It seems my fails were a bit premature- The Sugar Bowl turned out to be an example of why college football is worth watching, and Romney just pulled ahead in Iowa again. Life is good.
Santorum, Paul, and Romney are basically tied for first currently. Gingrich is a distant fourth, and everyone else is an also-ran. 20ish percent of the districts to go!
1,715 of 1,774 Precincts Reporting at the time of this post, and It's Santorum and Romney separated by less than a hundred votes with Santorum currently sloshing about in first place, with Paul a few thousand votes behind either of them.
EDIT - correction, the data I'm looking at updated, removing a few districts, 1,709 of 1,774 Precincts now, and Romney dropped about a hundred and some votes, with Santorum losing about two-hundred odd when it stepped back, so they're separated by slightly more. Paul still a few thousand behind, though.
More edits - 1,720 of 1,774 Precincts Reporting, Results much the same.
And again - 1,742 of 1,774 Precincts Reporting, much the same. Man, Santorum and Romney just won't be separated by more than a few hundred votes. Paul, no surprise, is still trailing by a few thousand and growing.
The Iowa caucus awards ZERO delegates to the republican nominees. That's right, zero. The only reason, and I mean only reason, that this is a big deal is due to pageantry and media coverage. It's covered as a mini-election, something which should be taken seriously, but consider this. The votes are not even secret or even counted with any real scrutiny. It's just the first pitch in the ballgame that is American politics. Stop falling for this ritual and artificial media fervor.
Besides, it's a poor predictor of the ultimate nominee anyways. Hell, Mike Hukabee won in 2008 with 34% of the votes.
Are you kidding? I know about that, I'm following this because if you listen carefully when all 1,774 precincts report in, you can hear the delicate tinkle of Ron Paul supporter's hearts breaking. And then the hilarious mad scramble for excuses, since despite the fact that many know this isn't even close to an actual election, Ron Paul supporters are acting like it's the final step in the presidential election. That said, I'm already seeing accusations of voter fraud.
I find it hard to believe that you of all people can't see how someone could derive amusement from such ludicrous wailing and gnashing of teeth. But, Each to their own, nobody is forcing you to pay attention to it. If you want to get your wee frilly panties in a twist, though, by all means, continue.
Santorum, Paul, and Romney are basically tied for first currently. Gingrich is a distant fourth, and everyone else is an also-ran. 20ish percent of the districts to go!
If any of those first three win the general election, I'm pulling the fucking chute. I'll be on the next available mode of transit to Spain or Australia. Cargo freighter, cruise ship, plane, dirigible airship, whatever.
I am of the opinion that arriving in the country by dirigible should grant you automatic citizenship.
On behalf of the USA, I concur.
Fail: Due to Megabus and National Express being a gang of thugs with inconsistent schedules and pricing schemes bordering on racketeering, I am now spending an unintended night in London, arriving at 11pm and leaving at 9am on a Megabus for Newcastle. Fuck this noise. Seriously.
Yeah thought that you would have gotten used to that by now. British public transport is dire to say the least. That with out going into the farce that is the raise in fairs.
Didn't get into the class I needed, even though I was first on the waitlist the Prof opted to draw names out of a hat instead. A sophomore got in. The class isn't offered again till the Fall, which will probably set me back at least a quarter.
Go talk with the professor (first) and/or your academic adviser (second), if you haven't already. Chances are you might still be able to get in, and if not you can raise a ruckus.
If at first you don't succeed, bitch and moan until you do!
It would be funny if Ron Paul gets the nomination. Republicans will be so pissed, and there is no way he could win the general election...I hope?
To put it simply, the very idea gives me a comedy boner so hard you could shatter diamonds on it.
Really, if he does get the nomination, it's doubtful he will win. Previously, he enjoyed a lower level of media scrutiny than other candidates. At the moment, he's struggling a little to deal with the massively increased media scrutiny, refusing interviews, refusing media events and generally doing the time honored political dance called the Journalist-doding do-si-do. This won't be possible if he gets the nomination - and on top of that, the level of media scrutiny he'd enjoy during the actual presidential race would make the current level of media scrutiny look like the vauge, wishy-washy questioning you'd see on a teenager's first date. I simply don't think he can realistically stand up to that level of scrutiny and still take the presidency - He'd still take a larger number of votes than ever before, but it would still be Obama's win by a landslide.
It would be funny if Ron Paul gets the nomination. Republicans will be so pissed, and there is no way he could win the general election...I hope?
Roughly %80 of voters are yellow-dog voters, split evenly between the parties. It would be nearly impossible even for Ron to lose the Republican %40. Of the remaining %20, a lot are fiscal conservatives-social libertarians that feel unrepresented -- y'know, the exact people that Ron Paul caters to. If you want Obama to win in 2012, go talk to your local branch of either the Perry or Santorum campaigns and see about volunteering.
Roughly %80 of voters are yellow-dog voters, split evenly between the parties. It would be nearly impossible even for Ron to lose the Republican %40. Of the remaining %20, a lot are fiscal conservatives-social libertarians that feel unrepresented -- y'know, the exact people that Ron Paul caters to. If you want Obama to win in 2012, go talk to your local branch of either the Perry or Santorum campaigns and see about volunteering.
While I agree, I still think that the problem presented for him by media scrutiny would sink him like a stone. Remember, there is always the third option of not voting, and I think if faced with the full story on Ron Paul, many would chose to either switch camps, or to not to give their vote, over voting for him.
That aside, I actually feel genuinely sorry for the Young soldier who stood up and spoke for Ron Paul on CNN. Not because of who he supports, but simply because of that action - Making political statements while in uniform is a big no-no and explicitly outlawed by the USMCJ, and he was in his Class-A uniform when he made what was very clearly a political statement on national TV.
There is practically no way he can escape from this, and it's all but assured that his career is sunk. I think the best he could hope for is a Bad Conduct discharge and forfeit of all pay and benefits - and I think it's incredibly sad, no matter who he supports politically, that a young man's career is most likely over because of one stupid moment.
While I agree, I still think that the problem presented for him by media scrutiny would sink him like a stone. Remember, there is always the third option of not voting, and I think if faced with the full story on Ron Paul, many would chose to either switch camps, or to not to give their vote, over voting for him.
I actually think that more media coverage will make him stronger. No matter what your politics, Ron has two things you can respect: Honesty and consistency. I think those two points could have him sway over many who wouldn't support him otherwise. Furthermore, I doubt that the non-vote is going to pose much of a threat. The %40 doesn't see people, they see colors. They don't vote Obama, they vote blue. They place all politicians into one of two boxes and support one of them. Opting out of the system won't be a big problem.
I actually think that more media coverage will make him stronger. No matter what your politics, Ron has two things you can respect: Honesty and consistency. I think those two points could have him sway over many who wouldn't support him otherwise. Furthermore, I doubt that the non-vote is going to pose much of a threat. The %40 doesn't see people, they see colors. They don't vote Obama, they vote blue. They place all politicians into one of two boxes and support one of them. Opting out of the system won't be a big problem.
That's kinda what I'm talking about - He only appears honest or consistent if not looked at closely.
For example, look at the Newsletter debacle - He's gone from the beginning position of "I have a newsletter" and "I think you're taking my words out of context", to "I didn't write them, but I take full moral responsibility" to "I didn't write them, and nobody has any idea who did" to "I didn't write them, Nobody knows who did, I didn't read them, and I didn't know anything at all about the contents till ten years afterward." At the moment, the question is "Ah, what about these, Congressman Paul? What do you have to say on this issue?" If he gets the nomination, the question is going to rapidly shift towards "Why has your story changed so often on the issue, and what about the times in the past you defended these words, and admitted in the past that you wrote them?"
And that, Along with far more that just the newsletters being addressed - such as the Victim-blaming and Minority-conspiracy-to-keep-the-good-white-man-down bollocks - among other assorted lunacy - written in his book "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years."
The media has left him largely alone for a number of years, since he's previously been a tiny fringe candidate. If he wins the nomination, you can bet your left bollock that they will rapidly make up for lost time, because the man is practically an endless fountain of very newsworthy and reader-attracting controversy.
Or, his position on the war - According to Paul, he's been against it the entire time, he's the only anti-war candidate, yadda yadda yadda. But, when push came to shove, he voted for the joint resolution to go to war in Afganistan, and said "Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our president(Bush), pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated."
Many of the actually consistent positions he holds, they go beyond consistency, and venture far, far into obsession.
I actually think that more media coverage will make him stronger. No matter what your politics, Ron has two things you can respect: Honesty and consistency. I think those two points could have him sway over many who wouldn't support him otherwise. Furthermore, I doubt that the non-vote is going to pose much of a threat. The %40 doesn't see people, they see colors. They don't vote Obama, they vote blue. They place all politicians into one of two boxes and support one of them. Opting out of the system won't be a big problem.
That's kinda what I'm talking about - He only appears honest or consistent if not looked at closely.
For example, look at the Newsletter debacle - He's gone from the beginning position of "I have a newsletter" and "I think you're taking my words out of context", to "I didn't write them, but I take full moral responsibility" to "I didn't write them, and nobody has any idea who did" to "I didn't write them, Nobody knows who did, I didn't read them, and I didn't know anything at all about the contents till ten years afterward."
Or, his position on the war - According to paul, he's been against it the entire time, he's the only anti-war candidate, yadda yadda yadda. But, when push came to shove, he voted for the joint resolution to go to war in Afganistan, and said "Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our president(Bush), pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated."
Many of the actually consistent positions he holds, they go beyond consistency, and venture far, far into obsession.
Yep, the only things I've heard him spout consistently and think he honestly believes are things that are devastatingly short-sighted and idealistic. I think Sunday Morning's little blurb on "flip-flopping" put it best:
The bottom line is that rather than caring about someone being honest or consistent, I want them to actually consider the facts of any given matter, be open to criticism, and then adjust their opinions or policies as necessary.
The bottom line is that rather than caring about someone being honest or consistent, I want them to actually consider the facts of any given matter, be open to criticism, and then adjust their opinions or policies as necessary.
Naturally, there is nothing wrong with changing your mind when presented with evidence, or when the situation changes in such a manner that reconsidering your opinion is necessary. That said, I wouldn't call that flip-flopping - Flip-flopping, in my view, is when you change between opposing positions, and then try to cover it or lie about it.
For example, if a Candidate is Against gay marriage, and they turn around and start supporting Gay marriage, if they're saying "Hey, I used to be against this, but I re-considered my previous position, and found it to be untenable/unreasonable/unconcionable/whatever, and I changed my mind", that's cool by me.
If said candidate did that, and then tried to pretend they were always for Gay marriage, trying to white-wash or give pretty excuses to the fact that they were previously against it, that's flip-flopping.
Gah, couldn't get my vlog updated today. I edited it, it's my favorite video so far because of all the cool touches, despite the flaws, however, I just cannot upload it on time because of shoddy, undependable internet. When the connection was lost, it killed the upload as well as all the author's notes I was writing for it, as well as the annotations planned.
I'm motivated, but god, lots of time is spent on just technical slowness. >_<
I had some students come to me yesterday, very upset. They told me that another staff member was ranting in another classroom because a student was skipping the food & living class, and ended up in my room (without permission from me, and the student was given appropriate consequences). The staff member apparently called me a faggot, and said I let everyone get away with everything in my classroom, and said these and other disparaging things in front of students. The students who reported this to me have not lied to me about anything in the past, and have no reason to make things up about this staff member. Aside from being shocked that this staff would say anything about me since our contact has been little-to-none over the past six months or so, the fact that he would say this in front of students is beyond unprofessional, regardless of what his opinion of me might be. Now I have to deal with this bullshit today by quietly confronting the person and letting them know that A) I know what they said, they have no idea of what goes on in my classroom since they are not in it, and C) what they did makes every staff member look bad. I've literally never had anyone dislike me at a job and voice it like that. I'm still working my way out of "shocked" towards "mind-numbing fury".
I had some students come to me yesterday, very upset. They told me that another staff member was ranting in another classroom because a student was skipping the food & living class, and ended up in my room (without permission from me, and the student was given appropriate consequences). The staff member apparently called me a faggot, and said I let everyone get away with everything in my classroom, and said these and other disparaging things in front of students. The students who reported this to me have not lied to me about anything in the past, and have no reason to make things up about this staff member. Aside from being shocked that this staff would say anything about me since our contact has been little-to-none over the past six months or so, the fact that he would say this in front of students is beyond unprofessional, regardless of what his opinion of me might be. Now I have to deal with this bullshit today by quietly confronting the person and letting them know that A) I know what they said, they have no idea of what goes on in my classroom since they are not in it, and C) what they did makes every staff member look bad. I've literally never had anyone dislike me at a job and voice it like that. I'm still working my way out of "shocked" towards "mind-numbing fury".
Could you get the staff member officially reprimanded, too? That sort of crap shouldn't be tolerated in a professional work environment.
If it was something actually said in class, more students would be aware of it. I don't know if there's an appropriate way to inquire with students about that though...
Comments
EDIT - correction, the data I'm looking at updated, removing a few districts, 1,709 of 1,774 Precincts now, and Romney dropped about a hundred and some votes, with Santorum losing about two-hundred odd when it stepped back, so they're separated by slightly more. Paul still a few thousand behind, though.
More edits - 1,720 of 1,774 Precincts Reporting, Results much the same.
And again - 1,742 of 1,774 Precincts Reporting, much the same. Man, Santorum and Romney just won't be separated by more than a few hundred votes. Paul, no surprise, is still trailing by a few thousand and growing.
Besides, it's a poor predictor of the ultimate nominee anyways. Hell, Mike Hukabee won in 2008 with 34% of the votes.
Fail: Due to Megabus and National Express being a gang of thugs with inconsistent schedules and pricing schemes bordering on racketeering, I am now spending an unintended night in London, arriving at 11pm and leaving at 9am on a Megabus for Newcastle. Fuck this noise. Seriously.
If at first you don't succeed, bitch and moan until you do!
Really, if he does get the nomination, it's doubtful he will win. Previously, he enjoyed a lower level of media scrutiny than other candidates. At the moment, he's struggling a little to deal with the massively increased media scrutiny, refusing interviews, refusing media events and generally doing the time honored political dance called the Journalist-doding do-si-do. This won't be possible if he gets the nomination - and on top of that, the level of media scrutiny he'd enjoy during the actual presidential race would make the current level of media scrutiny look like the vauge, wishy-washy questioning you'd see on a teenager's first date. I simply don't think he can realistically stand up to that level of scrutiny and still take the presidency - He'd still take a larger number of votes than ever before, but it would still be Obama's win by a landslide.
That aside, I actually feel genuinely sorry for the Young soldier who stood up and spoke for Ron Paul on CNN. Not because of who he supports, but simply because of that action - Making political statements while in uniform is a big no-no and explicitly outlawed by the USMCJ, and he was in his Class-A uniform when he made what was very clearly a political statement on national TV.
There is practically no way he can escape from this, and it's all but assured that his career is sunk. I think the best he could hope for is a Bad Conduct discharge and forfeit of all pay and benefits - and I think it's incredibly sad, no matter who he supports politically, that a young man's career is most likely over because of one stupid moment.
For example, look at the Newsletter debacle - He's gone from the beginning position of "I have a newsletter" and "I think you're taking my words out of context", to "I didn't write them, but I take full moral responsibility" to "I didn't write them, and nobody has any idea who did" to "I didn't write them, Nobody knows who did, I didn't read them, and I didn't know anything at all about the contents till ten years afterward."
At the moment, the question is "Ah, what about these, Congressman Paul? What do you have to say on this issue?"
If he gets the nomination, the question is going to rapidly shift towards "Why has your story changed so often on the issue, and what about the times in the past you defended these words, and admitted in the past that you wrote them?"
And that, Along with far more that just the newsletters being addressed - such as the Victim-blaming and Minority-conspiracy-to-keep-the-good-white-man-down bollocks - among other assorted lunacy - written in his book "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years."
The media has left him largely alone for a number of years, since he's previously been a tiny fringe candidate. If he wins the nomination, you can bet your left bollock that they will rapidly make up for lost time, because the man is practically an endless fountain of very newsworthy and reader-attracting controversy.
Or, his position on the war - According to Paul, he's been against it the entire time, he's the only anti-war candidate, yadda yadda yadda. But, when push came to shove, he voted for the joint resolution to go to war in Afganistan, and said "Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our president(Bush), pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated."
Many of the actually consistent positions he holds, they go beyond consistency, and venture far, far into obsession.
Flip-flopping - a defense
The bottom line is that rather than caring about someone being honest or consistent, I want them to actually consider the facts of any given matter, be open to criticism, and then adjust their opinions or policies as necessary.
For example, if a Candidate is Against gay marriage, and they turn around and start supporting Gay marriage, if they're saying "Hey, I used to be against this, but I re-considered my previous position, and found it to be untenable/unreasonable/unconcionable/whatever, and I changed my mind", that's cool by me.
If said candidate did that, and then tried to pretend they were always for Gay marriage, trying to white-wash or give pretty excuses to the fact that they were previously against it, that's flip-flopping.
I'm motivated, but god, lots of time is spent on just technical slowness. >_<
Aside from being shocked that this staff would say anything about me since our contact has been little-to-none over the past six months or so, the fact that he would say this in front of students is beyond unprofessional, regardless of what his opinion of me might be. Now I have to deal with this bullshit today by quietly confronting the person and letting them know that A) I know what they said,
I've literally never had anyone dislike me at a job and voice it like that. I'm still working my way out of "shocked" towards "mind-numbing fury".
This is the actual advertisement for Soul Calibur V.