United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stumpokapow said:
I don't plan on continuing to talk to you if you think I'm manipulative and a liar. My posting record and my background in these issues stand for themselves.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen you say "A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Mitt Romney". If you have, then yes, you are lying.
 
I voted for Obama, but now I'm wishing I went Rombo.

This would be a much more interesting place with him as prez. Maybe he'll pull it off despite me...
 
Cheebo said:
I think he has that avatar ironically. No way he's crazy enough to want Romney to win.
Click to expand...

Hillary-Clinton-addresses-007.jpg
 
Ceebs said:
Voted against that one!
Click to expand...

Yep. But the wording was a bit off. A lot of people will vote for it probably not realizing wtf it actually does.

Funny but not surprising. Obama was the only Democrat on my ballot. Bird Bird got a lot of write-ins.
 
Stumpokapow said:
Yes, people contradict themselves. No, people aren't entirely consistent. Yes, people compartmentalize. But despite this, awareness and relevance of issues are connected. It strikes me that a voter for whom those are the only relevant issues is either willfully blind to other issues or is materially misrepresenting their awareness of those issues and ability to contextualize them.
Click to expand...
The population is diverse and people have opinions. Some people have different priorities, and some people differ on their opinion in how to best represent them. Calling an honest voter misguided or willfully blind is a tad disrespectful. Single issue voting is a thing.

Remember,

Stumpokapow said:
there's no reason to impugn someone's motives.
Click to expand...




Stumpokapow said:
Second, it is hard to believe that someone would be concerned by the prison-industrial complex as embodied by the drug war, understand that it leads to the unjust detention of the urban poor and not see a particular issue--say, you don't like three strikes laws, mandatory minimums, racial disparities in drug sentencing, the death penalty, unequal access to justice, corrupt state judges, prosecutorial malfeasance, etc--that manifests itself in such a way that the two major parties aren't thrown into sharp relief.
Click to expand...
The rhetoric might differ, but the data hasn't changed much. In many ways, it's just become worse.

Stumpokapow said:
Third, and finally, I don't accept that even given that you choose an issue that presidential candidates are nominally identical on, that the outcome will be the same. You have a sense of who the candidates will delegate to. You have a sense of what kind of people in the room. You can research to get a sense of whether or not they're likely to listen to dissenting views in the room. You know that on many issues congress is important--and so perhaps this issue is well served by having a president who is better at cooperating with congress, or perhaps this issue is well served by having congress being incentivized to powerfully check the president. Even if both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama like puppies, they don't like puppies in the same way.
Click to expand...
That might work, if there were a higher correlation between what candidates say and what they end up doing.

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/interesting_day/

My observation is that voters often - perhaps usually - don't get what they think they voted for. Nixon surprised everyone by getting cuddly with China. Bush Junior turned from isolationist to military adventurer. Obama went from weed-friendly to badass destroyer of state-approved dispensaries. Some fiscal conservatives have blown up the budget while some free-spending Democrats balanced it. If you think you can predict how a candidate will act in office, you might need a history lesson, or perhaps a booster shot of humility.
Click to expand...


Stumpokapow said:
I don't want to represent anyone else on GAF so if you get the impression there are partisan democrats here playing the party game while using a veneer of objectivity, call them out. As long as you're responding to me, though, use my post history as a barometer rather than any pre-conceived notions you have about people holding a similar stance to mine.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about you, specifically, or anyone on GAF, specifically. I was speaking in generalities. I was also referencing this article:

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/

During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed, as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll today demonstrates:
Click to expand...
 
Stumpokapow said:
It's not a manipulative lie and there's no reason to impugn someone's motives. I think several lengthy cases have been made in this thread on the subject that it would be pretty difficult, even if you disagreed, to assume everyone who holds that position is running flim-flam.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to lie - I'm a bit suspicious of most friends that make the argument "voting for independent x is like voting for enemy opposition z".

Mind pointing me to a post that explains that position?
 
Hitokage said:
Not just mistaken or mischaracterizing the situation, but lying!
Click to expand...

It is objectively untrue. If you want to quibble over whether it is an ignorant statement or a lie, feel free. I tend to have a high opinion of GAF posters' intelligence, so when they make an obviously untrue statement I consider it a lie.

I don't even know why Stump is arguing with me if he hasn't said this. My problem was with this comment:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44043085&postcount=3484
 
Kettch said:
It is objectively untrue. If you want to quibble over whether it is an ignorant statement or a lie, feel free. I tend to have a high opinion of GAF posters' intelligence, so when they make an obviously untrue statement I consider it a lie.

I don't even know why Stump is arguing with me if he hasn't said this. My problem was with this comment:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44043085&postcount=3484
Click to expand...

If you vote for a third party in a swing state you are not technically voting for Romney but he would sure as shit thank you for the vote.
 
pompidu said:
Christ dude, don't vote for nither. If your taking this long to decide you shouldn't be voting for either canidate.
Click to expand...

I don't follow politics at all so the past 60 minutes has been filled with research.

The truth of the matter is that I probably won't vote for either of the two main choices.
 
Stumpokapow said:
Vote Romney. On the issues you have identified on GAF as being the most important to you, there's not likely to be a huge amount of difference, however as far as the supreme court is concerned, your values are better served by Mitt Romney as president. A DOMA case will make the supreme court in the next 8 years, a same-sex marriage case will make the supreme court in the next 8 years, and if I recall correctly you were also personally in favour of restricting or prohibiting abortion. There is likely to be another Casey v. PP-level case that will modify the boundaries of any national "right to choose" in the next 4-8 years. At least one supreme court justice and as many as 3 will retire in the next 8 years. Romney is the better choice for you on this basis.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how's that going to work? Are women and doctors going to have to wait for a judge/jury to determine that it really was a rape?
 
mclaren777 said:
I don't follow politics at all so the past 60 minutes has been filled with research.

The truth of the matter is that I probably won't vote for either of the two main choices.
Click to expand...

If you really aren't going to vote, vote for my friend who if obamacare is repealed won't be able to get insurance due to pre existing conditions. You can do something nice for him.
 
mclaren777 said:
I don't follow politics at all so the past 60 minutes has been filled with research.

The truth of the matter is that I probably won't vote for either of the two main choices.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you are of the conservative persuasion, since that's what other folks have mentioned.

If you're a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, vote Romney.

If you're a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, vote Johnson.

If you think Romney isn't fiscally conservative enough, vote Johnson.

If you donate money to the ACLU, you probably vote for Johnson, or Stein.

If you live in a red or a blue state, vote your conscience since the impact if your vote isn't gonna matter much.

If you live in a swing state, do whatever the hell you want. If you are an "anyone but Obama" person, vote Romney. If you care more about your ideals, then vote for whomever matches them the closest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Greenland considers joining the United States
7 8 9 10 11
507
24K
RoadHazard replied
  • Locked
Does the entire world economy depend on the United States having its doors open to everyone?
39
1K
EviLore replied
  • Locked
Happy Election Day, fellow Americans!
2
2K
EviLore replied
The Bald Eagle is now the official national bird of the United States of America
2
67
3K
SJRB replied
  • Locked
Getting ads for a far-right party before the election in Germany
17
1K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom