Aller au contenu

Republican Presidential Candidates

Nico

Par Nico
dans Europe et international

Messages recommandés

Rincevent

Rincevent

Posté
Posté
Aux states, il y a un tropisme typiquement sudiste vers une certaine forme de libertarianisme de la part de nostalgiques du old south ou tout simplement de la ségrégation.

Pourquoi? C'est très simple : le pouvoir central est vu comme un frein au maintien des anciennes habitudes. (voyez les déclarations de Wallace ou Thurmond dans les 50's)

Epiphénomène? Peut-être mais phénomène quand même.

:icon_up:

Apollon

Apollon

Posté
Posté
De quoi parles-tu ? Je te signale que c'est toi qui as employé le terme de "complot" à l'annonce de cette hypothétique fraude. D'ailleurs, ce sont h16 et SCM qui t'ont repris.

En fait de hurlement joyeux, c'est Apollon qui a crié victoire trop tôt en croyant prendre en défaut les "groupies". :icon_up:

Pas de contresens, j'ai dénoncé la tentation d'expliquer la défaite de Ron Paul (7% au lieu de 10%) par une théorie du complot, je n'ai certainement pas qualifié cette "fraude" de complot, je dénonce non seulement le glissement de l'"irrégularité" à la "fraude" mais aussi le glissement de la "fraude" au "complot". Je rappelle l'article et je mets en gras ce qui me semble typique d'une pensée conspirationniste:

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count (nda : remarquez comme l'auteur prend ses vessies pour des lanternes).

As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.

Vote fraud expert (nda : j'ai au mieux des doutes là-dessus) Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.

Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake - but 31 votes for one candidate? (nda : spéculation ridicule purement commandée par les apriori)

"The classic method for rigging a hand count is to write the wrong number on the form," Harris told the Alex Jones Show.

"They (nda : on ne sait pas qui mais voilà l'ennemi !)are counting everything in public real nice, they fill out a form in public real nice and then they transfer it to another form and they call that a summary sheet and then that is the one they send in," explained Harris.

"What happened is she said they did not transfer the number correctly and put zero instead of 31 - that is unacceptable as an answer."

With 100% of precincts now reporting, the map originally listed zero votes for Ron Paul as you can see below. It has now been updated to reflect the 31 votes Paul actually received.

The remainder of the 31 people in Sutton who voted for Ron Paul need to go public immediately with the charge of vote fraud and make it known that they were cheated out of their right to vote.

Harris estimates that it could cost the Ron Paul campaign as much as $67,000 dollars for a recount, but such a move could throw the entire primary into doubt, especially in light of the fact that Barack Obama appears to have been cheated out of a win by Hillary Clinton.

L'art de faire une vingtaine de lignes à partir d'une irrégularité de 31 votes en terminant sur la mise en cause de tout le processus de désignation des candidats…

melodius

melodius

Posté
Posté

Je ne comprends pas quel plaisir vous trouvez à casser un candidat et ses supporters alors qu'ils sont extraordinairement proches de nous. C'est de la perversité.

Apollon

Apollon

Posté
Posté
Je ne comprends pas quel plaisir vous trouvez à casser un candidat et ses supporters alors qu'ils sont extraordinairement proches de nous. C'est de la perversité.

Pas de vouvoiement entre nous :doigt: Je ne crois pas avoir dit du mal de Ron Paul. Je déplore des traits chez ses partisans qui condamnent un tel candidat à ne jamais dépasser certains scores.

Qui aime bien châtie bien. :icon_up:

Il y a de ça.

Ronnie Hayek

Ronnie Hayek

Posté
Posté
Pas de contresens, j'ai dénoncé la tentation d'expliquer la défaite de Ron Paul (7% au lieu de 10%) par une théorie du complot, je n'ai certainement pas qualifié cette "fraude" de complot, je dénonce non seulement le glissement de l'"irrégularité" à la "fraude" mais aussi le glissement de la "fraude" au "complot". Je rappelle l'article et je mets en gras ce qui me semble typique d'une pensée conspirationniste:

L'art de faire une vingtaine de lignes à partir d'une irrégularité de 31 votes en terminant sur la mise en cause de tout le processus de désignation des candidats…

Apollon, j'avais bien compris que tu n'avais pas défini cette fraude comme "complot", puisque tu rejettes tout ce qui ressemble de près ou de loin à une "théorie du complot". Mais il n'y a que toi sur ce forum qui, en l'espèce, a écrit le mot qui fâche. Par après, les autres intervenants t'ont montré que tu avais été quelque peu présomptueux, puisqu'ils ont simplement parlé d'éventuelle fraude, mais pas de complot. C'est tout ce que je tenais à rappeler.

Philiberal

Philiberal

Posté
Posté

une idée de stratégie pour les républicains :

The Republicans stop their feuding and their fighting and combine announcing Fred Thompson as president, Mitt Romney as Vice President, McCain as Secretary of Defense, and Giuliani as Secretary of Homeland Security. This is a cool idea. Now, anyone who is a not a moron likes everything about Fred Thompson, so he'd be a great president. Mitt Romney is a conservative in training, so he'd be good for vice president. The only thing McCain is right on is the war, so why not put him a position where that's the only view that matters. And Giuliani would be a great Secretary of Homeland Security if he would just prove his bona fides on illegal immigration by beating a Mexican drug smuggler to death with a Maglite -- something I'm sure he'd be more than willing to do. :doigt:

In addition, it could be announced that Mike Huckabee will be the White House Press Secretary where he can use his talking skills for good instead of evil. And Ron Paul could be made a security guard at the National Archives so he can make sure no one messes with the Constitution. :icon_up:

If Republicans announced a ticket with all the frontrunners on it, wouldn't they be unstoppable? They'd be taking the best of each Republican and putting it together into one super Republican -- like Voltron. While each of the robot tigers are kinda cool on their own, they're supercool and unstoppable when put together as the giant robot warrior Voltron (Fred Thompson: "And I'll form the head!"). The Democrats would run fleeing from such a thing and the Republicans would walk away with the election.

lien

Taranne

Taranne

Posté
Posté
1:15 GMT +00:00

The Rockwell files

Posted by:

Economist.com | WASHINGTON

Categories:

Ron Paul

WOLF BLITZER today, speaking in gerund phrases, examining the Ron Paul newsletter controversy, interviewing the Republican presidential candidate, who claims not only that he had no hand in writing numerous racist and homophobic items that appeared under his name over a period of years, but that he does not know—or care—who did write them.

Mr Paul is probably not himself a racist, and many of the sentiments he expresses in his CNN interview are admirable. It is equally plausible that the hateful items published in his newsletter, so different in style from the congressman's own speech and writing, are not his handiwork. But his protestations of ignorance, both about what was being disseminated on his behalf and who was responsible, are much harder to credit.

While his statements sometimes leave the impression that Mr Paul simply licensed his name to people with whom he had little contact, there is much evidence to the contrary. The newsletters that appeared under his name were published by M&M Graphics and Advertising, a company run by Mr Paul's longtime congressional campaign manager Mark Elam—which Mr Elam himself confirms. And according to numerous veterans of the libertarian movement, it was an open secret during the late-80s and early-90s who was ghostwriting the portions of Mr Paul's newsletters not penned by the congressman himself: Lew Rockwell, founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and members of his staff, among them Jeffrey Tucker, now editorial vice president of the Institute.

Mr Rockwell denied authorship to Jamie Kirchick, the reporter whose New Republic article published earlier this week reignited controversy over the newsletters. But both Mr Rockwell (who attacked the New Republic article on his site) and Mr Tucker refused to discuss the matter with Democracy in America. ("Look at Mises.org," Mr Tucker told me, "I'm willing to take any responsibility for anything up there, OK?") According to Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the libertarian monthly Liberty, the racist and survivalist elements that appeared in the newsletter were part of a deliberate "paleolibertarian" strategy, "a last gasp effort to try class hatred after the miserable showing of Ron Paul’s 1988 presidential effort." It is impossible now to prove individual authorship of any particular item in the newsletter, but it is equally impossible to believe that Mr Rockwell did not know of and approve what was going into the newsletter.

This matters because, while Mr Paul may disavow the sentiments that were expressed under his name over the years, he has scarcely disavowed Mr Rockwell, who remains a friend and adviser. Mr Rockwell is one of the congressman's most vigorous online boosters, accompanied him to an appearance on The Tonight Show, and often publishes Mr Paul's writings on his Web site. Mr Paul now says the identity of his ghostwriter is of no importance. But if the person responsible for spreading venom under his name for many years remains a close associate, it suggests that Mr Paul is at least prepared to countenance pandering to racists, however respectable his own views. The candidate owes his supporters a far more complete explanation than he has thus far provided.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin…kwell_files.cfm

Stan Selene

Stan Selene

Posté
Posté

Si j'ai bien compris l'article de the economist, alors j'ai rien compris. Parce que je vois pas l'interet de massacrer son futur champion. C'est quoi l'interet strategique de fusiler sa cause?

Sous-Commandant Marco

Sous-Commandant Marco

Posté
Posté
Si j'ai bien compris l'article de the economist, alors j'ai rien compris. Parce que je vois pas l'interet de massacrer son futur champion. C'est quoi l'interet strategique de fusiler sa cause?

Ca m'étonnerait que The Economist choisisse Ron Paul comme champion. S'il y en a un, ce sera probablement quelqu'un de moins "extrême", comme Mitt Romney par exemple.

Taranne

Taranne

Posté
Posté
Ca m'étonnerait que The Economist choisisse Ron Paul comme champion. S'il y en a un, ce sera probablement quelqu'un de moins "extrême", comme Mitt Romney par exemple.

Ils ne semblent pas en raffoler non plus, trop socialement conservateur pour leur goût.

Chez Reason, en tout cas ils sont très remontés.

Stan Selene

Stan Selene

Posté
Posté
Ca m'étonnerait que The Economist choisisse Ron Paul comme champion. S'il y en a un, ce sera probablement quelqu'un de moins "extrême", comme Mitt Romney par exemple.

Non je me suis mal exprime, je ne comprends pourquoi Le Mises institute aurait prit un si gros risque avec cette "strategie".

Champion se rapportait donc au Mises institute.

Rincevent

Rincevent

Posté
Posté
Non je me suis mal exprime, je ne comprends pourquoi Le Mises institute aurait prit un si gros risque avec cette "strategie".

Champion se rapportait donc au Mises institute.

Va demander à HHH. :icon_up:

melodius

melodius

Posté
Posté

The Economist qui snobe Paul pendant toute sa campagne et qui prend note de son existence lorsqu'on le salit, ça me fait drôlement chier. Si ça parait dans la version papier, je me foulerai bien d'une lettre.

walter-rebuttand

walter-rebuttand

Posté
Posté
Je n'ai pas suivi l'histoire mais je tombe des nues. Pourquoi y'a qu'à nous que ça arrive ce genre de trucs? :icon_up:

C'est un non-événement: il faut vraiment n'avoir rien à dire pour déterrer ce vieux truc.

C'est un peu court pour un candidat qui est le plus proche des idées théoriquement défendues pas The Economist.

kobsh_gigaone

kobsh_gigaone

Posté
Posté

Aujourd'hui c'est la primaire républicaine dans le Michigan, état dont les compagnies automobiles connaissent des difficultés face à la concurrence étrangère.

On a droit de la part des nécons, à l'habituel refrain : "je suis fiscalement conservateur pro concurrence, pro-marché libre et pro-reductions d'impôts" et quand on regarde les propositions c'est une contradiction flagrante de ces principes :

Proposition de Maverick McCain

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/S…0793b415bee.htm

If I'm elected President, I'll work with Congress and the states to overhaul unemployment insurance and make it a program for retraining, relocating and assisting workers who have lost a job that's not coming back to find a job that won't go away. We need to better connect training with business knowledge and needs. As I talk to business people and education experts I hear again and again that community colleges do a great job of providing the right skills to workers and the right workers for firms. We should take greater advantage of this record of success. And we can trust workers to choose. We need to transform rigid training programs to approaches that can be used to meet the bills, pay for training, and get back to work.

La personne qui soutient McCain sur ce forum pourrait m'expliquer en quoi McCain serait un neolibertarian? :icon_up:

Monsieur Flip Flop Romney est consistent cette fois-ci:

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Relea…Remarks_1.13.08

"Of course, taking off those burdens is only part of the solution. If we're going to be the world's greatest economic power, we also have to invest in the future. It's time for us to be bold. I will make a five-fold increase – from $4 billion to $20 billion – in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology. Let's invest in our future.

"As you know, research spins out new ideas for new products, from both small businesses and large businesses.

Archivé

Ce sujet est désormais archivé et ne peut plus recevoir de nouvelles réponses.

Aller sur la liste des sujets
×
×
  • Créer...