Q and A With California House Candidate Christopher David, a "Ron Paul Republican"

I_slap_racist_faces · 2012-05-25T21:45:04.450441+00:00

You claimed that the charts don't do what I claim. I posted the trends that I see in the charts. Can you respond? Is there something I am missing that results that account for a 10 year offset that doesn't really fit with the curves?

twigwam · 2012-05-25T16:36:20.027633+00:00

I see. So that is why the popularity vote matters....

Actually, not. Just a weird side step. Well, I guess you have to say something.

twigwam · 2012-05-25T16:06:17.599698+00:00

In 11 of 15 weeks studied, former Rep. Ron Paul received more positive coverage than negative – but he received less coverage than other candidates. Paul received about one-eighth as much coverage as Romney and about one-quarter as much as Santorum and Gingrich.

Also from that link:

The study is based on analysis of the tone and volume of candidate coverage during the 2012 primary season from January 2-April 15 using human coding of 52 key news outlets and computer-assisted coding of more than 11,000 news outlets. It also analyzes the framing of campaign stories for a longer period, from Nov. 1- April 15.

If a candidate is getting 1/8 the coverage (remember, this also covers the period where Ron Paul had nearly as much money, and was running high in the polls, particularly in Iowa) being ignored is brutal to your campaign.

Other candidates had periods of high coverage. We all remember that. But at no point has Paul received the same treatment. And yet he is the one contender that has outlasted the others.

Now, you are either not objective, or you have simply never paid attention.

twigwam · 2012-05-25T15:59:54.156084+00:00

That's so warm and comforting.

The point remains that they have nothing to do really with the general election, nor (in most cases) to do with selecting the delegates to the RNC.

I appreciate your undying devotion to particular totals at mostly ignored events with little connection to the process. Totals mostly bought and paid for by Wall Street, just like they sell soap and soda.

But you can't expect everyone to be so devoted to such as you are.

AToasterSeagul · 2012-05-25T12:25:54.753962+00:00

Pretty much right.

twigwam · 2012-05-25T04:39:39.696857+00:00

12 million out of 169 million that will be voting in November. Republican primary vote totals mean almost nothing about the candidates.

twigwam · 2012-05-25T02:08:22.134365+00:00

I do believe Ron Paul has been given fair [sic] chance.

Seriously?

So much for objectivity....

underweargnome04 · 2012-05-25T01:10:08.919672+00:00

I_slap_racist_faces · 1 day

here is the first one, with two linear trends drawn. Each of these trends indicated by the red lines are steady over several decades.

Why would you say trend 2 started in the 80's?

trends

Here is the more important chart, indicating the income gap. Hard to say where the trend starts, but it certainly starts somewhere within that blue circle. No way does the income gap rise start in the 80's.

Income Gap Chart from article, with trends noted

Here is another commonly referenced graphic, which indicates the same sort of thing, that the income gap started in the 80's. (The first two links are graphs from Paul Krugman; The following link is from another article) You will note that the actual data indicates an earlier problem.

Another graph

Edited to add a graphic, add explanation

STOCKSLEUTH · 1 day

Genghis Khan actually delivered hugely unreasonable punishments to those that opposed him, but was hugely tolerant and reasonable to those that simply let him have his way. As a result (I read somewhere, don't have the reference handy) his conquest got the reputation for being unbelievably cruel, while actually being one of the most humane recorded in ancient times.

"blood was up to their knees" Very poetic, but not actually possible. If you can't stack people uniformly up to your knees, their blood (which would fill spaces much more completely and represents some fraction of the volume of the bodies) could not rise to that level. It just isn't possible.

The Crusades (and the Spanish Inquisition for that matter) were largely a reaction to the conquests of Islam that reached as far north as Spain. Even had no religion been at play, the wars would still have been fought for the territories involved.

I_slap_racist_faces · 1 day

Krugman and others that want to blame everything on Reagan (income gap, reduced productivity, depressed average wages) present great charts. Only they always show the trend establishing themselves in the 70's before Reagan. I think Reagan can be faulted for not bucking the trends, but the causes are deeper than just Reagan's policies. In fact, Reagan's policies might not have much to do with the trends as they claim.

twigwam · 1 day

Poor thing. Can't demonstrate any objective reason why anything I post is spam, so you just claim "I made my points pretty clear, which you have mostly ignored."

One thing you have right. There are a group of people (including EPS) actively censoring /r/politics because they don't like Ron Paul. Now this group will claim that they do so because too much information about Ron Paul is posted to /r/politics. That's kinda circular, because your statement is clear.

EPS and other people are censoring Ron Paul. That's why Ron Paul posts don't make it to the front page.

Are they justified? No, actually I don't think so. Because there is a flood of posts going to /r/politics and most of that just flushes away naturally. If nothing posted about Ron Paul is truly interesting, then it would flush away as a matter of course.

But it doesn't really, because there are a sizable number of people interested in stuff about Ron Paul. Just like we have people that like OWS stuff and global warming stuff, and Romney stuff, and Obama stuff, and all sorts of other topics.

There is no need for EPS to run around reddit downvoting crap. But they do, and as TheShadowCat pretty much admits, they are pretty successful at censoring /r/politics.

twigwam · 1 day

Also, I have made about 300 posts in the last 20 days. That is about 15 posts a day, and only about 1/3 or less are going to /r/politics.

That is about 5 posts a day on average to /r/politics.

You might have an inflated view of the number of posts I make because they don't all get voted down to hell. Because they mostly are not spam.

twigwam · 1 day

So it is spam because it is largely Ron Paul topic articles.

Well, you EPS'ers flood reddit with your posts and replies. Some of you do little else.

You can't be that much against spam, by your definitions....

And I will also note that you have not shown why any particular article in your list is really spam. You just don't like Ron Paul, and are committed to censorship. Have fun with that.

alanX

TROPHY CASE

reddit gold Since February 2012	Three-Year Club
Verified Email

alanX

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login