Republikanske motkandidater til Obama, 2012? Hvem?

[Shruggie]

Det er jo ikke rart, han er ikke akkurat vennlig innstilt til corporacracy.

[jjkoggan]

I et demokrati bør det være nesten umulig å velge en kandidat som representere hele befolkning og som har meninger som ligger langt utenfor det politiske midtpunktet. Slik er det med RP og slik bør det være i et demokratiske land. Alle vet det og ignorerer han. Var han alvorlig kandidat ville andre motkandidater slakte han ned med hans ekstreme meninger og ideologi. Som det går nå er det bedre å ignore han

[Skatteflyktning]

I et demokrati bør det være nesten umulig å velge en kandidat som representere hele befolkning og som har meninger som ligger langt utenfor det politiske midtpunktet. Slik er det med RP og slik bør det være i et demokratiske land.

 

Note to voters: Please do not stray from the right-left line or we will have to limit democracy.

 

 

The fit

 

Endret 25. november 2011 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

A nation in which its leaders do not represent the most commonly held beliefs of its voters is not a functioning democracy Ron pauls ideology represents a very small minority of voters and his election would therefore be either by an uninformed electorate or corruption. The president is the only elected official who represents all American citizens and therefore should reflect those most commonly held values if the entire nation, not a small minority

[Skatteflyktning]

A nation in which its leaders do not represent the most commonly held beliefs of its voters is not a functioning democracy Ron pauls ideology represents a very small minority of voters and his election would therefore be either by an uninformed electorate or corruption.

That is an objection you could present regarding ANY one of the candidates, including Obama.

 

The president is the only elected official who represents all American citizens and therefore should reflect those most commonly held values if the entire nation, not a small minority

Well, how you can claim that the president represent those that did NOT vote for him is beyond comprehension, since it is UNTRUE. It is even doubtful that he represent those that DID vote for him.

[Shruggie]

Så med din logikk så kan aldri noen andre enn sentrister bli valgt?

[Gormers]

[jjkoggan]

That is an objection you could present regarding ANY one of the candidates, including Obama.

Obama and McCain ran centrist campaigns and were supported by very large portions of the electorae. Ron Paul's support would be at lest 3-4 times smaller.

 

Well, how you can claim that the president represent those that did NOT vote for him is beyond comprehension, since it is UNTRUE. It is even doubtful that he represent those that DID vote for him.

The degree that he doesn't represent the MOST commonly held values at the time of election is proportional to the degree to which the system is flawed. At the time he was elected more of the voters that voted beleived he would better represent them than McCain

 

In the american political system it is the candidate's views, not the party's views that are most important. THose candidates that reflect more voters views than others will be elected in a democracy.

[Skatteflyktning]

That is an objection you could present regarding ANY one of the candidates, including Obama.

Obama and McCain ran centrist campaigns and were supported by very large portions of the electorae. Ron Paul's support would be at lest 3-4 times smaller.

Unless he was elected of course, in which case he WOULD have the support of a "very large portions of the electorae". However, even in this case you seem to consider that he would be illegitimate as the representative of "all americans" since they would be "uninformed".

 

Well, how you can claim that the president represent those that did NOT vote for him is beyond comprehension, since it is UNTRUE. It is even doubtful that he represent those that DID vote for him.

The degree that he doesn't represent the MOST commonly held values at the time of election is proportional to the degree to which the system is flawed. At the time he was elected more of the voters that voted beleived he would better represent them than McCain

 

In the american political system it is the candidate's views, not the party's views that are most important. THose candidates that reflect more voters views than others will be elected in a democracy.

Doesn't even try to respond to my observation that a President have no legitimate claim to "represent" those that did not give him their vote.

[jjkoggan]

Unless he was elected of course, in which case he WOULD have the support of a "very large portions of the electorae". However, even in this case you seem to consider that he would be illegitimate as the representative of "all americans" since they would be "uninformed".

If a candidate has views which 90% of voters disagree with and still wins the election then they must be either misinformed, uninformed or fraud has taken place. THe only way for ROn Paul to win in a truly democratic way is to convince more voters that his ideas are better than his opponents. Since his libertarian ideals are considered a small minority within his own party and very radical outside his party this is not likely.

 

Were he to be voted in without causing a shift in standard american political opinion, we would all accept him as our leader but it would be a clear sign that democracy is not functioning very well. Also, without many friends in congress his presidency would be a sham because he would get little or no support for his platform. Things would be even more dysfunctional than they already are.

 

 

Doesn't even try to respond to my observation that a President have no legitimate claim to "represent" those that did not give him their vote.

 

 

This appears to be a question about the principle of democracy and not relevant to a discussion of who might be the republican candidate.

[del_diablo]

Unless he was elected of course, in which case he WOULD have the support of a "very large portions of the electorae". However, even in this case you seem to consider that he would be illegitimate as the representative of "all americans" since they would be "uninformed".

If a candidate has views which 90% of voters disagree with and still wins the election then they must be either misinformed, uninformed or fraud has taken place. THe only way for ROn Paul to win in a truly democratic way is to convince more voters that his ideas are better than his opponents. Since his libertarian ideals are considered a small minority within his own party and very radical outside his party this is not likely.

 

Were he to be voted in without causing a shift in standard american political opinion, we would all accept him as our leader but it would be a clear sign that democracy is not functioning very well. Also, without many friends in congress his presidency would be a sham because he would get little or no support for his platform. Things would be even more dysfunctional than they already are.

 

Kunne ha sagt meg enig med dette om all valgpropaganda bortsett fra debatter med sterk ordleder ved siden av hadde vært forbudt.

Per dags dato så ser du etter om du har gjordt noe noen kan støtte, og du hiver tonnevis av penger på dette for å direkte kjøpe stemmer via reklame.

[Skatteflyktning]

If a candidate has views which 90% of voters disagree with and still wins the election then they must be either misinformed, uninformed or fraud has taken place. THe only way for ROn Paul to win in a truly democratic way is to convince more voters that his ideas are better than his opponents.

Well, he could also just lie in order to hide those views that the 90% don't agree with, just the as the other candidates (including the president) regularly do.

 

 

Were he to be voted in without causing a shift in standard american political opinion, we would all accept him as our leader but it would be a clear sign that democracy is not functioning very well.

Hardly, it would rather signal that there HAD been a shift.

 

 

Also, without many friends in congress his presidency would be a sham because he would get little or no support for his platform. Things would be even more dysfunctional than they already are.

Not a sham, but rather gridlock. Now gridlock can be a very good thing as it can effectively close down the government.

Endret 27. november 2011 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

Well, he could also just lie in order to hide those views that the 90% don't agree with, just the as the other candidates (including the president) regularly do.

 

Yes, but this would be a sign of malfunctioning democracy. Luckily voters see through most of the lying and have never elected a president who had radically different than mainstream public opinion.

 

 

Hardly, it would rather signal that there HAD been a shift.

Public opinion must shift first before voting for someone you previously disagreed with in a legitimate democracy. Otherwise voters are electing those who don't reflect their political views.

 

 

Not a sham, but rather gridlock. Now gridlock can be a very good thing as it can effectively close down the government.

 

Only if you believe existing laws cannot be improved.

[jjkoggan]

Kunne ha sagt meg enig med dette om all valgpropaganda bortsett fra debatter med sterk ordleder ved siden av hadde vært forbudt.

Per dags dato så ser du etter om du har gjordt noe noen kan støtte, og du hiver tonnevis av penger på dette for å direkte kjøpe stemmer via reklame.

 

Og din løsningen til problemet uten å begrense ytringfriheter er ?

[Skatteflyktning]

Only if you believe existing laws cannot be improved.

Well, 99.9% of them could be improved simply by abolishing them.

 

(But I suspect that's not exactly what you had in mind).

...law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

The Law

Frédéric Bastiat

Endret 27. november 2011 av Skatteflyktning

[del_diablo]

Kunne ha sagt meg enig med dette om all valgpropaganda bortsett fra debatter med sterk ordleder ved siden av hadde vært forbudt.

Per dags dato så ser du etter om du har gjordt noe noen kan støtte, og du hiver tonnevis av penger på dette for å direkte kjøpe stemmer via reklame.

 

Og din løsningen til problemet uten å begrense ytringfriheter er ?

 

Å ikke begrensen den, men å forby reklame. Enkelt og greit.

Å forby kampanjer hadde også vært noe, men det hadde sikkert gått for langt og over i det du tror jeg sier ;P

[Shruggie]

Personlig er jeg stor fan av 0-budsjett valgkamp. Ingen får lov til å lønne noen, kjøpe valgkampmateriell, reklame eller lignende. Unntak som bensin, flybilletter og lignende er vanskelig å unngå selvsagt... Husleie i organisasjonslokaler...

[jjkoggan]

 

Å ikke begrensen den, men å forby reklame. Enkelt og greit.

Å forby kampanjer hadde også vært noe, men det hadde sikkert gått for langt og over i det du tror jeg sier ;P

 

AA forby reklame er aa begrense ytringsfriheten. Ditt loesning ogsaa skaper andre problemer. Den sittende presdenten faar gratis reklamer nesten hverdag fordi alt han sier og gjoer blir sett paa TV og radio. Ville du stanse disse gratis reklamer(nyheter) ogsaa? Hvis ikke, hvordan greier en motkandidat aa bli sett og hoert naar den sittende politiker faar daglig gratis reklamer.

[del_diablo]

jjkoggan: Angående den sittende presidenten så er alt en president gjør å sitte der i 4 år for å gjøre nesten ingenting. Så det er ikke gratis reklame, fordi han må gjøre seg verdig til å beholdes.

Derimot så begrenser det ikke ytringsfriheten heller. De kan si hva de vil, men nå så må de stå for sine meninger. Og grunnen til at jeg vil ha sterk orddommer? Jeg hater invalid skytkasting.

[Shruggie]

Det er debatter hele tiden, da har de full ytringsfrihet. Å kjøpe ytringsfrihet via media er ikke løsningen på problemet, det skaper bare nye problemer. I USA er det utelukkende rike som kan stille til valg.