Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Duck07 wrote:Sadly I understand that a Ron Paul presidency is beyond plausible, its quite frankly impossible for many reasons, least of them being public support. The AE is a quaint idea, but I don't see how its going to make an actual impact on anything.

DSM-IV & DSM-IV-TR:
Oppositional Defiant Disorder

If a child's problem behaviors do not meet the criteria for Conduct Disorder, but involve a pattern of defiant, angry, antagonistic, hostile, irritable, or vindictive this mental disorder of childhood may be diagnosed. These children may blame others for their problems.
Diagnostic criteria for 313.81 Oppositional Defiant Disorder
(cautionary statement)

A. A pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least 6 months, during which four (or more) of the following are present:
(1) often loses temper
(2) often argues with adults
(3) often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
(4) often deliberately annoys people
(5) often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
(6) is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
(7) is often angry and resentful
(8) is often spiteful or vindictive
Note: Consider a criterion met only if the behavior occurs more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level.

B. The disturbance in behavior causes clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning.

C. The behaviors do not occur exclusively during the course of a Psychotic or Mood Disorder.

D. Criteria are not met for Conduct Disorder, and, if the individual is age 18 years or older, criteria are not met for Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric Association

wheaton4prez wrote:Ron Paul's "success" is attributable to him doing better with Democrats than Republicans. Against Obama, he would be defeated by the biggest land-slide in election history. Especially if his history and positions are more thoroughly explored (advisement from Lew Rockwell, supporting David Duke, opposition to Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.).

Americas Elect is a misguided idea, imo. A good way to end up with a president that a small minority of people feel represented by. Parties change significantly over time, depending in large part on who the people choose as their candidate in the primaries. The party, for example, under Reagan was a lot different than it was under Bush. There are always going to be people that don't like any option, no matter how many there are. The system is designed to represent the most people. Not every person at once.

wheaton4prez wrote:Ron Paul's "success" is attributable to him doing better with Democrats than Republicans. Against Obama, he would be defeated by the biggest land-slide in election history. Especially if his history and positions are more thoroughly explored (advisement from Lew Rockwell, supporting David Duke, opposition to Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.).

Americas Elect is a misguided idea, imo. A good way to end up with a president that a small minority of people feel represented by. Parties change significantly over time, depending in large part on who the people choose as their candidate in the primaries. The party, for example, under Reagan was a lot different than it was under Bush. There are always going to be people that don't like any option, no matter how many there are. The system is designed to represent the most people. Not every person at once.

wheaton4prez wrote:

Tray Dub wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Ron Paul's "success" is attributable to him doing better with Democrats than Republicans. Against Obama, he would be defeated by the biggest land-slide in election history. Especially if his history and positions are more thoroughly explored (advisement from Lew Rockwell, supporting David Duke, opposition to Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.).

Americas Elect is a misguided idea, imo. A good way to end up with a president that a small minority of people feel represented by. Parties change significantly over time, depending in large part on who the people choose as their candidate in the primaries. The party, for example, under Reagan was a lot different than it was under Bush. There are always going to be people that don't like any option, no matter how many there are. The system is designed to represent the most people. Not every person at once.

Well, duh... Your solution is to have the fewest number of choices possible? There are a huge number of people that dislike both parties right now and I think you're just marginalizing them. I think it makes a lot of sense to be tremendously displeased by the performances of both parties. Your argument that parties change over time isn't the point... Whatever iteration they currently have, it's still only two choices, and in my opinion, usually pretty poor choices at that.

No. We start with unlimited choices. Narrow it down to the 8-16 that have the most support, then narrow that down to 2.

While there are people that dislike both parties and refuse to recognize that they can influence either party if they have actual support for such influence, they are in the minority and thus literally marginal. I'm not marginalizing them. They choose marginally supported views.

The election process doesn't involve two choices. The final vote between 2 candidates is the culmination of millions of choices and alternatives that could have been, if they had popular support.

wheaton4prez wrote:

Boom wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Ron Paul's "success" is attributable to him doing better with Democrats than Republicans. Against Obama, he would be defeated by the biggest land-slide in election history. Especially if his history and positions are more thoroughly explored (advisement from Lew Rockwell, supporting David Duke, opposition to Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.).

Americas Elect is a misguided idea, imo. A good way to end up with a president that a small minority of people feel represented by. Parties change significantly over time, depending in large part on who the people choose as their candidate in the primaries. The party, for example, under Reagan was a lot different than it was under Bush. There are always going to be people that don't like any option, no matter how many there are. The system is designed to represent the most people. Not every person at once.

The system is designed to represent corporate interest... nothing else.

What do you think corporations consist of and represent? Robots?

wheaton4prez wrote:

Boom wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Ron Paul's "success" is attributable to him doing better with Democrats than Republicans. Against Obama, he would be defeated by the biggest land-slide in election history. Especially if his history and positions are more thoroughly explored (advisement from Lew Rockwell, supporting David Duke, opposition to Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.).

Americas Elect is a misguided idea, imo. A good way to end up with a president that a small minority of people feel represented by. Parties change significantly over time, depending in large part on who the people choose as their candidate in the primaries. The party, for example, under Reagan was a lot different than it was under Bush. There are always going to be people that don't like any option, no matter how many there are. The system is designed to represent the most people. Not every person at once.

The system is designed to represent corporate interest... nothing else.

What do you think corporations consist of and represent? Robots?

Well they're run by the very rich typically... Who don't usually need much governmental help.