Politics...discuss

[GS]

Disclaimer: I do not want this to turn into a political debate. There a places for that and it isn't here.

I just don't understand how people can like either of these candidates for president (one more than the other, but none the less). There is a lot not to like on both sides, but is there anything to like?

[Syphon the Sun]

is there anything to like?

Not really.

[elfprince13]

Disclaimer: I do not want this to turn into a political debate. There a places for that and it isn't here.

I just don't understand how people can like either of these candidates for president (one more than the other, but none the less). There is a lot not to like on both sides, but is there anything to like?

I'm voting 3rd party.

[jotabe]

Disclaimer: I do not want this to turn into a political debate. There a places for that and it isn't here.

I just don't understand how people can like either of these candidates for president (one more than the other, but none the less). There is a lot not to like on both sides, but is there anything to like?

Actually i think there's a lot to like in both candidates. Yes, one of them i disagree with on basically every topic, but i have grown some sympathy from him: anyone who has to deal with the media and the pundits misrepresenting you or trying to radicalize you, and even your own party's base voters trying to steer you away from the center (and this happens to both candidates) deserves my sympathy and support.

Of course, this situation turns lying into a necessity. But you know what? i think that those who do morally wrong things at a gun point are morally in a better place than those holding the gun.

More with what you said, most people don't really like the candidates. They vote for them covering their nostrils, following the lesser evil theory.

[Syphon the Sun]

one of them i disagree with on basically every topic

So you disagree with both candidates on issues like foreign wars, executive power, the PATRIOT Act, earmarks, nation building, foreign humanitarian intervention, drug decriminalization, federal subsidies (farm, energy, etc.), medical marijuana, drone warfare, Guantanamo, indefinite detention of terror suspects, trade embargoes, etc.? (Just a few things off the top of my head.)

[GS]

Both candidates? Am I missing something? The quoted text explicitly states that he disagrees with one of the candidates on almost every topic, not both.

[elfprince13]

Both candidates? Am I missing something? The quoted text explicitly states that he disagrees with one of the candidates on almost every topic, not both.

The point being that they have (near-)identical positions on those issues.

But let's maybe try and have a dedicated thread for politics so this thread stays nice and calm?

[Syphon the Sun]

Both candidates? Am I missing something? The quoted text explicitly states that he disagrees with one of the candidates on almost every topic, not both.

Those are just a few (of the many) things on which the two candidates have virtually no policy disagreements. You can't disagree with one without disagreeing with the other.

ETA: I should have added that I'm sure many, many Americans disagree with them both on many of those issues. I know that I do.

[Syphon the Sun]

But let's maybe try and have a dedicated thread for politics so this thread stays nice and calm?

Good call. Sorry, folks. (Mods, feel free to split.)

[GS]

Both candidates? Am I missing something? The quoted text explicitly states that he disagrees with one of the candidates on almost every topic, not both.

Those are just a few (of the many) things on which the two candidates have virtually no policy disagreements. You can't disagree with one without disagreeing with the other.

ETA: I should have added that I'm sure many, many Americans disagree with them both on many of those issues. I know that I do.

Fair enough. Shows how much I know.

And mods, please split this off. This is exactly what I didn't want to happen in this thread. But I don't want to poo poo the discussion.

[wizzard]

Question (stemming from a discussion with the g/f last night): Should you feel obligated to vote if you disagree with both of major candidates? What if you believe the entire system is broken? Should you feel obligated to vote, period?

[Syphon the Sun]

Katherine Mangu-Ward on why your vote doesn't count.

[elfprince13]

Wizzard: I have to suggest you read this article: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/y ... esnt-count" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Voting only makes sense if you're voting because you enjoy it or are doing so based on principle. That's why I'm voting Gary Johnson - I don't think he'll win, but it makes me happy to support a candidate I actually agree with. A lot of high viable 3rd party candidates can be is dependent on their party's results in the previous election. There are certain thresholds of support needed to get various levels of funding from the FEC, get access to the debates, etc.

There's going to be a debate between the Libertarian, Green, Justice, and Constitution Party candidates on the 23rd of this month. I think it will be orders of magnitude more intelligent conversation than what we've seen from the duopoly.

http://freeandequal.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[edit]
Hah, <3 Syphon. Beat me to the link.

[wizzard]

Thanks for the link, both of you, that was a very interesting read. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but she makes some very convincing arguments. It's interesting (and a little sad) that "Voting = good" is one of the those pieces of received wisdom, that you're not really meant to question in our society.

I've pretty much already decided on voting Gary Johnson, but I hadn't heard about the debate on the 23rd, I'll definitely have to check that out.

[jotabe]

one of them i disagree with on basically every topic

So you disagree with both candidates on issues like foreign wars, executive power, the PATRIOT Act, earmarks, nation building, foreign humanitarian intervention, drug decriminalization, federal subsidies (farm, energy, etc.), medical marijuana, drone warfare, Guantanamo, indefinite detention of terror suspects, trade embargoes, etc.? (Just a few things off the top of my head.)

Yes... not being my country i don't know some of those topics, i don't keep up that much with american politics, but yes, i disagree with Obama in the topics i know of that list. By excess or by defect.

-Foreign wars/Foreign humanitarian intervention: Instead of having an erratic policy that seems to end up in the "too little, too late", and everyone waging war as they see fit, the abandonment of the NATO should be fixed.
-Patriot act/Guantanamo/indefinite detention of terror suspects: well, he said he was going to change it and he didn't. I guess it's hard to give up the power to imprision whoever you want without having to give explanations nor having to try them.
-Earmarks ???
-Nation building: a government is not there to build a nation. Either the nation already exists or it doesn't.
-Drug decriminalization/medical cannabis: i wasn't aware that either Obama or Romney wanted to decriminalize drug use? In any case, i disagree. I think it's fine that they are criminalized, and the other two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, should be criminalized as well. I guess maybe the cannabis could be legalized instead.
-Drone warfare: not enough work is being done to remove human pilots from the sky, nor human soldiers from the ground. All combat troops, both on land and air, should be drones.
-Federal subsidies: now this is news to me... is Romney in favor of subsidies? Certainly, corn for bio-diesel is stupid, and should not be subsidized.
-Trade embargos: another stupid policy. As long as neither Rusia nor China are ever going to follow suit and second the embargo.

[Syphon the Sun]

but yes, i disagree with Obama in the topics i know of that list.

I always like to check, especially when someone says they disagree with virtually all of one of the candidate's positions. Because it seems to me that the two have policy preferences that are more often similar than they are different. There's a reason people call them "Obamney," after all.

i wasn't aware that either Obama or Romney wanted to decriminalize drug use?

They don't. Both think the drug war should continue indefinitely. And Obama has cracked down on medical marijuana use and state-authorized medical marijuana dispensaries far more than Bush ever did. And that's after he promised that his administration would ease up on medical marijuana, given that they have more important issues to worry about.

Federal subsidies: now this is news to me... is Romney in favor of subsidies?

Both of them favor subsidizing all kinds of things. They sometimes differ on who should get the subsidies, but they both favor the government picking winners and losers.

Drone warfare: not enough work is being done to remove human pilots from the sky, nor human soldiers from the ground. All combat troops, both on land and air, should be drones.

Then you're in luck! Obama has ordered drone attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. They're active 24 hours a day and strike the same areas multiple times, oftentimes killing the rescuers, to the point where community members and humanitarian workers are too afraid to help the civilians injured in the strikes.

(That's not even getting into the fact that Obama has a "kill list" to use with the drone strikes, a list that includes American citizens, which Romney said was absolutely appropriate.)

[elfprince13]

There's a reason people call them "Obamney," after all.

This seems relevant:

I photoshopped it together a couple weeks back.

[Syphon the Sun]

[GS]

Elf and Syphon, thank you for the nightmares.

[VelvetElvis]

I am voting Obama, simply in distant hopes Romney won't win my state's electoral votes. I didn't vote for Obama last election. If Romney gets into office this time, I'm not afraid of what he himself might do, but what he might be pressured into by his party, particularly wrt women's rights.

[Claire]

I am voting Obama, simply in distant hopes Romney won't win my state's electoral votes. I didn't vote for Obama last election. If Romney gets into office this time, I'm not afraid of what he himself might do, but what he might be pressured into by his party, particularly wrt women's rights.

Me too, re: the bolded. Though my vote means actually nothing moreso than other peoples', since I changed my residency when I moved.

[elfprince13]

I don't want to appear to be supporting Romney, or the Republican party, but keep in mind this the man who required Catholic institutions to provide birth control coverage for women's insurance plans a half decade before Obama. And he's about as RINOy as they come (the RNC had to change the primary rules to get him elected because the base didn't want him) - I find it hard to worry that he's going to be listening to the party at all once he has the reins of power.

[VelvetElvis]

I really only think he'll listen to them to get two terms.

[starlooker]

Which means he can do a lot of damage in one. I dislike Romney, but I positively fear the congressional Republicans with him in office.

Anyhow. Voting straight ticket Democrat for so many reasons. Not that it will matter. I wanna live in a blue state or a swing state some election year, just to see what it's like not to feel I'm voting as an exercise in patriotic futility.

[elfprince13]

Starlooker: I don't know if this applies to you, but I want to encourage EVERYONE who lives in a state that's basically already decided to vote for a 3rd party if they feel that party represents them better than one of the two major ones. More than 1/3rd of Americans don't identify as Republican or Democrat, but come election day essentially everyone lines up to vote for one of those two. Watched the 3rd party debate in a couple weeks and see who you like. I'm pretty sure at least 3 of us in this thread are voting Gary Johnson, but Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson may be more to your tastes if you lean left. See who's on the ballot in your state. Wasted votes are the ones you don't believe in.

[edit]
And incumbents almost never get voted out by their own party. Basically only once in the last century, and he retired his campaign first, and wasn't the presidential candidate to begin with. You'll notice Obama made no effort to appease his progressive democratic base once in office on any of the civil liberties, environmental, or foreign policy issues he campaigned on. He's still up for reelection. The only reason I was at all hopeful about Obama last time around (I wrote in Ron Paul, but I liked Obama's platform stances on the issues I just mentioned) was the thought that he wanted to get the base of his party to like him. Unfortunately, all he had to do was look better than the clown show in congress and nobody paid his betrayals any mind.

[starlooker]

Thanks but no. The Democratic party actually represents me really well. Moderately liberal mainstream, that's me. Also, voting Democrat in Kansas feels futile enough. I've never really gotten the appeal of voting third party. It just makes no sense to me. But that may be because I'm not in that one-third.

Anyhow, I DO believe there are clear differences between the types of laws/policies passed under the two prospective nominees, particularly in regards to social issues and domestic spending, never mind that whole Supreme Court justice issue. I so strongly disagree about them being the same.

[Gravity Defier]

Mostly agree with Kirsten but even if I didn't, I wouldn't vote 3rd party simply because the people who are going to have been the pushiest, as far as I'm concerned, about voting for their person.

[starlooker]

Yeah. There's crazy obnoxiousness from every corner, but I do find third-partiers particular brand of condescension irritates me. (Present company excepted.) Folks, telling people they're zombie-sheep who are all part of the problem isn't exactly a winning slogan.

In other news, post-debate Democrats are pissing me off quite a lot. For all that I dislike about the Republican party/pundits, I have to admire their discipline. Could you see them going all to pieces "Oh no! Woe! All is lost and we are RUINED!" if Romney had lost? I highly doubt it. Pull it together, people! You're just making things worse!

[wizzard]

Mostly agree with Kirsten but even if I didn't, I wouldn't vote 3rd party simply because the people who are going to have been the pushiest, as far as I'm concerned, about voting for their person.

I'm sorry you've had that experience. I think that's one of the unfortunate side effects of supporting a 3rd party candidate... a lot of the time it feels like you have to push hard just to get your voice heard. There's also a certain level of frustration when you've talked to so many people who don't actually know anything about the candidates, they just vote for their party (definitely not trying to imply that about anyone here). And yes, every political party has it's own share of frothing-at-the-mouth extremist assholes.

Personally, I encourage everyone to look at all of the candidates, look at the issues, and decide which one best represents you. If that ends up being Obama or Romney, then vote for Obama or Romney. What I hate is the idea that voting 3rd party is "throwing your vote away".

[elfprince13]

Thanks but no. The Democratic party actually represents me really well. Moderately liberal mainstream, that's me.

Fair enough

Also, voting Democrat in Kansas feels futile enough. I've never really gotten the appeal of voting third party. It just makes no sense to me. But that may be because I'm not in that one-third.

I think the article that Syphon and I linked to explains it pretty well. Statistically speaking, your vote is as close to futile as makes no difference anyway (in a swing state it's about 1 in 10 million that it will be important, where you live, probably closer to in 1 in 60 million), so you might as well have fun expressing your opinion by voting for someone you like. Otherwise it's not worth voting at all.

Anyhow, I DO believe there are clear differences between the types of laws/policies passed under the two prospective nominees, particularly in regards to social issues and domestic spending, never mind that whole Supreme Court justice issue. I so strongly disagree about them being the same.

The Supreme Court issue is an interesting one. Do you have any others in mind? Are those issues more important to you than, say, protesting two candidates who both feel its cool to assassinate American journalists without a trial? I think Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic made a very convincing case that Liberal Democrat types shouldn't feel comfortable voting for Obama (Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama: The case against casting a ballot for the president -- even if you think he's better than Mitt Romney).

Yeah. There's crazy obnoxiousness from every corner, but I do find third-partiers particular brand of condescension irritates me. (Present company excepted.) Folks, telling people they're zombie-sheep who are all part of the problem isn't exactly a winning slogan.

I'm just telling you to check out what the 3rd party candidates are saying. At the very least, I think their debate will be far more interesting than the one we're getting from duopoly. ... but I assume you saw this (it's intended to be tongue in cheek)?


And now for something completely different:

[Syphon the Sun]

My 2 cents re: potential Supreme Court nominees --

I'm not hopeful at all that Mitt Romney, if he were elected, would nominate another Clarence Thomas to the bench. I don't even trust him to nominate another Anthony Kennedy. If I had to guess, I'd suspect he'd nominate another David Souter (who was nominated by George H.W. Bush, but was to the left of even Stephen Breyer) or, at best, another Sandra Day O'Connor.

His record as governor was pretty clear that he doesn't believe in originalism. Honestly, I don't expect a pick much different than Elena Kagan.

[Syphon the Sun]

Came across this today:

[jotabe]

While in theory i would like to see the US turn more multipartidist, as it would reflect more accurately the presence of the different ideologies in the US, i wouldn't vote for a 3rd party in the US. Mostly because the 2 main parties try to clump themselves in the political center (well duh! that's where the most voters are!), so 3rd parties are only left the ideological fringes.

Maybe they are necessary, even if niche. I agree we need someone in our parliaments telling us that nothing can trump individual freedom, or that economy needs to be fully planned from the top offices of the govt., and also someone telling us we have to stop killing animals for food, or that intellectual property is a theft.

They would just not be my choice.


Nice graphic, Syphon. The drug control spending... what does it include? only domestic policing? also external "militar" operations often identified as the war on drugs? publicly funded rehab?

[Syphon the Sun]

3rd parties are only left the ideological fringes.

The drug control spending... what does it include?

Federal spending on drug control policies. (There's more at the state level.) It includes a ton of stuff. Prevention programs, international investigations of cartels, trafficking interruption, etc. But the biggest share goes to domestic law enforcement. Investigating people, arresting them, trying them, and putting them in prison. (This also includes doing SWAT raids on dispensaries that (a) reduce the market shares of dangerous cartels and (b) are authorized by state law to operate.)

[buckshot]

Quite a good debate tonight ! Oh the suspesne of waiting for old Joe to stick his foot in it! His facial expressions are a riot!