Romney vs. Obama

[Daemauroa]

just a question, but are there people who think for not-voting? it could be the 3rd option in this poll if you'd ask me.

 

[DiscostewSM]

And for those who are unsure...

Find Your Fucking Polling Place.

Funny that they don't know my polling place (but I do). I even put in a random (but valid) address to test if it was working, and it found one for that place.

 

[stanleyopar2000]

government heavy, giant douche or a turd sandwich?

you gotta vote for someone though...and the giant douche in office right now hasn't done shit for the working class. In fact he has done something for the working class...take more of their money

 

[Lacius]

you gotta vote for someone though...and the giant douche in office right now hasn't done shit for the working class.

For starters, fixing the economy has indeed helped the working class. Without a functioning economy, people don't have jobs, and when people don't have jobs, by definition, you don't have much of a working class.

In fact he has done something for the working class...take more of their money

President Obama has lowered taxes for the working class, including but not limited to the Stimulus, the 2010 tax deal, and the payroll tax cuts.

 

[KingVamp]

government heavy, giant douche or a turd sandwich?

you gotta vote for someone though...and the giant douche in office right now hasn't done shit for the working class. In fact he has done something for the working class...take more of their money

Let me guess, you got your info from lying Mitt Robme?

 

[retKHAAAN]

My wife and I are not voting...



...only because our votes would cancel each other out anyway.

 

[dgwillia]

Obama, because Romney would just fuck everything up even worse. Plus, the guy is just a giant habitual liar, and is so rich that he is pretty much out of touch with any common person. Do we need to start mentioning that Soup Kitchen fiasco again?

If Romney wins, I'm giving up all hope in this country.

All in all, the Republican party just seems batshit crazy as of lately. Theres a few people on that side I still admire, and could possibly consider voting for if they ran for office. But right now it just seems like your either a liberal youngster minority voting for Obama, or a bible thumping homophobic rich person voting for Romney.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Obama, because Romney would just fuck everything up even worse. Plus, the guy is just a giant habitual liar, and is so rich that he is pretty much out of touch with any common person. Do we need to start mentioning that Soup Kitchen fiasco again?

If Romney wins, I'm giving up all hope in this country.

All in all, the Republican party just seems batshit crazy as of lately. Theres a few people on that side I still admire, and could possibly consider voting for if they ran for office. But right now it just seems like your either a liberal youngster minority voting for Obama, or a bible thumping homophobic rich person voting for Romney.

that's a pretty gross over-simplification...

it's sad to see everyone discussing Obama vs. Romney as if that one person is capable of shaping policy and reform for the entire nation. the president is a figure-head. vote your party, not what some dude claims he can do...

Are you better or worse off than you were 4 years ago? Do you believe in current economic policy as it's being enforced right now? Foreign and domestic affairs? These are the questions that should determine who you're voting for. Not "which dude you like better"...

 

[Lacius]

it's sad to see everyone discussing Obama vs. Romney as if that one person is capable of shaping policy and reform for the entire nation.

The President is arguably capable of shaping policy and reform for the entire nation.

the president is a figure-head. vote your party, not what some dude claims he can do...

Are you better or worse off than you were 4 years ago? Do you believe in current economic policy as it's being enforced right now? Foreign and domestic affairs? These are the questions that should determine who you're voting for. Not "which dude you like better"...

When your figurehead has to, for example, consistently lie in order to sell his or her party's ideology (or you consistently have representatives of one party claiming untrue and/or controversial things about rape), then it becomes a matter of policy and not a matter of "which dude you like better."

In fact, the two are often times used interchangeably.

 

[retKHAAAN]

The President is arguably capable of shaping policy and reform for the entire nation.


When your figurehead has to, for example, consistently lie in order to sell his or her party's ideology (or you consistently have representatives of one party claiming untrue and/or controversial things about rape), then it becomes a matter of policy and not a matter of "which dude you like better."

In fact, the two are often times used interchangeably.

Fairly certain that both dudes are spewing a fair amount of bullshit in an effort to convince the public one is better than the other.

Political races are nothing more than sporting events. It's a boxing match where two fighters merely have to convince the audience they could kick their opponent's ass rather than actually throw a punch. And that's exactly how most people in this thread are discussing it. This is much bigger than a "who lies the most" debate.

Claiming that the president is capable of shaping policy and reform is horseshit. These people are cultivated by their respective political parties. Vote the party, not the man.

 

[Lacius]

Fairly certain that both dudes are spewing a fair amount of bullshit in an effort to convince the public one is better than the other.

Are both candidates guilty of at least embellishing the truth at times? Sure. However, I think one can demonstratively show that Governor Romney is blatantly lying so much more than President Obama that they're incomparable.

Political races are nothing more than sporting events. It's a boxing match where two fighters merely have to convince the audience they could kick their opponent's ass rather than actually throw a punch.

It's less a competition where two fighters try to convince the audience he or she could win and more a competition where two opponents try to convince the audience he or she would make the best president, so I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. Regardless, are you suggesting we make presidential elections physical fights?

It should also be noted that I can't think of a sporting event in which the results had any substantive effects.

This is much bigger than a "who lies the most" debate.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you, but it's fair to say that these lies that are disproportionately coming from one side are relevant to the discussion.

Claiming that the president is capable of shaping policy and reform is horseshit. These people are cultivated by their respective political parties. Vote the party, not the man.

I agree with you for the most part, but it's difficult to argue that a specific president and his or her vision are irrelevant when it comes to shaping policy, working across the aisle, etc. It's possible to have a good or bad president regardless of party affiliation.

It's also difficult to argue that a candidate's shortcomings aren't at all reflective of those who typically hold particular policy positions, especially when those shortcomings and policy positions are intimately tied together.

 

[Gahars]

the president is a figure-head.

Sorry if this is nitpicking, but this is one thing that annoys me to no end.

The President is as far away from a figurehead as you can get. The President has veto power over legislation passed by Congress; while it can be overruled, more often than not he's going to have the final say. Presidents are the head of the nation's Executive Branch, the portion of the government responsible for implementing and enforcing these pieces of legislation. The President is responsible for appointing judges to the federal court system, including the Supreme Court - determining how the Constitution will be interpreted by the Federal Government. The President is also the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, holding the final word on how and where our military will be deployed (not to mention, a figurehead would not have the nuclear launch codes).

I could go on and on, but needless to say, while the President is not all-powerful, he is by no means a simple figurehead. That's a dangerous assumption to make when casting your vote.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Sorry if this is nitpicking, but this is one thing that annoys me to no end.

The President is as far away from a figurehead as you can get. The President has veto power over legislation passed by Congress; while it can be overruled, more often than not he's going to have the final say. Presidents are the head of the nation's Executive Branch, the portion of the government responsible for implementing and enforcing these pieces of legislation. The President is responsible for appointing judges to the federal court system, including the Supreme Court - determining how the Constitution will be interpreted by the Federal Government. The President is also the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, holding the final word on how and where our military will be deployed (not to mention, a figurehead would not have the nuclear launch codes).

I could go on and on, but needless to say, while the President is not all-powerful, he is by no means a simple figurehead. That's a dangerous assumption to make when casting your vote.

I truly hope you don't think the President uses any of this power without at least some party approval/backing... There are many things the president is in charge of, but suggesting policy is formed or even shaped by one man is kind of silly. Do you think Obama or Romney sat down with a pen and paper and drew up their entire platforms and plans?

 

[Gahars]

I truly hope you don't think the President uses any of this power without at least some party approval/backing... There are many things the president is in charge of, but suggesting policy is formed or even shaped by one man is kind of silly. Do you think Obama or Romney sat down with a pen and paper and drew up their entire platforms and plans?

I never said that wasn't the case, though it's fair to keep in mind that it works both ways - the party influences the President and the President influences the party.

There is, however, a huge difference between "the President and his party work together" and "the President is a figurehead".

 

[Lacius]

I truly hope you don't think the President uses any of this power without at least some party approval/backing...

I never claimed this, but what you said isn't necessarily true.

There are many things the president is in charge of, but suggesting policy is formed or even shaped by one man is kind of silly.

Referring to law, yeah, one person can make a big difference in what becomes law and what doesn't. One person can make a big difference, for example, in how he or she chooses to work with the other party. One person can veto bills. One person can issue executive orders. One person can appoint people to the Supreme Court of the United States. One person is Commander in Chief. Regardless, it's entirely fair to be critical of a candidate because he or she lies, particularly when it's about policy. In fact, I also argue that Romney's lies are reflective of the Republican Party.

I live in Missouri and am fortunate enough to get to vote for Claire McCaskill this Tuesday. Considering what Todd Akin said about "legitimate rape," are Republicans still going to vote party? The polling says they aren't, and that's because Akin's comments deal directly with his policy positions and cast doubt on his "legitimacy" as a candidate. Missouri is a fairly red state this year, so I see a lot of yards full of Republican political signs, and it's funny how many of them don't put out Akin signs while they have signs for all the other Republicans running for something.

Please don't get me wrong; I pretty much vote party. All I'm arguing is that the a.) individuals of a party are a good indicator for what that party believes in, b.) a candidate's shortcomings are important in predicting how well he or she will do at the job, and c.) sometimes a candidate's positions differ from his or her party's positions (for example, I don't think the "legitimate rape" thing is part of the Republican platform, but it might as well be).

Do you think Obama or Romney sat down with a pen and paper and drew up their entire platforms and plans?

I never claimed this either, but it sounds like you're trying to argue that candidates somehow aren't responsible for the policy positions they take.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Wanna know what's funny, no matter who's President, there are some things that are still out of their control, like some aspects of Area 51 are out way out of their league.

Anyways, this thread doesn't really affect me, but I do have to say, if I was to vote, I'd vote for Obama. Mainly because the last 4 years, with the mess he's been handed from Bush, he's slowly, but surely turning the country around. It takes time, and he has plans for the future that seem possible. While, from videos I've just watched and nothing more, Romney doesn't seem like he has any idea what the hell to do or say. But that's just my opinion, and it's worth a grain of salt if anything at all, as I don't really know, nor care much for politics.

 

[Deleted-185407]

Almost all of the moral questions can be deduced to the form of "Is ______ good(/evil)?", or "Is _______ better than ______?". In the arena of public policy and legislation, those questions take on a reasonably more specific form:
"Is ______ good(/evil), for the well-being of society?"
or
"Is ______ better than _______, for the well-being of society?"

Now those moral questions start to resemble scientific questions, don't they? The sort of questions whose answers can be derived from facts, experimentation, analyses, and reasoning. The sort of questions to which there can be right answers and wrong answers and anything in between. The sort of questions where not every single proposition and conclusion in existence are valued equally. There can be right and wrong answers to moral questions. Morality can evolve just as science can evolve, as our understanding gets better. It's no more disrespectful to say the belief "slavery is good for society" is wrong, than it is to say the belief "earth is flat" is wrong. If the entire culture believes those things, then the entire culture is wrong.

Let me play devil's advocate. A country has its own culture different from other countries', a state has its own culture apart from the cultures of other states in the same country, sure. But within the same state there can be many distinct subcultures too, urban culture is different from rural culture, Christians have their own culture different from Muslims, high-income families have their own culture different from low-income families, gay couples have their own culture different from heterosexual couples, women have their own culture different from men, etc. etc. each person has their own "culture" that's different from other people's. Would you say, then, that the choice to grant control of "local" social issues to the state/country level is rather arbitrary? If it's not okay for Germany to interfere with Irish matters that don't concern Germany, why would it be okay for Irish individuals who are not pregnant to interfere with pregnancy matters of other Irish individuals? If all the pregnant Irish individuals should simply respect majority-rule democracy on this matter which doesn't legitimately concern the Irish majority, then why can't the other Irish individuals also respect the same democracy in the EU on the same matter? Is majority-rule democracy good for the well-being of the Irish society, on this particular matter? Now that's a moral question that sounds kind of like a scientific question.

Everyone's entitled to hanging on to whatever beliefs they feel comfortable with, but that doesn't mean every single one of those beliefs deserves equal air time in the public sphere.

Facts and social beliefs are two entirely different matters and are not comparable at all.

As you have stated, there is a perfect possibility of sub-cultures to exist, and that is the case for sure. That's why you try and localise these issues as much as possible. Granted, it's not going to be a perfect system, and it's not going to make everyone happy, but it's a far better option than letting several other countries decide what should be the law. Does it make sense to ask a random Spanish stranger for advice on how you should solve a dispute between you and your friends, over asking an independent friend? Does it make sense to ask a random Ohio citizen to decide on drug legalisation in California when they don't live in California, probably don't know anything about what the drug situation is like there, and therefore can't make an informed decision? Does Ireland get social information on Germany on a daily basis? Does Nevada get social news on Alaska on a daily basis?

It's not perfect, but at least by reducing the amount of power a federal government has, citizens have more options. You're giving the citizens a greater voice and greater power to change things. From the sounds of the arguments here, that's apparently a terrible thing to allow, and you'd rather force yourselves into a dictatorship who is "logically moral". Bare in mind, sometimes I'd actually rather a "moral and logical dictator" myself, because seeing the stupid decisions governments make worldwide is frustrating. But despite how much I'd think that could sometimes be better, I believe it's more acceptable to let the people decide what they want. Look at the flip side, what if the federal government legalised slavery? What if the federal government decided to outlaw teaching evolution? At least if you kept these issues locally, you have options and you have more power to change things.

If you think people are going to make stupid decisions, then educate them about politics. The biggest issue at the moment, is that people have no real interest in politics, and don't understand other people or human behaviour. Fix that, and you'll see drastic changes in the world.

The fact that I can (and have) logically demonstrated why something is or is not moral demonstrates that morality is dependent on logic. If you can answer the questions "Why is X moral?" or "Why isn't X moral?" then that means you're dealing with logic rather than arbitrary feeling. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Except that morals aren't emotions.

On an unrelated side note, people sometimes have logical reasons for why they feel particular emotions.

Isn't that the nature of an argument? Thinking I'm right or you're wrong about a particular subject and showing the logical steps I used to reach that conclusion doesn't make me arrogant. I'm more than willing to admit that I'm wrong about, for example, a moral subject if I'm presented with the evidence.

And consequently, aren't you doing the same thing when you argue that it's immoral for a federal government to dictate social policy to the states?

I'm not steering away from that point at all; your entire argument is that there's nothing wrong with letting a state legalize murder or slavery if its wants to. In fact, you're arguing that it's immoral not to let them do so, and that's what I find scary.

Majorities have a habit of voting against the interests of minorities, even when it doesn't affect the majorities. Ballot measures banning gay marriage are perfect examples. As you've already conceded, democracy doesn't always work.

And during the Holocaust, it was a social norm to round up people and commit genocide. So what? The fact that you can demonstrate that people used to do bad things and called them "good" doesn't say anything about morality; if anything, all it shows is that what a society says is okay isn't automatically moral.

First of all, I don't concede that states aren't capable of making stupid decisions. As for the fact that states don't advocate for slavery anymore, that's because they were dragged kicking and screaming into having a more moral position and is irrelevant.

If you can guarantee this, then you can demonstratively show this. Have at it.

Regardless, that says nothing about states' rights or the inherent immorality of slavery.

Drug laws in the United States are more complicated than the morality of doing drugs.

I openly admitted that peoples' and societies' moral views change. That's far from being able to say X was once moral but now X is immoral. Just because we used to think slavery was moral doesn't mean it ever was; it means we were wrong.

Because these people often times do things that are detrimental to society in the name of morality, and that in itself is immoral. For example, some people want to ban the teaching of evolution in the name of God and morality, and that's detrimental to society. Is it moral to allow some states to be in a scientific dark age? No.

And according to you, if most people in the United States say "Yeah, the federal government should be able to dictate social policy across the country," then that position is automatically moral and you're wrong. You're arguing two mutually exclusive things:

1. Morality is relative and something is only moral if a society says it is; as societies change their minds, what's inherently moral changes.

2. It's inherently immoral to allow the federal government to dictate social policy across the states.

Since this discussion on morality and states' rights has gone on much longer than it needed to (mostly because you aren't responding to my individual points or defending the logical fallacies I point out in your arguments), I have two questions I'd like you to answer before we move on, and I refuse to move on until you either respond to or concede these two points:

1. How do you reconcile the above contradiction between moral relativism and the question of the morality/immorality of states' rights? Isn't your position that it's immoral for the federal government to dictate social policy across the country in itself an example of you using your morality to dictate policy others might not agree with?

2. Do you think we should allow states to be able to legalize slavery if the majority in a state were to choose to do so? If the answer is no, then you don't believe in states' rights in the form you've been arguing for. If the answer is yes, then you're saying the rights of states to make whatever silly laws they want outweighs the rights of people not to be enslaved, and I don't know how to nicely say what that says about you.

I never said either of those things. Violating someone's right to do X isn't inherently immoral. For example, in the case of laws against murder, Person A's right not to be murdered outweighs Person B's right to murder. Person B's rights are being violated with anti-murdering laws. So what?

I also never said that violating someone's right to trial with the NDAA is not immoral (in fact, I said that I was against the NDAA); all I said was that there is precedent for violating someone's right to trial in specific circumstances such as the need for the use of deadly force. I'm starting to think you're not taking this discussion seriously, because, respectfully, that entire statement was a joke.

Even if I were to concede your points about population and area, that says nothing about intricate differences between separate countries and separate states as far as government is concerned. The fact that the United States has things like the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution shows why they're incomparable in the way you're trying to compare them.

I already talked about Iran's ties with terrorists, for starters. Are you saying these potential ties don't exist? If you aren't saying that, then you concede there's reason for concern. If you are saying that, then please show me evidence.

It's also not my job to copy/paste points you've ignored or failed to understand.

Saying they don't want the United States to send troops to occupy Israel is different from saying they don't want the United States to be involved when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.

Actually, it does, especially when you're claiming someone said something that he didn't actually say, and the thing you're claiming isn't true. Israel wants the United States to be involved in preventing a nuclear Iran, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

When one's preferred candidate cannot win, "cockblocking" the candidate one strongly disagrees with is perfectly logical.

Let's keep this one short:

1) Morals are entirely based on emotions. I feel like there's nothing wrong with piracy. People feel sickened by piracy. That's an emotion. People feel like 13 year old having sex is sickening, others think it's fine. People think it's sickening for loli manga to exist, while logically no children are harmed in its production. Sounds like you're confusing ethics with morals. I actually agree that every single emotion is logical in nature, by trust me, that attitude is not going to get you appreciated by others. You're showing a clear lack of understanding of people and social skills.

If we're going to in-depth debates about whether or not something should be legal or illegal, you'll get your evidence then, and we can have a lengthy discussion about those issues, but the issue here is, is whether or not states should have more power. You don't want to give citizens more options, I do. You don't want citizens to have a chance of changing immoral laws the federal governments imposes, I do. You don't want states to have a chance of tailoring and optimising federal laws towards their local society and economy, I do. The states are trustworthy, and if the states aren't trustworthy, it's hard to imagine the federal government being more trustworthy. They vote without reading the bills, and are heavily influenced by lobbyists, and you want those people to decide how every single state is ran?

What if the federal government legalises slavery? What if the federal government bans evolution teachings? What if the federal government bans gay marriage? You clearly don't want options judging from what you've been saying. I want options, and I want citizens to have options. I like the way some people describe the states, you have "50 laboratories", and best practices and rules will spread naturally.

2) Ties with terrorists? So what if a few citizens are a bit rebelious? Here's an idea: Stop invading their country, stop imposing restrictions, talk with them fairly, and perhaps they won't want to attack you with force. The only reason people resort to terrorism, is when you're refusing to talk to them or understand them. Most of the time, their demands are simple, which is to stop invading them. If the US starts to invade Ireland, thinking we're a threat, of course I'm going to hate the US. The US government has the same issue that you have, which is not understanding others or human nature.

Give me proof that Israel wants the US to be involved.

3) Using a vote to "cockblock" is not logical at all. And that's the major reason why third party candidates struggle to get votes. If that mentality was gone, you'd see third party candidates standing a better chance. People should be voting for what they actually want. People shouldn't be childish or immature, as that would just leave the country in a mess.

Using your vote on someone who you think will actually be good for the country, as opposed to voting for the better of two evils, is the most logical thing you can do. Voting for the better of two evils is not logical, and will only continue to put the country into further debt. If you don't want people to vote for that party you hate so much, educate them.

Peps is going to have USA going back years of progress under his scary ideals. Throwing equal rights out of the window for the favor of moral relativism.

If you think that's the case, then you haven't been reading my points properly at all. Giving people more options is "scary"? Really? Giving a state's government of fairly elected individuals is "scary"? Nobody said anything about throwing rights away. Violating rights, and allowing the states to have a greater say in how they run their state, are two entirely different things.

Ireland has its own laws, and we haven't done anything stupid like legalise slavery. Granted I still think the country is a bit backwards from my moral perspective, but the only way I'll change that is if I discuss my moral viewpoint with others, or perhaps participate in politics myself. The UK, while nearby, has a different set of morals and viewpoints, and they're doing fine. Same with every other country in Europe.

Now, what you're saying is, is that state governments are untrustworthy, while the federal government are perfectly trustworthy. To me, that's scary. It's scary to let an entity like that have so much control. It's scary to think that people who don't even read the bills they're voting for to decide how every state is ran. It's scary to think that these same people who barely work as it is, are deciding on how my life is ran. It's scary to think how small I'd be, and how I'd be barely able to influence what goes on there.

Your ideals are terrifying.

 

[Lacius]

Morals are entirely based on emotions. I feel like there's nothing wrong with piracy.

Just because you can say "I feel like X" doesn't mean it's rooted "entirely in emotion." I can say "I feel like Y is guilty of murder," but that doesn't mean I came to the conclusion because of emotions; I came to the conclusion that Y is guilty because of logical reasoning. If I can ask you why you believe there's nothing wrong with piracy and you can walk me through the logical steps you used to come to that conclusion, it's a matter of logic; if it were arbitrarily based entirely on emotion, the only answer you could provide is "because I feel like it," and if that were the case, no one would take your views on the morality of piracy seriously.

People feel sickened by piracy. That's an emotion. People feel like 13 year old having sex is sickening, others think it's fine.

I've already argued for biological predispositions to morality; for example, people tend to have negative physiological responses if they commit murder. That's not to say morality is illogical, which is what you're arguing.

Sounds like you're confusing ethics with morals.

The words "ethics" and "morals" are synonymous.

You don't want to give citizens more options, I do. You don't want citizens to have a chance of changing immoral laws the federal governments imposes, I do. You don't want states to have a chance of tailoring and optimising federal laws towards their local society and economy, I do.

All of this comes with the fact that you also have to allow states to do immoral things like legalize slavery. You can't accept the good things about allowing states to do whatever they want but not the bad things. That's called cherry-picking.

I also said I wouldn't move on until you've either answered my two questions or conceded my points, and it appears you're unable to do either.

What if the federal government legalises slavery? What if the federal government bans evolution teachings? What if the federal government bans gay marriage?

And the federal government would be wrong to do so, just like any state would be wrong to do so. So what?

You clearly don't want options judging from what you've been saying. I want options, and I want citizens to have options.

You're arguing for the option of legalized slavery?

I like the way some people describe the states, you have "50 laboratories", and best practices and rules will spread naturally.

If history is any indication, the "best practices and rules" do not spread naturally. Abolishing slavery, for example, was only accomplished by dragging the South kicking and screaming.

Am I arguing that states should have no rights? Of course not. I am, however, arguing that the federal government, courts, etc. have a right and obligation to step in when a state has gotten it wrong.

Ties with terrorists? So what if a few citizens are a bit rebelious?

Reread the Wikipedia article, because it clearly talks about the Iranian government's ties with terrorism.

Give me proof that Israel wants the US to be involved.

I've already pasted a link.

Using a vote to "cockblock" is not logical at all.

Why not?

And that's the major reason why third party candidates struggle to get votes. If that mentality was gone, you'd see third party candidates standing a better chance.

No, the major reason why third-party candidates struggle to get votes is because they aren't popular enough among the electorate. Show me evidence that third-party candidates have a significant amount of support that's only circumvented by the fact that people are voting for major-party candidates when they'd rather have a third-party candidate.

People should be voting for what they actually want.

Except when ~99% of the electorate disagrees with them; if the goal is to help choose the winner of the election, then the logical thing to do is vote for your preferred candidate of the ones who have a chance at winning. Otherwise, one's vote is going to someone who cannot win.

Using your vote on someone who you think will actually be good for the country, as opposed to voting for the better of two evils, is the most logical thing you can do.

If I hated all of the candidates and thought I was the only person who would be good for the country, it would still be illogical for me to write myself in because I cannot possibly win, and that's why your argument is flawed.

Voting for the better of two evils is not logical, and will only continue to put the country into further debt.

Except that President Obama has offered a bipartisan plan that reduces the deficit, and we only have a deficit problem because of President George W. Bush's policies. You're right, however, that a vote for Governor Romney would "put the country into further debt."

 

[Deleted-185407]

Just because you can say "I feel like X" doesn't mean it's rooted "entirely in emotion." I can say "I feel like Y is guilty of murder," but that doesn't mean I came to the conclusion because of emotions; I came to the conclusion that Y is guilty because of logical reasoning. If I can ask you why you believe there's nothing wrong with piracy and you can walk me through the logical steps you used to come to that conclusion, it's a matter of logic; if it were arbitrarily based entirely on emotion, the only answer you could provide is "because I feel like it," and if that were the case, no one would take your views on the morality of piracy seriously.

I've already argued for biological predispositions to morality; for example, people tend to have negative physiological responses if they commit murder. That's not to say morality is illogical, which is what you're arguing.

The words "ethics" and "morals" are synonymous.

All of this comes with the fact that you also have to allow states to do immoral things like legalize slavery. You can't accept the good things about allowing states to do whatever they want but not the bad things. That's called cherry-picking.

I also said I wouldn't move on until you've either answered my two questions or conceded my points, and it appears you're unable to do either.

And the federal government would be wrong to do so, just like any state would be wrong to do so. So what?

You're arguing for the option of legalized slavery?

If history is any indication, the "best practices and rules" do not spread naturally. Abolishing slavery, for example, was only accomplished by dragging the South kicking and screaming.

Am I arguing that states should have no rights? Of course not. I am, however, arguing that the federal government, courts, etc. have a right and obligation to step in when a state has gotten it wrong.

Reread the Wikipedia article, because it clearly talks about the Iranian government's ties with terrorism.

I've already pasted a link.

Why not?

No, the major reason why third-party candidates struggle to get votes is because they aren't popular enough among the electorate. Show me evidence that third-party candidates have a significant amount of support that's only circumvented by the fact that people are voting for major-party candidates when they'd rather have a third-party candidate.

Except when ~99% of the electorate disagrees with them; if the goal is to help choose the winner of the election, then the logical thing to do is vote for your preferred candidate of the ones who have a chance at winning. Otherwise, one's vote is going to someone who cannot win.

If I hated all of the candidates and thought I was the only person who would be good for the country, it would still be illogical for me to write myself in because I cannot possibly win, and that's why your argument is flawed.

Except that President Obama has offered a bipartisan plan that reduces the deficit, and we only have a deficit problem because of President George W. Bush's policies. You're right, however, that a vote for Governor Romney would "put the country into further debt."

We can both construct a logical path as to how we come about to our morals, but it's still an emotion that's tied to that moral. People may feel like it's horribly wrong to "steal" from a developer regardless of the circumstances, even if they understand the logic behind it. Your spouse may cheat on you, yet you might not feel too bothered by it and will give them an opportunity to regain your trust, whereas others will be shocked and refuse to provide an opportunity. Feeling comfortable with something isn't necessarily completely tied to logic. But again, if you're going to take the approach that everything is tied to a logic response (which I do agree to now and then), then you're going to get on the wrong side of people very easily. You're not understanding human behaviour at all.

You've crushed your entire credibility about morals by stating that ethics and morals are the same. They're not. Morals are personal, ethics are more like rules that a society follows. In any company, you have a code of ethics, and if you breach those ethics, you could potentially put yourself into trouble. However, your morals may not coincide with that company's ethics, yet you have to follow them anyways. Let's tie it again to the piracy argument, I don't see a problem with it, which is my morals, yet the company's code of ethics state that I can't use their network to download illegal material. I don't see the problem with accepting a gift from a client, but some company's code of ethics will frown upon it because it can be considered a bribe. They're two very different things. (something else from college actually paid off, hurray!)

Your questions are completely meaningless because they don't prove that the federal government should be allowed to have control over issues either. But let's answer something here: What's so wrong with people having more options, and more power to get issues they want solved? You keep bringing back a ridiculous notion that states are immediately going to allow slavery should they get their way. I don't think any modern first world society is ever going to legalise slavery again. How long ago was slavery abolished? A very long time ago right? Don't you think people's morality would have changed since? If the federal government were to legalise slavery, states have no choice but to follow that ruling, even if they disagree with it. You're restricting people's options, and restricting their voice. You're restricting their ability to change things, and that's why it's better for states to have control. Honestly, I don't get why you states are going to resort back to the dark ages if they had more control over their social issues. You're going to have some unfortunate issues here and there, but the pros definitely outweigh the cons. Seems logical.

What's the big deal with having ties to terrorist organisations? The US is providing assistance to terrorist organisations, isn't that a tie? The US has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and are quite frankly terrifying. If you don't give people a reason to resort to force, then you and nobody else have nothing to fear. People don't take huge risks, unless they feel like it's their only option. You're going to have to re-post those links, and preferably not links to Wikipedia articles, but instead to credible sources.

As for the "cockblocking", easily proven, by the fact that everyone else keeps spreading that such and such a person is a waste of a vote. By stating someone is a waste of a vote, you're influencing people not to vote for that person. You see it all of the time in media. Majority of voters are not that politically interested, are easily influenced by media, and probably aren't even aware of all of their options. Opinions are very diverse amongst people, and the two-party system implies that there are only two types of voters. If voters were aware of all of their options and weren't influenced at all by media, the story would be very different. If a voter was told that a third-party candidate has a good chance of winning, do you think they're going to be influenced by that?

You're part of the problem, attempting to disenfranchise voters, when in fact, a vote for Obama is the same as a vote for Romney, which is the same as a vote for Johnson, which is the same as a vote for yourself, which is not the same as a vote for Pikachu. Your probability calculations may be correct, but it doesn't change the value of a vote, which is 1.

 

[KingVamp]

If you think that's the case, then you haven't been reading my points properly at all. Giving people more options is "scary"? Really? Giving a state's government of fairly elected individuals is "scary"? Nobody said anything about throwing rights away. Violating rights, and allowing the states to have a greater say in how they run their state, are two entirely different things.

Giving states even more room to violate the rights of others rather then giving more of a push to give
equal rights to everyone is scary.

Ireland has its own laws, and we haven't done anything stupid like legalise slavery. Granted I still think the country is a bit backwards from my moral perspective, but the only way I'll change that is if I discuss my moral viewpoint with others, or perhaps participate in politics myself. The UK, while nearby, has a different set of morals and viewpoints, and they're doing fine. Same with every other country in Europe.

Didn't happen here therefor , surely, none of the 50 states of America wouldn't do something to violate rights. Do you know how big USA is?

What's to stop slavery or the killing of a group, if the majority of the state wants that and the federal nor other states can't step in to stop such violating of rights?

Now, what you're saying is, is that state governments are untrustworthy, while the federal government are perfectly trustworthy. To me, that's scary. It's scary to let an entity like that have so much control. It's scary to think that people who don't even read the bills they're voting for to decide how every state is ran. It's scary to think that these same people who barely work as it is, are deciding on how my life is ran. It's scary to think how small I'd be, and how I'd be barely able to influence what goes on there.

Your ideals are terrifying.

The ideals of state governments being untrustworthy, while the federal government are perfectly trustworthy is terrifying, it's a good thing that isn't my ideal.

It scary how all that can happen in a state and no one out of that state can do anything about it.

It's funny that you say "how small I'd be in making a influence, and how I'd be barely able to influence what goes on there" when you are welling to throw away your vote for a statement rather vote for the best of the Country. When you want push away federal government when it is a way to get outside help from other states when you are a minority in a state that want to take away your rights.




No, federal government isn't perfect, but when it works it works well.


Not completely related,but...