Why don't we see anything on the front page about Ron Paul in r/politics?

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 · 2012-05-24T21:50:54.479455+00:00

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 · 2012-05-24T18:54:21.658812+00:00

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 · 2012-05-24T18:47:41.016379+00:00

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 · 2012-05-24T18:27:20.147665+00:00

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 · 2012-05-24T17:49:25.859875+00:00

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 · 2012-05-24T17:40:50.789745+00:00

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.

twigwam · 2012-05-24T14:53:54.636580+00:00

I guess you are not going to explain how any of these posts are really spam are you? In fact, all of these posts were interesting to me and posted legitimately after I read and considered their content. Yes, most were posted to /r/politics /r/ronpaul and /r/republican, but not all. Because each was considered for its content.

This isn't spamming, and in fact one of the posts (the one defending Romney's Mormonism) is very much against my own views.

But it seems once we get into the facts, you disappear. And just as obvious, there is nothing in my behavior in posting information that can justify /r/politics trend to massively down vote Ron Paul information.

twigwam · 1 day

Everyone counts. Thanks for your vote!

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