Message
Anonymous wrote:The straw poll is not part of the primary system (not that your point is still not correct, however). The straw poll is just a stunt. Moreover, I'd argue that Pawlenty's fate has been sealed for some time. He was not raising money and Perry's entrance just sucked up Pawlenty's remaining oxygen. The straw poll just provided an opportunity to withdrawal.
True, but the only reason the straw poll is at all relevant is because of the primary system - because Iowa will the first state to officially weigh in on the contenders.
You're right that Pawlenty was doomed for a while. It's just a little sad that a fairly reasonable candidate can't hope to survive the primary season. Even Romney, who has spent 3 years moving right in anticipation of this primary season and has an enormous war chest, faces significant uncertainty because of the far right of the GOP. I mean, Bachman, Santorum, and Paul were three of the top four in the straw poll. I know it is a stunt and doesn't mean anything, but really? Paul? Santorum? If you name the three top vote-getters and Bachman is the most reasonable - by wide margin = holy shit.
Do you really think Bachmann is the most reasonable? Paul bases his political positions on a political philosophy, whereas Bachmann bases hers on religious evangelism. I don't agree with libertarianism on most issues, but I consider it, unlike Bachmann's radical Christianity, to be a reasonable basis for a political campaign. As for Santorum vs Bachmann, I won't split hairs about which is more of a religious zealot trying to undermine our secular state.
Anonymous wrote:whether we are talking about a murderous cult spinoff, or the "mainstream" church, either way I certainly would judge. what about Warren Jeff's church - would you judge them? what about the scientologists? point is, of course it is appropriate to judge someone if they have dangerous and/or ridiculous beliefs.
Are their beliefs any more ridiculous than the belief that we are capable of comprehending a being that is so far beyond us that, by comparison, we are brothers to ants?
Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed and disgusted with what some here have said about Mormons.
There are outrageous stories in the Bible and the Koran, yet I know upstanding Catholics and Muslims. I also know many impressive moral Mormons.
I am Presbyterian, if you want to know.
What a piece of work is man! We can be righteous within any religion, or with none. We can also accomplish great evil using whatever religious or philosophical basis we choose. Judge a person by his or her deeds, not by the religion professed.
Anonymous wrote:nobody denies climate. they just deny the morons who think humans are the cause of any change. the changers never even mention the Sun for crying out loud. News flash...the Sun has cycles that drastically effects climate. We are still in a warming trend from the last ice-age. Climate is the one issue we have almost zero impact on and is the least important problem on the list right now. People who obsess over climate are as Rahm Emmanuel refers to the democratic base..."f***ing retarded".
That's a straw man. Sure humans are just one factor in climate change. BUT, we are the only factor over which we have control, so anyone concerned about the future of mankind on this planet had better pay attention to what we are doing.
As long as we're at it:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:...
The I thought of does multiple rounds until there's a majority pick, so your example wouldn't be a problem. Take the candidates - let's say 5 - and rank them. Each one gets points corresponding to rank, with 5 for first, 4 for second, etc. If a candidate isn't on a voter's ballot, he gets no points from that voter. If there's no majority, The candidate with the fewest points gets dumped, and you check again.
From my quick look at the article, I can't see if that's covered. If he won the Nobel Prize, we can probably assume so. 1951 - I was even slower on the draw than I had realized.
I can't come up with an example for which your example "doesn't work". But I think a theoretical result that says any method will allow some anomalous situations means that some methods are not better than others. I think yours is better than allowing a winner by plurality of 20%, and also better than going to the expense of a run-off election between the top two. So if I were you, I would not give up on it.
I voted for Obama, but agree that Hllary might have done a better job.
Or might not.
Either way, we would probably now be discussing her shortcomings and whether we wished that we had voted for Obama.
Or might not.
Either way, we would probably now be discussing her shortcomings and whether we wished that we had voted for Obama.
TheManWithAUsername wrote:...
I'm curious about #3. What about those systems where there's a kind of automatic runoff, where you rank your preferences on the ballot. I invented a system like that for an essay, then learned years later that it already existed. I think they may use it in SF...?
...!
If it's the one where you rank all candidates, and at each stage the candiate at the bottom of the most ballots is thrown out, then one example is five voters who rank them ABC, ABC, ACB, ACB, BCA, BCA, CBA. Although the majority make A their first choice, A is the first one eliminated. Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel-winning economist proved that if you make a few very natural assumptions, NO satisfactory scheme exists. His result has many other social and economic applications. The Wickipedia article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
Has anyone applied the obvious term to the death threats: Christian terrorists?
Anonymous wrote:As long as the body is in the womb you can kill it. If you fing a women with a really big cooch and shove the infants head inside you can kill it. Similarly, if hitler just would have built the gas chambers to resemble a giant cooch he would have been golden.
This receives my nomination as the sickest sounding posting I have seen on the political forum. I think you are making the point that birth does not make that much difference that it should decide whether it is legal to destroy the incipient life. But you managed to make your statement in such a way that my first impulse was to lash out at you for turning my stomach.
If you are really interested in accomplishing anything, either to explain your viewpoint or to change some minds, I suggest you not use shock as a tool. It's a real turn-off.
Anonymous wrote:He's not up to the job. It makes no difference if he is working or not. By the way, he golfs even worse than he bowls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9m3GyDh6M8
WGAF?
TheManWithAUsername wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not blaming anything on the tea party, except for the fact that the tea party and the far left are miles and miles apart.
Who's the far left, and how did they do anything to inhibit compromise?
Bernie Sanders and Tom Harkin, perhaps? Not that anyone in the negotiations paid any attention to them. The TP, on the other hand, vetoed the "Grand Deal" that Obama and Boehner seemed close to, which would probably have made S&P very happy. However, I think they did what was expected of them; Boehner deserves the blame for giving them the power.
Personally, I think investors should pay as much attention to S&P's political opinions as to Sarah Palin's movie recommendations.
Anonymous wrote:takoma wrote:Anonymous wrote:Krugman has been so discredited how can he even show his face in public anymore? Hack.
By having everything he predicted come true? Obama compromised with the GOP and ignored Krugman, so now GOPologists blame Krugman for the results. Which, by the way, were less disastrous than what would likely have occurred had they gotten all they fought for.
The point isn’t really that hard to grasp. Wasteful spending, by definition, destroys wealth. And less wealth means less ability either to hire workers or to equip them with the tools that enhance their productivity, thereby 1) making it worthwhile to hire them in the first place, and 2) increasing their wages ...
Thanks for a clear and terse (if perhaps over-simplifed) explanation of why Krugman wanted a bigger and more directed stimulus.
Anonymous wrote:Krugman has been so discredited how can he even show his face in public anymore? Hack.
By having everything he predicted come true? Obama compromised with the GOP and ignored Krugman, so now GOPologists blame Krugman for the results. Which, by the way, were less disastrous than what would likely have occurred had they gotten all they fought for.
Anonymous wrote:has Obama made the oceans lower yet! OMG. LOOOOOooooOOOooOoOOooOOOsers!
Could you please register so you can get full credit for your nuggets of wisdom? You don't have to use your own name, if modesty orbids it, but let us at least be able to gather your oeuvre.