Don't let the "realists" bring you down.

i guess that makes Ron Paul a skeptic too then.
Click to expand...

Skeptic is not a global property. It has to be associated with a particular notion/idea/proposition etc. Ron Paul is a skeptic on this 'delegate trogan horse' plan? FYI, this is Ron Paul's plan.
 
phree said:
Aye, truer words were ne'r spoken me monkey-assed mate! Tis true ye own real estate betwixt yer ears, tis a shame the market is crashing!
Click to expand...

something i've been wondering forever....why do u guys talk like that? anytime i read anyone's posts like that...i always read it with a pirate's voice running through my head. makes me wonder what Randy's speaking voice is really like. One of the revolution's great mysteries, I suppose.;)
 
phree said:
Aye, truer words were ne'r spoken me monkey-assed mate! Tis true ye own real estate betwixt yer ears, tis a shame the market is crashing!
Click to expand...

gotta be a top 25 funniest post Phree. Especially because of who it's in response to. :p
 
flames2dust77 said:
something i've been wondering forever....why do u guys talk like that? anytime i read anyone's posts like that...i always read it with a pirate's voice running through my head. makes me wonder what Randy's speaking voice is really like. One of the revolution's great mysteries, I suppose.;)
Click to expand...

Aye, same here.
 
Let's try an analogy.


We have a lottery for $1 million. The odds of winning a lottery are 1 in 1,308,120,372,038,273,128,102

A realist says there is very little chance and doesn't buy a ticket. Right off, we can tell off that his odds of winning are exactly 0%.

Now, we have someone who doesn't have much confidence that he'll win the lottery, but buys one ticket. All of sudden, his odds skyrocket from zero to a small chance. The gap between zero chance and small chance is much more larger than the gap between small and better chance.

Now, suppose we have another guy who decide that he can win lottery! He hocks everything he has, and makes a big loan from the bank to scourge up $100,000 and squander it all on lottery tickets. Now, he has much better chance than the first guy who bought one ticket, but the payoff is much more bigger. He loses, and thus is penniless, bankrupt and doomed to wander the streets in his despair for his folly.

Now, suppose someone read the lottery rulebook and found out that lottery permitted a pool, so a group of people got together and buy several tickets. Now they have much more better chance than that one guy who bought one tickets, and they don't risk as much as that guy who betted everything.


Now here's how this works.


The first guy is whoever never was a Presidential Candidate.

The second guy is any third tier candidate.

The third guy is Ross Perot.

The group who worked together are Paulites working to be delegates to various conventions.

In end, the group has the best outcome, even if they lose, because they now have invested into something: the GOP party.
 
Banana said:
Let's try an analogy.


We have a lottery for $1 million. The odds of winning a lottery are 1 in 1,308,120,372,038,273,128,102

A realist says there is very little chance and doesn't buy a ticket. Right off, we can tell off that his odds of winning are exactly 0%.

Now, we have someone who doesn't have much confidence that he'll win the lottery, but buys one ticket. All of sudden, his odds skyrocket from zero to a small chance. The gap between zero chance and small chance is much more larger than the gap between small and better chance.

Now, suppose we have another guy who decide that he can win lottery! He hocks everything he has, and makes a big loan from the bank to scourge up $100,000 and squander it all on lottery tickets. Now, he has much better chance than the first guy who bought one ticket, but the payoff is much more bigger. He loses, and thus is penniless, bankrupt and doomed to wander the streets in his despair for his folly.

Now, suppose someone read the lottery rulebook and found out that lottery permitted a pool, so a group of people got together and buy several tickets. Now they have much more better chance than that one guy who bought one tickets, and they don't risk as much as that guy who betted everything.


Now here's how this works.


The first guy is whoever never was a Presidential Candidate.

The second guy is any third tier candidate.

The third guy is Ross Perot.

The group who worked together are Paulites working to be delegates to various conventions.

In end, the group has the best outcome, even if they lose, because they now have invested into something: the GOP party.
Click to expand...

I like your analogy.
 
Banana said:
Let's try an analogy.


We have a lottery for $1 million. The odds of winning a lottery are 1 in 1,308,120,372,038,273,128,102

A realist says there is very little chance and doesn't buy a ticket. Right off, we can tell off that his odds of winning are exactly 0%.

Now, we have someone who doesn't have much confidence that he'll win the lottery, but buys one ticket. All of sudden, his odds skyrocket from zero to a small chance. The gap between zero chance and small chance is much more larger than the gap between small and better chance.

Now, suppose we have another guy who decide that he can win lottery! He hocks everything he has, and makes a big loan from the bank to scourge up $100,000 and squander it all on lottery tickets. Now, he has much better chance than the first guy who bought one ticket, but the payoff is much more bigger. He loses, and thus is penniless, bankrupt and doomed to wander the streets in his despair for his folly.

Now, suppose someone read the lottery rulebook and found out that lottery permitted a pool, so a group of people got together and buy several tickets. Now they have much more better chance than that one guy who bought one tickets, and they don't risk as much as that guy who betted everything.


Now here's how this works.


The first guy is whoever never was a Presidential Candidate.

The second guy is any third tier candidate.

The third guy is Ross Perot.

The group who worked together are Paulites working to be delegates to various conventions.

In end, the group has the best outcome, even if they lose, because they now have invested into something: the GOP party.
Click to expand...

actually not that bad analogy.

But the realist would ask what they could do with $100,000 (or even the group's pooled money) to make much more than the $1 million jackpot and have a 90% chance of a return rather than 1.3 septillion odds that is suggested in this analogy. With those odds, even pooled resources would likely be wasted for it would take more money to win the lottery than the jackpot is worth.

Another solution would be to do both. Spend 20% on lottery tickets (because "you never know" ;) ) and the other 80% on an alternative with a higher chance of long term success.

You also didn't add into the analogy that the lottery commission (knowing that you've pooled your money) is doing everything to make SURE your numbers don't come up. Makes it difficult to win doesn't it. Now what are the odds?
 
TruthAtLast,

Aw, craps. I forgot to make one more important point: The rulebook doesn't say that a pool would mean a group divide up the jackpot, but rather each member of the group got the amount equal to the jackpot. That was the crucial piece to make the analogy work; we all win *big* if we get Paul nominated so the outcome is equal in this sense (But we both know that there's no such lottery in existence- they'd be bankrupt if they had that loophole! ;))

So, of course, the commission, having found out that they blundered big time with that loophole but are in middle of ticket-buying, so they are unable to stop the buying of tickets right away and will have to pursue other options to ensure that no ticket within that pool is ever drawn.


Does that work better? This also would explain why realists' decision to take the pooled $100K would not still get the same result- they can settle on a investment with 90% return, but never will make a fortune of $1 million x members of the pool.
 
Take your pick.

realist

noun
1. a philosopher who believes that universals are real and exist independently of anyone thinking of them
2. a person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it accordingly
3. a painter who represents the world realistically and not in an idealized or romantic style

dreamer

noun
1. someone who is dreaming
2. someone guided more by ideals than by practical considerations [syn: idealist]
3. a person who escapes into a world of fantasy [syn: escapist]
 
Well that changes everything!

It all makes perfect sense now. What was I thinking? :D


Banana said:
TruthAtLast,

Aw, craps. I forgot to make one more important point: The rulebook doesn't say that a pool would mean a group divide up the jackpot, but rather each member of the group got the amount equal to the jackpot. That was the crucial piece to make the analogy work; we all win *big* if we get Paul nominated so the outcome is equal in this sense (But we both know that there's no such lottery in existence- they'd be bankrupt if they had that loophole! ;))

So, of course, the commission, having found out that they blundered big time with that loophole but are in middle of ticket-buying, so they are unable to stop the buying of tickets right away and will have to pursue other options to ensure that no ticket within that pool is ever drawn.


Does that work better? This also would explain why realists' decision to take the pooled $100K would not still get the same result- they can settle on a investment with 90% return, but never will make a fortune of $1 million x members of the pool.
Click to expand...
 
Even if this 'delegate trojan horse' strategy does not work out, it at least can show the GOP that they should not dismiss RP so carelessly; his voice must be heard and republicans desire a real conservatives like RP.

So yeah. That is the consolation prize! And the consolation prize itself is also as worthy a pursuit. :cool:
 
uncollapse said:
Even if this 'delegate trojan horse' strategy does not work out, it at least can show the GOP that they should not dismiss RP so carelessly; his voice must be heard and republicans desire a real conservatives like RP.

So yeah. That is the consolation prize! And the consolation prize itself is also as worthy a pursuit. :cool:
Click to expand...

well, I totally agree with the strategy of helping to change the party for future elections, affecting the Republican platform and making a representation of our strength. To a degree, those are actually fairly realistic goals and we've seen some success so far.

So with that mindset it IS a worthy cause, and I'm all for it. But I'm ALSO for trying to get people elected to Congress because that is something that could have an immediate impact before the next election and is probably a goal that is much easier to attain if given the same effort and resources.

Maybe it is a matter of semantics here. It is the fact that people are so SURE that Ron Paul can win and are completely ignoring other parts of the Movement that could have an equal if not better impact on the long term goals. They start spouting off delegate counts of which are bound, unbound, committed, uncommitted, pledged, and on and on. Some people (not everyone) somehow pull these scenarios out of nowhere. :D

It is the people who put up topics about wanting to raise millions for a campaign to convert delegates bound to other candidates when the "realist" in me can't help but think that kind of money would nearly guarantee wins in several Congressional races.

It isn't that I think we should abandon the delegate process. As you said, there are many other advantages. I just think that some people are WAY too wrapped up in the fantasy scenarios.

Topics like: "John McCain Will Not Win The GOP Nomination in St. Paul"
I mean SERIOUSLY.... that is what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
TruthAtLast said:
Topics like: "John McCain Will Not Win The GOP Nomination in St. Paul"
I mean SERIOUSLY.... that is what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Aha, I get what you talk about. Yes, this talk is very premature. We haven't even made it to state conventions for a large majority of states (all of them, maybe?)

We'll know more in summer but for now, delegates is pretty much all that matters in terms of concreting the revolution into the GOP.
 
CMoore said:
I have lived long enough to know that sometimes you succeed by simply hanging on until the end. By simply not quitting and continuing to pursue a goal, it can eventually be achieved. This is also known as persistence. Often persistence will win the day when intellect and skill fall by the wayside. So it is important that we not quit on this campaign until the Republican nomination has been made.

Secondly, this movement is also about IDEAS. These are important ideas which we must pursue until we are dead. We can't give up and we must not. If we fail to implement these ideas, it must be because we died, not because we quit.

The younger ones of you may not agree with this while the older ones almost certainly will.
Click to expand...

That seems like a good way of going about doing things. Have a cautious optimism until our goals are obtained. At the same time, as long as somebody supports individual liberty, they should not be chased away even if their predictions are not as optimistic.

If someone is too "realistic" for your taste, there is no need to tell him or her to go away (not saying you were but others do,) just explain to them your position and try not to be too sensitive. If our numbers continue to decline because of impractical intolerance, we will surely not achieve our goals.

Reaction to circumstance varies with each individual. Some respond negatively to "irrational exuberance" and others to "negative nay-sayers." We all have the same goal, and as long as someone isn’t saying "I am changing my vote to Hillary Clinton and here is why," they should be tolerated.
 
Revolution9 said:
There are two sides here.. The "get with the program side" and those who refuse to be programmed. The ones promoting programming insist that their programming is not faulty. They have no way to prove or disprove this except through rote and repetition. Conversely the ones refusing programming cannot elucidate to the program followers why they refuse in such a manner as to break through the false stranglehold on "reality" exhibited by the program followers. Personally I own the real estate between my ears..not any of you.. If I want to go on believing what I wish to believe about future events, only those events unfolding and coming or not coming to fruition will alter my perception. The rest is all mumbo jumbo and programming output. Common sense dictates this to be so..

McCain has advanced alzheimers. Stuff that into your reality pipe and watch the smoke curls as they loft to the heavens.

Randy
Click to expand...

For those that do no speak pirate, here is an interpretation:

People believe what they believe. Others do not believe and do not want the believers to believe. I am a believer and don't like that others do not want me to believe. I will quit believing only when I believe believing is impossible. Not believing what I believe is nonsense because only what I believe I’m believing is sense. If you were a believer, you would believe this.

Mccain may go crazy soon. Non-believers! Fuck!

Got it?
 
phuqig_hotband said:
For those that do no speak pirate, here is an interpretation:

People believe what they believe. Others do not believe and do not want the believers to believe. I am a believer and don't like that others do not want me to believe. I will quit believing only when I believe believing is impossible. Not believing what I believe is nonsense because only what I believe I’m believing is sense. If you were a believer, you would believe this.

Mccain may go crazy soon. Non-believers! Fuck!

Got it?
Click to expand...

this response is also in my top 5. lol! my head is spinning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Does Your Vote Count? "Why Even Ask The Question?"
Replies
9
Views
2K
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
osan
What Is The Public Trust?
Replies
0
Views
441
osan
osan
Suzu
Want Kari Lake to pull off a win? YOU can help! READ NOW!
Replies
3
Views
1K
Todd
Todd
Michael Landon
I need help.
Replies
5
Views
637
Intrepid
Intrepid
PAF
President Trump: Stop Bombing Yemen and Exit the Middle East!
Replies
1
Views
312
TheTexan
TheTexan
Back
Top