Stupid and baseless comments on the Ron Paul Blimp

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by guerilla, Dec 11, 2007.

  1. d16man

    d16man Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,900
    Likes Received:
    160
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #21
    there is a difference in conspiring and "predicting". We are merely predicting what will come true. Conspiracies are never true.
     
    d16man, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  2. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #22
    Touche' Good point!!!
     
    Mia, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  3. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #23
    always trust your government.
     
    ncz_nate, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  4. The Webmaster

    The Webmaster IdeasOfOne

    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    718
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #24
    Hips can lie, but dude, Governments don't lie..
     
    The Webmaster, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  5. SolutionX

    SolutionX Peon

    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #25
    I like the For-Profit model of the supporters. At least it's straightforward and honest... you know exactly what they are doing with your money, and if they don't, you can get it back. And how can it break the law if Ron Paul has nothing to do with it?
     
    SolutionX, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  6. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #26
    No, I didn't. My money has gone to PACs.

    More baseless speculation. You have absolutely no idea about the plans for the project after the Ron Paul campaign is complete.

    It is irrelevant, and you introduced it incorrectly. This is neither a Soros project, nor is it a 527, a 501 or a PAC.

    It has nothing to do with an emotional investment, I am merely taking you to task for your dishonesty and projection.

    There is nothing right now to stop a foreign country or national from influencing the election through donations to various established legal entities. The newspapers and television stations have global corporate ownership, and they influence the coverage, and promotion of the candidates throughout the campaign.

    Again, this is for American citizens only, and their names will be available to the FEC and IRS. I'm not seeing the issue, except that it is bypassing established PAC thresholds. Other than that, where is the issue?

    There is a $2,300 threshold on donations to the campaign proper. Instead of asking me to think harder, please do some research so I don't have to keep thinking smarter for the both of us.

    Not all straw polls are open. Many require established GOP membership. Do you have an answer for that?

    Dean was a front runner, and a Democratic party favorite. Not an outsider.

    Paul is not setting the Libertarian movement back, he's brought libertarianism into the limelight, as it has never been done before. If you're a Libertarian, then you would be aware that the LNC has requested that Paul run on their ballot if he doesn't get the GOP nod. And that they have released their New Hampshire Voter Database to the Paul Republican Campaign.

    If you're going to make wild claims about setting Libertarianism back, then please back that up with a substantial argument.

    Where did you get the $100 figure from? Source?

    A conspiracy has nothing to do with a prediction. Whatsoever. If Conspiracies are never true, how does the government try people on counts of conspiracy to commit?
     
    guerilla, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  7. SolutionX

    SolutionX Peon

    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #27
    Just like what has been stated before; that Dean couldn't win even with all that money. If the message being broadcast doesn't appeal to the citizens, they're not going to vote. So... some big corp pours millions into promoting a candidate... I think that it would be too public and turn voters off. I think those corporations would be too worried about ruining their public image, so it's kind of beautiful that way.

    With the current system, corps can lobby all day long ("not a lobby, it's an entire hotel" lol) and keep it under wraps. That doesn't make me feel in control. The openness of the for-profit system seems to me that it would actually prevent big corps from trying to manipulate us without us knowing it. Now that is comforting to me.
     
    SolutionX, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  8. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #28
    The company is directly advocating for an individual candidate. According to finance laws, this is illegal. Also illegal is how the funds were raised. I'm not sure how this confuses you.

    The Ron Paul blimp could suddenly endorse Gravel tomorrow. It doesn't change anything. It is circumventing campaign laws.

    Only in the online polling. In the real polls, his support was soft, at best. He had a huge money advantage going into the primaries but tanked after his internet support fell away. Sound familiar? Dean was an improbable candidate, polling near the bottom before the internet swell started. If you look at Dean's internet fundraising, RP supporters seem to be doing a redux of it.

    Libertarians problem has always been that you get good domestic policy ideas mixed in with cookey conspiracy theories about the trilateral commission, bilderbergs, new world order etc. Libertarians have been gaining ground - especially in the republican party - by talking about federalism, small government etc. and out comes paul talkin' about the gold standard, the trilateral commission, abolishing the FBI, etc and everyone laughs at them again. Care to honestly disagree with this? If it weren't the case, he'd be getting more support ;)

    Let's start with common sense. Mean income is about 35,000. The "average" person isn't dying to donate 10,000 dollars, or about 1/3 of his income is he? He'll donate $100.

    Let's talk RP's numbers:
    Cash since Oct 1: 11.38 million
    Total donors: 133,637

    Do the math, slick ;) My calculator says $85

    What openness in a for-profit enterprise? They are under no federal obligation to say: who gives them money, where the money goes, who gives how much, etc. It is completely at the whim of the company doing it. And, what more, is that you don't even have to know it's happening.

    So, as my example previously says, you could have a foreign country, some super wealthy guy or small group, pump a billion dollars into a campaign and radically influence the cycle. Equal participation is gone, because your average person can only donate $100. It'd take an improbable number of people to donate to compete.

    And, it seems, we have more than few people in support of this. Makes my heart warm ;)
     
    lorien1973, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  9. SolutionX

    SolutionX Peon

    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #29
    Small claims court if you paid small and they false advertised to get your money. District court (I think) if you were a corp.
     
    SolutionX, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  10. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #30
    What are you talking about? If you donate to X company with expectations of them campaigning for Y; the problem isn't yours. They are doing what you want. The problem is from everyone else who doesnt know where the money comes from; no public audit trails, no disclaimers, etc. The company is totally outside the election laws every other company follows.
     
    lorien1973, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  11. SolutionX

    SolutionX Peon

    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #31
    What does it matter where the money came from as long as you know you're getting adverted? I get 100s of spam emails every day, but I'm not feeling insecure about the size of my body parts yet. :p Now if a doctor getting paid by someone (but hiding that fact) told me I was abnormal... maybe i'd wonder.
     
    SolutionX, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  12. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #32
    Not talkin' about viagra here. Talkin' about influencing public policy. I'm sorry if you cannot see a difference.
     
    lorien1973, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  13. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #33
    Lorien, the fact that Paul has an average donation amount of about $100 doesn't mean that is consistent across politics in general. In fact, it's very atypical, and he's getting a lot of attention for it.
     
    omgitsfletch, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  14. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #34
    It's more typical than you think. I think in 2004, republicans had an average donation of around $50 or something. Assuming that your typical voter wants to donate $10,000 is silly on its face, dont you agree?

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...eference/Times Topics/People/B/Bush, George W.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_33_16/ai_65091782

     
    lorien1973, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  15. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #35
    So now you are saying that you are sure it is illegal. Ok, noted.

    Oh really? From the same Wikipedia article,

    I wasn't aware that a 30 point lead in New Hampshire was "soft at best". :rolleyes:

    Also, Paul's fund raising is spontaneous and offline. I run a Paul fund raising site (one of many such sites run by the grassroots). It's not run by the campaign like Dean's internet effort was. Again, a lack of knowledge on the subject matter betrays malformed opinions.

    Are you familiar with the man who founded the Libertarian party? You're talking about so called, "Libertarian Republicans", also known as Cosmopolitan Libertarians. They are not the mainstream or the foundation of the Libertarian movement in America or abroad.

    Small government is a traditional Republican party platform. With the exception of the war mongering, Paul's campaign mimics Barry Goldwaters. Goldwater also talked about elites, the Federal Reserve, banking conspiracies etc. Before you brand yourself a Libertarian, make sure you have a holistic philosophy, not a sellout to gain a seat in one of the major parties.

    Paul has some of the lowest average donations. Let's see where you got $100 from. Did you check the Clinton average? The Giuliani average? The Romney average?

    We're not talking about federal obligation. Now you're addressing hypotheticals.

    This company is being run with full transparency. Period.

    Laws don't make us moral lorien, a libertarian would know that. :)

    But that is not how this company is being run, so again, you are inventing doomsday hypotheticals. Only donations from Americans are being accepted, with full disclosure.

    That said, your entire argument in this direction is undermined by (1) the Paul internet fund raising is radically different than the Dean fund raising in how it is conducted and organized, (2) Your total donor count is actually a total donation count, and (3) this entire experiment proves that the "average person" can compete within these mechanisms as well as, if not better than, they could merely contributing to PACs or the official campaigns.

    This entire system is built around the concept of political advertising brokerage. A single individual could have paid for the blimp exclusively, as Lawrence Leppard did when he paid $85,000 to run his Ad in USAToday. By offering an opportunity for small donors to bundle purchase in blocks, the system actually becomes more open to the little guy.

    I'm still reeling from finding out that you are a pseudo-Libertarian. It's almost worthy of a new thread to examine which principles of libertarianism you are willing to compromise on.
     
    guerilla, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  16. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #36
    New Hampshire is a fickle state. Support comes and goes. It likes new arrivals, then moves on. It enjoys being the first primary state and bounces around a little. It's not surprising to see people come and go.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109287,00.html


    I knew you were a little too emotionally invested in this candidacy, guerilla. I'm surprised you didn't donate to the blimp. Coulda gone up in the sky and fly around for a while. Whee! ;)

    No, they are pretty normal actually. I posted my data. Republicans average about $55. Democrats more - they rely on the big money contributors. $100 is par for the course. Open secrets and whip out a calculator. Once the general election starts, you'll see the numbers approach $100. I'll guarantee it. right now, numbers are skewed higher because primary season always invites the 2300/4600 donors.

    So they say. and future endeavours from future companies of the same type? Will they be "only american" with "full disclosure" - you are once again. totally missing the point.

    An individual can spend his money how he likes. but as the wiki article I linked to earlier, and the FEC site says, corporations cannot advocate for a candidate - they can only donate to PACs in limited amounts. They cannot raise money either - other than from the shareholders and family or whatever. You call it 'buying advertising' I call it skirting election laws.

    Yeah. Sorry to say that I don't think, just because you have a ton of money, you should be able to effectively swamp an election with money to get your guy elected. I'm in favor of equal participation. Sorry about that.
     
    lorien1973, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  17. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #37
    I'm pretty emotionally invested in seeing the illegal war over, our troops back home with their families, and some civil liberties protected in this country.

    Donations, not donors. I know people in the Paul campaign who contribute $25 a week in the original moneybombs, have been for months now. I also know people who donated multiple times on Nov. 5th.

    I didn't realize this company would be responsible for policiing the future. Maybe we should be looking for a Time Cop endorsement from Jean Claude Van Damme.

    Denying convention and limitations is how progress occurs. Either progress in campaign finance, or progress in campaign finance law. Either way, challenging the establishment way of thinking is exactly what libertarianism is about. Unleashing creativity through the free market.

    Right, so you're pretty sure the FEC will rule against it. We'll see. I think you're in for a surprise.

    So you'd also advocate for equal coverage in the press. Equal time during debates. Wonderful.

    Don Quixote, there are so many windmills for you to tilt at.
     
    guerilla, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  18. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #38
    Of course that's your goal. Who would doubt your motivations here ;)

    so you are telling me the average is actually higher than I'm claiming. I'm not sure how this is helping your cause at all. Say its $100/person instead of $85. Thanks for making my point for me! :confused:

    I know, guerilla. it's time for you to become purposefully obtuse again. Maybe you'd like to reach the logical conclusion of this typical refrain and prove Godwin's law for me?

    Yep. I'd be more than happy than for the press to give equal time to each (relevant) candidate. Glad you are coming around to my side ;) See, I think it should be equal access across the board, you are willing to say - nah, anarchy rules.

    I'll take that bet. It's clearly in violation per the FEC site. Feel free to read it yourself.
     
    lorien1973, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  19. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #39
    Say it is $1,000 per person. Wouldn't that create more $2,300+ capable donors on the curve?

    Lorien's Time Cops! Stopping crimes that haven't happened yet! Saving you from yourself, before you are in trouble! Nanny-Libertarianism!

    A libertarian arguing for equality instead of the free market. Good stuff. Maybe we can make sure each candidate has an equal number of voters too, that way the conventions can be brokered. They can choose the POTUS and VP with a coin flip.

    Loser advertises a link in his sig for the winner, with anchor text for a year. Deal?
     
    guerilla, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  20. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #40
    Say its $2300 per person. I'm not sure of your point. I'm trying to deal with real numbers here. I can make up stuff too, but I'm not sure the game you are playing.

    Sure deal. See ya in 2014 LOL

    Equal access yep. That's what a representative democracy is all about. You seem more about whoever has the most cash, wins. That's not how it works, unfortunately for you. I've raised legitimate points against having these private companies buying "ad space" to support candidates both legally and morally. I haven't seen a good counterargument yet - just anarchist ramblings about a "free" market that isn't really free at all.

    Just a little further. Come on guerilla. Godwin's law awaits.
     
    lorien1973, Dec 12, 2007 IP