Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|4467|Toronto

13urnzz wrote:

everyone seems to think the us president gets some magical power when he's elected.

obama's not bush, but you have to look hard to find any real differences (obama's penis is big enough to not have to invade a country. yet.)

congress cuts taxes, and anything else money related. supreme court rescinds or upholds law. executive branch enforces law. BFD, i pay more attention to who runs for dog catcher.
You're right to an extent. The president has far less power than most people would like to believe. But with that said, he's the single most important person for which they can vote. It means a lot symbolically.

What I hear being described in the 'same shit different leader' complaints is the systemic issue of political parties having to posture themselves to win the swing vote in the middle of the spectrum. In primaries they promise the world on hard-line republican or democrat lines, and once the presidential election rolls around they become far less extreme and essentially argue for the same things. Canada has the same dynamic. There's a shit-tonne of theories on how to 'fix the problem' (if you see it as a problem), but I'm not an expert in electoral systems and really only know the most popular debates.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+559|5637|Purplicious Wisconsin

mkxiii wrote:

If Romney wins, americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|3960|Massachusetts, USA

War Man wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

If Romney wins, americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
It's funny, because you're quite intolerant.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|4467|Toronto

UnkleRukus wrote:

War Man wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

If Romney wins, americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
It's funny, because you're quite intolerant.
He's not intolerant when it's his own views being defended. That's all that matters.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|5698|Noizyland

Funnier because War Man's post before that, (since deleted,) was a "fix'd" comment reading "If Obama wins, Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore".

I see all War Man, you cannot hide from me.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|5424|so randum
ty is literally

https://phoenixtimes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/180px-eyeofsauron.jpg

how apt!
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|4102|Sydney

Ty wrote:

Funnier because War Man's post before that, (since deleted,) was a "fix'd" comment reading "If Obama wins, Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore".

I see all War Man, you cannot hide from me.
Reminds me of the time I posted the letter about a GOP representative had asked a baseball/football coach to censor his player supporting gay marriage. War Man replied and edited half a dozen times and eventually deleted and started again to say "yawn", which was his actual first comment anyway, rofl. It was in the 'live' feed.
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+559|5637|Purplicious Wisconsin
I editted those yawn posts several times to the point I was like fuck it.

UnkleRukus wrote:

War Man wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

If Romney wins, americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
It's funny, because you're quite intolerant.
Give me an example.

Ty wrote:

Funnier because War Man's post before that, (since deleted,) was a "fix'd" comment reading "If Obama wins, Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore".

I see all War Man, you cannot hide from me.
I am well aware of what mods can see. I had second thoughts about the post afterwards though.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|4102|Sydney
I can see why someone of your intellectual magnitude would need to edit a single word post multiple times.
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+559|5637|Purplicious Wisconsin

Jaekus wrote:

I can see why someone of your intellectual magnitude would need to edit a single word post multiple times.
Well I added more to the post, still wasn't satisfied with how I did it and so I deleted it.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Roc18
`
+655|4715|PROLLLY PROLLLY PROLLLY

War Man wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I can see why someone of your intellectual magnitude would need to edit a single word post multiple times.
Well I added more to the post, still wasn't satisfied with how I did it and so I deleted it.
sigh
mkxiii
online bf2s mek evasion
+509|5160|Uk

War Man wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

If Romney wins, americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.

i just dont see, when looking at it all objectively how anyone can think voting for him is a good idea. from what i can tell, and i may be completely wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me, but a significant portion of his voters automatically choose him, and the party as their wanted representatives due to their religious views, which is worse than being completely irrelevant to the presidential post, but goes against the constitution and separation of religion from all political state matters. 

again, as i said, i may be wrong
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|5605|Disaster Free Zone
'In God we trust'
mkxiii
online bf2s mek evasion
+509|5160|Uk
was only introduced at the motto and on money etc in the 50s, as i said i was talking about the constitution
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4282|London, England

mkxiii wrote:

War Man wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

If Romney wins, americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.

i just dont see, when looking at it all objectively how anyone can think voting for him is a good idea. from what i can tell, and i may be completely wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me, but a significant portion of his voters automatically choose him, and the party as their wanted representatives due to their religious views, which is worse than being completely irrelevant to the presidential post, but goes against the constitution and separation of religion from all political state matters. 

again, as i said, i may be wrong
That has nothing to do with separation of church and state. He's not getting elected to lead the Church of America or anything like that, he's simply attracting people who want someone in office that is more like them than not. People who consider themselves liberal would vote for a liberal president, no? People who really enjoyed windsurfing would lean towards someone like John Kerry, Greenies would like someone like Al Gore, philanderers would like Bill Clinton etc. We all choose to align ourselves with people we agree with. Think of how many friends you have that have completely opposite beliefs from your own, not many, right? People who go to church regularly would be more inclined to vote for someone else that goes to church regularly. It makes them feel more comfortable.


p.s. - militant atheists are just as annoying and intolerant, if not more so, than preachy religious people.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3178

mkxiii wrote:

War Man wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

If Romney wins, americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.

i just dont see, when looking at it all objectively how anyone can think voting for him is a good idea. from what i can tell, and i may be completely wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me, but a significant portion of his voters automatically choose him, and the party as their wanted representatives due to their religious views, which is worse than being completely irrelevant to the presidential post, but goes against the constitution and separation of religion from all political state matters. 

again, as i said, i may be wrong
this is a pretty dumb post. you can't stop people in democracies from voting on whim and personal preference. it has nothing to do with "separation of church and state" when religious people vote for other people of the same religion. that's like saying "separation of state and race" when black people vote en masse for obama without giving a shit for his politics. yes, the mass are capricious and whimsical. yes, hardly anyone gives a fuck enough about politics to make an informed-choice and responsible vote. but what can you do? the only thing you can hope for at the end of the day is that your voting public has less religious nutjobs than ordinary rational citizens; you have to simply outnumber the people that vote in blocs according to colour/creed/class/fashion sense/whatever.
mkxiii
online bf2s mek evasion
+509|5160|Uk

aynrandroolz wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

War Man wrote:

Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.

i just dont see, when looking at it all objectively how anyone can think voting for him is a good idea. from what i can tell, and i may be completely wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me, but a significant portion of his voters automatically choose him, and the party as their wanted representatives due to their religious views, which is worse than being completely irrelevant to the presidential post, but goes against the constitution and separation of religion from all political state matters. 

again, as i said, i may be wrong
this is a pretty dumb post. you can't stop people in democracies from voting on whim and personal preference. it has nothing to do with "separation of church and state" when religious people vote for other people of the same religion. that's like saying "separation of state and race" when black people vote en masse for obama without giving a shit for his politics. yes, the mass are capricious and whimsical. yes, hardly anyone gives a fuck enough about politics to make an informed-choice and responsible vote. but what can you do? the only thing you can hope for at the end of the day is that your voting public has less religious nutjobs than ordinary rational citizens; you have to simply outnumber the people that vote in blocs according to colour/creed/class/fashion sense/whatever.
its a good point about the separation of race and state point, as i do believe that in the last election, obamas race was way too big an issue and was a factor in losing and gaining him votes dependant on the voters inclinations, and that was the wrong way for voting to take place. essentially what i am saying is that i believe that this election, the religious aspect is the thing that is weighing the election away from objective voting more than any other issue, and if i had given my opinion in the last election, i would have thought exactly the same about the race issue, essentially i was just attempting to say that i wish the whole public would vote objectively as opposed to using a trait that a candidate has that is irrelevant to the job, and that i think this time, the trait in question is Romney's religious views

edit: to Jay in his post.
I understand the concept of people wanting someone in office who relates to them, and is similar to them in certain ways, such as religious people wanting a religious leader, black people wanting to see a black leader, women wanting a female leader etc, but as i said above my main point is that just because someone is similar to you in a certain way, isnt going to make their policies the best, or them the better man/woman for the job, and people let that cloud their judgement

Last edited by mkxiii (2012-10-07 13:08:39)

Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|4467|Toronto
Politics isn't rational. It never will be. I wouldn't want a world in which I could calculate who is the better candidate.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3178
what exactly is 'objective voting', mk? democracy is the aggregation of individual votes. there is nothing objective or rational about the mass.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4282|London, England

mkxiii wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.

i just dont see, when looking at it all objectively how anyone can think voting for him is a good idea. from what i can tell, and i may be completely wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me, but a significant portion of his voters automatically choose him, and the party as their wanted representatives due to their religious views, which is worse than being completely irrelevant to the presidential post, but goes against the constitution and separation of religion from all political state matters. 

again, as i said, i may be wrong
this is a pretty dumb post. you can't stop people in democracies from voting on whim and personal preference. it has nothing to do with "separation of church and state" when religious people vote for other people of the same religion. that's like saying "separation of state and race" when black people vote en masse for obama without giving a shit for his politics. yes, the mass are capricious and whimsical. yes, hardly anyone gives a fuck enough about politics to make an informed-choice and responsible vote. but what can you do? the only thing you can hope for at the end of the day is that your voting public has less religious nutjobs than ordinary rational citizens; you have to simply outnumber the people that vote in blocs according to colour/creed/class/fashion sense/whatever.
its a good point about the separation of race and state point, as i do believe that in the last election, obamas race was way too big an issue and was a factor in losing and gaining him votes dependant on the voters inclinations, and that was the wrong way for voting to take place. essentially what i am saying is that i believe that this election, the religious aspect is the thing that is weighing the election away from objective voting more than any other issue, and if i had given my opinion in the last election, i would have thought exactly the same about the race issue, essentially i was just attempting to say that i wish the whole public would vote objectively as opposed to using a trait that a candidate has that is irrelevant to the job, and that i think this time, the trait in question is Romney's religious views

edit: to Jay in his post.
I understand the concept of people wanting someone in office who relates to them, and is similar to them in certain ways, such as religious people wanting a religious leader, black people wanting to see a black leader, women wanting a female leader etc, but as i said above my main point is that just because someone is similar to you in a certain way, isnt going to make their policies the best, or them the better man/woman for the job, and people let that cloud their judgement
It's all good and well to wish for that, but it ain't happening. They don't even discuss actual policy, they just talk about wishes, and inject anecdotes about 'Tim in Pennsylvania' and shit. Most people will vote for the guy that is wearing the right colored shirt, not the one that actually has policies they approve of.

We live in a world full of people with five minute long attention spans. Most don't know the first thing about any but a very narrow range of issues, be it abortion, or religion, or 'helping the poor'. You and I might think that it sucks and wish for something more substantive but you can't force people to pay attention to stuff that largely has a very minimal impact on their lives. The aspects that it does impact, they care about, the rest they tune out. TV largely destroyed the written word both in and out of politics and this is the mess we're left with.

Last edited by Jay (2012-10-07 14:16:50)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
mkxiii
online bf2s mek evasion
+509|5160|Uk
i dont know i guess i always think of it as assessing what party you think will best govern the nation, allocate taxes in the best way, will make the decisions you believe to be the best ones in whatever scenario may arise, or whichever party you can get which gets closer to this than the other if neither fully fit what you want. but i guess the only way you can do that is to think about which party will make the country more how you want it to be, and everyones view on that will be different, and will be shaped in certain ways by their religious views, or race, or gender and so maybe those characteristics can be a valid way of choosing a candidate as they arent as superficial as i have made them out to be and can make someone more likely to have similar views to you on unrelated issues due to a similar overall mindset.
i suppose i was wrong to suggest that these things shouldnt be taken into account in that respect, as long as people dont immediately discount the other candidate due to them not sharing the same characteristic, such as for example if someone straight away decided that they didnt want a female president, regardless of who it is and what their views are so they will vote for the male one, as that is an objectively irresponsible way of viting in my opinion
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|4102|Sydney

Jay wrote:

It's all good and well to wish for that, but it ain't happening. They don't even discuss actual policy, they just talk about wishes, and inject anecdotes about 'Tim in Pennsylvania' and shit. Most people will vote for the guy that is wearing the right colored shirt, not the one that actually has policies they approve of.
Sadly, this is what politics is all about these days. Sound bytes to appeal to the majority voting public who do not look any deeper into a party's policies other than a news headline.
rdx-fx
...
+955|5515
Democrat, Republican.. superficial differences on DC career bureaucrats, playing for their own interests. 
Same shit, different color tie.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4509

I found this interesting. It is pretty amazing that poor southerners will vote against their own economic interest thanks to social issues and vague concepts of freedom

Longtime Republicans torn between party loyalty and Obamacare
Like Campbell, Sara Nicastro feels conflicted about her vote. A popular diabetes blogger, Nicastro, 31, knew a woman who stopped taking her insulin regularly when she lost her insurance, and Nicastro thinks it might have contributed to her death. Nicastro said she herself would be "in a pickle" if she were ever laid off because insurance companies don't want to offer policies to diabetics.

Still, Nicastro, a lifelong Republican who lives in south Florida, will vote for Romney in November. She cares about other issues besides health -- most notably the economy -- and she's voted Republican in every election. She even remembers the excitement she felt when she shook Bob Dole's hand at a rally at her high school 16 years ago.

"The Republican party most closely matches the things I value and the beliefs I have," she said. "I'm pretty passionate about it."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/health/re … ?hpt=hp_c3
Campbell, 49, has voted Republican in nearly every presidential election since he cast his vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, but this year might be different. For two years his 22-year-old stepdaughter, a self-employed dog trainer, didn't have health insurance. Then Obamacare kicked in and she was allowed onto her father's insurance.

"If something had happened to her during those two years it would have been a disaster," Campbell says.

The Olathe, Kansas, resident is leaning toward Obama, but not just because of his stepdaughter. Campbell's wife, Barbara, has diabetes and is in the final stages of breast cancer treatment. She's now on his insurance, but if he ever lost his job, his wife would be faced with trying to buy insurance on her own and would surely be rejected.

"I'm really torn," he said. "Because of Obama, I now have a wife who can get covered. But really, at heart, I'm a limited-government kind of guy."
This sounds like a person I know. They would use government services and then complain about big government in their lives. I'll never understand people like.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|5638|US

mkxiii wrote:

War Man wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

If Romney wins, americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.

i just dont see, when looking at it all objectively how anyone can think voting for him is a good idea. from what i can tell, and i may be completely wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me, but a significant portion of his voters automatically choose him, and the party as their wanted representatives due to their religious views, which is worse than being completely irrelevant to the presidential post, but goes against the constitution and separation of religion from all political state matters. 

again, as i said, i may be wrong
Are Mormons really that big of a voting block?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard