US Presidential Election Poll

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

Presidential Election '12 Poll

Barack Obama (incumbent) Democrat
31
61%
Mitt Romney - Republican
10
20%
Gary Johnson - Libertarian
1
2%
Jill Stein - Green
3
6%
Ron Paul - Republican (actually Libertarian)
6
12%
Virgil Goode - Constitution
0
No votes
Rocky Anderson - Justice
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 51
whodat30
level0
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:34 am

Postby whodat30 » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:12 pm

xander wrote:
whodat30 wrote:hey you know libertarian is not a party in reality. libertarian is an ideal.

That is just nonsense. Demoncracy is an ideal, as well. But there is a Democratic party. Rebuplicanism is an ideal. But there is a Republican party. Socialism is an ideal. But there is a socialist party. There is idealogical libertarianism, and there is an organized Libertarian party.

xander


now explain how they earned the name libertarian. I believe you can't find one perfect libertarian so how do you define it if they contradict the ideal.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:18 pm

whodat30 wrote:
xander wrote:
whodat30 wrote:hey you know libertarian is not a party in reality. libertarian is an ideal.

That is just nonsense. Demoncracy is an ideal, as well. But there is a Democratic party. Rebuplicanism is an ideal. But there is a Republican party. Socialism is an ideal. But there is a socialist party. There is idealogical libertarianism, and there is an organized Libertarian party.

xander


now explain how they earned the name libertarian. I believe you can't find one perfect libertarian so how do you define it if they contradict the ideal.

This is a complete non sequitor. There is a Libertarian Party in the US, of which Paul was once a member. The previous discussion is about how his ideology and that of the Libertarian party differ. What is your point, again?

xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:25 am

zjoere wrote:Romney his wife made some strange comments. Do you think this will effect voter behaviour?


Hadn't heard of that site yet. Heh.

whodat30, I agree. Also, I hear Germany has some people in it who aren't German. Where does that country get off calling themselves that when not everyone is entirely from there? Madness I tell you, madness.
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:57 am

Damn it, if it's not the onion I totally fall for fake news :(
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:12 pm

zjoere wrote:Damn it, if it's not the onion I totally fall for fake news :(

Poe's law is a bitch, ain't it?
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:08 pm

What I don't understand is that, whilst G W Bush was a worrisome fellow, I could see why some people would like him and vote for him. I could understand, if in disagreement, why someone would vote for him.
Edit: Even McCain. Crap politics, but even so that guy had "President" written all over him.

What I can't see is what anyone finds presidential in Romney beyond him being the leader of the party they might support. Romney is just a nasty piece of work. He's like a living, breathing example of the moral bankruptcy of the republican's version of the American dream.
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:33 pm

Cooper42 wrote:What I don't understand is that, whilst G W Bush was a worrisome fellow, I could see why some people would like him and vote for him. I could understand, if in disagreement, why someone would vote for him.
Edit: Even McCain. Crap politics, but even so that guy had "President" written all over him.

What I can't see is what anyone finds presidential in Romney beyond him being the leader of the party they might support. Romney is just a nasty piece of work. He's like a living, breathing example of the moral bankruptcy of the republican's version of the American dream.


The guy gives 30% of his income. He spent two years in unpaid missionary service. He's spent years in unpaid ecclesiastical roles, including as a Stake President, which typically takes about at least 15-20 hours a week, and puts him on call 24/7. While at Bain, he once stopped the company business and dedicated its full time (as well as that of their accounting firm) to canvas the streets looking for the missing daughter of an employee. She was found because of those efforts, drugged in a basement and hours from death. He's also the only president in living memory who's never done drugs, been drunk, cheated on his wife, or been divorced.

Yep, that's some moral bankruptcy right there...
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:01 pm

Well let's not forget he is (as a mormon bishop) against same sex rights in EVERY way possible. Wants to interfere with planned parenthood to essentially remove it, claims he has a five point plan to fix the economy, yet it's the same plan as both previous Bushs and all they did was plunge the US economy into a mess, he's anti education and anti-science, and is on record as saying that Russia is a big threat to the US, and last but not least wants to remove the separation of church and state.

So while the points you raised are indeed valid, he's not the sort of man you want at the head of the good ship America. The world is a very international place these days, and you need a president that not only your own country can respect, but others can too. And I can tell you this much, outside of the US Romney is a joke. We have ZERO idea how anyone could every want someone like that in charge.
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
User avatar
AIRburst95
level3
level3
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Seattle(ish), WA

Postby AIRburst95 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:18 pm

Quotes updated and lists edited.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:11 am

Rkiver wrote:Well let's not forget he is (as a mormon bishop) against same sex rights in EVERY way possible. Wants to interfere with planned parenthood to essentially remove it, claims he has a five point plan to fix the economy, yet it's the same plan as both previous Bushs and all they did was plunge the US economy into a mess, he's anti education and anti-science, and is on record as saying that Russia is a big threat to the US, and last but not least wants to remove the separation of church and state.


For starters, the religious point is false, both for him and for the religion. I'd figure it's hyperbole but given your emphasis something tells me that it's just you getting excitable about something you're misinformed about.

Planned parenthood? He wants to remove federal funding of abortions. The economy? He's actually more in line with Clinton than with either Bushes. That's something that poli-sci folk have been highly amused about over here, and it's been a fun discussion over whether Clinton for Obama has helped or hurt him. On one hand Clinton lends his name, but it also reminds people that Romney is much more like a pragmatic moderate, like Clinton, than Obama is.

Anti-education? I'd like to know the basis for that. While Governor of Massachusetts they had one of the best school systems in the nation. Anti-science? That's a term generally used as the modern version of "heretic", a label for some who doesn't subscribe to your dogma, or who takes a different side of a contested scientific issue.

No, I don't think that Romney is anti-education, or anti-science. Rather, I think that he disagrees with you on things. A pluralistic society means that people can disagree without one being "anti".

Rkiver wrote:So while the points you raised are indeed valid, he's not the sort of man you want at the head of the good ship America. The world is a very international place these days, and you need a president that not only your own country can respect, but others can too. And I can tell you this much, outside of the US Romney is a joke. We have ZERO idea how anyone could every want someone like that in charge.


Which ones have they liked? Washington was a country bumpkin farmer to the British, Adams a provincial lawyer, Lincoln a backwoods farm hand, Teddy Roosevelt a cowboy, etc. Good leaders don't emerge by asking who other people like to have at their parties.

So tell me, what has electing Obama, whom the world loved, gotten for us internationally?
DHKold
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:29 am

Postby DHKold » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:36 am

Feud wrote:Anti-science? That's a term generally used as the modern version of "heretic", a label for some who doesn't subscribe to your dogma, or who takes a different side of a contested scientific issue.

Just to be clear, Science doesn't belong to dogma, if someone ask you to believe something because it's "a science", he's not a real scientist.
Sciences are based on models. It doesn't pretend to tell "The Truth", it pretends to give tools both explaining AND predicting facts with a certain precision. They rely on lots of data and experiments, and have to 'work' with at least most of the other sciences models. A dogma is something you assume to be true, it's not a model.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:38 pm

DHKold wrote:
Feud wrote:Anti-science? That's a term generally used as the modern version of "heretic", a label for some who doesn't subscribe to your dogma, or who takes a different side of a contested scientific issue.

Just to be clear, Science doesn't belong to dogma, if someone ask you to believe something because it's "a science", he's not a real scientist.
Sciences are based on models. It doesn't pretend to tell "The Truth", it pretends to give tools both explaining AND predicting facts with a certain precision. They rely on lots of data and experiments, and have to 'work' with at least most of the other sciences models. A dogma is something you assume to be true, it's not a model.


I realize that. And many say such, before then claiming intellectual high ground by saying that their favorite model of a disputed scientific issue, one that often fits their political or social view, is the right one and that all others are "anti-science".

What if tomorrow President Obama said that he would devote a coordinated effort by the government to eradicate schizophrenia? Assuming it followed ethical protocols in development, those who think that the government should lead such charges would likely be ecstatic. Now what if he said instead that he would coordinate an effort to eradicate the biological mechanism that results in same gender attraction? Then, just as people can change their sex through medicine if they so desired, someone could choose to be straight. Well, there would be quite a controversy, especially amongst his own supporters. It's still science, but the debate over whether it is "right" science to cure homosexuality would rage.

Science in politics is political, and sides get picked. If you think it is otherwise, you are wrong.
DHKold
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:29 am

Postby DHKold » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:25 pm

Feud wrote:
DHKold wrote:I realize that. And many say such, before then claiming intellectual high ground by saying that their favorite model of a disputed scientific issue, one that often fits their political or social view, is the right one and that all others are "anti-science".

What if tomorrow President Obama said that he would devote a coordinated effort by the government to eradicate schizophrenia? Assuming it followed ethical protocols in development, those who think that the government should lead such charges would likely be ecstatic. Now what if he said instead that he would coordinate an effort to eradicate the biological mechanism that results in same gender attraction? Then, just as people can change their sex through medicine if they so desired, someone could choose to be straight. Well, there would be quite a controversy, especially amongst his own supporters. It's still science, but the debate over whether it is "right" science to cure homosexuality would rage.


I encounter this kind of problem in many discussion with non-scientist, about "bad/good" science. As I always say, science is not about "good" or "bad". It does not intend to do right thing, it actually pretend to DO nothing, just to provide models. So there would be no right science. They're only people using models for personal ideologies. That's were the "Rightness" comes, when human starts to act.

One could build a biological model explaining and predicting the sexual attraction of human, it does not imply any modification or program to be set in order to alter anything. It's just a model. It does not even say that there is a better "gender attraction", nor that it is a disease. So, launching an effort to eradicate one kind is entirely about a personal view, it's not science.

I agree that science in politics is political (like everything in politic).
User avatar
AIRburst95
level3
level3
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Seattle(ish), WA

Postby AIRburst95 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:32 pm

OK I'm ending this argument, since it seemed to spin off from the misunderstanding of what i meant by Anti-Science i'll start there. When I said he is Anti-Science I was referring to the fact that when it comes to scientific theory, Mitt Romney does not care what the actual theory is or what it says, if it disagrees with his party platform then he is against (or in this case "does not believe" in these theories" them. For instance Global Warming has always been a hot button issue in politics for a long time, Mitt has contended that Global Warming is not real. This is not because he has actual cited peer-reviewed scientific papers stating that their false, no, he denies Global Warming because if he were to do so then it would contend with his stance on opening national and state parks for drilling and the expansion of big oil. If he agreed with Global Warming then his Energy policy would be in direct contradiction of what we need to do to stop, or at least slow down, Global Warming.

Therefore Mitt Romney is Anti-Science.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:37 pm

AIRburst95 wrote:OK I'm ending this argument


Good luck! ;)

That's an awfully negative accusation to level. What evidence do you have that his view of science is controlled by his politics? It sounds more like you disagree with him on policy points, so you are labeling him anti-science to discredit those points rather than address them.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests