Author Topic: Election 2012  (Read 231753 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #525 on: December 20, 2011, 05:02:17 AM »
Emindead, it's just something that might throw off voters - his stance on abortion that is.

It also abandons a lot of libertarians. Actually most libertarians are pro-choice and not pro-life.

And I don't see how his stance on evolution at all should matter when it comes to public policy. It's not like he's trying to force schools to teach intelligent design to my knowledge.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #526 on: December 20, 2011, 06:22:41 AM »
Ron Paul is pro-life, yet still he wants that each State to decide whether it's legal to practice it or not - pretty reasonable. (I'm hugely pro-life yet if someone is pro-choice and still proposed and had a record like Paul, i.e. being consistent for a great amount of time, I wouldn't doubt to vote for him. It actually seems pretty fucking stupid not to vote for a guy just because his stance on abortion is contrary to mine. Each person has his views, sure, it doesn't make them less stupid when there are bigger issues at stake.)

jsem, even if most Libertarians are pro-choice it doesn't matter in the individual level.

And I don't see how his stance on evolution at all should matter when it comes to public policy. It's not like he's trying to force schools to teach intelligent design to my knowledge.
It should not. The example just tried to make a point on the "I won't vote for him because he's 'ridiculous' on this precise instance", hence the "ignore the fake stance".
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 07:09:02 AM by emindead »

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #527 on: December 20, 2011, 06:33:11 AM »
I don't get it either. It says a lot about "Dr." Ron Paul and his supposed adherence to reason.
Not only that, but Obama "believes" in Empire? He "believes" in corporate wars? I think that picture kinda illustrates the level of discourse in a significant portion of Paul's following.

rumborak

Pretty much this. I'm sorry but it's just plain ridiculous, and about half of those belong to Chimpy anyway.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #528 on: December 20, 2011, 07:22:28 AM »
I honestly don't even know what just happened there, but the only thing I can really react with is

The graphic that was posted had nothing to do with my comment.  I'm reminded of the three stooges episode where Moe, Larry and Curly are sleeping on a train and Moe gets woken up by Larry who is snoring so he slaps Curly and tells him "wake up and go to sleep"  :lol

Ron Paul is pro-life.  That's a well documented fact.  Ron Paul will nominate conservative judges.  Judges who would continue to bring us wonderful things like the Citizens United case which brought us corporate personhood.   But his pro-life stance alone renders him disqualified to any liberal, including this liberal.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #529 on: December 20, 2011, 07:49:04 AM »
Not that I think you should vote for Ron Paul or anything, but why do you always bring up that classification, "liberal," like it's some cookie cutter mold that people fall neatly into? Hell, one could consider a lot of my views "liberal" (although I probably wouldn't label myself as such) and I'm *considering* voting for the man.

It's just that in the current political climate, social issues - especially ones that don't directly affect me - aren't as important to me right now.

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3745
  • Gender: Female
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #530 on: December 20, 2011, 07:52:35 AM »
Ron Paul is pro-life, yet still he wants that each State to decide whether it's legal to practice it or not - pretty reasonable. (I'm hugely pro-life yet if someone is pro-choice and still proposed and had a record like Paul, i.e. being consistent for a great amount of time, I wouldn't doubt to vote for him. It actually seems pretty fucking stupid not to vote for a guy just because his stance on abortion is contrary to mine. Each person has his views, sure, it doesn't make them less stupid when there are bigger issues at stake.)

jsem, even if most Libertarians are pro-choice it doesn't matter in the individual level.

And I don't see how his stance on evolution at all should matter when it comes to public policy. It's not like he's trying to force schools to teach intelligent design to my knowledge.
It should not. The example just tried to make a point on the "I won't vote for him because he's 'ridiculous' on this precise instance", hence the "ignore the fake stance".

So I'm confused... instead of being an educated voter and searching for a candidate that is of the same opinions and mindset as myself, I should be searching for what? The most handsome? The best speaker? If we aren't looking at beliefs and stances on issues, what are we looking at?

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #531 on: December 20, 2011, 08:12:13 AM »
Emindead, you just have to get over the fact that for some people, the question of abortion is so important that they cannot in their mind support a pro-life or a pro-choice candidate at all.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #532 on: December 20, 2011, 08:49:26 AM »
Not that I think you should vote for Ron Paul or anything, but why do you always bring up that classification, "liberal," like it's some cookie cutter mold that people fall neatly into? Hell, one could consider a lot of my views "liberal" (although I probably wouldn't label myself as such) and I'm *considering* voting for the man.

It's just that in the current political climate, social issues - especially ones that don't directly affect me - aren't as important to me right now.

Why do I always bring it up? Fist of all, I am a liberal.  And I'm not afraid of admitting it.  I'm not saying you or anyone else here is afraid of anything, but you know, when you get to the point when you've been on this earth for about half a century, you really stop giving a shit what people think and just be who you are.  Who I am is a liberal and a registered Democrat.  So, since we're talking about an election and since there are generally three major voting blocs in the united states -  Liberals, Conservatives and Independents- I bring it up when it's germane to the point I'm making in one of these discussions.  Such as the point I was making above about Ron Paul being pro-life.  Pro-life is typically a position held by conservatives, and it's one rarely held by liberals.  Thus, my use of the term liberal in this instance.

As far as whether or not social issues effect you, well, I would urge you to consider the fact that the Supreme Court is the longest-lasting legacy of any presidency.   Many justices serve on the court for 20 or 30 years and they will shape the laws of the land for a large portion of your life.   It's not about whether or not you think -this week or even this year- if social issues are important.  It's about whether or not you think they are important, period.  Personally, I think they're extremely important.  (although abortion is pretty much at the bottom of my list of importance when it comes to social issues).   Young people like yourself should take a keen interest in how the courts may be shaped by the president.  It's going to have a very, very long impact on you.

Oh, and one more thing:  I don't see "liberal" as some cookie cutter mold that people fit into.  It's a worldview, just like conservative is a worldview, or even libertarian.  It's just a word used to describe a general set of beliefs, and certainly nothing to get offended about.




Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #533 on: December 20, 2011, 08:56:40 AM »
Emindead, you just have to get over the fact that for some people, the question of abortion is so important that they cannot in their mind support a pro-life or a pro-choice candidate at all.

For me it's a flag.  When I see that a politician is "Pro-Life" I know what is almost always to follow - basically, conservatism.  I haven't met many liberals (ooohh, there's that word again!  :lol ) who are pro-life.   I think abortion is one place where libertarians are, for lack of a better term, inconsistent. 

Ron Paul is a member of the Republican party, holds quite a few libertarian positions on the issues, but he also holds quite a few of the Republican party's positions as well.

But yeah, when I see the word pro-life, I exclude that candidate from consideration because I know a person who is pro-life will not nominate liberal justices.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #534 on: December 20, 2011, 09:50:17 AM »
There is no "Republican party's position". Everyone has their own views, and RP doesn't compromise his views to fit into the party.

Plus, Paul is the only one who is consistently pro-life - against the warfare.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #535 on: December 20, 2011, 10:42:46 AM »
There is absolutely an official Repub Party position; otherwise it wouldn't be so easy for the Senate Republicans to block so many bills.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #536 on: December 20, 2011, 12:14:07 PM »
There is no "Republican party's position". Everyone has their own views, and RP doesn't compromise his views to fit into the party.

Plus, Paul is the only one who is consistently pro-life - against the warfare.

Um, reality would like a word with you :lol

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #537 on: December 20, 2011, 12:15:44 PM »
Huh. I was always of the belief that there was no official party position, just positions of different people within the party.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #538 on: December 20, 2011, 12:16:38 PM »
Huh. I was always of the belief that there was no official party position, just positions of different people within the party.

It's cool man....they usually refer to it as the "platform" here.

lemme see if I can find the democrat one....brb

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #539 on: December 20, 2011, 12:17:31 PM »
OK, yeah, here's the Democratic party platform

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #540 on: December 20, 2011, 12:21:17 PM »
The two party system in the US must go.

Offline MasterShakezula

  • Posts: 3733
  • Owes H $10
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #541 on: December 20, 2011, 12:22:36 PM »
Like many things, it should be changed, but it won't.

Not much to be done about that, short of a full-out citizens' revolution.

Which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #542 on: December 20, 2011, 12:31:01 PM »
The two party system in the US must go.

Well, you know, it's definitely far from perfect, but the fact is, the United States has been a pretty successful experiment now for over 200 years and it is still evolving.  I think our culture is pretty self-correcting, although to use an analogy, like an aircraft carrier, it often takes a LONG time to change course......

The problem with the idea that the "two party system must go" is you have to have a viable alternative that enough people are actually interested in to bring a third option into play.  There are plenty of alternatives to the Democratic/Republican party tickets in most of our elections, but most of the power/money/influence is currently concentrated in those two parties, and, well, that's just the reality of it.

I've come to accept it for what it is and I vote mostly according to two things:  My conscience and fate of the supreme court.

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3745
  • Gender: Female
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #543 on: December 20, 2011, 12:43:18 PM »

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #544 on: December 20, 2011, 01:21:52 PM »
My thoughts on the two party system,  and more importantly,  why Americans won't change it:

As I've been watching the midterm circle jerk, I've been more and more inclined to think that this noble experiment of ours has turned out to be a resounding failure.  As much as we like to blame the two party system, and we all know it sucks, I think that it's actually just an inevitable consequence of a bigger problem.  People don't seem to realize that what they tout as the biggest strength of a democratic government is actually it's biggest weakness.  The system will inevitably steer towards electioneering rather than governing.  The simple truth is that you can't govern if you don't get elected, but once you actually get into office, how you govern is merely a function of maintaining electability.  Nobody has ever held onto an office while telling an unpopular truth.  Right or wrong is no longer relevant.

Quote from: James E. Carter
I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel... I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation. . . .

Quote from: George H. W. Bush
"it is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform."

The problem as I see it is that getting yourself elected requires selling yourself to the masses, and as I'm so fond of pointing out, the masses are fucking stupid.  As Turdblossom demonstrated with such extraordinary success, the more you boil things down to the simplest, black and white components, the more people you can get to rally behind your cause.  It's campaigning to the lowest common denominator.  A politician who even suggests that an issue is complicated and needs to be carefully considered will get clobbered in two years by an empty suit that says "IT'S US VS. THEM!!!"  The Romans figured this out 2000 years ago. 

Rather than suggesting that Americans should build a fire and put on a damn sweater, Carter should have told them to crank up the heat and buy a big V8 Cadillac because he'll take care of obtaining more oil.  After all, we deserve it.  Instead of raising taxes, Bush should have made up some of his own voodoo economics, lowered taxes, and told everybody that we're doing better than ever (until the next president comes along to inherit the problem).  "That extra $50 on my tax return is worth a helluva lot more than those imaginary problems that nobody can understand!"

This is the only result that can be obtained in a system derived off of popularity. 

Unfortunately, with great ignorance comes great arrogance.  The people who are convinced that we control the government for the better are the same people who believe this to be the greatest and most free nation on Earth.  With those beliefs, it is inconceivable that they could ever accept that the system has failed.  Convinced that our way is right, we go out and force our ways onto others whether they want it or not, completely refusing to consider that perhaps there could be a better option.  Alas, the inevitable outcome is that Americans will never resolve the problems with the government,  and in that refusal, we will eventually force ourselves into irrelevance; much like the Romans before us.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #545 on: December 20, 2011, 03:07:20 PM »
The two party system in the US must go.

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=26382.msg1109414#msg1109414

https://www.americanselect.org/
I'm really excited to see where this goes in the next 6 months.

By the way, I saw MSNBC covering this issue last night. Found it interesting, becuase it was a mainstream media outlet talking about how you could not support the two party system.

Judges who would continue to bring us wonderful things like the Citizens United case which brought us corporate personhood.   

I'd really like to hear Pauls position on this. It's perhaps the biggest reason I wouldn't vote for him, even though I really hope he gets the nomination, and wish he would still merge with Obama to create something new in American politics - a liberal libertarian party.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #546 on: December 20, 2011, 03:13:30 PM »
Merge with Obama? He doesn't even represent the progressive base anymore.

Gary Johnson would be the best poster-boy for a liberal/libertarian party, along with people like Kucinich and Nader.


I am also anxious to hear how he views the Citizens United case, I think he's for the Supreme Court verdict though.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #547 on: December 20, 2011, 03:43:49 PM »
I've heard some not-so-good things about Americans Elect lately. Apparently it's run by some unsavory characters. And it doesn't publicly disclose its donations. I'll try to dig up some links.

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3745
  • Gender: Female
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #548 on: December 20, 2011, 05:26:37 PM »
Why focus on the negative press or where the $ is from? Why not discuss the idea and possible 3rd option for a candidate? I believe they have enough signatures in a large quantity of the states.

Let me clarify... we don't really know where the money comes from for the current parties and candidates. Its all hidden in PACs and corporations. I would also say that our current parties are run by some "unsavory" characters. So in my mind whats the difference? Well this one is appearing to be a nominated person by a large amount of people. Not based on party lines. Why treat this candidate differently? They would still be backed by unknown funds, still be swayed by money, and still promise things they can't deliver. But at least its a new option that isn't visibly tied to the issues with the current parties.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 05:36:37 PM by chknptpie »

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #549 on: December 20, 2011, 05:47:40 PM »
I thought the whole point of it was that it was going to be free of the trappings of current partisan politics. Anyway I'm not completely discounting it, I just wanted to point out some somewhat legitimate misgivings people had with it. Always better to know!

I'm definitely still interested to see what comes of it. 

Offline MetalMike06

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #550 on: December 20, 2011, 07:25:43 PM »
The problem with the idea that the "two party system must go" is you have to have a viable alternative that enough people are actually interested in to bring a third option into play.  There are plenty of alternatives to the Democratic/Republican party tickets in most of our elections, but most of the power/money/influence is currently concentrated in those two parties, and, well, that's just the reality of it.

This is unfortunately true. The sad thing is, I've always thought that if all the people who say "I'd vote for a third party but won't because that would be giving a vote away to the Dems/Reps" actually voted third party, you'd have possibly over half the country voting for third parties, and that'd be a huge turning point.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #551 on: December 21, 2011, 03:43:53 PM »
The problem with the idea that the "two party system must go" is you have to have a viable alternative that enough people are actually interested in to bring a third option into play.  There are plenty of alternatives to the Democratic/Republican party tickets in most of our elections, but most of the power/money/influence is currently concentrated in those two parties, and, well, that's just the reality of it.

This is unfortunately true. The sad thing is, I've always thought that if all the people who say "I'd vote for a third party but won't because that would be giving a vote away to the Dems/Reps" actually voted third party, you'd have possibly over half the country voting for third parties, and that'd be a huge turning point.

Psychology is against you. When people think a rule is, well, a rule, they justify it, etc; when they think the rule can be broken, they, well, break it. Everyone sees the two party system as a rule they cannot break, becuase of the money, becuase of other people, so they don't break the rule.

Offline MetalMike06

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #552 on: December 21, 2011, 06:16:35 PM »
That's basically what I'm saying, isn't it? People won't vote for a third party because they know other people won't for the same reason.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #553 on: December 21, 2011, 06:46:42 PM »
I thought you were saying that people could vote for a third party, and that'd be a turning point; all I meant is that without structural changes, that turning point won't happen.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #554 on: December 22, 2011, 06:10:53 AM »
Ouch. Ron Paul is really dropping the ball on owning up to his racist newsletters.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #555 on: December 22, 2011, 06:32:51 AM »
Ouch. Ron Paul is really dropping the ball on owning up to his racist newsletters.

This comes up every time he runs, usually when he's polling well.  The problem is it's a no-win situation for him.  For one thing, the newsletters with the racist content have no by line.  So it's unclear if Ron Paul himself actually wrote it.  So he could deny that he wrote it.  But then if he denies he wrote it, the very next question that comes up is "well, why aren't you overseeing the content of these newsletters?" He can't win on this one.  He looks irresponsible if he claims he can't control the content of every newsletter put out by his office or he looks like a racist if he claims he wrote it.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #556 on: December 22, 2011, 06:51:44 AM »
He didn't write then, that's very clear. But people are still holding him responsible for this, and legitimately so.

There is one person who was a ghost writer for him who is responsible for pretty much all if not all of these remarks in his newsletters, but it's not 100% clear it's him and it would be unfair for RP to throw that person under the bus without being certain that it was him and blaming somebody innocent instead.

The person who wrote the remarks has to come forward so this can be put to rest once and for all. Lew Rockwell might know who wrote them, but it would be a huge blow to the liberty movement if he were thrown under the bus too. He can't really come out and take responsibility and "take one for the team", he's too vital with the Mises institute and all - it would discredit a lot of what RP stands for.

The ghost writer responsible simply has to come forward, there's no other way out of this. People have a pretty good presumption about who it is, but you cannot just come out and blast someone if you're not positively sure about it.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 07:02:01 AM by jsem »

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #557 on: December 22, 2011, 07:14:27 AM »
It's not "very clear" that he didn't write them. That's his claim when it comes up, but essentially it becomes a case of he-said-she-said, and the fact that he can't point to a writer doesn't bode well for him. Taking the mic off when a journalist asks you about it? Ouch. Even Herman Cain knew not to do that.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #558 on: December 22, 2011, 07:23:35 AM »
He answered her question but she continued to ask him the same question over and over. I think it's fair to see the frustration.

But yeah, read this if you're not convinced he's being sincere about this.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #559 on: December 22, 2011, 07:39:19 AM »
Sorry, but that does not do much to make anyone feel much better about this all. Some of those arguments are so weak that it's not even worth getting into. I'm sure RP die-hards are satisfied with them, but no-one else will be. I mean, it's OK that his signature appears on those things because "it could have been photo-copied."? Alrighty. And the Dallas Star is wrong for attributing that he "did not deny" writing the comments when asked because they didn't say so in a direct quote? Wow.

This is the type of stuff that kills front-runners, and these "denials" simply will not satisfy the voting public no matter how the RP fanboys feel about the issue. It's a shame that someone with more integrity than most will likely see his final political showdown cut short in typical politician fashion, for the same types of mistakes that always bring politicians down.