Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress?


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 635 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ciretose wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Neither of which ended well.

Depends on when you call the end.
I think the Terror by the Jacobins and and the War between the Reds and the Whites ended the peaceful transition to an ideologically optimal governance part of the discussion.

People talk a lot of crap about the Reign of Terror, but the Jacobins came to power something like two years after the beginning of the War of the First Coalition (which Robespierre had opposed) and six months after the previous government had provoked the Catholic-royalist revolt in the Vendee.

But in both cases, you're talking about conflicts created by civil war situations in which the counterrevolutionaries were allied with foreign invaders (Prussia and Austria in the first, a coalition of something like 14 imperialist powers, including the USA, in the second) to try to crush the revolution.

So, I take your argument to mean: the ruling class will rather ally with foreign invaders and shoot us down in the streets rather than share their shiznit. To which I reply, "yeah, I know" and provide a pithy Frederick Douglass quote: Power concedes nothing without a struggle.

And before A Man in Black comes in here and starts talking about how I want to pile the bodies in the street, I would ask: How many bodies are stacked up in the streets right now? In Falluja? Najaf? Majer? Kandahar? etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Actually my argument is that people want needs met, and don't particularly care how it is done.

If you take Maslow's hierarchy of needs and you fulfill them, you don't get overthrown. If you don't, you may.

If you take over a country and don't meet Maslow's hierarchy of needs either, they will overthrow you to. Regardless of good your intentions or plans are.

The terror came because the people had no bread and the government was trying to put down a revolution of people who had just overthrown the previous government.

They wanted someone who could give them bread, be it a King or a Commune.

And when the Jacobin's couldn't feed them, the Jacobin's resorted to the terror to maintain power.

Despite the noble intentions, man is a base creature. Leaders are leaders because they seek power, and the rest allow them to keep power if their needs are met.

Remove food, the revolt. Endanger security...well...just ask Goebbels about how you use that.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AdAstraGames wrote:
Yet white-on-black crime is always racism. Always. It's always yet another incident in the litany of bondage and woe.

I don't know what part of the planet you're coming from. There are lots of white on black crimes (in addition to the other types) recorded every day in New York. The vast majority of them are NOT prosecuted as Hate crimes. Most Hate crimes prosecuted in New York are Anti-Semitic, some of them Black on Semitic which was a major problem about a decade ago, following some highly publiscised incidents involving the Hassidic community.

The Black Culture is no more dysfunctional than any other minority culture whose members are jailed more than the rest, find themselves a disproportionate part of the unemployed population, and the rest of the package that comes with being considered a second class citizen in this country. The culture is not dysfunctional, it's poverty that's dysfunctional, especially in this country, which directs so much hate on the poor.... of any race.


Frogboy

Full Text study
Discover Magazine summary
Recent study showing women get lower pay in science. Using solely name differences at the top of resumes, there was over a $3000 pay difference in what employers were willing to pay male vs female college graduates in science fields with the exact same resumes. They also rated compotence for women lower. Similar studies have been done with ethnic names. Saying there is no problem now is a lie, and saying a free market will eliminate the problem is naieve when existing laws allowing people to sue has only made a dent.


Caineach wrote:

Frogboy

Full Text study
Discover Magazine summary
Recent study showing women get lower pay in science. Using solely name differences at the top of resumes, there was over a $3000 pay difference in what employers were willing to pay male vs female college graduates in science fields with the exact same resumes. They also rated compotence for women lower. Similar studies have been done with ethnic names. Saying there is no problem now is a lie, and saying a free market will eliminate the problem is naieve when existing laws allowing people to sue has only made a dent.

There have also been studies with actual interviews, showing whites were more likely to be hired and for better positions.

Liberty's Edge

I find it incredulous that someone could work in mortgage banking and be in denial about white privilege.

Redlining and reverse redlining are alive and well. Wells Fargo settled a pile of lawsuits this summer about it.


Yes, quite a bundle, IIRC.


ciretose wrote:

Actually my argument is that people want needs met, and don't particularly care how it is done.

Good stuff, (I say begrudgingly), but I still like my post, even if I misunderstood your point.


Dagnab messageboards going down, now I don't remember what else I wanted to say!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Dagnab messageboards going down, now I don't remember what else I wanted to say!

Hold on, I got this one for ya!

Blah blah blah VIOLENT SOCIALIST REVOLUTION!!

Blah blah blah vive le shmaltz!

EDIT: *bubble bubble bubble*


Oh yeah. Thanks, Meatrace.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes, quite a bundle, IIRC.

A bundle to those of us who work for a living.

It wasn't a blip on the bank's radar though.

Which is one of the main issues with modern regulation. The penalties are so weak that most of the time the criminal corporation still made a pile of money by breaking the law.


Agreed.


Scott Betts wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
And he was opposed to gay marriage when he was elected. He's not causing change. Change is altering his policy.

He was opposed to gay marriage prior to his election because it was seen as a politically volatile topic that might cost him the Presidency were it to become public knowledge that he supported gay marriage - a fear that turned out to be well-founded, as California made gay marriage illegal via popular vote the very same day Obama was elected.

Obama was never privately opposed to gay marriage, no matter what he said while campaigning. His "evolution" on the topic was more like a slow reveal.

And one more example of Obama-mind-reading skills...of course, the reasonable supposition that he just didn't give a damn and did what he thought would render him more political power is not a possibility. It is funny that I was duped by Obama initially, thinking that he was a great guy without any evidence for it, but as evidence to the contrary mounted, I naturally abandoned that idea. It seems that a much more common approach is to follow on with your personal assumption of what goes on in the guy's head and explain away everything that shows the contrary.


Even if he hasn't been fully committed to gay rights, Obama has still presided over advances and done far more than a republican candidate has ever promised to do. More could have been done. More still needs to be done.

The odds of a third party candidate winning are so slim that it isn't a serious possibility. So if you're voting on gay rights, you have to decide, do I want to vote symbolically, or do I want to ensure that the White House is at least willing to consider advancing gay rights.

Choices:
Vote symbolically
Vote for opposition to gay rights
vote for limited progress on gay rights

Faster rights would be better, but for swift and immediate change, we would need a congress amenable to voting for such change, as well as a president who supports it.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
And he was opposed to gay marriage when he was elected. He's not causing change. Change is altering his policy.

He was opposed to gay marriage prior to his election because it was seen as a politically volatile topic that might cost him the Presidency were it to become public knowledge that he supported gay marriage - a fear that turned out to be well-founded, as California made gay marriage illegal via popular vote the very same day Obama was elected.

Obama was never privately opposed to gay marriage, no matter what he said while campaigning. His "evolution" on the topic was more like a slow reveal.

And one more example of Obama-mind-reading skills...of course, the reasonable supposition that he just didn't give a damn and did what he thought would render him more political power is not a possibility. It is funny that I was duped by Obama initially, thinking that he was a great guy without any evidence for it, but as evidence to the contrary mounted, I naturally abandoned that idea. It seems that a much more common approach is to follow on with your personal assumption of what goes on in the guy's head and explain away everything that shows the contrary.

Right, because Obama's comments dating back to 1996 supporting gay rights have no bearing on Scott's opinion.


Caineach wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
And he was opposed to gay marriage when he was elected. He's not causing change. Change is altering his policy.

He was opposed to gay marriage prior to his election because it was seen as a politically volatile topic that might cost him the Presidency were it to become public knowledge that he supported gay marriage - a fear that turned out to be well-founded, as California made gay marriage illegal via popular vote the very same day Obama was elected.

Obama was never privately opposed to gay marriage, no matter what he said while campaigning. His "evolution" on the topic was more like a slow reveal.

And one more example of Obama-mind-reading skills...of course, the reasonable supposition that he just didn't give a damn and did what he thought would render him more political power is not a possibility. It is funny that I was duped by Obama initially, thinking that he was a great guy without any evidence for it, but as evidence to the contrary mounted, I naturally abandoned that idea. It seems that a much more common approach is to follow on with your personal assumption of what goes on in the guy's head and explain away everything that shows the contrary.
Right, because Obama's comments dating back to 1996 supporting gay rights have no bearing on Scott's opinion.

You do know that a public speech or interview does not count as knowledge concerning what one "privately opposes" or condones, right?


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
And he was opposed to gay marriage when he was elected. He's not causing change. Change is altering his policy.

He was opposed to gay marriage prior to his election because it was seen as a politically volatile topic that might cost him the Presidency were it to become public knowledge that he supported gay marriage - a fear that turned out to be well-founded, as California made gay marriage illegal via popular vote the very same day Obama was elected.

Obama was never privately opposed to gay marriage, no matter what he said while campaigning. His "evolution" on the topic was more like a slow reveal.

And one more example of Obama-mind-reading skills...of course, the reasonable supposition that he just didn't give a damn and did what he thought would render him more political power is not a possibility. It is funny that I was duped by Obama initially, thinking that he was a great guy without any evidence for it, but as evidence to the contrary mounted, I naturally abandoned that idea. It seems that a much more common approach is to follow on with your personal assumption of what goes on in the guy's head and explain away everything that shows the contrary.
Right, because Obama's comments dating back to 1996 supporting gay rights have no bearing on Scott's opinion.
You do know that a public speech or interview does not count as knowledge concerning what one "privately opposes" or condones, right?

Now who is reading minds.


Just to be clear:

I think that Obama's position for gay rights was one of he few good (actually great) things he did during his time as president. What I am trying to point out is that this does not imply that his move was not based more on political calculation than personal belief.

In fact, given that Obama has shown no qualms about using doublespeak in relation to his foreign policy (like his great speech in the UN about all the great values he has been working against), it is not a stretch to assume that the same holds for other political issues.


meatrace wrote:
Now who is reading minds.

Maybe I am thick, but I didn't get it, so I cannot answer your comment properly =P


Ooh ooh! Someone read my mind!


Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Just to be clear:

I think that Obama's position for gay rights was one of he few good (actually great) things he did during his time as president. What I am trying to point out is that this does not imply that his move was not based more on political calculation than personal belief.

In fact, given that Obama has shown no qualms about using doublespeak in relation to his foreign policy (like his great speech in the UN about all the great values he has been working against), it is not a stretch to assume that the same holds for other political issues.

Honestly, I don't care what any politician's private positions are. All I care about is their public actions.

If Romney secretly has gay friends and doesn't really buy into the gay-bashing, I don't care. He's tied himself to the anti-gay agenda.
If Obama is secretly disgusted by the very idea of homosexuality, I don't care. He hasn't done as much as I'd hope, but he's done more than I expected, so I'll back him.
Reading his mind is irrelevant.


I'm getting an image...you're thinking of French fries, aren't you?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm getting an image...you're thinking of French fries, aren't you?

I am! Fries are awesome.


thejeff wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Just to be clear:

I think that Obama's position for gay rights was one of he few good (actually great) things he did during his time as president. What I am trying to point out is that this does not imply that his move was not based more on political calculation than personal belief.

In fact, given that Obama has shown no qualms about using doublespeak in relation to his foreign policy (like his great speech in the UN about all the great values he has been working against), it is not a stretch to assume that the same holds for other political issues.

Honestly, I don't care what any politician's private positions are. All I care about is their public actions.

If Romney secretly has gay friends and doesn't really buy into the gay-bashing, I don't care. He's tied himself to the anti-gay agenda.
If Obama is secretly disgusted by the very idea of homosexuality, I don't care. He hasn't done as much as I'd hope, but he's done more than I expected, so I'll back him.
Reading his mind is irrelevant.

Me neither. That is only one of the many reasons I don't use my views on a politician's private feelings as arguments in a political discussion.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
And one more example of Obama-mind-reading skills...

I like how close study of an individual's past statements and policies combined with logical conjecture based on correlation between support for a particular position and support for similar positions on other issues is now considered mind-reading.

What makes you think that Obama felt ANY need whatsoever to come out publicly in support of gay marriage? The country is just barely reaching majority support for the idea (and is still opposed by the majority in some of the states that are most prized in the election), and it's not like holding his prior position would have caused him to lose significant number of votes, or supporting gay marriage would gain him votes. People for whom gay marriage support would be a deciding factor on who to vote for are not the sort of person who would have supported Romney for President, by and large.

Obama didn't come out in support of gay marriage because he thought it would win him points. He came out in support of it because he figured he could now do that without risking the solvency of his Presidency.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Ooh ooh! Someone read my mind!

International proletariat socialist revolution?


Scott Betts wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
And one more example of Obama-mind-reading skills...

I like how close study of an individual's past statements and policies combined with logical conjecture based on correlation between support for a particular position and support for similar positions on other issues is now considered mind-reading.

What makes you think that Obama felt ANY need whatsoever to come out publicly in support of gay marriage? The country is just barely reaching majority support for the idea (and is still opposed by the majority in some of the states that are most prized in the election), and it's not like holding his prior position would have caused him to lose significant number of votes, or supporting gay marriage would gain him votes. People for whom gay marriage support would be a deciding factor on who to vote for are not the sort of person who would have supported Romney for President, by and large.

Obama didn't come out in support of gay marriage because he thought it would win him points. He came out in support of it because he figured he could now do that without risking the solvency of his Presidency.

Just another way of attacking him: It switches instantly from "Obama's not supporting gay rights because he's a political coward" to "Obama's only supporting gay rights because he's a political opportunist". As if the political impact swung massively overnight.


TOZ wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Ooh ooh! Someone read my mind!
International proletariat socialist revolution?

Holy shiznit! TOZ is psychic!


thejeff wrote:

Just another way of attacking him: It switches instantly from "Obama's not supporting gay rights because he's a political coward" to "Obama's only supporting gay rights because he's a political opportunist". As if the political impact swung massively overnight.

The only "fair" attack that can be leveled is that Obama didn't come out vocally and forcefully in support of gay marriage from the beginning of the 2008 season. Of course, if he had, there's a pretty solid chance that it would have single-handedly destroyed his chances of becoming President (he may still have clinched the nomination, as the galvanizing effect of clear gay marriage support might have outweighed the drop in perceived electability), and that would have meant a McCain/Palin administration for at least four years.

I will be clear, then: the options were a) stay moderate on the issue of gay marriage and tackle it down the road, or b) risk a Republican-controlled administration. I wonder which option those attacking Obama over this would have preferred.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Ooh ooh! Someone read my mind!

Hmm... I'm getting the Grateful Dead playing O Tannenbaum.

And the munchies.


Gott in Himmel!

15 minutes later, that's exactly what I'm thinking about!

Krensky (Kerensky? Stooge!) is a psychic, too!


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
And one more example of Obama-mind-reading skills...

I like how close study of an individual's past statements and policies combined with logical conjecture based on correlation between support for a particular position and support for similar positions on other issues is now considered mind-reading.

What makes you think that Obama felt ANY need whatsoever to come out publicly in support of gay marriage? The country is just barely reaching majority support for the idea (and is still opposed by the majority in some of the states that are most prized in the election), and it's not like holding his prior position would have caused him to lose significant number of votes, or supporting gay marriage would gain him votes. People for whom gay marriage support would be a deciding factor on who to vote for are not the sort of person who would have supported Romney for President, by and large.

Obama didn't come out in support of gay marriage because he thought it would win him points. He came out in support of it because he figured he could now do that without risking the solvency of his Presidency.

Just another way of attacking him: It switches instantly from "Obama's not supporting gay rights because he's a political coward" to "Obama's only supporting gay rights because he's a political opportunist". As if the political impact swung massively overnight.

Nope, and you are actually doing the same thing here: projecting your personal opinions on the reasons someone has for taking actions into their heads. I am actually grateful for the position Obama took concerning gay rights and I don't actually care why he did it, as I stated in a previous post.

My point is merely this: people can argue all they want about the motivations the president has for acting like he does. They just should not pretend that they are privy to those motivations.

This same fallacy is being used in debates in which Obama's actions cannot be cast in a positive light by means of the available data.
First, it is established that Obama is a Good Guy(TM) since he has done the right thing a couple of times (which he certainly did).
It "follows" that his awful and disgusting policies in other arenas must have some very good reason, because, you know, he's just a great guy. He would never to those awful things without a Very Good Reason since he has done good elsewhere.

That is why I think any kind of consideration of what goes on in Obama's head and of what kind of person he is "really like" does not belong in a serious political debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless it's TOZ or Krensky. They're bona fide mind-readers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
And he was opposed to gay marriage when he was elected. He's not causing change. Change is altering his policy.

He was opposed to gay marriage prior to his election because it was seen as a politically volatile topic that might cost him the Presidency were it to become public knowledge that he supported gay marriage - a fear that turned out to be well-founded, as California made gay marriage illegal via popular vote the very same day Obama was elected.

Obama was never privately opposed to gay marriage, no matter what he said while campaigning. His "evolution" on the topic was more like a slow reveal.

And one more example of Obama-mind-reading skills...of course, the reasonable supposition that he just didn't give a damn and did what he thought would render him more political power is not a possibility. It is funny that I was duped by Obama initially, thinking that he was a great guy without any evidence for it, but as evidence to the contrary mounted, I naturally abandoned that idea. It seems that a much more common approach is to follow on with your personal assumption of what goes on in the guy's head and explain away everything that shows the contrary.

My vote for Obama isn't going to be based on a personal adoration for the man. I've had and will no doubt continue to have problems with it.

But despite any equivocations or nigglings you want to bring up, from a pure pragmatic viewpoint. I have to ask myself this question.

I am currently in a gay marriage that I did not intend but is fully legal right now. Of these two men, one has more backing from groups who want to reduce that marriage to a sub-legal status, and the other is villified by the same people.

I can add 2+2 and come up with the answer of which of them is the smarter choice to vote for. What they've done in the past, including Romney's onetime support and Obama's onetime silence is irrelevant. The platforms that they are running on now are the ones we're voting on. If you don't see a difference than I can only conclude you're being willfully blind.


The kids have been showing me tumblr and I found this.

Different times...


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm getting an image...you're thinking of French fries, aren't you?

Freedom fires, Comrade; Freedom fries.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

The kids have been showing me tumblr and I found this.

Different times...

That's awesome!!!!

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

The kids have been showing me tumblr and I found this.

Different times...

It's important to remember that Ike ran on a pro-labor, pro-peace platform. And before you bring up Iran and what not, it's important to remember that he felt the alternative was a nuclear war with the USSR. He was almost certainly wrong, but he was motivated by a desire to avoid World War III.

Oh, yeah.

Bolshevic.

;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Libertarians are dumb because they think removing government won't lead to centralized monopolistic corporate entities that look out only for the interest of the company while functionally acting just as disruptively to the magically "Free" market as any government force, despite all evidence of history showing this is exactly what occurs. Left unchecked, power consolodates and seeks to remain in power by crushing competition. Government is the arbitor and equalizer that prevents the consolidation of the free market, not the other way around.

This is [mostly] false. I hear it a lot from progressives but it's essentially a myth. The best way to prevent monopolies is to limit the government to avoid crony capitalism. The only kind of monopoly that can exist in a free market is an efficiency monopoly. This is when a company produces a product or service that is so superior (and continues to remain so) that no one else feels that they can compete in the same market. This isn't a bad thing.

A coercive monopoly is what we normally think of when we use the term monopoly. These can only exist [for long] when they use government to crush competition by creating rules and regulations that prevent competition and often extract subsidies or special tax breaks that other businesses don't receive. A free market provides an even playing field, maximum economic freedom, creates lots of competition and brings down the prices. Coercive monopolies can not exist in this environment. If free markets would benefit large, mega-corporations then why don't large, mega-corporations support free markets?

ciretose wrote:

A little over 4 years ago, on September 15th 2008 Lehman Brothers declared bankrupcy. The entire financial system was in collaspe because deregulating the free market had failed. Don't give me the "Fanny" or "Freddie" crap, it was people investing in instruments they didn't understand and passing off risk on each other as they consolidated power. It was lack of oversight by an impartial outside resource.

It was a failure of governance.

Uhg! Another progressive fallacy. Austrian economists are totally in favor of free markets and deregulation yet were also the ones who were warning everyone that a housing bubble was forming and would wreak havoc on the economy. How do you explain this paradox?

ciretose wrote:
Four years later, 3 and a half after Obama took office, if you don't think we are better off than when we weren't sure if the entire financial system would collapse you are full of crap.

I am actually about the same. I was the only person in my company besides my boss who hasn't lost his job since the financial meltdown. I was one of the lucky ones. This doesn't mean that the White House's policies have been very stellar since the crash or have been good for the economy. We continue to slowly claw and drag our way out of this recession while, if handled properly, would likely be be a fading memory. And now their great idea to rescue the economy is to create another housing bubble.

ciretose wrote:

Romney is offering the same philosophy that caused that collapse. That caused the explosion of Debt under Reagan that lead to the SNL crisis and the Recession of 1991 that got Clinton Elected despite Bush Sr winning a war in Iraq.

This philosophy is dumb.

This is likely true. Even though Republicans champion free markets and small government, it's nothing but rhetoric for all but the truly conservative.

Scott Betts wrote:

Obama has not gone back on most of his campaign promises. Politifact tracks the status of the President's campaign promises versus policy enacted to fulfill them. Fully 59% of Obama's promises have been kept or are rated as being in the works. Another 15% were compromised on in order to bring them about. 9% were stalled. Only 17% of Obama's campaign promises are rated as 'Promise Broken'.

Please stop spreading quasi-fashionable mis-truths.

He has gone back on virtually all of the ones that I care about and may vote for him had he kept. The promises that he has kept are either minor or just plain bad policies that will likely fail to make any kind of meaningful impact.

LazarX wrote:

My vote for Obama isn't going to be based on a personal adoration for the man. I've had and will no doubt continue to have problems with it.

But despite any equivocations or nigglings you want to bring up, from a pure pragmatic viewpoint. I have to ask myself this question.

I am currently in a gay marriage that I did not intend but is fully legal right now. Of these two men, one has more backing from groups who want to reduce that marriage to a sub-legal status, and the other is villified by the same people.

I can add 2+2 and come up with the answer of which of them is the smarter choice to vote for. What they've done in the past, including Romney's onetime support and Obama's onetime silence is irrelevant. The platforms that they are running... [/QUOTE

I understand your position and desire for Obama over Romney. I too would desire a government that no longer discriminates against gays and lesbians as this would bring us closer to the equality that I seek.

Unfortunately, the whole "any male we happen to kill in the the Middle East that is old enough to hold a gun is a terrorist" policy weighs on my conscious even more. Also, not only is Gary Johnson for gay marriage (and even said this in the Republican primaries) supporting him and convincing others to support him will likely help Obama get reelected more than it'll help Romney. But the win for us libertarians will hopefully be the public awareness that hopefully ensues about the candidate that they never even heard of that still somehow grabbed 5%-10% of the popular vote.


LazarX wrote:


My vote for Obama isn't going to be based on a personal adoration for the man. I've had and will no doubt continue to have problems with it.

But despite any equivocations or nigglings you want to bring up, from a pure pragmatic viewpoint. I have to ask myself this question.

I am currently in a gay marriage that I did not intend but is fully legal right now. Of these two men, one has more backing from groups who want to reduce that marriage to a sub-legal status, and the other is villified by the same people.

I can add 2+2 and come up with the answer of which of them is the smarter choice to vote for. What they've done in the past, including Romney's onetime support and Obama's onetime silence is irrelevant. The platforms that they are running on now are the ones we're voting on. If you don't see a difference than I can only conclude you're being willfully blind.

Warning: wall of text

Hey LazarX, I can fully understand your situation, and I can see why you would prefer to have Obama as a president over Romney. This is not my problem with Obama. I do think he's shown that his presidency favors gay rights. This is not what I am talking about.

First I'd like to know if, at any moment during this discussion I stated, or even implied, that their platforms on this issue are equal, in order to merit that snipe concerning my incapacity, or worse, my unwillingness to see the difference between their platforms.

Ok, back to the discussion at hand. I have two main points in this conversation. The first one has to do with a particular line of argumentation which I think hampers and obfuscates the debate. I have stated what is my point over and over so I will no bother to repeat it. You were not the one who made the comments which initiated my response, and I just want to repeat that I do not think that whatever Obama thinks or calculates or whatever, has any relevance to the great thing that he has made by advancing gay rights and putting it explicitly in his political agenda.

My second point is less directed to particular forms of argumentation and has more to do with the matter at hand. Though these two candidates are certainly not equal in terms of important issues like gay rights, they present many similarities in quite important topics, particularly foreign policy and civil liberties. One of the reasons these topics are of foremost importance, in my opinion, is that the possibility of dissent is essential to enact transformations like those that were necessary for the evolution of the gay movement. And the way the US sees its enemies and its wars has a fundamental influence on how civil liberties will be treated, and what kind of dissent will be possible. There are American journalists and activists which are being constantly harassed by your government, all in order to "protect the homeland". There have been police searches, seizing political literature as "evidence" in the persecution of OWS activists. Whistleblowers are being persecuted in an unprecedent scale. Bradley Manning has been submitted to conditions which can only be described as torture. If these things do not sound a loud alarm in your head, they should. The existence and establishment of these policies is a perpetual danger for the rights of anyone and everyone.

There is one thing that the Obama presidency has managed to do that not even Bush was capable of: establishing odious policies without any kind of mainstream opposition. Many of Obama's decisions concerning these questions would have made Democrats scream if they had been made by Bush, but are accepted with complacency and, many times, even with applause, since they have been made by Obama. Thus, Obama can make, and has made, decisions unfettered by any kind of regulatory counterforce. So I ask: as you support Obama over a third party candidate, do you plan to engage politically to prevent your candidate from promoting these policies even more, or are you basically ok with all that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except Ron Paul didn't ACCURATELY predict the housing bubble. He predicted a housing bubble, but it didn't happen for the reasons he claimed.

Fanny and Freddie contributed to the crisis, but Wall Street was the primary driver.

If anyone predicted the housing crisis, it was Brooksley Born in 1998. She correctly identified that a completely dark market existed without regulation, control or even disclosure.

The housing bubble was created by bad loans.

The financial crisis was created by an over-leveraged derivatives market. Merril Lynch took a package of bad loans and leveraged it 50 times at the peak.


And Steve Keene. Look him up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm getting an image...you're thinking of French fries, aren't you?
Freedom fires, Comrade; Freedom fries.

Eat frog legs, you Bush toady !!

(But you can continue buying french wine to spill it in the streets, as it's good for our export balance, and for a quick laugh too).

Dark Archive

Keep in mind the Popular Vote does not choose the President. The Electoral College does as proved when Gore ran. He won the Popular Vote but his home states Electoral College voters voted against him so he lost...... Not that I'm a Gore gm just wanted to point this out. Our forefathers did not think the American populace capacity of choosing its own supreme leader.

Liberty's Edge

@Frogboy - When the world was completely free of government, individual landowners consolidated power by force to create monopolies of scale.

They were called Kings, and it was the Dark Ages, and it sucked.

The free market does not self regulate in the long run. The free market consolidates.

A free market can more quickly and efficiently self regulate than a central market with regulation and oversight from powers that have no specific vested interests in picking winners or losers, but rather only in promoting the general interests.

Lehman collapses because they took risks that failed. It mattered because Lehman was allowed to become so large that their bankruptcy was untenable for the financial system as a whole.

The free market isn't magical. It is a tool. The free market has existed since man learned to walk upright, but efficient business has only existed since centralized governments were able to regulate trade.

That isn't a coincidence.


I wonder how things would change if there were over three candidates and every voter got two votes, each if which must be used on a different party.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
. So I ask: as you support Obama over a third party candidate, do you plan to engage politically to prevent your candidate from promoting these policies even more, or are you basically ok with all that?

There is no such thing as a third party candidate, just because more than two names will be appearing on the ballot in Election Day. (assuming of course birther madness doesn't take Obama's name off in your state.)

The question is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if third party candidates were actually a real choice. Fact of the matter is that we don't have one this time. One only has to look at what happened with Ralph Nader as an example. No third party has a real shot at the golden ring with out the building the base support for that run. Nader had support from some progressives and sympathy from a lot more who were in league with the causes he dedicated his life to. But most of those people still voted Democratic (or some Republican) when it came to the polls Election Night. If Nader himself could not build that needed bridge to get the numbers in, how would anyone else this year have a chance?

A third party has to build in for the long game, you can't short cut your way to the top office without building lots and lots of local presence. None of those third party candidates has built that presence in New Jersey. So none of them have ANY chance of getting New Jersey's Electoral Votes. That's the system we have, like it or lump it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:


The free market isn't magical. It is a tool. The free market has existed since man learned to walk upright, but efficient business has only existed since centralized governments were able to regulate trade.

That isn't a coincidence.

Actually the Free Market has never existed before. Hunter gathers evolved into tribal economies which then became autocratic.

When town economies developed as an evolution of the feudal period, tradesman created guilds to enforce price controls. When Laisezze-faire capitolism ruled the roost in the Industrial Revolution, the dominant companies quickly formed monopolies which took government regulation to break.

Lots of people talk about this magical thing called the "Free Market". It makes for interesting theoretical discussion, but I've yet to see evidence that any such ever existed in the wild for any appreciable length of time.


LazarX wrote:
ciretose wrote:


The free market isn't magical. It is a tool. The free market has existed since man learned to walk upright, but efficient business has only existed since centralized governments were able to regulate trade.

That isn't a coincidence.

Actually the Free Market has never existed before. Hunter gathers evolved into tribal economies which then became autocratic.

When town economies developed as an evolution of the feudal period, tradesman created guilds to enforce price controls. When Laisezze-faire capitolism ruled the roost in the Industrial Revolution, the dominant companies quickly formed monopolies which took government regulation to break.

Lots of people talk about this magical thing called the "Free Market". It makes for interesting theoretical discussion, but I've yet to see evidence that any such ever existed in the wild for any appreciable length of time.

I think WOW servers may have qualified at one time. Even there you had price fixing -my friend was on a small server that only had a few blacksmiths and were able to set all prices. But early on WOW gold was one of the most stable currencies in the world, and it has the unique aspect of anyone being able to produce a good with minimal startup costs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
LazarX wrote:


I think WOW servers may have qualified at one time. Even there you had price fixing -my friend was on a small server that only had a few blacksmiths and were able to set all prices. But early on WOW gold was one of the most stable currencies in the world, and it has the unique aspect of anyone being able to produce a good with minimal startup costs.

WOW doesn't qualify because the economy doesn't exist for anything outside what would be considred luxury goods. Your character doesn't spend money to eat, or even to rent a roof over their heads. It's all spent on buying or repairing gear. If anything WOW is exactly the Gold Rush economy that makes my point.

351 to 400 of 635 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.