Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Depth doesn't mean much. In fact, it can be downright dangerous to jump in, purely on ideological grounds. Just because you never got hurt because you never jumped to explore the depths, doesn't protect you from getting hurt. It could get you killed.
Depth, detail, call it what you want...in general, I truly believe that people don't know enough about the issues to make educated decisions and without being swayed by ridiculous political commercials and commentators.
Maybe I should rephrase. I bet the majority CAN understand, but the issue is that they don't take the time to understand. Look what's happening with our newspapers and TV news, they are falling apart and turning into entertainment rather than news because people cant be bothered. I have a hard time accepting that the majority of the population has done their due diligence around most topics relevant to the candidates and elections. Its mostly based on sound bytes, not in depth understanding of the issues, so saying that the majority has passed on Paul's ideas doesn't really mean much to me as a convincing argument that he is somehow wrong about things.
I think you are right. The guy who stumped for Romney at our caucus had nothing to say about him except that he looks good on TV. And this guy isn't some unaware bozo himself; he said he liked all the candidates and sent campaign contributions to Ron Paul every year when he lived in Texas.
But he's part of the "anybody but Obama" movement and honestly believes that most voters will go with the better-looking candidate in the general election.
Maybe I should rephrase. I bet the majority CAN understand, but the issue is that they don't take the time to understand. Look what's happening with our newspapers and TV news, they are falling apart and turning into entertainment rather than news because people cant be bothered. I have a hard time accepting that the majority of the population has done their due diligence around most topics relevant to the candidates and elections. Its mostly based on sound bytes, not in depth understanding of the issues, so saying that the majority has passed on Paul's ideas doesn't really mean much to me as a convincing argument that he is somehow wrong about things.
The whole argument that the majority can make something right or wrong is altogether a fallacious argument to begin with ... argumentum ad verecundiam.
As if the common American citizen with an average IQ of 80 would be considered experts on the subjects.
Maybe I should rephrase. I bet the majority CAN understand, but the issue is that they don't take the time to understand. Look what's happening with our newspapers and TV news, they are falling apart and turning into entertainment rather than news because people cant be bothered. I have a hard time accepting that the majority of the population has done their due diligence around most topics relevant to the candidates and elections. Its mostly based on sound bytes, not in depth understanding of the issues, so saying that the majority has passed on Paul's ideas doesn't really mean much to me as a convincing argument that he is somehow wrong about things.
Ok, got ya. Hmmmmm, guess I have to agree and here goes, You Are Right. But then again, how on earth can anyone change the U-Tube Springer, and Kardashian loving braindead to wake up and do their civic duty, any suggestions?
and you think you understand it better than the rest, is that what you are saying?
Pure math here.
I just said that I think that 50%+ dont put in the effort to understand it, so by default, yes, that is what I am saying.
But before you jump down my throat, I certainly don't think I'm smarter than everyone...just think I put in more effort than many people to actually research and understand. Add up how many hours it consumes to watch American Idol, the Kardashians, Jersey Shore and other garbage, then calculate how many people actually watch this and I'm sure it would leave a small handful of people that would actually have the time to dedicate to researching the major economic and political issues we face.
Depth, detail, call it what you want...in general, I truly believe that people don't know enough about the issues to make educated decisions and without being swayed by ridiculous political commercials and commentators.
We can agree on that. Unfortunately, we all have equal influence in electing people... well, most of us anyway (without the billions). But it is highly unlikely that we will agree on pragmatism versus ideology. Ron Paul believes in a perfect world that, devoid of government rules and regulations, would work as it was always intended to be... perfectly. And I wish, he were just joking.
Ok, got ya. Hmmmmm, guess I have to agree and here goes, You Are Right. But then again, how on earth can anyone change the U-Tube Springer, and Kardashian loving braindead to wake up and do their civic duty, any suggestions?
Nope...no way, I'm quitting while I'm ahead with you.
Besides, your question has no answer...I think we are kinda screwed.
We can agree on that. Unfortunately, we all have equal influence in electing people... well, most of us anyway (without the billions). But it is highly unlikely that we will agree on pragmatism versus ideology. Ron Paul believes in a perfect world that, devoid of government rules and regulations, would work as it was always intended to be... perfectly. And I wish, he were just joking.
See, he doesn't actually believe that.
He believes in MINIMAL, but strongly enforced rules. People always get mad that he wants to eliminate the EPA, when all he is really saying is that if we actually allowed the enforcement of laws for property owners, pollution would be impossible to get away with...all without an EPA...just a strong regulatory commission to go after those in violation of polluting your or my property.
He believes in MINIMAL, but strongly enforced rules. People always get mad that he wants to eliminate the EPA, when all he is really saying is that if we actually allowed the enforcement of laws for property owners, pollution would be impossible to get away with...all without an EPA...just a strong regulatory commission to go after those in violation of polluting your or my property.
What is minimal? Dance to the tune of "property owners", the more the property, the merrier? Never mind, the fact that EPA didn't exist at one point in time... those were great times right? This is perfect example of why he remains a lunatic.
Nope...no way, I'm quitting while I'm ahead with you.
Besides, your question has no answer...I think we are kinda screwed.
Dang it, I agree again, stop that
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
