Originally Posted by TeddyR

Huntsman. And he is the real deal, unlike the others.

Huntsman would be the logical choice since he is the best one out of the bunch. However, logic doesn't seem to be playing a factor in this primary. The reason I suggested Paul was because I saw poll yesterday from Iowa showing Romney, Cain, Gingrich, and Paul in pretty much a dead heat. They were all in the high teens in percentage points. Huntsman trailed at 8% of the vote.

I do think Huntsman will have his day in the sun when they determine that Paul is unacceptable too. And that is only if he can manage to stay in the race long enough to get his turn.

Nah they won't risk building up Ron Paul. In fact it doesn't even matter if he could beat Obama - the Republican party would rather lose the election than nominate Ron Paul.

Just imagine debate questions about the war on terror, war on drugs, and financial reform... RP would make Barack sound like the right-winger.

Of course that is why I'll be voting for him in the primary, but let's not pretend that anyone in the political or media establishment has any interest in giving him 15 minutes of focus.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Funny how they say that every time, and how every time afterward, nothing gets different.

It must be some sort of specialized-jargon definition of the word 'difference' you guys are using. That's it, right?

Here, maybe I can help.

Get a soapbox and take it just outside a 12-story building. Now get up on your soapbox and say, "There's no difference between this soapbox and that building." Now 'prove it' by jumping off your soapbox and yelling, "You see, nothing gets different."

And you're done.

Oh, just to note, if some smart ass in the crowd suggests you jump off the 12-story building to really prove it, you just tell them that is counter-factual and just a debating technique. And you're just too darn clever to fall for that!

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Nah they won't risk building up Ron Paul. In fact it doesn't even matter if he could beat Obama - the Republican party would rather lose the election than nominate Ron Paul.

Just imagine debate questions about the war on terror, war on drugs, and financial reform... RP would make Barack sound like the right-winger.

Of course that is why I'll be voting for him in the primary, but let's not pretend that anyone in the political or media establishment has any interest in giving him 15 minutes of focus.

I'd even be so bold as to say that Ron Paul is the Ralph Nader of the Republican party.

~Chas'88

Here's a funny article about Republicans worship of Calvin Coolidge. Guess politicians all over want to maintain a 3T mindset. So ignore the most recent 3T--that was the bad one! If we just did things like ol' Silent Cal did, things would be hunky dory.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/h...with_him_.html

Funny thing about those elections, pw. Sometimes the "soapbox" has gotten elected; sometimes the "12-story building". So we've taken plenty of jumps, even in my short lifetime. And nothing changed, either way.

Your analogy might (hell, I'll even grant you would, cuz It's just the plain truth) be valid if we were talking about a choice that was a one-off thing which we had never seen before. But for something that's been repeated over and over again in hundreds of iterations every year for hundreds of years.... Well, we're not talking about "what if" anymore. We're talking about "every time in the past".

That at least calls for a different analogy. I have confidence you can come up with one, though.

Originally Posted by annla899

Here's a funny article about Republicans worship of Calvin Coolidge. Guess politicians all over want to maintain a 3T mindset. So ignore the most recent 3T--that was the bad one! If we just did things like ol' Silent Cal did, things would be hunky dory.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/h...with_him_.html

May I introduce you to a book that has been preaching this mindset for a long while?

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal

There it disassociates Hoover (claiming he was a not a "real Republican" quoting Cal's opinion of him as an inept nightmare) & says FDR was Hoover squared.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by annla899

Here's a funny article about Republicans worship of Calvin Coolidge. Guess politicians all over want to maintain a 3T mindset. So ignore the most recent 3T--that was the bad one! If we just did things like ol' Silent Cal did, things would be hunky dory.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/h...with_him_.html

In the 1980s I was at an academic conference in Germany about the 1920s. There was a long discussion of Calvin Coolidge and war debts and reparations. At the end of the discussion, one of the German academics brought down the house with the following exclamation:

"Aber Reagan liebt Coolidge!"

["But Reagan loves Coolidge!"]

He did, too. He praised his SecTreas, Andrew Mellon, for repeatedly cutting upper bracket tax rates.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Nah they won't risk building up Ron Paul. In fact it doesn't even matter if he could beat Obama - the Republican party would rather lose the election than nominate Ron Paul.

Here are some of the latest poll numbers and they have Ron Paul at 20.4 percent. What is interesting is that his numbers keep getting better while the mainstream media is continues ignoring him like maniacs. I can't imagine that the Keynesian types here are happy about that in the slightest.

Originally Posted by Galen

Here are some of the latest poll numbers and they have Ron Paul at 20.4 percent. What is interesting is that his numbers keep getting better while the mainstream media is continues ignoring him like maniacs. I can't imagine that the Keynesian types here are happy about that in the slightest.

I think he should be Secretary of State. He's closer to me on foreign policy than anyone who has run in years.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

May I introduce you to a book that has been preaching this mindset for a long while?

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal

There it disassociates Hoover (claiming he was a not a "real Republican" quoting Cal's opinion of him as an inept nightmare) & says FDR was Hoover squared.

~Chas'88

I am hardly surprised that a book endorsing that view exists. Just because a book exists to support a view does not indicate that the view has adequate support, as there are contrafactual books, including even Holocaust denial. I noticed a series of "Politically Incorrect Guides" in the series, and not having the desire to purchase a bunch or right-wing tomes (they will probably be available for perusal in your local Republican Party campaign headquarters next year). Hint: the publisher is Regnery, which in itself should be a warning about content.

The big boys in economics do econometrics; even those with only BA degrees (like me) recognize the need for a mathematical model. Keynes has established the mainstream model, and the one that I used depends upon the assumption that those who get their income largely have very different attitudes toward spending than do those who get their income from their labor. Basically those who get their income from property do not have as a high a propensity to consume as do laborers. The distinction between people who rely heavily upon wages, salary, employee bonuses and pensions (deferred pay) is a clear distinction of social class is an obvious distinction of social class. The property-owning rich do not live like their domestic servants, assembly-line workers, cops, or even physicians. The people whose spending responds to reports of greater corporate earnings are more often employees than shareholders. Does anyone want to bet that the "Politically Incorrect Guide" has no references to such college-level mathematics as calculus or linear regression?

If the elites got a little cold as the result of the 1929-1933 meltdown, then the working class got tuberculosis. Consumption plummeted. People tried to sell off consumer luxuries bought during the boom so they could have cash to meet the rent and food; there were simply no buyers. Real estate plummeted in value. To be sure, the economic meltdown of 2007-2009 is not a perfect analogue for that of 1929-1932. The 1920s were a time of peace, the most infamous speculation was in equity securities with real estate secondary, and the Great Depression began with no Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, or insurance of bank deposits' add to that the Bush administration was far more corrupt than the Coolidge administration and the the more liberal Party took over both Houses of Congress due to political scandals before the economic meltdown of 2007 and the Panic of 2008. But real estate peaked before 2006 anyway.

It is unlikely that with institutions that we now have in place that we will ever have as severe and protracted an economic meltdown as that of 1929-1932... but the one and a half year of economic meltdown of 2007-2009 was similar to that of 1929-1932 as it lasted. Healthy economies do not go into tailspins, and speculative booms are not salubrious foundations of lasting prosperity.

I'm not sure why, but I rarely let a week go by without checking Ann Coulter's latest column.. And this one is extremely interesting. Unlike Limbaugh, whose motto is pas d'ennemis a droite (no enemies on the right), she is totally trashing Gingrich for all kinds of real and imagined sins, and essentially endorsing Romney as the obvious nominee and the best man to beat Obama! There has got to be a big story behind this somewhere, but I wonder what it is.

I can't help noticing, either, that every time a scandal erupts about a Republican candidate, their stock rises in the polls. On the other hand, when their own words are the focus, they slip.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Funny thing about those elections, pw. Sometimes the "soapbox" has gotten elected; sometimes the "12-story building". So we've taken plenty of jumps, even in my short lifetime. And nothing changed, either way.

Your analogy might (hell, I'll even grant you would, cuz It's just the plain truth) be valid if we were talking about a choice that was a one-off thing which we had never seen before. But for something that's been repeated over and over again in hundreds of iterations every year for hundreds of years.... Well, we're not talking about "what if" anymore. We're talking about "every time in the past".

That at least calls for a different analogy. I have confidence you can come up with one, though.

I believe an acid kool-aid test that actually works for determining if someone is reality-based is to ask that if Gore had been elected would we still have invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. If someone answers in the affirmative to this question, there really is no point in arguing with them.

However, if one's answer indicates reality-based thought processing, then it can be pointed out that the 2000 Florida vote was decided by only 537 voters. Further, the votes casts for either Ralph Nader or for Pat Buchanan far exceeded that 537 vote difference, and if either of these candidates had not been in the race, the vote count would have shifted substantially and decisively to Gore (Nader's swing is obvious, but Buchanan's swing would also have gone to Gore given the "butterfly ballot" mis-voting). Essentially, the election of Bush over Gore was decided by either of these men's decision to enter the 2000 race. Ergo, the difference of war/no war with Iraq was decided by relatively very few individuals.

With just this one example, to support your argument, one would have to claim indifference to all the death and causalities suffered by all sides in Iraq. In many other posts, I haven't found you to express such indifference, in fact, quite the opposite.

One of life's lessons is that purity is pretty unlikely in the real world. However, there is a huge difference between swimming in an overflowing septic tank and swimming in the ocean where some kid might have pee'd in his swimsuit yesterday... and the difference should be obvious if one wants to objectively function in the real world. How's that for an analogy?

Originally Posted by playwrite

I believe an acid kool-aid test that actually works for determining if someone is reality-based is to ask that if Gore had been elected would we still have invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. If someone answers in the affirmative to this question, there really is no point in arguing with them.

Do you really think that Americans murdering wogs only dates back to W? It is possible that a different president would have murdered different kinds of wogs (though let's be honest -- they all kind of look the same), but there's no rational excuse for thinking that Gore would somehow have magically changed something so long-standing as the overall policy.

Granted, there is a difference between vanilla and french vanilla ice cream. But it's not the kind of thing that deserves getting worked up over.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Do you really think that Americans murdering wogs only dates back to W? It is possible that a different president would have murdered different kinds of wogs (though let's be honest -- they all kind of look the same), but there's no rational excuse for thinking that Gore would somehow have magically changed something so long-standing as the overall policy.

Granted, there is a difference between vanilla and french vanilla ice cream. But it's not the kind of thing that deserves getting worked up over.

This wave would be very different, if non-existent, if Dubya had not been (s)elected President. I'm going to guess that Al Gore takes the intel that connects al-Qaeda to an interest in jetliners, figures that such interest in jetliners in view of the recent M.O. of al-Qaeda (fashioning heavy equipment into weapons of mass destruction by loading them with explosives) can only bring disaster. A wave of arrests disrupts the 9/11 plot, and the Twin Towers remain standing. if it had been John McCain who had defeated George W. Bush in the primaries and won election, we get the same results as we do under Al Gore with respect to the jetliner plot. Maybe 9/11 becomes America's equivalent of Guy Fawkes Day instead of some bitter anniversary.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

This wave would be very different, if non-existent, if Dubya had not been (s)elected President. I'm going to guess that Al Gore takes the intel that connects al-Qaeda to an interest in jetliners, figures that such interest in jetliners in view of the recent M.O. of al-Qaeda (fashioning heavy equipment into weapons of mass destruction by loading them with explosives) can only bring disaster. A wave of arrests disrupts the 9/11 plot, and the Twin Towers remain standing. if it had been John McCain who had defeated George W. Bush in the primaries and won election, we get the same results as we do under Al Gore with respect to the jetliner plot. Maybe 9/11 becomes America's equivalent of Guy Fawkes Day instead of some bitter anniversary.

Dude. We're talking about Al Gore, not Batman.

It is kind of silly to use a historical "what if" situation to decide whether or not to write someone off.

And even though Gore's interests wouldn't have aligned with the oil industry so well as Bush's did, the Pentagon is still interested in strategic access to resources and doing something about what had become our mess in Iraq after decades of war, targeted bombings, sanctions, and air space coverage.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It is kind of silly to use a historical "what if" situation to decide whether or not to write someone off.

And even though Gore's interests wouldn't have aligned with the oil industry so well as Bush's did, the Pentagon is still interested in strategic access to resources and doing something about what had become our mess in Iraq after decades of war, targeted bombings, sanctions, and air space coverage.

I believe the public is looking for clarity as to what issues the next President wishes to accomplish. But we thought we had that with Obama, didn't we? Somebody obviously hijacked his agenda. Uncertainty over the future direction of the country and society has definitely surfaced, creating confusion and angst for many. As much as we need someone who will be upfront and honest in all dealings, it seems automatic that deceptive trends also prevail. I believe one lesson that needs to be learned from all that has gone down that any politician needs to very careful as his/her job entalis meeting orderly expectations. For far too long too many delays resulting from gridlock have frustrated folks efforts to move ahead. That is one of the big themes of the whole Occupy movement, IMO.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I believe an acid kool-aid test that actually works for determining if someone is reality-based is to ask that if Gore had been elected would we still have invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. If someone answers in the affirmative to this question, there really is no point in arguing with them.

However, if one's answer indicates reality-based thought processing, then it can be pointed out that the 2000 Florida vote was decided by only 537 voters. Further, the votes casts for either Ralph Nader or for Pat Buchanan far exceeded that 537 vote difference, and if either of these candidates had not been in the race, the vote count would have shifted substantially and decisively to Gore (Nader's swing is obvious, but Buchanan's swing would also have gone to Gore given the "butterfly ballot" mis-voting). Essentially, the election of Bush over Gore was decided by either of these men's decision to enter the 2000 race. Ergo, the difference of war/no war with Iraq was decided by relatively very few individuals.

With just this one example, to support your argument, one would have to claim indifference to all the death and causalities suffered by all sides in Iraq. In many other posts, I haven't found you to express such indifference, in fact, quite the opposite.

One of life's lessons is that purity is pretty unlikely in the real world. However, there is a huge difference between swimming in an overflowing septic tank and swimming in the ocean where some kid might have pee'd in his swimsuit yesterday... and the difference should be obvious if one wants to objectively function in the real world. How's that for an analogy?

Given that Bill Clinton made "regime change" the official U.S. position on Iraq, and dropped quite a few bombs on them, I'm not so sure Gore wouldn't have ended up going there. Overwhelming majorities in Congress, including most Democrats (Hillary Clinton among them), voted in favor of it, after all. They gave rousing speeches in favor of it, too.

Gore's later opposition to it, like many on the left, was motivated by political opportunism and animosity towards Bush. If he had only won and thought of it first, it would have been a whole different story.

EDIT - Somehow quoted the wrong post.

My predictive powers have proved to be pretty good, I must say. I had predicted for some time that there might be (futile) fringe left wing violence, and it has occurred. In the U.S. and elsewhere.

More recently, I have predicted for a while that Newt Gingrich might rise to the surface in the Republican field through process of elimination, and it is has happened. Newt's problem has always been that nobody really likes him a lot personally. But in the state the country is in, it's not inconceivable that people could think, "yeah he's an a-hole, but he may be the kind of a-hole we need right now".

Of course, he's also known to have blurbed S&H's books, and certainly is familiar with this theory, which makes it interesting from the perspective of this forum.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

... that Newt Gingrich might rise to the surface in the Republican field ...

Yes ... aside from his manifest personal and social shortcomings, I watched him for an hour on Charlie Rose, and at least the lights are on, and someone is at home.

I guess if I had to endure another Republican, and it looks like it could happen, it would soothe me somewhat to have one that's not as dumb as a box of rocks.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

This wave would be very different, if non-existent, if Dubya had not been (s)elected President. I'm going to guess that Al Gore takes the intel that connects al-Qaeda to an interest in jetliners, figures that such interest in jetliners in view of the recent M.O. of al-Qaeda (fashioning heavy equipment into weapons of mass destruction by loading them with explosives) can only bring disaster. A wave of arrests disrupts the 9/11 plot, and the Twin Towers remain standing. if it had been John McCain who had defeated George W. Bush in the primaries and won election, we get the same results as we do under Al Gore with respect to the jetliner plot. Maybe 9/11 becomes America's equivalent of Guy Fawkes Day instead of some bitter anniversary.

This is exactly right. One would have to be completely ignorant or tone deaf of all the information that has since come out about the Bush Administration's drum beat to war with Iraq PRIOR, as well as after 9/11, to believe otherwise.

For determining the presence (or not) of reality-based thinking, the litmus test holds and the result should never be forgotten when engaging with those who fail it. It can be entertaining to engage with them, and at least on some subject matter, perhaps even informative, but any assertion they put forth that requires an assumption of an underlying connection to reality should always be suspect.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Do you really think that Americans murdering wogs only dates back to W? It is possible that a different president would have murdered different kinds of wogs (though let's be honest -- they all kind of look the same), but there's no rational excuse for thinking that Gore would somehow have magically changed something so long-standing as the overall policy.

Granted, there is a difference between vanilla and french vanilla ice cream. But it's not the kind of thing that deserves getting worked up over.

Generalized assertions without specifics don't do much for me. The Iraq Invasion is specific and resulted in the actual killings of 10s, if not 100s of thousands of your "wogs" as well as thousands of Americans. Moreover, there are 100s of millions of your "wogs" that remain untouched so its a little sophomoric to suggest there isn't considerable more discernment and complexity that what you suggest - it's call reality-based thinking.


Given what happen in Iraq and the reasons why, I believe there is plenty to be worked up over.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It is kind of silly to use a historical "what if" situation to decide whether or not to write someone off.

That holds true from the other side of the coin as well. For Justin to say there would have been NO difference under Gore is at least as speculative.

One can only go by the evidence of what actually happened. As I stated above, it is pretty clear that the drum beat in the Bush Administration was there long before 9/11 and it is pretty clear that the flimsiest of excuses if not outright disregard for facts was at the bases for moving to actual combat. On the other hand, as you lay out here -

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

And even though Gore's interests wouldn't have aligned with the oil industry so well as Bush's did, the Pentagon is still interested in strategic access to resources and doing something about what had become our mess in Iraq after decades of war, targeted bombings, sanctions, and air space coverage.

- just about everything else was done to avoid an actual invasion, not only by Clinton/Gore but also by Bush 1. both evidently much smarter than Bush 2 and not so easily led around by the nose by Dick Cheney to get stuck in a quagmire that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11... or yellow cake.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Given that Bill Clinton made "regime change" the official U.S. position on Iraq, and dropped quite a few bombs on them, I'm not so sure Gore wouldn't have ended up going there. Overwhelming majorities in Congress, including most Democrats (Hillary Clinton among them), voted in favor of it, after all. They gave rousing speeches in favor of it, too.

Gore's later opposition to it, like many on the left, was motivated by political opportunism and animosity towards Bush. If he had only won and thought of it first, it would have been a whole different story.

EDIT - Somehow quoted the wrong post.

JPT, you do realize that I see your response as the test that confirms the validity of this litmus test?