User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 37

  1. #11
    FigerPuppet
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    That only applies when the risk that is known isn't one of the absolute worst.

    And it is, unless you're STUPID.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmileyMan View Post
    That only applies when the risk that is known isn't one of the absolute worst.
    What is known and what is bad, however, depends on the individual.

  3. #13
    FigerPuppet
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    What is known and what is bad, however, depend on the individual.
    Vote Merkel.

    Unite Europe - Strength through Unity!


  4. #14
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmileyMan View Post
    Who cares if he's honest when many of his political positions are destructively backwards? It's like saying you'd vote for someone because you want to have a beer with them.
    Depends on what you consider destructively backwards. There are more than enough people in the field that can be properly called "destructively backwards." Take Santorum, Palin, and Limbaugh as instances.

    But I want to move away from ambiguity aversion for a second, ambiguity is used all the time to win elections because the person can fulfill the role of pleasing people without officially having a stance. A non-ambiguous candidate (like Ron Paul and Sarah Palin) makes it easier to vote yes or no compared to an ambiguous candidate. A person is more likely to choose the ambiguous candidate because, generally speaking, the candidate's stance is more wishy-washy and it is harder to pinpoint where their stance officially is. I can give you a sentence that can mean more than one thing and can make the many parties happy. That is the way most candidates run.

    But like I said (or didn't say,) I favor half of Ron Paul's policies and the other half can be damned in hell. Generally speaking, I see Ron Paul as less destructive as someone to the likes of Romney who does have both ambiguous and unambiguous streaks (some I would consider even more destructive: such as spending even more on military than we already have currently[aka adding $2 trillion] while stating that he'll lower the debt/close loopholes without any concrete examples.) I'm more likely to be ok if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination because it could mean an outright change to the GOP platform, that, or that the legislators would give him hell (which means some of the destructive policies from Romney won't occur because the GOP doesn't like Ron Paul.)

    Note: In response to ambiguity aversion, ambiguity in Political Science. [1][2]

  5. #15
    Unapologetic being Evolving Transparency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    @Rail Tracer Yeah he is def. the most honest. That's why I actually get so confused why people don't like him. I find that to be the MOST ironic thing ever....that people will vote or "let" someone that may lie( because they don't even know what they stand for, and they change what they've said over the years) to them, in office <---making decisions for the people...that amazes me...I actually do like almost every singe one of his policies, but even if I didn't you can tell he is honest because he answers the same questions over a span of years the same way. He doesn't give up, and he was right in every one of his predictions. I find it sad that no one ever listens... I guess I just have a different point of view...do people just think he is a wacko or something?
    "Once the game is over, the Pawn and the King go back into the same box"

    Freedom isn't free.
    "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ Orwell
    I'm that person that embodies pretty much everything that you hate. Might as well get used to it.
    Unapologetically bonding in an uninhibited, propelled manner
    10w12

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Depends on what you consider destructively backwards. There are more than enough people in the field that can be properly called "destructively backwards." Take Santorum, Palin, and Limbaugh as instances.

    But I want to move away from ambiguity aversion for a second, ambiguity is used all the time to win elections because the person can fulfill the role of pleasing people without officially having a stance. A non-ambiguous candidate (like Ron Paul and Sarah Palin) makes it easier to vote yes or no compared to an ambiguous candidate. A person is more likely to choose the ambiguous candidate because, generally speaking, the candidate's stance is more wishy-washy and it is harder to pinpoint where their stance officially is. I can give you a sentence that can mean more than one thing and can make the many parties happy. That is the way most candidates run.

    But like I said (or didn't say,) I favor half of Ron Paul's policies and the other half can be damned in hell. Generally speaking, I see Ron Paul as less destructive as someone to the likes of Romney who does have both ambiguous and unambiguous streaks (some I would consider even more destructive: such as spending even more on military than we already have currently[aka adding $2 trillion] while stating that he'll lower the debt/close loopholes without any concrete examples.) I'm more likely to be ok if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination because it could mean an outright change to the GOP platform, that, or that the legislators would give him hell (which means some of the destructive policies from Romney won't occur because the GOP doesn't like Ron Paul.)

    Note: In response to ambiguity aversion, ambiguity in Political Science. [1][2]
    I'd vote for Ron Paul.
    Dirt Farmer

  7. #17

    Default

    dat double post
    Last edited by TheStarchDefenders; 10-16-2012 at 01:43 AM.
    Dirt Farmer

  8. #18
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urarienev View Post
    @Rail Tracer Yeah he is def. the most honest. That's why I actually get so confused why people don't like him. I find that to be the MOST ironic thing ever....that people will vote or "let" someone that may lie( because they don't even know what they stand for, and they change what they've said over the years) to them, in office <---making decisions for the people...that amazes me...
    Without referring specifically to Ron Paul, there are more important things than honesty in a leader. One can, for example, be very honest about being a white supremacist or very honest about beliefs that are incredibly delusional or schizophrenic. But you wouldn't elect those people just because they're so honest. It's equally important to agree with the content of their message.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  9. #19
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    The Ron Paul phenomenon in the states is like the Ken Livingstone phenomenon in the UK in the eighties when he was the lord mayor of london, lots of people voted for him on the basis that he was like "the man in the pub" and "one of them", there was a superior line of comics about an occupation of britain to drain its off sea oil reserves by future cryto-fascist/nationalist Russian power which took the election of a radical "man in the pub" as its jumping off point, really to make the point that there was a reason why "the man in the pub", eminently reasonable and sensibly radical, could be the ruin of a country.

    Often the structural adjustments which are being proffered are hughly radical and suggested for a short term time span, the result is dislocation internationally, destabilisation domestically and creates a vulnerability to other predatory states which are not going to risk anything of the same order any time soon.

    The comic itself, if you want to look it up, is called SAVAGE: Taking liberties, its good and draws out the complicity and collusion of domestic intelligence agencies with the "new boss", the international diplomatic backdrop in which no former ally is going to give a damn about your occupation, no matter how shocking a thing it may be, if it jeopardises the "greater game" of international brinkmanship and some of the terrorism and atrocity which could happen any place not simply the middle east (a group called "traitors gate" based upon old British traditions of "headsmen" takes hostages and chops their heads off).

    It also features "fire fields" something which the Russians did use and are not an invention of the imagination, a semi-solid surface which if you stray upon it breaks, reacts with the oxgene in the air and sets you on fire like napalm. Interesting all in itself.

    So the relatability factor of any politicians is going to be really insufficent for me to reach any conclusions about them, especially if their ideology is about crazy radical restructuring over night, even more so if obviously only benefits one constituency, the rich one.

  10. #20
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,647

    Default

    Why on earth should it matter if a candidate is likeable? It's the policies that matter.

    Never mind if somebody is dead ugly, arrogant, elistist, uncharismatic, has sex with a horse, has been divorced 5 times, cheats an their partner and sacrifices chicken blood to satan in their basement every night as long as they push the issues that I want to see advance.

    I find this focus on candidates as people highly irritating.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Bob Barr or Ron Paul?
    By 6sticks in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 08:42 PM
  2. Can you help make my dream come true?
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-17-2008, 06:32 PM
  3. Ron Paul
    By Paul3144 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 11:14 AM
  4. Ron Paul Tea Party... will you be donating?
    By file cabinet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 03:19 PM
  5. Ron Paul Wins Another Presidential Debate
    By FranG in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 12:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO