Study: Republicans Leaving Party, tired of two evils argument

[angelatc]

More over, Theodore Roosevelt was a popular two-term President before he ran under a third party label and he still couldn't pull out a victory.

But that is because he split the vote. He lost an election, but destroyed the party. I could live with that if the new party was worthwhile. But as much as I like Palin, Mark Levin is evil.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Martin Armstrong: Republican Party Splitting In TWO – 3rd Party Rising for 2016
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...plitting-In-TWO-%96-3rd-Party-Rising-for-2016

To one of the paragraphs from the section you quoted:

"Consequently, the computer is the computer. It forecasts trends without human bias."

This rationale is very problematic. Nothing about the above statement is true. There is always bias, if not in direct manipulation, then in what data you choose to feed the computer or not feed the computer. Even in the programming of the basic predictive algorithms there is a bias in determining what kinds of things are more important and what kinds of things are less important.

The thing is, what Armstrong is saying here is not only wrong, it's outright dangerous. Biases become more impactful when they are hidden from view. When they are fundamentally interwoven into the fabric of a worldview, and that worldview is promulgated as 'the only rational view' you open such a society up to direct manipulation by minor adjustments in underlying predictive and analysis code.

The above quote is a door to a dystopian tyranny that we can scarcely imagine.

I understand that it is a 'quote of a quote' and I am pretty sure that almost nobody here holds Armstrong's quoted view that computers are somehow immune to human biases. I just really want to hilight right now how terribly terribly dangerous that view really is.

 

[klamath]

To one of the paragraphs from the section you quoted:

[/COLOR]

This rationale is very problematic. Nothing about the above statement is true. There is always bias, if not in direct manipulation, then in what data you choose to feed the computer or not feed the computer. Even in the programming of the basic predictive algorithms there is a bias in determining what kinds of things are more important and what kinds of things are less important.

The thing is, what Armstrong is saying here is not only wrong, it's outright dangerous. Biases become more impactful when they are hidden from view. When they are fundamentally interwoven into the fabric of a worldview, and that worldview is promulgated as 'the only rational view' you open such a society up to direct manipulation by minor adjustments in underlying predictive and analysis code.

The above quote is a door to a dystopian tyranny that we can scarcely imagine.

I understand that it is a 'quote of a quote' and I am pretty sure that almost nobody here holds Armstrong's quoted view that computers are somehow immune to human biases. I just really want to hilight right now how terribly terribly dangerous that view really is.

Awsome post Gunny.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I'm not so sure taking over the GOP would even work. You guys remember the hotly contested convention pitting Barry Goldwater against some Rockefeller guy? Yeah, apparently the relatively liberty wing of the GOP took the reigns and guess what? Rockefeller supporters stayed home. The media, which has always been against us, proclaimed that the GOP nominee Goldwater was just too radical and it ended up setting the liberty movement back half-a century.

I could easily see that happening again even if hell freezes over and we were able to gain a majority in the GOP.

I'd point out that back during the Goldwater days there was nothing really imperative to for the average person to freak out about in terms of govt excess, overreach, spying, etc. Plus, Rand has figured out a way to get our ideas trending across the spectrum as a result of the current status of the govt's operations. And even amongst the establishment, many of them don't truly hate Rand in the same way they hated Ron and it's evidenced by his appeal on all the interviews he gives. He attracts simple disagreements rather than the kooky and quixotic nonsense of yesteryear. Finally, Rand's mission to grow the party is still in its infancy and won't be properly measured for a few years when he announces and all the pieces start to fall together. I won't write off the establishment splitting and going with a billionaire tho, that would finally pull all their ilk out of GOP party positions and finally we get carte blanche. Not only that, with those fuckers gone I really believe we can get an avalanche of indies and dems coming our way in legendary fashion as 'we the people' finally unite against the powers that be. It'll take some doin but I'm certainly up for the challenge, it would be revolutionary.

 

[Lucille]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/03/is-obama-incompetent-or-dishonest-survey

Voters also have negative opinions of political parties:

47 – 42 percent unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party;

50 – 35 percent unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party;

38 – 28 percent unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I'd point out that back during the Goldwater days there was nothing really imperative to for the average person to freak out about in terms of govt excess, overreach, spying, etc. Plus, Rand has figured out a way to get our ideas trending across the spectrum as a result of the current status of the govt's operations. And even amongst the establishment, many of them don't truly hate Rand in the same way they hated Ron and it's evidenced by his appeal on all the interviews he gives. He attracts simple disagreements rather than the kooky and quixotic nonsense of yesteryear. Finally, Rand's mission to grow the party is still in its infancy and won't be properly measured for a few years when he announces and all the pieces start to fall together. I won't write off the establishment splitting and going with a billionaire tho, that would finally pull all their ilk out of GOP party positions and finally we get carte blanche. Not only that, with those fuckers gone I really believe we can get an avalanche of indies and dems coming our way in legendary fashion as 'we the people' finally unite against the powers that be. It'll take some doin but I'm certainly up for the challenge, it would be revolutionary.

Well said. I'm not sure there's many parallels between the Goldwater campaign from 50 years ago to a potential Rand campaign. The public mindset and political landscape was radically different. I think we can expect the corrupt establishment to take their ball and run if liberty becomes paramount within the GOP. We've seen it happen in countless states when our people took the reigns. They usually don't bolt in great numbers, but they do take any money under their control in an effort to sabotage the reformers. If just the corrupt establishment and neocons jump ship, I think it could be a huge net gain and every bit as revolutionary as you describe. Might be the most dramatic political realignment we've ever seen.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Once again I laugh at the panacea people think a third party would be.

Who exactly expressed that 'panacea' sentiment?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. A panacea has never been offered. Is a trollish mirthfulness vigilance? And how long can you keep the laugh parade going?

A 3rd party is always useful as an alternative to not voting in a particular contest. It makes my non vote for the two majors just a little more obvious to the dipshits of the world.

And I can still vote for Republicans in the primary and the general. The ideal Republican would be a libertarian (undercover or not) who votes for very few Republicans and doesn't kick at the very foundation of their beliefs.


***************************************

It is OK if you're running a candidate to make a philosophical point. But the Libertarian Party will never be taken seriously by most voters; fair or not, it has largely been consigned to irrelevancy.

Your vote is irrelevant, not taken seriously (except to the extent your support is taken as a given), and it is extremely unlikely your vote will change the outcome of any national or state-wide contest, ever. You are consigned to irrelevancy. Where's your impact on the 2012 election noted?

The point of you voting is to make a philosophical point.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'll probably join the GOP just to have influence there, as most of the libertarian candidates that have a chance do go GOP rather than Dem. Philosophically both parties are against us, but when it comes to the economy, or at least, the issues that are PERCEIVED to have to do with the economy, the Republicans are a little better. Republicans will speak like libertarians and vote like statists, Democrats speak AND vote like statists. Its easier to point out the inconsistency with GOP thinking than it is to get Democrats to flat out do a 180 on what they say AND act like they believe.

On the other hand, I will never BE a Republican. I am an agent in enemy territory when I make that choice. Ron Paul was the last great Republican. There are a few good ones left, and I'll vote for those if and when I get the chance. Other than that, I'll still be voting third party or, if necessary, fourth party (write in) otherwise. If somehow I actually have a chance to vote for a good Democrat (such as Bob Conley) I will absolutely do so, party affiliation be darned.

The way I see it, in a closed primary state like New York, there's not really any good reason not to register Republican. They still aren't going to get my votes unless its someone at Mike Lee's level at the very least, preferably better.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Words like "leave" or "run" just aren't suitable. It is my job to get in front of the ballot as an informed voter. It is their job to convince to vote for GOP candidates. Few make that cut. That's not my problem.

As for losing support, that is what should happen to the party of Romney and 'legitimate rape" BS. That is US winning and TPTB losing.

I doubt I'd be an Akin fan if I knew anything about him besides this, but I don't think that that one gaffe was enough reason to discredit him. If someone wrongly said something like that but was in line with liberty on everything else, rejecting them would be foolish, IMO.

 

[Generalissimo]

Theodore Roosevelt.

He lost in the 1912 presidential election when he ran as a 3rd party candidate (although he finished 2nd in front of Republican Taft)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

He lost in the 1912 presidential election when he ran as a 3rd party candidate (although he finished 2nd in front of Republican Taft)

I was responding to Bastiat's comment:

No third party has won in 150 years of history. The American consciousness won't vote for a third party ever.

A rather sizable part of the "American Consciousness" did vote for Teddy.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I was responding to Bastiat's comment:
A rather sizable part of the "American Consciousness" did vote for Teddy.

He got 88 electoral votes to Wilson's 435.

 

[Generalissimo]

He got 88 electoral votes to Wilson's 435.

and the incumbent president got 8 lol