|
United States22883 Posts
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. That's probably true, but it doesn't mean you should feel more comfortable trusting Republicans. Trusting the general public's opinion is a poor source of judgment (yes, this flies in the face of elections as well) because the general public doesn't know shit. McCain's understanding of foreign policy, despite his length of stay, is shallow even compared to international relations college students.
You can make that claim about fetii dying, but what about four million people being homeless or suffering depression or starvation. Money affects every part of life so a president that doesn't know what to do with the economy isn't just toying with taxes, he's affecting the lives for many people in an extremely crucial way.
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. You do not want Presidents who appoint judges based on personal views. That is bad for all sides involved. The Supreme Court has no place deciding whether we need gun legislation or the morality of Roe v. Wade. That is the job of the legislative branch. The judicial branch needs to decide whether those judgments are in line with the constitution or not, and it would be a grave mistake to appoint a judge because he is personally against abortion and will vote against it.
Not only is it heavily impeding on the 14th Amendment, but then you also have to consider "what next?" What happens when the views of the judge aren't in line with your own?
|
"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."
Just, WTF
So to all those who dont have a traditional family, dont have a shot at lasting happiness ? Go burst your bubble man
|
On September 25 2008 00:23 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The heart of this matter is pretty simple. From what I understand, creationism would be taught in Science class, as an alternative theory to evolution, and then there is supposed to be some kind of debate. And this can be shown to be profoundly wrong. Why you ask?
Because in science class, you are supposed to teach science. And for a subject to be science, it is required that it can produce empirically testable theories. This is simply not up for debate, this is part of the definition of science. Now creationism, since it is built around the concept of god, it can be neither proved or disproved. And thus, by its very nature, it cannot be science, and should not be taught in science class.
Again, what people believe is beside the point. You are free to believe what you want, and though I cannot see any reason whatsoever to believe in creationism, you are free to do so. You can not, however, claim it is science, since it clearly is not. In science, it must be possible to test your hypothesis against nature, to either verify or falsify it. This is not possible in creationism, and thus it no place at all in science class.
Scientifically, there is not question to debate. On subject is science, one is not, and that is the end of it.
|
On September 25 2008 01:22 Flaccid wrote:On foreign policy- 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
That is sort of picking and choosing. Lets look at overall perceptions by Rasmussen:
McCain-Obama: Trust on Issues
Economy: McCain 47% Obama 45%
National Security: McCain 54% Obama 41%
Energy: McCain 43% Obama 46%
Iraq: McCain 51% Obama 43%
Immigration: McCain 45% Obama43%
Environment: McCain 38% Obama 51%
Negotiate Trade Agreements: McCain 46% Obama: 41%
Taxes: McCain 48% Obama 43%
Healthcare: McCain 42% Obama 49%
Education: McCain 40% Obama 48%
I didn’t include them all, but McCain is ahead in:
Economy
National Security
Iraq
Immigration
Balance Federal Budget
Negotiate Trade Agreements
Taxes
Abortion
And Obama is ahead in:
Energy
Ethics
Environment
Social Security
Health Care
Education
I would point out then Obama leads in no foreign affairs and McCain is ahead of him by a lot on security and Iraq.
Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/by_the_numbers2/by_the_numbers
One final thing about this is that McCain, surprisingly, is ahead of Obama on trust on the Economy. I don't think that is lasting, because the dems usually have the advantage here, but it is interesting to show just how close this election is despite what many people want to believe.
|
I'm not talking about McCain vs. Obama - I'm talking about Democrat vs. Republican. Separate polls.
Democratic policies consistently poll with a large advantage, which is why the Republican strategy is to avoid a policy debate and simply make the other guy unelectable. Case in point, every modern election =P
|
On September 25 2008 02:00 Flaccid wrote:
I'm not talking about McCain vs. Obama - I'm talking about Democrat vs. Republican. Separate polls.
Ok, you are right on that then. That goes back to what I stated a few pages ago that this election consists of:
1. Democrats have a very strong party position but a weak candidate
2. GOP has a very weak party position but a strong candidate
So it really depends on whether you are looking at parties or candidates. But still, if the GOP has any strong point at all, historically it has been foreign affairs and social issues, but NOT the economy, education, health care, etc.
|
On September 25 2008 01:37 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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. That's probably true, but it doesn't mean you should feel more comfortable trusting Republicans. Trusting the general public's opinion is a poor source of judgment (yes, this flies in the face of elections as well) because the general public doesn't know shit. McCain's understanding of foreign policy, despite his length of stay, is shallow even compared to international relations college students. You can make that claim about fetii dying, but what about four million people being homeless or suffering depression or starvation. Money affects every part of life so a president that doesn't know what to do with the economy isn't just toying with taxes, he's affecting the lives for many people in an extremely crucial way. Show nested quote +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. You do not want Presidents who appoint judges based on personal views. That is bad for all sides involved. The Supreme Court has no place deciding whether we need gun legislation or the morality of Roe v. Wade. That is the job of the legislative branch. The judicial branch needs to decide whether those judgments are in line with the constitution or not, and it would be a grave mistake to appoint a judge because he is personally against abortion and will vote against it. Not only is it heavily impeding on the 14th Amendment, but then you also have to consider "what next?" What happens when the views of the judge aren't in line with your own?
Well, McCain wants to appoint originalists (people who believe that the constitution should mean what it originally meant) rather than judges who believe that the consitution is "living document" that can evolve as society's needs change.
In my opinion, as soon as judges start "interpreting" the constitution to include things that aren't written there, then it is no longer a constitution--it just becomes whatever opinions the judges have that day.
Even a pro choice person (like Giuliani) believes that judges should not change the constitution and would have appointed originalists.
Judges shouldn't be vetted by a single issue opinion, but rather on their judicial philosophy (originalist, etc.)
|
United States22883 Posts
Right, which is why supporting a president because of their support of a particular issue that might influence their justice appointment seems like a bad idea.
|
In Canada we have something called The Living Tree Doctrince, and obviously we're all going to hell up here ;-).
So yeah, I obviously hold a bias towards that which makes sense to me. Interpretting the Constitution in a way so rigid that it better reflects the society that existed over 200 years ago than it does the society of today just doesn't. Make sense to me, that is. Obviously Obama doesn't support this because he doesn't want to go back to being a slave ;-)
If constitutional interpretation adheres to the Framer's Intent and remains rooted in the past, the Constitution would not be reflective of society and eventually fall into disuse.
Which, interestingly enough, is an argument one often hears for the reformation of modern religion. That the strict adherence to outdated doctrine undermines the church's influence and all of the good stuff that comes from it - strong communities, moral framework, etc.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
Canada9720 Posts
it always defaults to mccain and obama, but sometimes they switch positions. oooh
|
Pretty good. I wonder who will benefit from Bush's speech tonight?
|
Judges shouldn't be vetted by a single issue opinion, but rather on their judicial philosophy (originalist, etc.)
I respect your opinion on abortion, but the conversation in the context of a presidential debate really boils down to whether or not a candidate would appoint a supreme court judge (the next president will probably appoint alteast one) that would overturn roe vs wade. If you don't think judges should be appointed with such a litmus test, than I really don't understand why abortion would be so high on the priority list.
|
On September 25 2008 00:59 Flaccid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I don't think anyone will argue your values with you - or at least anyone with any sense. That'd just be assinine.
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.
The fact you think that Democrats know how to solve the economy's problems and that the Republicans don't and have to resort to debating values issues shows your ignorance. Believe it or not not all Republicans are Christians. You will find that quite a large majority of economists support Republican ideals.
|
On September 25 2008 02:03 Savio wrote:
So it really depends on whether you are looking at parties or candidates. But still, if the GOP has any strong point at all, historically it has been foreign affairs and social issues, but NOT the economy, education, health care, etc.
Sir you are misinformed, before Clinton the Republicans had a massive advantage (in perception at least) in the economy.
If you really want a source I could find one but sourcing info from non-internet sources on the internet is a pain.
|
McCain is asking to postpone debate Friday so he can work on the "economy"!!
EDIT: Also he is suspending his campaign or w/e to work on this. Pretty good political move which could help him the polls.
|
On September 25 2008 04:03 wswordsmen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2008 02:03 Savio wrote:
So it really depends on whether you are looking at parties or candidates. But still, if the GOP has any strong point at all, historically it has been foreign affairs and social issues, but NOT the economy, education, health care, etc. Sir you are misinformed, before Clinton the Republicans had a massive advantage (in perception at least) in the economy. If you really want a source I could find one but sourcing info from non-internet sources on the internet is a pain.
They may have in the period after Carter and before Clinton, but between Hoover and Carter? hell no
|
On September 25 2008 04:01 Wolverine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2008 00:59 Flaccid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I don't think anyone will argue your values with you - or at least anyone with any sense. That'd just be assinine.
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. The fact you think that Democrats know how to solve the economy's problems and that the Republicans don't and have to resort to debating values issues shows your ignorance. Believe it or not not all Republicans are Christians. You will find that quite a large majority of economists support Republican ideals.
If you're going to call me ignorant, then be kind enough to back up what you say. Is it not common knowledge that McCain's economic plan has been thoroughly trashed by economists on a large scale? Please point out this LARGE MAJORITY of economists that support Republican ideals. And I'm talking about the Republican ideals currently under heavy scrutiny thanks to the current economic collapse. Can a person argue with results?
in his essay On Bullshit, Harry Frankfurt distinguished bullshit from lying, explaining that while the liar makes false claims, the bullshitter is simply not interested in the truth. Bullshitters aim to impress their audiences and persuade them. Liars need to know the truth in order to hide it, but bullshitters simply have no need for it. Hence bullshitters are a greater enemy to the truth than liars are.
You wouldn't be trying to bullshit me, would you?
|
yeah stealth i just saw that mccain just suspended his campaign.
goddamn republicans are good at elections, he slips out of the debate this friday and improves his image on economy leadership in one fell swoop
|
And the Polls will show it as well, a President of the free world can't just call a fucking timeout and the debate is what one hour? And this crock of a ticket want's to suspend the campaigning and the debate(s) till the economy is fixed. What if November rolls around and it's still not fixed, postpone this election?
Palin will already have a easier debate due to her lack of debating skills, she won't do interviews or answer questions due the media being "sexist", I mean my god. Obama should call to have the debate changed to economics instead of foreign policy, god damn I am so pissed off right now. I hope Mississippi goes to Obama due to this.
Fucking stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
