying is that everyone is bad sometimes, so the only way to not be a hypocrite is to allow praise of good aspects of someone's positions even if you disagree with their motivations or other positions.
    Right. Ron Paul is an overtly racist, right-wing Christian fundamentalist, who incidentally favors cutting defense and drug legalization.

    This makes him slightly better than the group of covertly racist, right-wing Christian fundamentalists that don't favor cutting defense or drug legalization who make up the rest of the Republican primary candidates.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote:
    Lawndart wrote:
    KungFu wrote:
    You guys managed to miss the whole point of the article.

    Glenn Greenwald does not support Ron Paul.

    Yes, I admit to not getting that the whole point of an article praising Ron Paul for being the only major candidate to raise important and vital political points doesn't count as "supporting" Ron Paul.

    I'm going to write a 5,000 word essay about how awesome cookies are, the whole point of that essay being, obviously, that I don't like cookies.

    Also? The article wasn't about Ron Paul. It was about those of us who don't like Ron Paul even though he occasionally says things which sound on their face like I would agree with them even if those things are emergent from an overarching doctrine which I ultimately think is abhorrent.

    Greenwald would like to criticize me and others like me for hypocrisy because we can't appreciate shallow, superficial similarities. I happen to think that governance and policy is about more than a ten word answer.

    Or as Coates put it (I posted the thing for a reason!):
    Every man is a prophet, until he faces a Congress

    For evidence, you (and Greenwald!) can just point to the man these clowns are trying to replace.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I read that Greenwald article and don't consider it stupid at all, though I don't agree with all of it. I think you're exaggerating his characterization of progressives.

    Ta-Neshisi Coates is good at this: "I would like nothing more than to join my friends in support of Paul and exhilarate in a morality unweighted by the ugly facts of governance and democracy."

    Yougottawanna on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I read that Greenwald article and don't consider it stupid at all, though I don't agree with all of it. I think you're exaggerating his characterization of progressives.

    Do you read him consistently? He's really obnoxious on this point.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    I don't read him consistently, so maybe he is. But I feel the same way as whoever it was who he quoted at the beginning, I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul but at the same time I'm glad he exists.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    So how will Fox News choose to spin it if Ron Paul DOES win?

    I mean, I can imagine a graphic like this
    flfti0.jpg
    Is just the beginning.

    I'm picturing leaving Paul's results off the graphic entirely, putting Romney's picture on top of Paul's with the numbers correct but the bar size mysteriously incorrect.

    It'll be fun, is what I'm saying.

    If we can get a Ron Paul D-TX out of this I think it will be the greatest caucus ever.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I don't read him consistently, so maybe he is. But I feel the same way as whoever it was who he quoted at the beginning, I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul but at the same time I'm glad he exists.

    What does Ron Paul bring to the world other than another racist texan who would see black people back in chains if he could? I mean honestly Paul's support of a pro drug policy is advocated by a lot smarter and less horrible people.

  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    It probably stems from him having to deal with obnoxious "progressives" all the time. There aren't many people who write the type of criticism he writes about the current administration and he gets a lot of flak for it from "progressives."


    And I did really like that Coates article. I do wish there were some more sane candidates out there supporting peace and rule of law. It is such a shame that Ron Paul is one carrying that torch.

    Theft 4 Bread
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote:
    What does Ron Paul bring to the world other than another racist texan who would see black people back in chains if he could?

    Oh, come on. Is this the level of discourse here?

    Theft 4 Bread
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    I read that Greenwald article and don't consider it stupid at all, though I don't agree with all of it. I think you're exaggerating his characterization of progressives.

    Do you read him consistently? He's really obnoxious on this point.

    This is the same guy who said that Obama supporters would defend Obama even if he raped a nun live on TV.

    He's the last person to get all huffy and demand people take a nuanced take on political candidates.

  • Guitar Hero Of TimeGuitar Hero Of Time Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    I feel like this point of view misses to point of that Greenwald article (as I understand it.)

    No one (in this discussion) is saying that Paul is a magical civil liberties candidate. To suggest that as the goal is to fall in to the trap Greenwald is talking about. All he is saying is that everyone is bad sometimes, so the only way to not be a hypocrite is to allow praise of good aspects of someone's positions even if you disagree with their motivations or other positions.
    Right. Ron Paul is an overtly racist, right-wing Christian fundamentalist, who incidentally favors cutting defense and drug legalization.

    This makes him slightly better than the group of covertly racist, right-wing Christian fundamentalists that don't favor cutting defense or drug legalization who make up the rest of the Republican primary candidates.

    Sure, I agree.

    I took the point of the article to be that Ron Paul was the only person in the running (including Obama) supporting certain positions and views - for any reason - that "progressives" claim are important. That being the case, it is still valid to support Obama over Ron Paul. It's just hypocritical to say something like "Paul's good positions are invalid because he also...." when you can do that for literally anyone.

    Basically, it sounds like Greenwald wants more people to be talking about actual policy positions and their motivations and consequences, instead of picking a team and then demonizing all opposition.

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Bro!Registered User regular
    So in other Republican book tour Primary news, Herman Cain announced that he'd be totally willing to be someone's Secretary of Defense.
    "That is a big job to serve as Secretary of Defense," she remarked to Cain. "I just want to ask you a couple questions. You had some mistakes on the campaign trail. You were confused about the Taliban. You said you thought the Taliban might take control in Libya. You know that the Taliban are not in Libya, correct?"

    "Correct," Cain said, adding, "Norah, look, it's a learning process, and there are a lot of things that I have learned as a result of having been in the campaign, as well as after the campaign. Now, the reason that I indicated that I would consider being Secretary of Defense, I don't think that my qualifications of being the Secretary of Defense should be based on something I said months ago in error. No, it should be based upon leadership. National security is one of our biggest challenges that we have in this country, and I believe that, as a leader in that position, if we have the right president, I would be able to bring a lot to the party in terms of helping to prioritize those things that need to be prioritized."

    CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said, "Mr. Cain, wouldn't you have to start out being fairly familiar with the basic national security issues are? I mean, you throughout the campaign seemed unaware of a lot of the things that the Secretary of Defense would have to deal with. I mean, good intentions are one thing and bringing fresh insight. But do you really, sincerely, feel that you have the background and really the knowledge that you could handle a cabinet-level position like that?"

    "Bob, allow me to remind you of something that didn't get picked up when I was beat up about what I didn't know. I served on the Citizens Advisory Board of the Strategic Air Command in Omaha, Nebraska, for several years when I was there. I was exposed to some of those issues at that particular time. I started my career as a ballistics analyst with the ... Navy. I've actually been on a Navy ship. So, I have been around some of these issues. So, it's not that I'm totally -- "

    Schieffer interjected, "Sir, if I may interrupt. I have been on a Navy ship, too, but I don't think that qualifies me to be Secretary of Defense."

    "Bob, I didn't say that qualified me to be Secretary of Defense," Cain said. "There you go...when I'm trying to make a point. That's not the point, Bob. I didn't say being on a ship one time qualifies me for being Secretary of Defense. My point is quite simply this: We need strong leadership in that position. And it was a hypothetical question and I gave a response based upon the question that was asked."



  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    Basically, it sounds like Greenwald wants more people to be talking about actual policy positions and their motivations and consequences, instead of picking a team and then demonizing all opposition.

    Ding ding ding!

    Theft 4 Bread
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    KungFu wrote:
    It probably stems from him having to deal with obnoxious "progressives" all the time. There aren't many people who write the type of criticism he writes about the current administration and he gets a lot of flak for it from "progressives."


    And I did really like that Coates article. I do wish there were some more sane candidates out there supporting peace and rule of law. It is such a shame that Ron Paul is one carrying that torch.

    There are LOTS of those people. I'm an unabashed Obama supporter, and all the liberal blogs I read bash him fairly regularly, except Steve Benen who is more focused on the GOP.

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    KungFu wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    What does Ron Paul bring to the world other than another racist texan who would see black people back in chains if he could?

    Oh, come on. Is this the level of discourse here?

    What? A noted racist who wants to go back to "states rights" heard that song and dance before Kungfu.

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    It is not that he does not think Ron Paul is a bad candidate, he just thinks that progressives mentioning it ever is actually progressives shouting it constantly at anyone and everyone who says anything nice about his positions.

    Given that I was doing so, right here on this forum, I think I can safely say he's full of straw.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Taramoor wrote:
    So how will Fox News choose to spin it if Ron Paul DOES win?

    I mean, I can imagine a graphic like this
    flfti0.jpg
    Is just the beginning.

    I'm picturing leaving Paul's results off the graphic entirely, putting Romney's picture on top of Paul's with the numbers correct but the bar size mysteriously incorrect.

    It'll be fun, is what I'm saying.

    If we can get a Ron Paul D-TX out of this I think it will be the greatest caucus ever.

    Santorum and Paul in the top 3 would really stick it to the news organizations that flat out ignored them. And Iowa will be the first and last state that they have a shot of winning. Santorum, anyway, Paul might get a small boost from momentum if he places well but won't be able to go the distance; he'd be at the bottom with Santorum and the rest soon enough.

    Is it just me or is making Santorum jokes actually getting harder?

    EDIT: Somehow in writing this post I left out the reason I quoted it. That graphic is ridiculous. I think Fox goes through a new graphics department every week. The people responsible are so inexperienced that they goof, get fired, and then replaced. That's the only thing that makes since since they are accidents, right?

    Tomanta on
    camo_sig2.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    KungFu wrote:
    Basically, it sounds like Greenwald wants more people to be talking about actual policy positions and their motivations and consequences, instead of picking a team and then demonizing all opposition.

    Ding ding ding!

    Which is totally not what he does! He's a hypocrite. I used to read him, but there's only so many times you can read the same article (even if the name of the President is changed). That number for me was approximately 1500 times (5 years, every day...)

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Basically, it sounds like Greenwald wants more people to be talking about actual policy positions and their motivations and consequences, instead of picking a team and then demonizing all opposition.

    That's certainly a well meaning goal. Unfortunately he's applying that to the Republican primary.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I don't think we are demonizing the opposition when the opposition openly wants the following.

    Ban Gay marriage at a mininum some of them have supported criminilizing homosexuality

    Banning abortion and contraception of any kind for any reason including incest and rape

    War with Iran (aside from Paul)

    Restricting voting rights with regressive poll taxes to prevent minorities and students from voting

    Removing union rights and by extension worker rights

    Removing medicare

    Tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of tax increases for everyone else

    That's just off the top of my head. So tell me how is it demonizing them when they all have such universally horrible opinions.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I read that Greenwald article and don't consider it stupid at all, though I don't agree with all of it. I think you're exaggerating his characterization of progressives.

    First off, I don't think it ought to be in dispute that the article is actually about Progressives and not Ron Paul specifically. The title is "Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies," and before he gets into the weeds on how Progressives interface with Paul's positions, he starts off with things like
    Worse still is the embrace of George W. Bush’s with-us-or-against-us mentality as the prism through which all political discussions are filtered. It’s literally impossible to discuss any of the candidates’ positions without having the simple-minded — who see all political issues exclusively as a Manichean struggle between the Big Bad Democrats and Good Kind Republicans or vice-versa — misapprehend “I agree with Candidate X’s position on Y” as “I support Candidate X for President” or “I disagree with Candidate X’s position on Y” as “I oppose Candidate X for President.” Even worse are the lying partisan enforcers who, like the Inquisitor Generals searching for any inkling of heresy, purposely distort any discrete praise for the Enemy as a general endorsement.

    And while there are, surely, those who can be caricatured this way -- I think it's more than possible to discuss Ron Paul's foreign policy outside of the context of racism, for instance -- I don't think it's "simple minded" at all to disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy even if certain aspects of it sound appealing after you've burned enough calories out of it to reduce it down to something that some dipshit opinion columnist can fit on Twitter.

    (added: and if you don't think he was characterizing Progressives as being simple minded, the phrase "simple minded" is a hyperlink within the column itself, and it dumps you out at democraticunderground.com at the other end.)

    SammyF on
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote:
    Santorum and Paul in the top 3 would really stick it to the news organizations that flat out ignored them. And Iowa will be the first and last state that they have a shot of winning. Santorum, anyway, Paul might get a small boost from momentum if he places well but won't be able to go the distance; he'd be at the bottom with Santorum and the rest soon enough.

    Santorum winning or coming in second in Iowa would lead to enough media attention and donations to make him the official Mike Huckabee evangelical protest candidate for this cycle. He'll soldier on even past the point of mathematical elimination since it'll improve his contract negotiation with Fox News for a TV show.

    Paul might have a shot at doing well in New Hampshire, and his ability to wring donations out of his cult will keep him in the game for a while.

    But yeah, at this point, the inevitability of Romney seems even more...uh... inevitable-ier.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    If Romney comes in third, that'll hurt him going into New Hampshire, and if he underperforms there, his campaign will be in real trouble. I mean, I'm not saying he's not likely to win, but I think you're overestimating his chances.

  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    nvm, this comment made more sense twenty posts ago

    Yougottawanna on
  • Guitar Hero Of TimeGuitar Hero Of Time Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    KungFu wrote:
    Basically, it sounds like Greenwald wants more people to be talking about actual policy positions and their motivations and consequences, instead of picking a team and then demonizing all opposition.

    Ding ding ding!

    Which is totally not what he does! He's a hypocrite. I used to read him, but there's only so many times you can read the same article (even if the name of the President is changed). That number for me was approximately 1500 times (5 years, every day...)

    I believe you. But his being a hypocrite ironically does not mean that his argument in the article is wrong. Just like Ron Paul he might be an asshole, but his point still stands?

    EDIT: Anyway, I will go back to lurking so other news can be discussed.

    Guitar Hero Of Time on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I am simultaneously convinced Romney will win the nomination (by process of elimination) and that the GOP will never nominate him (by his never hitting even 30% against these clowns).

    Fortunately, I will be watching the Sugar Bowl instead of Iowa coverage so I will not be forced to deal with the contradiction inherent for a while.

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Lawndart wrote:
    His core argument is a laughable strawman, since pretty much every "progressive" has admitted that Paul has some valid foreign policy points. Greenwald is instead pretending that it's not "progressive" to think that the giant mountain of shitty positions Paul endorses outweigh the small number of sane ones he endorses.

    What's hilarious is that Greenwald has played the exact same game with Obama and Obama supporters.

    This.

    And his assumption that any liberal/progressive must be a pacifist level dove. Just because a liberal doesn't want to torture enemy combatants doesn't mean we want to be the lily livered cowards that the right portrays the left as. Its basically an excuse to rail about the ways he thinks Obama is "heinous" in order to construct a false equivalency between Paul and Obama. He insists on grouping positions within theoretical ideological camps while simultaneously decrying actual pragmatic understanding of political groups. And then he creates an imaginary Ron Paul who isn't a racist bigot in favor of the subjugation of human rights by the correct level of government.
    His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?

    It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
    Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.
    is a ludicrous set of assertions on many levels. Its hyperbolic at the very best and frankly deceptive. At the core all he's saying is "Obama is far too much of a hawk for my tastes so fuck him and everyone who disagrees with me is a slave to the system and not a true progressive like me." And that's exactly what he's railing against.

    ed
    For the record I'm a liberal Obama supporter who railed against Bush. I also don't believe that its Obama's fault that there are civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan, support drone strikes in northern Pakistan, unlike Greenwald am aware the US doesn't use cluster bombs, don't believe hundreds of thousands of minorities are imprisoned for no good reason (or that Ron Paul actually opposes this... just when the prisons are federal), don't equate indictment with threats or whistleblowing with leaking classified security documents, don't buy into Fed conspiracy theories, and don't believe Obama is going to war with Iran. This makes me a terrible automaton.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I'm not sure it'll hurt him that much in New Hampshire, but I do think he's failed somewhat at managing expectations. (edit -- speaking on Romney in Iowa. Shit this thread's moving fast today).

    SammyF on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    TNC continues to kick ass, take names, and deconstruct Ron Paul.

    When I read this, my first thought was "The Nomadic Circle is deconstructing Ron Paul? How does this involve goats and colonialism?"

    steam_sig.png
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote:

    And his assumption that any liberal/progressive must be a pacifist level dove. Just because a liberal doesn't want to torture enemy combatants doesn't mean we want to be the lily livered cowards that the right portrays the left as. Its basically an excuse to rail about the ways he thinks Obama is "heinous" in order to construct a false equivalency between Paul and Obama. He insists on grouping positions within theoretical ideological camps while simultaneously decrying actual pragmatic understanding of political groups. And then he creates an imaginary Ron Paul who isn't a racist bigot in favor of the subjugation of human rights by the correct level of government.
    His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?

    It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
    Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.
    is a ludicrous set of assertions on many levels. Its hyperbolic at the very best and frankly deceptive. At the core all he's saying is "Obama is far too much of a hawk for my tastes so fuck him and everyone who disagrees with me is a slave to the system and not a true progressive like me." And that's exactly what he's railing against.

    Tell me whats so deceptive about that line of reasoning Greenwalds makes for Obama support?

    And I don't think Greenwald ever creates a non-racist Paul.

    Theft 4 Bread
  • ElldrenElldren 3067-6294-6208Registered User regular
    Ron Paul does not have good positions

    Ron Paul has horrible positions that coincidentally lead to some results that some people claim to want.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    KungFu wrote:
    Tell me whats so deceptive about that line of reasoning Greenwalds makes for Obama support?

    And I don't think Greenwald ever creates a non-racist Paul.

    Excellent question! Two parts:

    1. While arguing that support for one specific policy should not be misconstrued as support for the candidate who ventures it, he also argues that support for a candidate is thus support for all policies. So if we support Obama on HCR, we support him on Guantanamo, too. Whatever standard for political discourse he wants to use must go both ways -- he has to acknowledge any Progessive's right to support a candidate generally even if that Progressive disagrees with certain policy positions without being branded an automaton.

    2. No True Scotsman-ism.

    SammyF on
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote:
    Taramoor wrote:
    So how will Fox News choose to spin it if Ron Paul DOES win?

    I mean, I can imagine a graphic like this
    flfti0.jpg
    Is just the beginning.

    I'm picturing leaving Paul's results off the graphic entirely, putting Romney's picture on top of Paul's with the numbers correct but the bar size mysteriously incorrect.

    It'll be fun, is what I'm saying.

    If we can get a Ron Paul D-TX out of this I think it will be the greatest caucus ever.

    Santorum and Paul in the top 3 would really stick it to the news organizations that flat out ignored them. And Iowa will be the first and last state that they have a shot of winning. Santorum, anyway, Paul might get a small boost from momentum if he places well but won't be able to go the distance; he'd be at the bottom with Santorum and the rest soon enough.

    Is it just me or is making Santorum jokes actually getting harder?

    EDIT: Somehow in writing this post I left out the reason I quoted it. That graphic is ridiculous. I think Fox goes through a new graphics department every week. The people responsible are so inexperienced that they goof, get fired, and then replaced. That's the only thing that makes since since they are accidents, right?

    Worry not, the jokes may be drying up, but soon Santorum will flake off completely and there will no longer be any reason to speak of him.

    Assuming the upset, Rupert Murdoch likes Santorum so they would simply start praising him and act as if they always had been. We have always been allies with Eastasia after all. But if RP won Iowa Fox would do one of two things; most likely it would wax poetic about how caucusing isn't properly democratic and how Iowa is given unfair advantage and how Iowa winners often DON'T win the nomination. Fox tells lies of quality more than of quantity, the line graph with the moving numbers implied unemployment was bad under Obama, they didn't say it was the highest it had ever been. Since ultimately all the delegates would go to one candidate (I think) they couldn't jimmy with the numbers and pretend Ron Paul was losing Iowa, they would instead be explaining how his win was unfair, improper, and ultimately meaningless.

    Lying is an art form, and the lies which make the most impact for the least effort are not the brutal reversals and refusals of reality, but the muddling misdirections that manage perceptions.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    I'd put him north of 90% for the nomination. I just cannot see how a different candidate could pull it off even after a win in Iowa.

    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote:
    KungFu wrote:
    Tell me whats so deceptive about that line of reasoning Greenwalds makes for Obama support?

    And I don't think Greenwald ever creates a non-racist Paul.

    Excellent question! Two parts:

    1. While arguing that support for one specific policy should not be misconstrued as support for the candidate who ventures it, he also argues that support for a candidate is thus support for all policies. So if we support Obama on HCR, we support him on Guantanamo, too. Whatever standard for political discourse he wants to use must go both ways.

    2. No True Scotsman-ism.

    I think you have become confused. The whole Obama-support-line of reasoning is directed at the people who make similar arguments against Paul. Greenwald isn't attacking all Obama supporters or anti-Paul people in that article. It was directed at self-described progressives who make such fallacious arguments against Paul. So he turned the tables on them to show how it doesn't work.

    Theft 4 Bread
13468999
This discussion has been closed.