EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 54
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
. I guess I am what you would call a "values voter". I think most people are values voters, but there is a difference between percieved values and the end result of an adminstration. For example many people voted for Bush becuase of there values, but what he has done in Iraq(misleading the public, lauching a war for flimsy geo-strategic purposes, let the military industrial complex get out of control, etc...) would go against any sense of right. What is the McCain adminstration going to do that represents your values so much, and how would Obama's adminstration do something that you would be fundamentaly opposed to? | ||
|
Flaccid
8927 Posts
It's long, but a good read. Here we have the distilled essence of the McCain campaign's ethos: Perception is reality. Facts don't matter. McCain has presented himself as the grizzled champion of timeworn values. But the defining trait of his candidacy turns out to be a postmodern disdain for truth. How could McCain--a man widely regarded, not so long ago, as one of the country's most honor-bound politicians, and therefore an unusually honest one--have descended to this ignominious low? Part of the answer is that McCain is simply doing what works--and there is good reason to believe that his campaign's strategy of persistent dishonesty will pay dividends come November 4. Read it Then read it again | ||
|
ErlinG
Norway75 Posts
Are you guys racist or something. Please do the world and USA a favour and vote Obama. Thnx | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 24 2008 23:03 aRod wrote: Ok Jibba since you asked for it. Here is the whole sentance. "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Is the point really that different? It's not Its one thing for her to say what her opinion is and another to try to implement that opinion. Of course she has opinions. We all do. She happens to believe in God. WOW. But she never tried to use her powers to force schools to include creationism in the curriculum. So whats the problem with voicing an opinion? So much for her "pushing her view on others" | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 24 2008 23:03 aRod wrote: Ok Jibba since you asked for it. Here is the whole sentance. "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Is the point really that different? It's not Lets see, Arod, here is another full quote from factcheck.org: "Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum" Allowing students to talk and debate is hardly "pushing your ideology" on them. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
Allowing students to talk and debate isn't pushing an ideology on them, but suggesting that creationism warrants debate alongside evolution is idiocacy. And this is exactly Palin's position. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
the article flaccid linked is pretty good. the part about conservatives believing in lies more when they're shown to such is pretty disturbing | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 24 2008 23:03 aRod wrote: Ok Jibba since you asked for it. Here is the whole sentance. "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Is the point really that different? It's not When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said. "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion." Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. Yes, it is different. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 24 2008 23:55 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I think most people are values voters, but there is a difference between percieved values and the end result of an adminstration. For example many people voted for Bush becuase of there values, but what he has done in Iraq(misleading the public, lauching a war for flimsy geo-strategic purposes, let the military industrial complex get out of control, etc...) would go against any sense of right. What is the McCain adminstration going to do that represents your values so much, and how would Obama's adminstration do something that you would be fundamentaly opposed to? Fair question. I am going to list some values I have that are sure to be different than many other people but that is just the way things are. 1. 50 million American babies have been aborted. Compare that to 4,000 soldiers in Iraq who voluntarily joined and ARMY and voluntary put their life on the line. There is no coercion to joining the army. I value the life of unborn children because I have felt my baby wiggling in my wife's womb and I also understand the development of their nervous system and I know they are capable of recognizing their mother's voice and feeling fear and pain. McCain is prolife and Obama is prochoice. 2. I believe the traditional family is the basis of stability in the world and the only source of true and lasting happiness. I oppose redefining marriage away from what it has been for thousands of years. I don't know Obama's position on this--I think he has stated that he also opposes changing marriage--but I trust McCain more since Obama rarely votes against his party. 3. I own several guns. McCain has been a proponent of the second amendment and despite Obama saying he is as well, as an Illinois senator he supported the Chicago and Illinois restricion on firearms (the NRA is now suing Chicago based on the new supreme court ruling making their prohibitions illegal). A few quotes from factcheck are good to explain this one because his position has been distorted by the NRA. The true parts according to factcheck are: "at an anti-gun rally, Obama "outlined his anti-gun plan," which, among other things, sought to "increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." and "In 2004, while running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he now holds, Obama indeed called for "national legislation" to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms." My parents both have concealed-carry licenses and I will when the $$$ problem has cleared up for me  So there you have it. You are now all open to flaming me all you want, because I am sure there are vastly different feelings out there. But if you can't accept that people have different values, then you are in a said state of mind. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
mccain is going to continue the Iraq war mccain is going to cut taxes for all groups mccain is going to continue the bush tax cuts The economy is in bad shape and is requiring money from the government the US has a record debt where the fuck is he going to get the money? | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 25 2008 00:21 aRod wrote: There is no problem with a person voicing a view, but holding certain views makes a person an idiot. Specifically those views you don't hold? Seriously, we all have to be careful about not degrading someone who believes something different than us. The worst crimes in the world have been committed because of that. I do not believe that liberals or socialists or anyone else on the left are idiots. I disagree with them but I think that many people have been raised in very different circumstances than me and thus have differeing opinion. I could see how an urban city-dweller might support gun control but I live in a small town and was raised in the country and believe in teh 2nd amendment. | ||
|
Flaccid
8927 Posts
But what people will argue is priority. Issues like gun control, abortion, gay-rights, etc., gain a lot of traction because they stand out as 'values' issues. People can look at these issues in a black and white sort of way and instantly come out with an idea of what they are comfortable in supporting. What I mean is that it's a lot easier for someone to understand abortion laws than, say, the economy. But what's more important? I guess it's arguable. Someone with a strict faith might say that aborting babies is more important to them than the stability and strength of their national economy and everything included in that - things such as their ability to afford healthcare, make a living, etc. Same with other 'larger' but more complex issues such as education, foreign policy, (again) healthcare, and the lot. But that's the point, isn't it? Polls have consistently shown that Democratic policies are significantly more popular among the American people than Republican policies. Democratic economic policy gets the nod, as does foreign policy, etc. etc. The last polls I saw were something like 60-40. Or maybe it was higher, sorry I can't recall exactly. Now these are the big ticket issues. The stuff that affects every American. This is the stuff that the logical person would look at as most important. But people don't vote with their heads. The ratio above existed in 2004 as well, and look how that turned out. The average person can't grasp complex issues, so they turn to stuff like gun laws and abortion rights and use these to make their decision. Economy be damned. War be damned. Education be damned. Healthcare be damned. The environment be damned. It all comes off as small-minded voting. Many people have proclaimed this election to be an IQ test of the American public. An apt statement. edit: I'm not going to bash anyone for being creationist, but I hold creationist thinkers on an equal plane to holocaust deniers. I'm not trying to pull an H-bomb here - but it's a simple case of ignoring evidence to push an illogical agenda. So I can sympathize with aRod's proclamation that holding certain views has to call a person's intelligence into question. edit 2: I didn't do a good job of making my point in this post, and that is that value issues, while important in an election, become significantly less important on November 3rd. If Obama gets elected, will there be a free for all on killing babies? No. Will there be an instant introduction of anti-gun legislation? No. These issues are important for a campaign when appealing to voters, but once in office people find themselves concerned with more pressing issues. You know, stuff like recession, war, and the environment. To vote based on 'values' issues when these people differ so much on the issues that will actually be affected by who is in office is crazy. While Obama isn't going to go door to door killing unborn babies, there is still a very real chance that McCain will privatize social security. I mean, fuck. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
Jibba, you give a great example on how people can cover there ass after a debate. Palin thinks "Opps, I shouldn't have said to teach both creationism and evolution even though It's what I believe because god did make me. How can I cover my ass.... Hmmmm.... Here's a way, lets frame it as gaining information. Yes! I'm ok" | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 25 2008 00:45 Savio wrote: Ok, so you care about something with no direct effect on your life. And most aborted fetii are not wiggling in their mother's womb. They're at a different stage of development than your rationale defends.Fair question. I am going to list some values I have that are sure to be different than many other people but that is just the way things are. 1. 50 million American babies have been aborted. Compare that to 4,000 soldiers in Iraq who voluntarily joined and ARMY and voluntary put their life on the line. There is no coercion to joining the army. I value the life of unborn children because I have felt my baby wiggling in my wife's womb and I also understand the development of their nervous system and I know they are capable of recognizing their mother's voice and feeling fear and pain. McCain is prolife and Obama is prochoice. 2. I believe the traditional family is the basis of stability in the world and the only source of true and lasting happiness. I oppose redefining marriage away from what it has been for thousands of years. I don't know Obama's position on this--I think he has stated that he also opposes changing marriage--but I trust McCain more since Obama rarely votes against his party. 3. I own several guns. McCain has been a proponent of the second amendment and despite Obama saying he is as well, as an Illinois senator he supported the Chicago and Illinois restricion on firearms (the NRA is now suing Chicago based on the new supreme court ruling making their prohibitions illegal). A few quotes from factcheck are good to explain this one because his position has been distorted by the NRA. The true parts according to factcheck are: "at an anti-gun rally, Obama "outlined his anti-gun plan," which, among other things, sought to "increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." and "In 2004, while running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he now holds, Obama indeed called for "national legislation" to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms." My parents both have concealed-carry licenses and I will when the $$$ problem has cleared up for me So there you have it. You are now all open to flaming me all you want, because I am sure there are vastly different feelings out there. But if you can't accept that people have different values, then you are in a said state of mind. What bothers me is that these points are of extremely little substance to the prosperity of this nation and that the President has no direct control on any of them. These are all matters of Congress or the Supreme Court. How many justices do you think McCain is going to appoint in the 2 1/2 years before he dies? | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
You are right, I do think abortion is more important because tax law can always be changed by the next president. If McCain lowers taxes on everyone, including *gasp* the rich, then the next president could just as easily raise taxes on the rich again. The same is true about many of the complicated issues of the campaign. However, an aborted baby can never come back. You do have a good point about many issues being incredibly complicated however. I especially think that healthcare, illegal immigration, and many foreign policy questions such as Iran's nuclear program and VERY complicated and I still don't have an opinion on any of those. I am in my 2nd year of medical school and almost all of my classmates support a nationalized health care plan but they are also just students recently out of college without experience in the medical field. I want to see everyone have health care and it bothers me when people go the emergency room because they are uninsured and know that they can free ride in the emergency room, but I also don't like seeing the government taking over even more of the economy. I also see lots of problems with Canada's and Europes health care systems. So it is a hard call. I accept the fact that it is possible that Obama's plan is better, but I also think that anyone who claims to KNOW that it is, is probably overestimating their knowledge. One other thing to point out. There are several domestic issues that American's trust the democrats more on, but I think that most of the foreign policy questions they trust the Republicans with. Certainly they have stated that they trust McCain more than Obama on Iraq, and the broader war on terror. A president is greatly involved in his country's domestic policy but he is almost the only one who bears and decides the foreign policy issues. Congress deals little with foreign policy compared to the President. So if the people trust the dems at home and the GOP abroad, it still seems like this election is a toss up. | ||
|
Flaccid
8927 Posts
- 54% of Americans believe the US is *not* winning the war on terror - 57% of Americans believe Afghanistan is more important than Iraq - 74% of Americans want troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq Now, to the average person, are these Democratic values or Republican values. Would these not suggest that the American people would support a President who opposed the Iraq war, was first to offer timelines for withdrawl, and who has continually stated that Afghanistan should be the focus and that no one should have gone into Iraq? That man is Obama, not McCain. So how can you say that the American people support McCain's view of foreign policy? The only trust they exercise would be in picking the 'devil they know'. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
What bothers me is that these points are of extremely little substance to the prosperity of this nation and that the President has no direct control on any of them. These are all matters of Congress or the Supreme Court. How many justices do you think McCain is going to appoint in the 2 1/2 years before he dies? He only has to appoint 1. And John Paul Stevens is 88 years old. I think he will go before McCain does. You also asked how much influence a president has on these issues. In the 90's the GOP congress twice passed a partial birth abortion ban. President Clinton vetoed it twice. Now it is finally law under Bush. But for many extra years, it was legal to pull a baby out of its mother's womb, leaving a small piece of it in the birth canal and stab it with sharp objects until it stops kicking. Ok, in fairness, they pull out everything but the head, then stab the baby through the neck and stick a vaccum into its brain and suck it out. They don't really stab it with "sharp objects" in the plural but you get the point. And you ask what influence a president has? Also the President is the only one who can appoint supreme court justices and they have decided that they should be the ones to answer all these questions. | ||
| ||
