Romney vs. Obama

[Lemmy Koopa]

The only problem I had with Obama is passing the NDAA. So far it seems they won't abuse it, but they can, but even after that, I still think Obama is less threatening than Romney. I don't want someone with bent attributes to be in office. It's either let America ride out the next 4 years, or hand it to a flip floppy liar with jaded views.

 

[Sterling]

In 2008, votes for Obama and McCain accounted for 98.59% of the electorate. The percentage is accurate.

Okay, I see. I wish it weren't the case though.

 

[stomp_442]

The only problem I had with Obama is passing the NDAA. So far it seems they won't abuse it, but they can, but even after that, I still think Obama is less threatening than Romney. I don't want someone with bent attributes to be in office. It's either let America ride out the next 4 years, or hand it to a flip floppy liar with jaded views.

You must have missed the issue of Time that was published after the third debate. Time (a liberals publication) did some fact finding and found that neither of the candidates told the full truth to any question, it was all half thruths, or no truth at all. So both of them are liars.

Yeah, no. I was much younger at the time, so I had to accept such nonsense like this from my parents, but now that I'm older, I can see that this is complete BS. Try harder please.

You're right, you just don't know, you even admit it.

 

[Lacius]

You must have missed the issue of Time that was published after the third debate. Time (a liberals publication) did some fact finding and found that neither of the candidates told the full truth to any question, it was all half thruths, or no truth at all. So both of them are liars.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Mitt Romney has a long history of flat-out lying, while I have yet to see an instance when President Obama did more than embellish the truth. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

[Sterling]

You're right, you just don't know, you even admit it.

Shall we draw straws? You'll get the short one I'll bet.

 

[Deleted-185407]

From what I've been seeing, the Libertarian mindset is growing rapidly in popularity among voters, because quite frankly, it's common sense. Why start wars when there's no reason to and will only cause those countries to retaliate? Why give companies financial security when that will just encourage them to start taking stupid risks again? Why should harmless drugs be illegal when you can drastically reduce drug-related crimes, deaths and introduce a new form of taxation? Why be worried about one country potentially having a nuclear weapon, when you have hundreds? Why should the federal government dictate social issues for every single state when cultures vary?

Unfortunately, the people who like to believe they're "informed", most likely only listen to the mainstream media, and don't bother doing actual research into the candidates they're voting for. Do you honestly think informed people would vote for someone who flip-flops constantly on issues and isn't at all trustworthy? I would hope not, but that's at least 40% of voters. Let's not forget that a lot of people hate talking about politics anyways, and will probably just flip a coin at the end of the day, or will just vote for whoever their friends and families are voting for. Mainstream media also likes to paint Libertarian-minded candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson poorly, stating that they're crazy for not wanting to start wars and have young men and women heading into a pointless and endless battle.

Who cares if they have a "0% chance of winning"? At least by voting for someone I actually trusted, I'm sticking to my words and actually making an attempt to get things fixed. The most logical thing to do is voting for who you actually want to handle the job. The Republicans and Democrats are only powerful because of their voters, and without them, they're powerless. Nobody said that it would be an easy task, but it is possible, it has happened before, and it can happen again.

It's counter-productive to vote for someone who has a higher chance of winning, and it's completely illogical if you disagree with them. If you actually agree with them, fair enough, although I'm completely baffled as to how you can trust people who have betrayed you.

 

[Lacius]

Why start wars when there's no reason to and will only cause those countries to retaliate?

President Obama and the Democrats agree.

Why give companies financial security when that will just encourage them to start taking stupid risks again?

Dodd-Frank ends bailouts and acts as a disincentive to take stupid risks.

Why should harmless drugs be illegal when you can drastically reduce drug-related crimes, deaths and introduce a new form of taxation?

I agree with you on this one, but it should be noted that many Democrats are starting to come around on this issue.

Why be worried about one country potentially having a nuclear weapon, when you have hundreds?

A nuclear Iran is kind of a big deal and something worth preventing if possible, and President Obama has been able to do so with things like diplomacy.

Why should the federal government dictate social issues for every single state when cultures vary?

So by your logic, individual states should have the ability to have anti-sodomy laws, ban gay and/or interracial marriage, have their own civil rights laws (or lack thereof), etc?

Unfortunately, the people who like to believe they're "informed", most likely only listen to the mainstream media, and don't bother doing actual research into the candidates they're voting for. Do you honestly think informed people would vote for someone who flip-flops constantly on issues and isn't at all trustworthy? I would hope not, but that's at least 40% of voters.

I agree that it's illogical for someone to vote for a flip-flopper like Mitt Romney. I would even go as far as to say it's illogical in most cases for someone to vote for a member of the Republican Party.

Mainstream media also likes to paint Libertarian-minded candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson poorly, stating that they're crazy for not wanting to start wars and have young men and women heading into a pointless and endless battle.

Ron Paul is the perfect example of how the media paints someone as crazy because they're actually crazy, and it has little or nothing to do with foreign policy. There are plenty of posts in this thread that go into detail about how Ron Paul holds crazy policy positions. It should also be noted that the media reports on people like Ron Paul by stating his policy positions or by stating how unpopular he is or how unlikely his candidacy is; they seldom outright say, "He's crazy." If the media reports on Ron Paul's policy positions and people think Ron Paul is crazy, then it's likely because they think those policy positions are crazy and has little to do with media bias.

Who cares if they have a "0% chance of winning"?

Logical voters who want to have a say in this election and not throw their votes away care. By your logic, I should just vote for myself if the likelihood of a candidate's success is irrelevant.

At least by voting for someone I actually trusted, I'm sticking to my words and actually making an attempt to get things fixed.

Sure, I understand that, but you already know that your vote isn't going to change the fact that ~99% of people are going to vote for President Obama or Governor Romney, so you're sending as much a message as you would by writing in "Mickey Mouse" or by just not voting; in fact, I would argue that you would be sending more of a message against the two major parties by not voting at all (you'd be contributing to a significantly large number of people who do not vote). Like I've already told Sterling, if your goal is to throw your vote away, go ahead and vote for Gary Johnson. If your goal is to have a say in who wins the presidential election, vote for one of the two major-party candidates.

The most logical thing to do is voting for who you actually want to handle the job.

If the person you're voting for is guaranteed to lose, it's not at all logical to vote for him or her.

The Republicans and Democrats are only powerful because of their voters, and without them, they're powerless. Nobody said that it would be an easy task, but it is possible, it has happened before, and it can happen again.

If your intention is to change the system, that's great, but voting for someone who is guaranteed not to get ~99% of the vote is not how you go about doing so.

It's counter-productive to vote for someone who has a higher chance of winning

If you only have two candidates who can possibly win, then it's the very definition of "productive" to vote for one of them. If your goal is to influence the results of the presidential election, voting for Gary Johnson, by definition, is counter-productive.

and it's completely illogical if you disagree with them.

If you absolutely have no preference between the two major-party candidates, which I find unlikely, then you're probably right. However, if you prefer one candidate over the other, than it's completely logical to do what you can to make sure your preferred candidate of the two wins.

I've mentioned multi-round voting numerous times during this conversation about third-party candidates. Multi-round voting means a voter lists his or her choices in preferential order and everyone's #1 choices are tallied; if none of the candidates has an absolute majority, the candidate with the least number of votes is dropped and anyone who voted for that candidate is moved to their #2 choice. This is the scenario that's essentially playing out right now, and you're arguing for writing "Gary Johnson," a candidate who for all intents and purposes has been dropped because he cannot win, as all of your choices rather than voting for your #2 preferential choice. That's illogical.

If you actually agree with them, fair enough, although I'm completely baffled as to how you can trust people who have betrayed you.

If you're implying that President Obama has somehow betrayed the American people, I'd like to see some evidence of that.

 

[Sterling]

One of the reasons 3rd party platforms never get far off the ground is the fact that their ideas get integrated into the Big Two's campaign platforms. This effectively integrates the 3rd parties supporters into one party or the other. I just so happen to want to make a statement this presidential election. I don't really care at this point in time whether or not my vote makes a lick of difference. All that matters to me is that I did not give in to a defeatist mentality (by voting for who I want and not putting stock into Romney or Obama), and I put my money where my mouth was so to speak.

 

[Gahars]

Why be worried about one country potentially having a nuclear weapon, when you have hundreds?

Lacius had a great reply, but I just wanted to respond to this because I've heard other people ask the same thing.

The problem is complicated. The main concern isn't just that Iran will have a nuclear weapon - that's bad enough, sure, but that alone isn't a catastrophe. The worry comes from fears that a nuclear armed Iran will spur an arms race in the Middle East, as other nations begin (or accelerate already existing) programs to create their own nuclear stockpiles. The Middle East is already an extremely volatile and unstable region; adding nuclear weapons to the mix would only exacerbate the situation.

The other major concern is that Iran hasn't exactly shied away from supporting terrorist organizations or making its opposition to the United States and Israel clear. Now, if Iran decides to hand one of these groups a nuclear weapon (or just the materials needed to create one), we could be looking at an attack that dwarfs 9/11.

With this much at stake, we can't exactly just throw our hands in the air and shout, "Welp, not our problem!"

It's not all bleak, though. The sanctions we've placed on Iran have clearly been working, and as their economy is beginning to crumble, the nation's leaders are signalling that they're willing to talk and negotiate. There's no guarantees, but there's still hope that we can resolve this issue peacefully.

 

[Deleted-185407]

A nuclear Iran is kind of a big deal and something worth preventing if possible, and President Obama has been able to do so with things like diplomacy.

So by your logic, individual states should have the ability to have anti-sodomy laws, ban gay and/or interracial marriage, have their own civil rights laws (or lack thereof), etc?

Ron Paul is the perfect example of how the media paints someone as crazy because they're actually crazy, and it has little or nothing to do with foreign policy. There are plenty of posts in this thread that go into detail about how Ron Paul holds crazy policy positions. It should also be noted that the media reports on people like Ron Paul by stating his policy positions or by stating how unpopular he is or how unlikely his candidacy is; they seldom outright say, "He's crazy." If the media reports on Ron Paul's policy positions and people think Ron Paul is crazy, then it's likely because they think those policy positions are crazy and has little to do with media bias.

Logical voters who want to have a say in this election and not throw their votes away care. By your logic, I should just vote for myself if the likelihood of a candidate's success is irrelevant.

Sure, I understand that, but you already know that your vote isn't going to change the fact that ~99% of people are going to vote for President Obama or Governor Romney, so you're sending as much a message as you would by writing in "Mickey Mouse" or by just not voting; in fact, I would argue that you would be sending more of a message against the two major parties by not voting at all (you'd be contributing to a significantly large number of people who do not vote). Like I've already told Sterling, if your goal is to throw your vote away, go ahead and vote for Gary Johnson. If your goal is to have a say in who wins the presidential election, vote for one of the two major-party candidates.

If the person you're voting for is guaranteed to lose, it's not at all logical to vote for him or her.

If your intention is to change the system, that's great, but voting for someone who is guaranteed not to get ~99% of the vote is not how you go about doing so.

If you only have two candidates who can possibly win, then it's the very definition of "productive" to vote for one of them. If your goal is to influence the results of the presidential election, voting for Gary Johnson, by definition, is counter-productive.

If you absolutely have no preference between the two major-party candidates, which I find unlikely, then you're probably right. However, if you prefer one candidate over the other, than it's completely logical to do what you can to make sure your preferred candidate of the two wins.

I've mentioned multi-round voting numerous times during this conversation about third-party candidates. Multi-round voting means a voter lists his or her choices in preferential order and everyone's #1 choices are tallied; if none of the candidates has an absolute majority, the candidate with the least number of votes is dropped and anyone who voted for that candidate is moved to their #2 choice. This is the scenario that's essentially playing out right now, and you're arguing for writing "Gary Johnson," a candidate who for all intents and purposes has been dropped because he cannot win, as all of your choices rather than voting for your #2 preferential choice. That's illogical.

If you're implying that President Obama has somehow betrayed the American people, I'd like to see some evidence of that.

Don't tear down a post sentence by sentence as it completely ignores the primary point I'm trying to make.

Let's just tackle three statements you've made very briefly even though they're off-topic from this particular discussion (just because it really annoys me how out of touch people can be with understanding others). Iran and the Middle East problems is not your problem. Israel have already stated they can handle their problems themselves, and you're risking your own national security by getting involved in a problem that isn't yours. Do you honestly want to send young children to die for a meaningless cause? The only reason you're being attacked is because you're getting yourself involved in problems that don't concern you.

As for social issues, I live in Europe, which is effectively the equivalent of the United States. France has its own culture, Ireland has its culture, Italy has its own culture, Spain has its own culture, and so on. Our laws reflect our cultures and the wishes of that country/states's people. Who's to say that the federal government wouldn't ban gay marriage throughout the entire United States? Let states decide how their laws reflect their culture. Do people really have that little faith in the states? If you're not satisfied with your local government, vote them out, get people you trust in.

Obama betrayed the trust of the American people when he signed the NDAA into law. If you signed a bill into law that will give you the right to be judge, jury and executioner on me without any shred of evidence, you don't have my trust.

Now back to the main point. You're contradicting yourself. You're stating that your vote doesn't matter if you vote for a third party, yet entirely matters if you vote for Republicans or Democrats. It doesn't matter who you vote for, your vote always counts. Nobody is "guaranteed to lose" until the election day occurs. You have no idea who people are going to vote for, and you can only make an assumption. Yes, the odds certainly aren't in a third party candidate's favour, nobody is saying the opposite. But you're certainly not going to help those odds if you don't go vote for them.

What do you think will happen if everyone decided to go "waste" their vote on a third-party candidate? Oh right, their votes don't matter because it's not a Republican or Democrat. I guess we're still stuck with a Republican/Democrat even if we don't vote for them.

 

[Lacius]

Iran and the Middle East problems is not your problem. Israel have already stated they can handle their problems themselves, and you're risking your own national security by getting involved in a problem that isn't yours.

I agree that the United States should have less to do with the Middle East, but you're inaccurately painting a black and white picture. I refer you back to Gahars' excellent post on a nuclear Iran, for starters.

Do you honestly want to send young children to die for a meaningless cause?

It goes without saying, but no, I don't. Nice logical fallacy though.

The only reason you're being attacked is because you're getting yourself involved in problems that don't concern you.

Again, depending on what you're referring to, that's not entirely true.

As for social issues, I live in Europe, which is effectively the equivalent of the United States. France has its own culture, Ireland has its culture, Italy has its own culture, Spain has its own culture, and so on. Our laws reflect our cultures and the wishes of that country/states's people.

Are you saying that, for example, it's moral for a society to ban interracial marriage because it has a culture of racial segregation? The United States used to have a culture and economy based around slavery, but that doesn't mean slavery was ever moral. You're also talking about different countries and not different states within the same country.

Who's to say that the federal government wouldn't ban gay marriage throughout the entire United States?

You're right; that could feasibly happen. However, that says nothing about the morality of the federal government banning or granting gay marriage throughout the entire United States.

Let states decide how their laws reflect their culture. Do people really have that little faith in the states?

Considering that the federal government and/or judicial branch has had to step in for issues like anti-sodomy laws, interracial marriage, civil rights, probably gay marriage in the future, etc, you're correct; I don't have faith in the states' ability to get it right. I've already explained how something being part of one's culture doesn't inherently make that something morally right.

It should also be noted that many of the things above arguably violate the Constitution (separation of church and state, for example), which adds a legality component on top of the moral issues.

If you're not satisfied with your local government, vote them out, get people you trust in.

Have you tried telling that to a proponent of gay rights in the Deep South? And again, that says nothing about the morality of the specific issue.

Obama betrayed the trust of the American people when he signed the NDAA into law. If you signed a bill into law that will give you the right to be judge, jury and executioner on me without any shred of evidence, you don't have my trust.

You're forgetting two things:

1. President Obama issued a signing statement against the controversial part of the law because he and the Democrats are against it.

2. The controversial part of the law is a Republican addition.

That's not to say that I think the President should have signed it, but I want to point out that you're leaving out important information in order to make your point.

Now back to the main point. You're contradicting yourself. You're stating that your vote doesn't matter if you vote for a third party, yet entirely matters if you vote for Republicans or Democrats. It doesn't matter who you vote for, your vote always counts. Nobody is "guaranteed to lose" until the election day occurs. You have no idea who people are going to vote for, and you can only make an assumption. Yes, the odds certainly aren't in a third party candidate's favour, nobody is saying the opposite. But you're certainly not going to help those odds if you don't go vote for them.

What do you think will happen if everyone decided to go "waste" their vote on a third-party candidate? Oh right, their votes don't matter because it's not a Republican or Democrat. I guess we're still stuck with a Republican/Democrat even if we don't vote for them.

First of all, just because you disagree with what I said doesn't mean I contradicted myself, so please don't say that I did.

Second, we know from precedent and polling that no more than ~1% of people are going to vote for candidates other than President Obama and Governor Romney, and it is accurate to say that, statistically, Gary Johnson has a 0% chance of winning the presidential election. As far as talking about who is going to win the presidential election, it is factually accurate to say Gary Johnson cannot win. You seem to be confusing "If everyone just votes for Gary Johnson, Gary Johnson will win," with "It is possible for Gary Johnson to win." Although it's a poor example for other reasons, that's like me saying it's possible for Mickey Mouse to win because Mickey Mouse will win if everyone just votes for Mickey Mouse; that doesn't mean it's actually possible. You're ignoring a very important variable: the electorate. You can't just make up your own electorate for the purposes of saying something is possible.

 

[KingVamp]

President Obama and the Democrats agree
If you're implying that President Obama has somehow betrayed the American people, I'd like to see some evidence of that.

To be fair he did signed the NDAA, but it not being misused ... yet. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like it, but
he didn't actually use to betray us, the possibility is quite high with it in place.

I want that gone, not the whole President's views and plans.We can get rid of that without getting rid of
President would be ideal.

One of the reasons 3rd party platforms never get far off the ground is the fact that their ideas get integrated into the Big Two's campaign platforms.

Your point is ingratiation of the views you like is a bad thing or...?

I just so happen to want to make a statement this presidential election. I don't really care at this point in time whether or not my vote makes a lick of difference. All that matters to me is that I did not give in to a defeatist mentality (by voting for who I want and not putting stock into Romney or Obama), and I put my money where my mouth was so to speak.

So, throwing away your vote by choosing the greatly unlikely 3rd party with the biggest reason is just to make a statement rather than the 2nd choice (who has a big chance in winning) for the best of the Country who might lose due to your missing vote is a better mentality then "defeatist mentality"? A mentality which may not even be valid under this circumstances.

I see if you didn't like not even one of the two most likely (nearly) at all (which doesn't seem like the case for you since you seem mostly towards Obama) for reasons other then because what party their in then fine, but if you mostly like one of the most likely (lol) too win then choice that person.

 

[Gahars]

@Peps

Alright. I know it's a peeve of yours, so sorry, but I'm just going to break this down to make for easier reading. Anyway...

1) You can't just say that something "isn't our problem". We live in an interconnected world now; what happens in one region (especially the Middle East) will impact everyone else. Instability and violence in the region is our problem; it's everyone's problem. Turning to isolationist policies won't make it all go away; that's a lesson we've learned before.

Ignoring Iran's nuclear belligerence, and allowing it to continue unchecked, would be extremely shortsighted. Working together with the international community to dissuade them (as we are now), however, can prevent bloodshed. We can make it sure this doesn't have to come to war, but only if we stay involved.

(And do note, that involvement and military interventionism aren't one and the same here.)

Plus, that's a pretty huge oversimplification at the end there. You don't honestly think that's all there is to the motivations behind terrorist groups, do you?

2) Side note, but whatever. While I don't agree with the amount of aid we give to Israel, I have no problem with aiding them in general. They're a key alley in the region, one surrounded by hostile nations, so offering assistance is sensible. Also, unless I'm missing something, when has Israel asked for less US aid or involvement?

3) Alright, your analogy has a major flaw. France, Italy, etc. are all separate nations. The states are not separate, sovereign entities. They do not have separate cultures; there may be distinct subcultures, sure, but that's where it ends.

States don't get to deny people of their rights, to go against the spirit of the Constitution (whether or not that bigotry and injustice is voted in), just because "it's their culture". They tried that argument before; we had to have a Civil War to settle it.

The best way to think of it is that the states are administrative units of the Federal Government. They get some autonomy in how they handle their affairs, but at the end of the day, they still answer to a higher body. (If you want a more in depth discussion with Foxi4 on this subject a while back, you may want to read that since it goes into more detail).

4) The backlash over the NDAA is overblown. Needless to say, the controversial provisions were misrepresented. Even if that wasn't the case, though, the President had no choice but to sign the bill; the controversial sections were amendments tacked on to a budget. If he hadn't signed it, our military would have no funding, effectively abandoning our troops overseas.

You could imagine what a disaster that would've been.

5) On this last point, I think it's just worth noting that there's a difference between defeatism and pragmatism. Americans are more than willing to vote for third party candidates if they present themselves as viable (Ross Perot received 20% of the vote in 1992, after all, and the Republican Party started its life as a third party), but our current third parties seem to be more interested in catering to political fringes than offering a comprehensive vision that could appeal to voters.

 

[Jan1tor]

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Mitt Romney has a long history of flat-out lying, while I have yet to see an instance when President Obama did more than embellish the truth. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Here on this site http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies is a whole list of lies with the articles to back them up.

 

[Deleted-185407]

I agree that the United States should have less to do with the Middle East, but you're inaccurately painting a black and white picture. I refer you back to Gahars' excellent post on a nuclear Iran, for starters.

It goes without saying, but no, I don't. Nice logical fallacy though.

Again, depending on what you're referring to, that's not entirely true.

Are you saying that, for example, it's moral for a society to ban interracial marriage because it has a culture of racial segregation? The United States used to have a culture and economy based around slavery, but that doesn't mean slavery was ever moral. You're also talking about different countries and not different states within the same country.

You're right; that could feasibly happen. However, that says nothing about the morality of the federal government banning or granting gay marriage throughout the entire United States.

Considering that the federal government and/or judicial branch has had to step in for issues like anti-sodomy laws, interracial marriage, civil rights, probably gay marriage in the future, etc, you're correct; I don't have faith in the states' ability to get it right. I've already explained how something being part of one's culture doesn't inherently make that something morally right.

It should also be noted that many of the things above arguably violate the Constitution (separation of church and state, for example), which adds a legality component on top of the moral issues.

Have you tried telling that to a proponent of gay rights in the Deep South? And again, that says nothing about the morality of the specific issue.

You're forgetting two things:

1. President Obama issued a signing statement against the controversial part of the law because he and the Democrats are against it.
2. The controversial part of the law is a Republican addition.

That's not to say that I think the President should have signed it, but I want to point out that you're leaving out important information in order to make your point.

First of all, just because you disagree with what I said doesn't mean I contradicted myself, so please don't say that I did.
Second, we know from precedent and polling that no more than ~1% of people are going to vote for candidates other than President Obama and Governor Romney, and it is accurate to say that, statistically, Gary Johnson has a 0% chance of winning the presidential election. As far as talking about who is going to win the presidential election, it is factually accurate to say Gary Johnson cannot win. You seem to be confusing "If everyone just votes for Gary Johnson, Gary Johnson will win," with "It is possible for Gary Johnson to win." Although it's a poor example for other reasons, that's like me saying it's possible for Mickey Mouse to win because Mickey Mouse will win if everyone just votes for Mickey Mouse; that doesn't mean it's actually possible. You're ignoring a very important variable: the electorate. You can't just make up your own electorate for the purposes of saying something is possible.

Again, breaking down a post into multiple discussions is annoying and makes your arguments hard and boring to read.

Unfortunately the situation with the US and Iran is simple. Don't get involved in situations that don't concern you, and quit trying to be the policemen of the world. You're broke. Get out and fix your own problems at home first, and quit making enemies. Slash the defense budget because there's simply no need to be spending that much money on defense. Neither Obama nor Romney are talking about cutting the amount of defense spending.

I'm not leaving out any important information when it comes to the NDAA, it shouldn't have been signed. He should not assume he's going to be in office for another 4 years, and should be spending time ensuring that piece of legislation is removed. He isn't and he clearly wants that power. Just because he's making a promise not to use it, doesn't mean he's not going to use it. It's law, he's allowed to, and that quite simply is betrayal. If Obama didn't want that power or wasn't going to use it, why on earth would his administration fight so hard against the ruling stating that it was unconstitutional? If he actually was true to his promise, they would have never appealed.

Your morals are not the same as everyone else's morals. Just because you believe it's perfectly fine for gay marriage to be allowed, it doesn't mean you're right, and it doesn't mean that other people are comfortable with it. The majority of Irish people believe that abortion should be illegal, and it is illegal, because it reflects the morals of the majority of the country. Other countries in Europe on the other hand, might feel differently. However, does the EU have the right to disrespect our culture and wishes and force their culture on us? Absolutely not. Social issues are local issues, and federal government is not local. If you're not comfortable in the culture you're living in, move to a different culture where you do feel more comfortable. And if you hate your local government, you have a vote that you can use on any candidate you want. Now bare in mind, if it's against the constitution, that's a different matter, and I'm not arguing that states are allowed to go against it. However, if it's a social issue, and it's not against the constitution, then the states should be allowed to do whatever they want.

You're stating our votes don't matter, and you're saying they do matter. That's a contradiction. You're also saying there's no point voting for a third party candidate to campaign so hard, because others have failed in the past. You've given up, that's disgraceful. You come from the "land of opportunities", and you're already admitting defeat so easily. People's opinions can change over time. The candidates of the past are not the same candidates of the present, and they won't be the candidates of the future. The current voters are not the same voters from several years ago, and won't be the same voters voting soon, and won't be the same voters in the future. If you've been paying attention outside of mainstream media, you would notice that the Libertarian mindset is growing immensely in popularity, and younger people in particular are becoming heavily more politically active. If you've paid attention to the Republican caucuses at all, you'll notice there was a huge reform going on, where biased chairpersons have been removed for liberty-minded chairpersons who fully respect an individual's vote.

Times are changing, voters are changing, and the two-party system can be broken if you stop being negative, and stop wasting your vote on the "better of two evils". Odds will change slowly, but they will change. As Gahars said, the Republican party was a third-party before, but that changed didn't it. Yet according to you, nobody should have wasted their vote on them.

@Peps

Alright. I know it's a peeve of yours, so sorry, but I'm just going to break this down to make for easier reading. Anyway...

1) You can't just say that something "isn't our problem". We live in an interconnected world now; what happens in one region (especially the Middle East) will impact everyone else. Instability and violence in the region is our problem; it's everyone's problem. Turning to isolationist policies won't make it all go away; that's a lesson we've learned before.

Ignoring Iran's nuclear belligerence, and allowing it to continue unchecked, would be extremely shortsighted. Working together with the international community to dissuade them (as we are now), however, can prevent bloodshed. We can make it sure this doesn't have to come to war, but only if we stay involved.

(And do note, that involvement and military interventionism aren't one and the same here.)

Plus, that's a pretty huge oversimplification at the end there. You don't honestly think that's all there is to the motivations behind terrorist groups, do you?

2) Side note, but whatever. While I don't agree with the amount of aid we give to Israel, I have no problem with aiding them in general. They're a key alley in the region, one surrounded by hostile nations, so offering assistance is sensible. Also, unless I'm missing something, when has Israel asked for less US aid or involvement?

3) Alright, your analogy has a major flaw. France, Italy, etc. are all separate nations. The states are not separate, sovereign entities. They do not have separate cultures; there may be distinct subcultures, sure, but that's where it ends.

States don't get to deny people of their rights, to go against the spirit of the Constitution (whether or not that bigotry and injustice is voted in), just because "it's their culture". They tried that argument before; we had to have a Civil War to settle it.

The best way to think of it is that the states are administrative units of the Federal Government. They get some autonomy in how they handle their affairs, but at the end of the day, they still answer to a higher body. (If you want a more in depth discussion with Foxi4 on this subject a while back, you may want to read that since it goes into more detail).

4) The backlash over the NDAA is overblown. Needless to say, the controversial provisions were misrepresented. Even if that wasn't the case, though, the President had no choice but to sign the bill; the controversial sections were amendments tacked on to a budget. If he hadn't signed it, our military would have no funding, effectively abandoning our troops overseas.

You could imagine what a disaster that would've been.

5) On this last point, I think it's just worth noting that there's a difference between defeatism and pragmatism. Americans are more than willing to vote for third party candidates if they present themselves as viable (Ross Perot received 20% of the vote in 1992, after all, and the Republican Party started its life as a third party), but our current third parties seem to be more interested in catering to political fringes than offering a comprehensive vision that could appeal to voters.

You've already just debunked your own argument using the word "isolationist" policies, implying that third party candidates want to turn the US into another North Korea, which is far from the truth. All third party candidates are saying, like the majority of countries in the world, that the US should stop nation-building, stop getting involved in problems that doesn't concern it, and instead of threatening to bomb other countries, start trying to understand their problems and listening to them. 9/11 didn't happen because other countries hated your "freedoms", you were invading their country and disrespecting their holy lands. You're getting yourself into bigger trouble, and are making more unnecessary enemies.

What gives the US the right to have several hundred nuclear weapons and to dictate whether or not another country can research into nuclear material? Iran isn't planning on making a weapon, and even if they did, they're not suicidal. They're not going to attack the largest country in the world when it clearly means their doom. Get some goddamn common sense and start understanding other people. You know what? Why is the rest of the world not going at war with America? You're the biggest threat in the world. The number of nuclear weapons you have, and the fact you have war-mongering presidential candidates absolutely terrifies me.



As the above video proves, Israel is pretty much repeating what third party candidates have been saying for a long time.

As for the rest, read above.

 

[Gahars]

Peps, I have no idea where you got the impression that my points on isolationism and third parties are connected. Sure, there are some third parties that promote isolationist agendas, but that had nothing to do with what I was saying. And no where did I argue against diplomatic solutions or make any claim that the terrorists "hated our freedoms". Projecting much?

Look, you evidently have not read my post regarding the Iran situation... or much of either of our posts. You continue to deliberately misconstrue or flat out ignore our points and then respond with insults and condescension. I'm all for a respectful debate, but that's evidently not what you're after.

If you want to fight straw men, fine, but don't waste our time.

 

[constantgamer247]

already casted my absentee ballot. Perk of being a US citizen

 

[Deleted-185407]

Peps, I have no idea where you got the impression that my points on isolationism and third parties are connected. Sure, there are some third parties that promote isolationist agendas, but that had nothing to do with what I was saying. And no where did I argue against diplomatic solutions or make any claim that the terrorists "hated our freedoms". Projecting much?

Look, you evidently have not read my post regarding the Iran situation... or much of either of our posts. You continue to deliberately misconstrue or flat out ignore our points and then respond with insults and condescension. I'm all for a respectful debate, but that's evidently not what you're after.

If you want to fight straw men, fine, but don't waste our time.

It has everything to do with your statements, because it shows a clear misunderstanding of what the options are. Nothing is being ignored at all, unless you can show me something vital that was missed and you're wanting a counter for. Besides, when I write I speak to everyone, not just you.

There isn't a single popular third party candidate promoting "isolationist agendas". Your points suggest that the only option, is for the US to get involved, or to close itself off from the world. Let's look at every single other country in the world, like here in Ireland. We don't get involved in foreign affairs. Why should we? Is it a threat to our national security if we let Middle East countries deal with their problems themselves? Not that I'm aware of. Israel said they can handle the problem themselves. You wanted evidence of that, you got it.

 

[Coltonamore]

Sweet, can I throw my two cents in here too?

YOU SUCK I,LL KICK YOUR *** IF YOU DO THAT AGAIN

 

[Lacius]

Here on this site http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies is a whole list of lies with the articles to back them up.

I'm not going to go through each and every one, but most of the ones I see on this website are embellishments or even true statements. Just a few off the top of my head:

The website claims "Planned Parenthood provides mammograms" is a lie. While Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms on site, they are heavily involved in setting up mammograms for patients.

The website claims "You didn't build that" is one of Obama's lies. Wikipedia does a good job explaining why that's both out of context and not a lie.

The website claims "Under Gov. Romney’s definition … Donald Trump is a small business" is a lie, but Politifact calls this a lie based entirely on the fact that "any tax cuts Trump would get from Romney would have nothing to do with whether he’s a small business or not," but Obama's claim was in response to Romney's claim that taxes on small businesses would go up under Obama's plan, and that's only because it includes people like Donald Trump in that figure (something like 97% of small businesses are unaffected by Obama's tax plan, and the other 3% include people like Donald Trump).

I can't take a website seriously when it claims "You didn't build that" as an Obama lie. This website also heavily relies on Politifact, a website that said "Ryan's plan would end Medicare" was the lie of the year because it left out the qualifier "Medicare as we know it."

Again, breaking down a post into multiple discussions is annoying and makes your arguments hard and boring to read.

Respectfully, if you don't want me to have to break down your post to highlight the multitude of individual problems, don't post a response with so many fallacies.

Also, as long as I'm presenting what I think is factual information, I don't care how boring my posts are.

Neither Obama nor Romney are talking about cutting the amount of defense spending.

You're right that Mitt Romney only talks about increasing defense spending (specifically, by $2 trillion). However, President Obama has ended the war in Iraq and has provided a timetable for ending the war in Afghanistan, for starters.

I'm not leaving out any important information when it comes to the NDAA, it shouldn't have been signed. He should not assume he's going to be in office for another 4 years, and should be spending time ensuring that piece of legislation is removed. He isn't and he clearly wants that power. Just because he's making a promise not to use it, doesn't mean he's not going to use it. It's law, he's allowed to, and that quite simply is betrayal. If Obama didn't want that power or wasn't going to use it, why on earth would his administration fight so hard against the ruling stating that it was unconstitutional? If he actually was true to his promise, they would have never appealed.

Gahars already explained why the NDAA needed to be signed.

Your morals are not the same as everyone else's morals. Just because you believe it's perfectly fine for gay marriage to be allowed, it doesn't mean you're right, and it doesn't mean that other people are comfortable with it.

You're right that the fact that I think gay marriage should be legal doesn't inherently make it right; there are a thousand other reasons why gay marriage should be legal and zero reasons why it should be illegal. My personal opinions on the subject are irrelevant.

You also seem to be arguing that because some people are uncomfortable with something means it should be illegal in that area. You can't say that states should have the right to criminalize gay marriage if you don't think they also have the right to criminalize, for example, interracial marriage. You're essentially arguing that states' rights to make the laws they want outweigh the rights of individuals to marry, that states' rights to make the laws they want outweigh the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against on the basis of skin color, etc.

We could have a lengthy discussion on why gay marriage should be legal across the country, but I'm more interested in why you think it's okay for states to implement immoral laws just because the majority of people in that state wrongfully think it's okay. Where do you draw the line? Gay marriage? Interracial marriage? Drug decriminalization? Civil rights? Abortion? Slavery? Again, you seem to think it's okay to take rights away from the individual as long as the states' rights to take away your rights aren't violated.

If you're not comfortable in the culture you're living in, move to a different culture where you do feel more comfortable.

That says nothing about whether or not what a state is doing is morally acceptable.

You're stating our votes don't matter, and you're saying they do matter. That's a contradiction.

I was very specific in saying that if your goal is to influence who wins the presidential election, a vote for Gary Johnson is the same as throwing your vote away. There is no contradiction. Please do not take out all of my qualifiers and say that I said, "Your votes don't matter but actually they matter."

You're also saying there's no point voting for a third party candidate to campaign so hard, because others have failed in the past.

That's not at all what I said. I'm saying there's no point in voting for a third-party candidate like Gary Johnson when we know specifically that all the third-party candidates won't get more than a combined ~1% in this election. Please don't say I said things I didn't.

You come from the "land of opportunities", and you're already admitting defeat so easily. People's opinions can change over time. The candidates of the past are not the same candidates of the present, and they won't be the candidates of the future. The current voters are not the same voters from several years ago, and won't be the same voters voting soon, and won't be the same voters in the future.

First of all, I'm not admitting any sort of defeat. Second, I don't disagree with anything you've said.

However, we do have a fairly good understanding of how many people are going to vote for third-party candidates, and it's insignificant. If anyone thinks a third-party candidate like Gary Johnson has a chance at winning the 2012 presidential election, they're lying to themselves.

If you've been paying attention outside of mainstream media, you would notice that the Libertarian mindset is growing immensely in popularity, and younger people in particular are becoming heavily more politically active. If you've paid attention to the Republican caucuses at all, you'll notice there was a huge reform going on, where biased chairpersons have been removed for liberty-minded chairpersons who fully respect an individual's vote.

If you had been paying attention to the Republican primary season, you would know that Ron Paul didn't win the popular vote of a single state. It's also an overstatement to say the libertarian mindset is "growing immensely in popularity."

Times are changing, voters are changing, and the two-party system can be broken if you stop being negative, and stop wasting your vote on the "better of two evils". Odds will change slowly, but they will change. As Gahars said, the Republican party was a third-party before, but that changed didn't it. Yet according to you, nobody should have wasted their vote on them.

Had you actually read my posts, you would know that I said it's possible to change the system. In fact, I even advocated a multi-round system to help accomplish this. All I've said is that voting as part of the ~1% is not going to accomplish anything as far as helping to pick who wins the election or sending any kind of message. It only makes sense to vote for a candidate who has a chance among the electorate, regardless of party. If Gary Johnson were actually polling well, I'd say that Gary Johnson is a completely logical choice as far as potentiality to win goes.

All of my points seem to have gone over your head (or you're just ignoring me). Without public support of Gary Johnson, there is no logical reason to vote for him if you're plan is to help decide who wins the election. If you're upset about it, help to increase public support of him so he becomes a viable candidate (again, as far as potentiality to win goes). I disagree with a lot of Gary Johnson's policy positions.

Most of Gahars' points seem to have gone over your head as well.