Romney vs. Obama

[Lacius]

I find Ron Paul's views to be extremely, extremely worrisome. He champions deregulation and smaller government to a degree that would only be extremely detrimental if enacted. He is a huge advocate for states' rights (a political philosophy that has lingered on after being soundly discredited in our Civil War), and would repeal important pieces of legislation like the Civil Rights Act if given the opportunity. He also opposed a Supreme Court ruling that overruled a Texas anti-sodomy law on this same basis. He believes that the states have the power to pass and enforce openly discriminator laws, and that the Federal Government has no authority to intervene on behalf of the citizens.

And yet, Ron Paul advocates a federal ban on abortion. Despite him crying "small government" and "states' rights," I don't see how Ron Paul's views are anything other than arbitrary.

 

[Gahars]

I have a different opinion, Gahars. The Civil War merely underlined how different Americans are depending on the state they were brought up in. Americans moreso than any other nation differ from one another on the very base ideological levels - I'm sure you realize that. What applies in the North, doesn't necessarily apply in the South. Social norms of states are very different, and Ron merely acknowledges that. He gives the states a right to govern themselves according to their own customs rather than press them into policies with which some agree and some disagree. The United States are huge in size, and they remain undivided precisely because of state law. Too much pression from Washington only makes the crevice between opposing ideologies deepen. I don't see why you're afraid of giving the voice to the people - let the democratic majority govern themselves as originally intended. What other alternative do you have? Split?

I get what you're saying, but that only goes so far. We're talking about laws and practices that dehumanized and exploited an entire race for the sake of cheap labor, or laws that prevented those same people from taking part in the voting process, or laws that that would criminalize the act of intercourse between two consenting individuals of the same sex. When you're norms and traditions infringe upon the basic human rights of citizens, there is a problem.

While the federal government gives the states' much in the way of free reign, they are still subservient to it. They are not distinct entities to themselves. We tried that approach with the Articles of Confederation, and the results were... less than stellar, to say the least.

Where did I oppose giving the voice to the people?

 

[Foxi4]

And yet, Ron Paul advocates a federal ban on abortion. Despite him crying "small government" and "states' rights," I don't see how Ron Paul's views are anything other than arbitrary.

I call bullshit on that.

"It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.
I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic."

He is not a supporter of abortion, but he wishes the states to decide whether abortion is legal in them or not, without federal pressure.

Where did I oppose giving the voice to the people?

Gahars, by taking the power of choice away from the state with its elected representants, you practically take it away from the people who chose them. Now, don't get me wrong - there should be a bill which establishes equality among all members of the American society. You have one, it's called the Constitution. If a state law goes againts the constitution, it's null and void - simple as that. Other than that though, the state should govern itself and its representatives should be responsible to those who live in said state. I see what you're saying and I think that the "truth" is in the middle - it always is. There is no perfect solution as of today, but I'd choose Paul over Romney any day, really.

 

[nando]

i can't believe so many expect obama to win. i'm rooting for him, but it's not looking bright plus the voting requirements the republicans implemented are gonna cost obama a lot of votes. they are seriously sick and i expect them to pull every dirty trick in order to win the election.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

i can't believe so many expect obama to win. i'm rooting for him, but it's not looking bright plus the voting requirements the republicans implemented are gonna cost obama a lot of votes. they are seriously sick and i expect them to pull every dirty trick in order to win the election.

I think if the Republicans managed to get Bush Jr. re-elected in '04 then a lot of things are possible.

I mean we see a lot of publicity towards Romney and his campaign but that's just natural of new candidates. Obama still has a pretty large base. I wouldn't say either candidate winning is set in stone though.

 

[Lacius]

He is not a supporter of abortion, but he wishes the states to decide whether abortion is legal in them or not, without federal pressure.

The Sanctity of Life Act, a bill that Ron Paul has reintroduced numerous times, is a federal personhood measure.

i can't believe so many expect obama to win. i'm rooting for him, but it's not looking bright plus the voting requirements the republicans implemented are gonna cost obama a lot of votes. they are seriously sick and i expect them to pull every dirty trick in order to win the election.

While the Republicans are trying to rig the system with new voter ID laws, the odds still appear to be very much in Obama's favor. It should also be noted that many of these voter ID laws have, for the time being, been struck down by the courts.

 

[Gahars]

Do you have thoughts to share about the libertarian and green party candidates? (Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, respectively)

I disagree with libertarianism in general. I think it's an interesting, but seriously impractical ideal. I feel as if they look at the system the way it is, see that it has problems, and rather than explore ways to improve or fix it, they just give up and decide to tear it all down. (Like regulation. Sure, it can be obstructive and inefficient, but it sure beats going back to the Gilded Age). I haven't kept up too much on Gary Johnson specifically, though, so I can't really saw much about any of his specific policies or agendas.

As for Jill Stein and the Green Party (good band name, by the way), I generally like them. I think their hearts are in the right place, at least. I just couldn't see myself ever voting for them; partly because I'm not sure how well they'd be able to implement any of their proposals, and partly because I would want to use my vote more pragmatically.

 

[Foxi4]

The Sanctity of Life Act, a bill that Ron Paul has reintroduced numerous times, is a federal personhood measure.

...and it states that, I crudely quote:

the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

In other words, it recognizes that human life begins during conception, however leaves regulation of practices regarding unborn children to the State while preventing The Supreme Court from having any jurisdiction over the State's law.

I don't necessarily agree with the first part - the way I see it, life only begins after the recompilation of the mother's and father's D.N.A which occurs after the zygote nests in the womb (aprox. 72 hours from the act), but that the latter part appears to be perfectly fine.

 

[Gahars]

Gahars, by taking the power of choice away from the state with its elected representants, you practically take it away from the people who chose them. Now, don't get me wrong - there should be a bill which establishes equality among all members of the American society. You have one, it's called the Constitution. If a state law goes againts the constitution, it's null and void - simple as that. Other than that though, the state should govern itself and its representatives should be responsible to those who live in said state. I see what you're saying and I think that the "truth" is in the middle - it always is. There is no perfect solution as of today, but I'd choose Paul over Romney any day, really.

As I've mentioned, the states are not separate political entities. They're closer to administrative units of the federal government than anything else. The federal government ensures that the spirit of the Constitution is upheld in these units, from striking down unjust laws to passing laws prohibiting unjust actions. When a state government will not act on behalf of all its citizens, the federal government must be able to intervene.

I'm a United States citizen first, and a citizen of New Jersey second. The supremacy of the federal government over the states is a reflection of that fact.

I agree with your quote, certainly, even if I disagree with your definition of middle. Honestly, I think that the Republican Party had a fine candidate in John Hunstman... who they soundly ignored. Sure, I likely wouldn't have voted for him anyway, but he was sensible (far more so than his competition), and would have been an interesting opponent to the incumbent president (especially in the debates).

 

[Lacius]

In other words, it recognizes that human life begins during conception, however leaves regulation of practices regarding unborn children to the State while preventing The Supreme Court from having any jurisdiction over the State's law.

Actually, a federal personhood law would ban abortion in almost all cases at the federal level. A personhood law might also ban things such as hormonal birth control. It is the functional equivalent (except at the federal level) of the Mississippi personhood measure that failed because it was too extreme, even for many pro-life Mississippians. It is also worth noting that this Sanctity of the Life bill is the same federal personhood measure that both Todd Akin and Paul Ryan co-sponsored.

 

[Foxi4]

As I've mentioned, the states are not separate political entities. They're closer to administrative units of the federal government than anything else. The federal government ensures that the spirit of the Constitution is upheld in these units, from striking down unjust laws to passing laws prohibiting unjust actions. When a state government will not act on behalf of all its citizens, the federal government must be able to intervene.

I'm a United States citizen first, and a citizen of New Jersey second. The supremacy of the federal government over the states is a reflection of that fact.

I agree with you, there needs to be a reasonable boundry between just and unjust which should be derrived from globally-accepted concepts of Human Rights. That said, I believe that states should be given a degree of wiggle space so that their law can be adjusted to work specifically for the benefit of those who inhabit them. I'm a strong believer in Constitution and I think that it should be the bill which defines the American identity first and foremost - I merely recognize the fact that states have different customs and beliefs and they should be given the opportunity to excercize them as long as the laws they wish to establish do not infringe upon minorities, be it religious, sex or race ones.

Actually, a federal personhood law would ban abortion in almost all cases at the federal level. A personhood law might also ban things such as hormonal birth control. It is the functional equivalent (except at the federal level) of the Mississippi personhood measure that failed because it was too extreme, even for many pro-life Mississippians. It is also worth noting that this Sanctity of the Life bill is the same federal personhood measure that both Todd Akin and Paul Ryan co-sponsored.

I'm basing my opinion about it solely on what I've read about it. Many people often misunderstand the word "Authority" with the word "Duty" - it is up to the State to decide which abortion and contraception-related laws it should follow - according to the quote, the States are not pushed to ban neither of those - they are given the authority to do so if they so seem fit.

Don't get me wrong - I do not support the entirety of the bill. I believe it should be a subject for discussion and I think that if properly phrased and edited, it could become something acceptable by both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice options, as unlikely as it sounds.

EDIT: Damn you, Merge Bot! You fail me once again!

 

[Lacius]

I merely recognize the fact that states have different customs and beliefs and they should be given the opportunity to exercise them as long as the rights they wish to establish do not infringe upon minorities, be it religious, sex or race ones.

The difference between you and Ron Paul is that he does not appear to care whose rights are trampled on in the name of states' rights, even if that means, for example, a business is able to lawfully refuse to hire someone based solely on that someone's skin color.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I agree with your quote, certainly, even if I disagree with your definition of middle. Honestly, I think that the Republican Party had a fine candidate in John Hunstman... who they soundly ignored. Sure, I likely wouldn't have voted for him anyway, but he was sensible (far more so than his competition), and would have been an interesting opponent to the incumbent president (especially in the debates).

Oh Huntsman, one of the most interesting Republicans out there. I mean the man had foreign policy experience and felt really relatable. Not that I agreed with everything he said but I found him to seem like a decent guy.

 

[Foxi4]

I merely recognize the fact that states have different customs and beliefs and they should be given the opportunity to exercise them as long as the rights they wish to establish do not infringe upon minorities, be it religious, sex or race ones.

The difference between you and Ron Paul is that he does not appear to care whose rights are trampled on in the name of states' rights, even if that means, for example, a business is able to lawfully refuse to hire someone based solely on that someone's skin color.

The American Constitution as it is today already prohibits that. Even if the State was given such power, it would be unable to create laws which stand directly againts the Constitution.

EDIT: With that said, I can see what you mean and I agree that it creates certain dangers. I too am concerned with possible abuse of such priviledges and I too believe that if such legislature were to be in place, there would have to be thick boundries of what the state can and can't do as far as tolerance is concerned. I'm *obviously* not a supporter of discrimination of any kind.

 

[Gahars]

As I've mentioned, the states are not separate political entities. They're closer to administrative units of the federal government than anything else. The federal government ensures that the spirit of the Constitution is upheld in these units, from striking down unjust laws to passing laws prohibiting unjust actions. When a state government will not act on behalf of all its citizens, the federal government must be able to intervene.

I'm a United States citizen first, and a citizen of New Jersey second. The supremacy of the federal government over the states is a reflection of that fact.

I agree with you, there needs to be a reasonable boundry between just and unjust which should be derrived from globally-accepted concepts of Human Rights. That said, I believe that states should be given a degree of wiggle space so that their law can be adjusted to work specifically for the benefit of those who inhabit them. I'm a strong believer in Constitution and I think that it should be the bill which defines the American identity first and foremost - I merely recognize the fact that states have different customs and beliefs and they should be given the opportunity to excercize them as long as the laws they wish to establish do not infringe upon minorities, be it religious, sex or race ones.

And I agree that there should be wiggle room, and there certainly is. That's been an important aspect of our nation; states can act as contained microcosms where new policies and ideas can be experimented with before being brought out to the national level.

That being said, that wiggle room has a limit - and the federal government properly keeps them to it, as any good boss must.

 

[Foxi4]

That being said, that wiggle room has a limit - and the federal government properly keeps them to it, as any good boss must.

Perhaps you are right - in my case, it all runs down to the issues of abortion and other "typically heated" debates. I think it's a relict of the olden times which, in the advent of a myriad of contraception methods as well as Morning-After pills (another difference between me and Ron here) which I believe should be free and state-funded, abortion became obsolete, necessary only in the instances of rape where the victim had no chance of preventing pregnancy. (No, Todd Akin, just... no.)

I find it a barbaric procedure that should be avoided at all costs, especially with all the opportunities contemporary medicine has given us, and I can understand how certain states would want it either limited or outlawed. I'd rather if state money was spent on education on how to properly plan a family than on forceful removal of fetuses.

 

[Aurora Wright]

I'm well enough part of the LGBT community (as T and L XD) so if I was American I'd have to vote Obama

 

[LightyKD]

Let's make a meme out of this picture!

BTW this is the 2nd time a baby cried (on the campaign tour) when Romney held him/her

 

[Lemmy Koopa]

It'd be Obama, he barely does anything but he's the least evil of the 2.

 

[dickfour]

Today Obama said he needed another term to fix the economy I heard that and I couldn't stop laughing