Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Seth King on December 29, 2011, 08:33:48 PM



Title: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on December 29, 2011, 08:33:48 PM
Despite being a non-voting anarchist, I am still glued to the Presidential race. I think Paul will take Iowa.

What do you guys think?

As I just wrote the word "guys" it dawned on me that we really have no women in this forum.  :'(


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on December 29, 2011, 08:41:42 PM
Despite being a non-voting anarchist, I am still glued to the Presidential race. I think Paul will take Iowa.

What do you guys think?

I think he will be close, maybe take Iowa.  I think New Hampshire is going to fall to Romney though.  

As I just wrote the word "guys" it dawned on me that we really have no women in this forum.  :'(

The liberty movement as a whole is pretty much a sausage fest.  I think I brought that up yesterday, or was that this morning? hehe


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Rothbardian on December 29, 2011, 09:08:10 PM
Check this out: http://www.facebook.com/RonPaulPolls

He's winning all the polls there!

Quote
The liberty movement as a whole is pretty much a sausage fest.  I think I brought that up yesterday, or was that this morning? hehe

:P Male to female ratio on this board alone: 10.5:1.




Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on December 29, 2011, 09:22:48 PM
Try sorting the member list by posts.  Of those with more than a handful of posts, I think they are all male.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Script on December 29, 2011, 09:50:30 PM
Despite being a non-voting anarchist, I am still glued to the Presidential race. I think Paul will take Iowa.

What do you guys think?

As I just wrote the word "guys" it dawned on me that we really have no women in this forum.  :'(

I feel a little better about myself now.  I've been watching the race pretty closely as well--and feeling a smidgen guilty about it.  But you know what, it's great entertainment and Ron Paul doing well is good for the message of liberty.

No women on the forum.  Hmmm.  I think out of the half dozen or so anarchists I know there is only one woman.  Why doesn't anarchy appeal to women?

Edit: Caucus prediction: Paul takes the popular ("straw") vote.  The delegates may or may not actually hand him the victory.  Either way, I plan to drink.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Rothbardian on December 29, 2011, 10:02:03 PM
Why doesn't anarchy appeal to women?

Good question. I think we need some entrepreneurship in our outreach to women. We're obviously not doing a very good job of it right now.

Maybe male anarcho-capitalists need to be better "playas" so we can win some women over and convert them? ;D That would be a win-win scenario, for the Cause and ourselves.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on December 29, 2011, 10:02:26 PM
No women on the forum.  Hmmm.  I think out of the half dozen or so anarchists I know there is only one woman.  Why doesn't anarchy appeal to women?

I really think it has to do with the whole democrat take care of people bit.  They see that as humane, and don't see the consequences.  I've noticed new mothers I have encountered (not claiming all!) are also more than happy to put a gun to your head to pay for education and national defense/police and go from anti drug war to pro drug war.  

The democrat/socialist I converted is female.  It can be done!  


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Script on December 29, 2011, 10:28:53 PM
New marketing campaigns:

Anarchy for Mothers

Anarcho-capitalism: Because Social Justice Matters

;D



Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on December 30, 2011, 12:41:24 AM
No women on the forum.  Hmmm.  I think out of the half dozen or so anarchists I know there is only one woman.  Why doesn't anarchy appeal to women?

I really think it has to do with the whole democrat take care of people bit.  They see that as humane, and don't see the consequences.  I've noticed new mothers I have encountered (not claiming all!) are also more than happy to put a gun to your head to pay for education and national defense/police and go from anti drug war to pro drug war. 
Stef made a video covering this topic. Governments are "parents," we're the "children." Caring mother on the left, spartan father on the right. That's supposed to be the hidden meaning of the paradigm.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: rahvin on December 30, 2011, 02:25:22 AM
On the ladies topic:

In the past year or so, I've had three girls ask me about my political inclinations while on a date (that's right, they brought it up, not me) and I answered, "Oh, I'm an anarchist." I then gave them a brief description of NAP and told them about the difference between capitalists and syndicalists to clear up the media misconceptions.  Then they stopped returning my phone calls...

I might be doing something wrong, how do you recommend ice breaking this? 


And I think Paul might actually take Iowa, they've been talking about him way too much for it not to be a serious threat. 


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on December 30, 2011, 02:45:04 AM
An-cap is female repellent.  I've noticed the same issue.  You might be safer just going with the more acceptable umbrella of libertarian.  That is not usually acceptable either though.  As the old saying goes, don't talk about politics, religion, or something else I forgot because it is the middle of the night.  

You would likely have better luck going with the stereotype anarchist than going with ancap and NAP.  As sad as that is...


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Rothbardian on December 30, 2011, 05:15:45 AM
I answered, "Oh, I'm an anarchist."

Definitely don't do that, in my opinion. I would use the term libertarian with anyone you are less familiar with, and perhaps using the term anarcho-capitalist with those you are far more familiar with. I wouldn't use the term anarchist except a) around other ancaps, or b) around other schools of anarchists, with whom you can later go into the difference.

It's suicide to just go in right away with the term anarchism. Introduce it gradually, and come out as an Anarcho-Capitalist to those who you know very well. (Again, don't even say "anarchist" to those who you know well).

The issue here is that one can be an anarchist and support aggression. All anarchy means is absence of government. By definition, it doesn't say anything else. You have to add in the "capitalism" right away, or that gives the impression you support aggression. Only use anarchy as shorthand amongst your fellows.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Batchain on December 30, 2011, 08:14:22 AM
hey now, I'm a lady!  However, maybe the theory of women more often being lefties because of their motherly nature is still true.  I've never been very lady like or motherly and I don't like kids.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Batchain on December 30, 2011, 08:31:26 AM
A gal I knew from high school was at some point involved in this http://santacruz.freeskool.org/content/about-free-skool-santa-cruz
I think she might be an anarchist.  Maybe stuff like this appeals more to women.  Certainly seems to have a lot of female names involved.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Freya on December 30, 2011, 10:14:06 AM
As I just wrote the word "guys" it dawned on me that we really have no women in this forum.  :'(

I tend to use "guys" as being gender neutral. By the way I suppose you mean woman as in sex (as opposed to gender)?

I don't know for sure that we don't have any women here. In fact I don't think I ever introduced myself as being either male gender or sex specifically. It seems to have been assumed, I guess maybe based on my male sounding nickname. Male is often assumed on the internet, but I'm not longer sure its the case that the internet is predominantly male. I get the idea that a lot of women might be around, but might be more comfortable in their anonymity. I'm not even sure this is a bad thing. Internet is about the only place you can communicate with other people without knowing their sex, skin colour and other physical features and making assumptions based on that knowledge.

This anonymity has faded a little with things such as voice chat, webcams and youtube. But its still there for the people that want or need it. There are disadvantages to this anonymity, but there are advantages too. Think of people who consider their "gender role" to be different from one that is expected of their "biological sex".

I don't really care about how many 'men' or 'women' we have on DA, just like I don't really care about how many 'african-americans' or 'Wasps' (hate those PC terms) we have or how many 'homosexuals'  or 'straight people' we have. The internet is the one place for me where I can talk to a person without having to first fight off my own prejudice. I actually kind of like the anonymity here. I consider myself gender neutral, I've been thought a female once in a while on the internet, but on the internet I guess I tend to hang towards being male as that is the more accepted gender role. I'll keep my biological sex hidden, because I don't really think its something we should care about here. Eventually some of you might find out when I come to NH ;).

hey now, I'm a lady!  However, maybe the theory of women more often being lefties because of their motherly nature is still true.  I've never been very lady like or motherly and I don't like kids.

Getting people to accept the difference between biological sex and gender is the next big challenge to overcome. We've made great progress with feminism and the LGBT movement, but theres still much work to do in overcoming sex based stereotypes.

An-cap is female repellent.  

I'm not sure. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. It's like telling people with a certain skin colour that they will have a hard life because of how racist the world is. Just by repeating it to them over and over you will make it true.

I think this is why we still have so much racism, because we are looking for it everywhere, instead of letting it die alone in a corner.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on December 30, 2011, 11:42:35 AM
In fact I don't think I ever introduced myself as being either male gender or sex specifically. It seems to have been assumed, I guess maybe based on my male sounding nickname.

Eddy is short for Edward, a male name.

I get the idea that a lot of women might be around, but might be more comfortable in their anonymity.

I'm all for anonymity, but that doesn't change the fact that overall the liberty movement is about 10+:1 male to female.  If you attend any liberty oriented events you will see that.  I'm not just going with some wild assumptions.  Every time I have been to political events, you can find most of the males with one party, most of the females with another.  The different ideologies definitely appeal to different demographics.  


I tend to use "guys" as being gender neutral. By the way I suppose you mean woman as in sex (as opposed to gender)?

I don't really care about how many 'men' or 'women' we have on DA, just like I don't really care about how many 'african-americans' or 'Wasps' (hate those PC terms) we have or how many 'homosexuals'  or 'straight people' we have. The internet is the one place for me where I can talk to a person without having to first fight off my own prejudice.

The topic was about getting a date and not coming across as an insane person.  For all I know this stuff blows up going the other way too, but there is no feedback about that being an issue.  Due to the demographics of the liberty movement, it shouldn't be as big of an issue.  

I'll keep my biological sex hidden, because I don't really think its something we should care about here. Eventually some of you might find out when I come to NH ;).

If you want to meet a female, try to bring one with you rather than meet one once your there.  Seriously...

hey now, I'm a lady!  However, maybe the theory of women more often being lefties because of their motherly nature is still true.  I've never been very lady like or motherly and I don't like kids.

I wasn't saying all women are lefties, but the numbers are certainly skewed that way.  It becomes painfully obvious at things like the porcupine festival in New Hampshire.  

Getting people to accept the difference between biological sex and gender is the next big challenge to overcome. We've made great progress with feminism and the LGBT movement, but theres still much work to do in overcoming sex based stereotypes.

I don't think this was about feminism.  It was about getting dates and developing more lasting relationships.  


An-cap is female repellent.  

I'm not sure. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. It's like telling people with a certain skin colour that they will have a hard life because of how racist the world is. Just by repeating it to them over and over you will make it true.

I don't repeat a thing.  I don't have to.  Politics is incredibly divisive.

I think this is why we still have so much racism, because we are looking for it everywhere, instead of letting it die alone in a corner.

I don't even know how you got to racism and feminism.  Were just looking for a way to make an appeal to a certain group of people that are underrepresented in our ranks.  


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on December 30, 2011, 12:44:06 PM
hey now, I'm a lady!  However, maybe the theory of women more often being lefties because of their motherly nature is still true.  I've never been very lady like or motherly and I don't like kids.

Looking through the list of members the other day I did notice we have a handful of women, but the mouthiest among us are all men. I'm not too hung up on this fact. I'm sure the demographics around here will diversify in time.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Batchain on December 30, 2011, 02:12:13 PM
I guess I'd call myself somewhat neutral gender, mostly because I don't care much about traditional gender roles, my role is just to be me. 

I'm a bit of a quiet person, so I don't post too much, mostly lurk.  I've actually made more posts here than on any other forum I think.  I mostly started talking because my statist friends were driving me insane and I felt like a needed support and sanity... and I really like this board for that, even when I don't post, just reading all your posts is very comforting.   Anyway, thanks guys and gals for that!



Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on December 30, 2011, 02:21:46 PM
We're glad to have you, even when you're just lurking!


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Freya on December 30, 2011, 05:30:54 PM
Getting people to accept the difference between biological sex and gender is the next big challenge to overcome. We've made great progress with feminism and the LGBT movement, but theres still much work to do in overcoming sex based stereotypes.

I don't think this was about feminism.  It was about getting dates and developing more lasting relationships.  


An-cap is female repellent.  

I'm not sure. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. It's like telling people with a certain skin colour that they will have a hard life because of how racist the world is. Just by repeating it to them over and over you will make it true.

I don't repeat a thing.  I don't have to.  Politics is incredibly divisive.

I think this is why we still have so much racism, because we are looking for it everywhere, instead of letting it die alone in a corner.

I don't even know how you got to racism and feminism.  Were just looking for a way to make an appeal to a certain group of people that are underrepresented in our ranks.  


I think were having a bit of a miscommunication here. I'm not saying you are racist or sexist. In fact, most of it wasn't a reply to anything you said.

I don't know how to re-write to post so it doesn't sound like I am attacking you. But I wasn't :P.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: David Giessel on December 30, 2011, 07:26:09 PM
Advocating a world of voluntary interaction works well with women. Women generally don't like guns or violence (insert biological reason here). An an-cap world would be far more peaceful. Economic reasons are a waste of time generally with that crowd tho.

I guarantee you that Phil Ochs didn't have a problem getting action. Different approach than most of us (and not an-cap per-se).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pgrKSwFJE

Also what election? Ron who?


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Freya on December 30, 2011, 08:05:24 PM
Advocating a world of voluntary interaction works well with women. Women generally don't like guns or violence (insert biological reason here). An an-cap world would be far more peaceful. Economic reasons are a waste of time generally with that crowd tho.

I guarantee you that Phil Ochs didn't have a problem getting action. Different approach than most of us (and not an-cap per-se).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pgrKSwFJE

Also what election? Ron who?

What about the 'peaceful parenting' thing? Wouldn't that work well with those of the female gender role? I think we need to put more spotlights on the compassionate side of anarcho-capitalism in general, this works well with all humans.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on December 31, 2011, 01:25:37 AM
I guarantee you that Phil Ochs didn't have a problem getting action. Different approach than most of us (and not an-cap per-se).

The guy was a musician. He could have sung about torturing kittens and he probably would have gotten the same amount of action.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on December 31, 2011, 01:09:31 PM
On the ladies topic:

In the past year or so, I've had three girls ask me about my political inclinations while on a date (that's right, they brought it up, not me) and I answered, "Oh, I'm an anarchist."
Don't do this.

Quote
I then gave them a brief description of NAP
Don't do this.

Quote
and told them about the difference between capitalists and syndicalists to clear up the media misconceptions.
Don't do this.

Quote
Then they stopped returning my phone calls...
No surprise here.

Quote
I might be doing something wrong, how do you recommend ice breaking this?
Just grin and ask whether she's supposed to bring up these subjects on a first date. Then tell her it's her job to piece it together over time (I'm NOT suggesting you leave behind any major hints though). My advice is to make sure you don't answer this question. Don't say anarchist, don't even say libertarian. You can't "reveal" this part of yourself until much much later. Say nothing on the subject. Redirect the conversation, and don't give in. You aren't going to lose any points for refusing to answer this question, and it might even help you, since it keeps you from giving away too much information up front.

It's hard because anarchism may be an important part of your identity, and you may want to share it, but you have to be realistic and recognize that there are times and places that aren't suitable. Of course, if you strike gold and find someone who tells you she is a market anarchist (don't hold your breath), feel free to wow her with your own speculation on the functioning of an anarchist society. Good luck.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: helio on December 31, 2011, 05:37:28 PM
I told my gf the second night we talked.  I told her i was a voluntaryist and didnt use any technical terms like coercion non agression principle or anythng.

so dont impose any hard rules on what to do because it depends on the girl.  my gf and i are doing great. She has alot of common ground and exploring those common areas made it easier to share that with her.



Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Script on December 31, 2011, 05:53:40 PM
Also what election? Ron who?

From what I gather there are a couple libertarian leaning Republicans running for the nomination: "Ron" and "Paul".  I still haven't learned what their last names are yet.  Pretty popular with fanatical fans.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on December 31, 2011, 06:51:56 PM
I told my gf the second night we talked.  I told her i was a voluntaryist and didnt use any technical terms like coercion non agression principle or anythng.

so dont impose any hard rules on what to do because it depends on the girl.  my gf and i are doing great. She has alot of common ground and exploring those common areas made it easier to share that with her.

You are a very lucky guy.  That is very rare.  


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: David Giessel on December 31, 2011, 07:56:02 PM
Also what election? Ron who?

From what I gather there are a couple libertarian leaning Republicans running for the nomination: "Ron" and "Paul".  I still haven't learned what their last names are yet.  Pretty popular with fanatical fans.

Is their last name "Millerus?" I have heard of that guy before.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: ThinkAnarchy on December 31, 2011, 08:10:28 PM
Well they just released the new Iowa Registry poll and all I could see was the headline. I'm guessing the server is overwhelmed right now from people flooding it. But the headline said Santorum is still surging, Mitt Romney is in the lead, and both Santorum and Paul are still within striking distance.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 01, 2012, 11:18:17 PM
RP got slammed in the local paper today. Not sure if it was one of those that gets reprinted around the country or not. I briefly skimmed it. Complaints about those old newsletters of his that are supposed to be racist.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 01, 2012, 11:27:05 PM
That he didn't even write.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 02, 2012, 07:50:39 PM
This is on Yahoo!'s homepage (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-greeted-overflow-crowd-first-day-back-202342300.html) at the moment. Hmm...maybe he could get the nomination. Largely because there is no one else. But it's not too late for another moderate to spring up and enter the race. If he got the major party nomination, I suspect Obama would obliterate on election night. They'll paint him as extremist. Who knows, maybe my predictions are all wrong. I don't know if I should be terrified over that...


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 02, 2012, 07:55:45 PM
A lot of democrats are angry at Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 02, 2012, 08:05:44 PM
This all seems so insane. I'm anticipating the mud-slinging to get ramped up over these next few weeks. RP's getting way too much positive attention.

Edit: Plus he's likely to win the caucus, since it's based on how rabid your fanbase is, and that would be even more news about him. I can't believe this.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 02, 2012, 08:33:30 PM
Search/news trends of RP vs others.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+newt+gingrich%2C+mitt+romney&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0 (http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+newt+gingrich%2C+mitt+romney&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0)


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 02, 2012, 08:59:50 PM
Things can change very quickly. Must keep that in mind. But I have to admit, at the moment, things are looking really weird. Obama might start a war for the rally around the flag effect. Imagine RP getting the nomination and running on the anti-war platform. You might split the left, just four years after Obama supposedly built a "perfect coalition" which was expected to last a generation. We may have classic leftists voting for RP, WW3, and a true global economic catastrophe... this is shaping up to be a strange year. And tomorrow he'll likely win the caucus....You almost have to expect some sort of made up sex scandal, or his racist newsletters to make national headlines, really, really soon.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 02, 2012, 09:02:05 PM
That newsletter has been national news for five years.  I saw another about it in the wall street journal today.  They blamed the writing on Lew Rockwell.  If I remember correctly, the actual writer was known last time around.  This issue has been rehashed so many times it is just boring.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 02, 2012, 09:04:06 PM
That newsletter has been national news for five years.  I saw another about it in the wall street journal today. 
Well they need to get it on TV!!! I can see the advertisement now, with sad music, and bad photos of the man. Throw in pictures of people with sheets on their heads into the slideshow and it's a campaign torpedo!!


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 02, 2012, 09:06:08 PM
They will never pull that off with so much anti-racist speech over 30 years.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 03, 2012, 12:47:21 PM
Virgina will be Paul vs Romney.  They decided not to break their own laws to get Gingrich on there.  Funny how they decided that after Gingrich fell in the polls and were facing a required 80% approval to change the laws. 

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2010-in-wilmington/ken-cuccinelli-changes-his-mind-the-virginia-primary-is-ron-paul-mitt-romney



Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 03, 2012, 08:04:12 PM
It is amazing how all the news channels are dumping on RP tonight.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on January 03, 2012, 08:21:34 PM
Ron Paul is getting plenty of jabber on CNN.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: dpalme on January 03, 2012, 09:42:47 PM
Damn, this is close. Live updates here if anyone is sans TV http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/liveblogging-caucus-night-yahoo-news-abc-tucker-carlson-000558451.html


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 03, 2012, 09:52:41 PM
I saw some results breakdown that showed RP was getting about 50% of the independent vote, Romney was at about 10%.  Meanwhile they were saying only Romney could get independent votes.  I don't know if I should consider the hosts stupid, lairs, or so scared that they need a change of pants. 


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on January 03, 2012, 09:56:12 PM
CNN just interviewed an active duty soldier who voted for Ron Paul. They asked him if it wasn't dangerous to bring the troops home now. Then the soldier started to talk about how dangerous it is to keep fighting aggressive wars or starting one in Ira...

Then they lost connection! It was hysterical. The chat box on the right side went a million miles an hour with people cracking up over that one!


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: dpalme on January 03, 2012, 09:57:25 PM
I read that too somewhere. I just don't understand how Romney could get ANY independent votes. The independents I know I'd consider smart. . .


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 03, 2012, 09:57:47 PM
CNN just interviewed an active duty soldier who voted for Ron Paul. They asked him if it wasn't dangerous to bring the troops home now. Then the soldier started to talk about how dangerous it is to keep fighting aggressive wars or starting one in Ira...

Then they lost connection! It was hysterical. The chat box on the right side went a million miles an hour with people cracking up over that one!

Hahaha...  Just can't make that stuff up.  


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on January 03, 2012, 10:49:46 PM
Welp, guess my prediction of Ron taking Iowa was wrong. Can we smell an independent run in November?


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 03, 2012, 10:59:02 PM
Well, RP said he wouldn't run third party this time.  I seriously doubt he would go back on that.  I wouldn't count him out just yet either.  No one has really beat on Romney yet, and he is a weak candidate in many ways. 

Who would have guessed 25% by Santorum?  That seems like the big story the media is going to run with.

From what I understand, it is not winner take all this year.  So RP won't lose what he won here.  I wonder what will happen with NH.  I know the FSP is still small there, but I hope they made some progress on the locals. 


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: dpalme on January 03, 2012, 11:01:34 PM
I hope he does run third party if he doesn't get the nomination. I think there still might be a lot of democrats who are afraid of the republican title.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on January 03, 2012, 11:02:21 PM
Many of the FSPers are like myself, apolitical anarchists.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 03, 2012, 11:06:17 PM
Many of the FSPers are like myself, apolitical anarchists.

I've heard a lot of local elections have been won by FSP's too. 


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 03, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
CNN just interviewed an active duty soldier who voted for Ron Paul. They asked him if it wasn't dangerous to bring the troops home now. Then the soldier started to talk about how dangerous it is to keep fighting aggressive wars or starting one in Ira...

Then they lost connection! It was hysterical. The chat box on the right side went a million miles an hour with people cracking up over that one!

Ron Paul asked him up to the podium to finish what he was saying that got cut off.  The news cut him off before he started speaking.   


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on January 03, 2012, 11:18:02 PM
He was able to finish on CNN. CNN showed the whole of Ron Paul's speech.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 03, 2012, 11:19:32 PM
I keep flipping between them.  I happened to be on fox at that time.  When I jumped to CNN it was over.

Newt is calling out RP now.  He is saying Iran is going to nuke us unless we go stop them.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Script on January 03, 2012, 11:36:05 PM
I shouldn't be, but I am disappointed. 

Oh well, freedom isn't going to come through the political process anyway.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on January 03, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
I'm not really disappointed. If you put a gun to my head and asked me who I would hope would win, I'd pick Ron. But things happen for a reason and his losing Iowa is just part of how it's suppose to go down. An independent run, maybe. Either way, he's not going to be President. But this is for sure, the message is spreading. Our numbers are growing. It's going to be a long, arduous struggle.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: dpalme on January 04, 2012, 12:10:58 AM
I'm bummed but what can you do? I agree with Script, freedom won't come through the political process, but a Ron Paul presidency would sure help pave the way. I know it's early, but I doubt Ron could win now. If he won this, there would be a good chance, but Romney's surging in NH (I don't know how though), so I feel it's just downhill from here.

Here's the soldier being cut off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_AQnegSXMw&feature=g-u&context=G2345344FUAAAAAAABAA

Convenient.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on January 04, 2012, 12:23:44 AM
We knew it was going to be up to us, and the message of voluntaryism, that would need to pick up the pieces of a lost Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign. Nothing has changed.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: nick79 on January 04, 2012, 02:29:34 AM
I've been a long-time lurker, but the question of why there aren't more female anarchists has lured me out to post for the first time and say hello.

I'm not really sure what the answer is, but I think (for me, at least) it may be because politics and economics are seen as male interests, and so women just aren't exposed to them in ways that include or interest them. Before I felt confident enough to start initiating or jumping into political conversations, I was never invited to join the conversation or asked my opinion, and I think that was a big factor. At some point, I learned my views (which consisted mostly of ideas gleamed from reading Ayn Rand) were compatible with libertarianism so I claimed that title, but it was another year before I looked up 'libertarian' on the internet, realized it wasn't just a political party, and learned about the NAP. I was introduced to an-cap by a friend but really didn't understand what it was; I had to go searching for the missing pieces mostly on my own without a clue of where to look. It took about a year for me to discover Mises, Rothbard, etc, learn the basics of economics, put it together with libertarian ideas, then make the leap to anarchy. It took a lot of reading and searching and thinking for my mind to begin to wrap around it all. Many people, especially women, don't even realize anarchy is an option (I remember the first time somebody told me the government should be abolished; I was already a minarchist but that statement was a lightning bolt that literally stunned me for a few moments). So perhaps the key to getting more women interested in anarchy is to simply start dialogue and include them into your conversations. Make it accessible, talk about the different viewpoints and how we are personally affected by them, etc. And don't forget to invite them to join the forum here; I've found it to be an intelligent and civilized one compared to most others and I think women would feel comfortable here, even if they choose to just lurk like I do.

:D


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 04, 2012, 05:28:49 AM
I've been a long-time lurker, but the question of why there aren't more female anarchists has lured me out to post for the first time and say hello.

I'm not really sure what the answer is, but I think (for me, at least) it may be because politics and economics are seen as male interests, and so women just aren't exposed to them in ways that include or interest them. Before I felt confident enough to start initiating or jumping into political conversations, I was never invited to join the conversation or asked my opinion, and I think that was a big factor. At some point, I learned my views (which consisted mostly of ideas gleamed from reading Ayn Rand) were compatible with libertarianism so I claimed that title, but it was another year before I looked up 'libertarian' on the internet, realized it wasn't just a political party, and learned about the NAP. I was introduced to an-cap by a friend but really didn't understand what it was; I had to go searching for the missing pieces mostly on my own without a clue of where to look. It took about a year for me to discover Mises, Rothbard, etc, learn the basics of economics, put it together with libertarian ideas, then make the leap to anarchy. It took a lot of reading and searching and thinking for my mind to begin to wrap around it all. Many people, especially women, don't even realize anarchy is an option (I remember the first time somebody told me the government should be abolished; I was already a minarchist but that statement was a lightning bolt that literally stunned me for a few moments). So perhaps the key to getting more women interested in anarchy is to simply start dialogue and include them into your conversations. Make it accessible, talk about the different viewpoints and how we are personally affected by them, etc. And don't forget to invite them to join the forum here; I've found it to be an intelligent and civilized one compared to most others and I think women would feel comfortable here, even if they choose to just lurk like I do.

:D

Welcome to the forum!

You should read some intro posts.  The search for freedom is often a long lonely process.  It isn't just women who are not exposed to these things.  I don't think I have seen a post yet of anyone saying their parents taught them about ancap or freedom or libertarians even.  I still meet hostility by anyone I talk to about it.  

Gov school of course would rather it not exist.  It challenges their authority and paychecks.  Interestingly all my college econ classes had about 50% women students.  The classes were also very Keynsian.  Of course they didn't announce there were other options. 


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Rothbardian on January 04, 2012, 06:55:14 AM
Wow, Syock, you just made me think of something that is very good, radical, and powerful. Whatever the government can do, they will never have the power to take away our power to bestow knowledge upon our children. Anarcho-Capitalism is a new idea; but now we will always be capable of passing it down through future generations. Children have free will, so they might not adhere to the idea, but it gives us such greater chances.

Perhaps AnCaps should breed like Mormons. ;D


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 04, 2012, 07:22:01 AM
Wow, Syock, you just made me think of something that is very good, radical, and powerful. Whatever the government can do, they will never have the power to take away our power to bestow knowledge upon our children. Anarcho-Capitalism is a new idea; but now we will always be capable of passing it down through future generations. Children have free will, so they might not adhere to the idea, but it gives us such greater chances.

Perhaps AnCaps should breed like Mormons. ;D

That leads back to the low number of ancap women.  hehe   


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Rothbardian on January 04, 2012, 07:27:42 AM
Ha, yeah. :'( AnCaps, forever alone:

(http://d37nnnqwv9amwr.cloudfront.net/entries/icons/original/000/003/619/Untitled-1.jpg)

But even just an Anarcho-Capitalist father could do some decent work. A non-anarchist mother inhibits the progress, but it would work OK. Better than no parental anarchist influence at all.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on January 04, 2012, 12:33:27 PM
I've been a long-time lurker, but the question of why there aren't more female anarchists has lured me out to post for the first time and say hello.

I'm not really sure what the answer is, but I think (for me, at least) it may be because politics and economics are seen as male interests, and so women just aren't exposed to them in ways that include or interest them. Before I felt confident enough to start initiating or jumping into political conversations, I was never invited to join the conversation or asked my opinion, and I think that was a big factor. At some point, I learned my views (which consisted mostly of ideas gleamed from reading Ayn Rand) were compatible with libertarianism so I claimed that title, but it was another year before I looked up 'libertarian' on the internet, realized it wasn't just a political party, and learned about the NAP. I was introduced to an-cap by a friend but really didn't understand what it was; I had to go searching for the missing pieces mostly on my own without a clue of where to look. It took about a year for me to discover Mises, Rothbard, etc, learn the basics of economics, put it together with libertarian ideas, then make the leap to anarchy. It took a lot of reading and searching and thinking for my mind to begin to wrap around it all. Many people, especially women, don't even realize anarchy is an option (I remember the first time somebody told me the government should be abolished; I was already a minarchist but that statement was a lightning bolt that literally stunned me for a few moments). So perhaps the key to getting more women interested in anarchy is to simply start dialogue and include them into your conversations. Make it accessible, talk about the different viewpoints and how we are personally affected by them, etc. And don't forget to invite them to join the forum here; I've found it to be an intelligent and civilized one compared to most others and I think women would feel comfortable here, even if they choose to just lurk like I do.

:D

Welcome and thank you for sharing!

You mention how nobody ever asked your opinion. Come to think of it, I rarely ever ask anybody else's opinion, male or female. And I don't think I'm alone. Politics seems to be one of those things where everybody is trying to convert the other person.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 04, 2012, 12:35:06 PM
I like to ask people their opinion when I am trying to convert them.  There will be something somewhere that we will have in common with almost everyone at least in concept.  It is good for building a connection to work from.  

I once asked someone what they wouldn't willingly pay for, and was answered NASA.  Then we were off to the races.  I talked about the Ansari X Prize and Scaled Composites being early cheaper private steps to replace NASA, and Boeing's Sea Launch that commonly sends commercial satellites into space. 

I really don't know of a better way to get through to people about any topic, be it political or personal issues, than simply asking. 


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 05, 2012, 11:03:59 PM
New Hampshire is coming up. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/5/santorum-gets-big-bounce-new-hampshire/?page=all
(http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/01/05/zogby-nhprimaryv2-445.jpg)

It is an improvement over the 60% Romney was getting a few days ago. 


Title: South Carolina Primary Predictions
Post by: Syock on January 11, 2012, 10:08:43 PM
South Carolina Primary Predictions

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?searchQuery=South+Carolina+Primary

It looks like the favorites are:

1) Romney
2) Gingrich
3) Gingrich/Santorum

EDIT:

Well I didn't know there was a debate, but all over the news is how RP was booed at for taking his stance against war.  It seems South Carolina wants to kill people.  Is this going to be a common trend?


Title: Re: South Carolina Primary Predictions
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on January 17, 2012, 12:29:19 PM
It seems South Carolina wants to kill people.  Is this going to be a common trend?
I'd bet on it.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Will on January 17, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
They booed when he talked about applying the Golden Rule to military endeavors, but then they cheered when he talked about not starting any more wars. It was weird.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 17, 2012, 01:10:09 PM
That is weird.  I wonder what thought process went on there.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Script on January 17, 2012, 02:19:02 PM
A crowd isn't an entity, it is a conglomeration of individuals. It's likely the cheers were from the dedicated Ron Paul supporters. I heard some boos mixed in worth the cheers.


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Syock on January 19, 2012, 10:16:14 PM
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/19/a-libertarian-democrat-considers-mitt-ro

Reason seems to be backing Romney. 

I was so disappointed a long time ago when I found out CATO supports a central bank.  Reason has let me down many times.  There are so few places worth turning to...


Title: Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions?
Post by: Seth King on January 19, 2012, 11:36:51 PM
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/19/a-libertarian-democrat-considers-mitt-ro

Reason seems to be backing Romney. 

I was so disappointed a long time ago when I found out CATO supports a central bank.  Reason has let me down many times.  There are so few places worth turning to...

We're here for you.  ;)