SydLexia.com Forum Index
"Stay awhile. Stay... FOREVER!"

  [Edit Profile]  [Search]  [Memberlist]  [Usergroups]  [FAQ]  [Register]
[Who's Online]  [Log in to check your private messages]  [Log in]
General Political Issues (2012 Election)


Reply to topic
Author Message
Fighter_McWarrior
Title: Gun of Brixton
Joined: Jun 05 2011
Location: Down by the River
PostPosted: Nov 07 2012 02:18 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Social media is a three ringed circus. For all the talk about how it's revolutionizing campaign politics, Google Docs have a hell of a lot more meaningful impact than Facebook ever has.


"Spanish bombs, yot' quierro y finito
Yo te querda oh ma corazón
Oh ma corazón, oh ma corazón" - The Clash, Spanish Bombs
 
View user's profileSend private message
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
PostPosted: Nov 07 2012 02:20 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Cameron wrote:
Image

I have seen this image MULTIPLE times on the forums and I am NOT pleased. This is the only waaambulance image we allow around these parts:

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
Ky-Guy
Title: Obscure Nintendo Gamer
Joined: Jul 19 2006
Location: Michigan
PostPosted: Nov 07 2012 05:27 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Personally, I didn't like either candidate. I desperately wanted to vote for Gary Johnson, despite the Libertarian Party currently not having a snowball's chance in hell of getting a candidate in the White House, but he was absent from my local ballot.

And while I see eye to eye with some liberal values, such as gay rights and the decriminalization of marijuana, I hate most of their economic policies and I don't like the fact that they're trying to implement an assault weapons ban.

Besides, I hate Obama's guts.

-----------------------------------------------
“I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.”
--Matt Stone, co-creator of South Park


Syd Lexia wrote:
iPhone games are what you play when you can't get at actual games. You know, like how sometimes alcoholics drink mouthwash.

Lexiabot9000 wrote:
Your love life will be happy and harmonious if you stick to masturbating.

 
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailAIM AddressYahoo MessengerMSN Messenger
Ash Burton
Title: AshRaiser
Joined: Nov 10 2008
Location: Florida
PostPosted: Nov 07 2012 09:11 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Cattivo wrote:
All I can say, is Obama supporters, enjoy this while you can. He owns this economy, and I don't see it improving to a real recovery anytime soon. Economic stagnancy is the theme, just like the 30s & 70s.


Right, because the trickle down economics of the past 30 years, two wars left off of budget and housing market crash all happen to be owned by Barry Obama. You know what though, maybe Obama supporters will repeat what modern day republicans spout off any time someone tries to look way back to 2004; you can't blame Bush for everything.

I'm not enchanted with Obama, but I wasn't going to allow that to make me vote land anywhere near the dungpile that is the GOP. The republican party is lockstep with its slave owners which are the super rich and although the Democratic party has moved center right to fill the absence of the long gone GOP; they are still the better alternative. I would have voted for Jill Stein if I didn't live in a swing state that has problems with addition, but alas I went with Barry.

Stop with this ownership of the economy bullshit, we all own it.


Image

joshwoodzy wrote:
Ash is probably just home humping his SNES collection.

 
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
Drew Linky
Wizard
Joined: Jun 12 2009
PostPosted: Nov 07 2012 11:07 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Time will tell whether this was a good decision or not, but you have to take into account that it would have told us that no matter who we happened to elect. Just because Obama got elected doesn't mean that if he fucking sucks Romney would have been any better.

I may be stating the obvious (I have no real basis in politics), but the problem is that people on both sides, I think, are focusing too much on particular issues involving the candidate they wanted to win, instead of the big picture. I've found that people who supported Obama were in it mostly for social issues like gay marriage. People who were looking at Romney focused on stuff like the economy. And banning gay marriage, apparently.

Does this mean that Obama is going to fuck up this country worse than it already is? No. He's already done plenty of stuff. http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

I mean, he might, but assuming that he will is unfair.

On the other side of the same coin, Romney's a business man. His policies might have been great to stimulate the economy and get us back on our feet.

But at the same time, he's a fucking businessman. From every account I've heard directly involving a businessman, someone's getting dicked over. That's pretty much their goal, is to dick over the other guy as much as possible to maximize their gains. But it's unfair of me to assume that Romney would have completely screwed the middle and lower classes over, not only because it hasn't happened, but also because it will probably never happen now.

(but he totally would have Baiting )


https://discord.gg/homestuck is where you can find me literally 99% of the time. Stop on by if you feel like it, we're a nice crowd.
 
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 07:44 am Reply with quote Back to top

It just really boggles my mind what a big deal Obama's supporters made social issues into this election. Indulging social issues is all well and good in times of prosperity, but when the country's fucking drowning in debt and you choose to make anything but reducing that debt your number 1 priority, you're incredibly shortsighted and I severely question your judgment.

Also, a president has very little control over social issues, other than acting as a moral compass through oratory platitudes. So it's really fucking dumb to elect any president based on their stances on social issues.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
lavalarva
2011 SNES Champ
Joined: Dec 04 2006
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 10:18 am Reply with quote Back to top

Another question is, would the Republicans really do better than Democrats for the economy? I didn't bother really checking what both parties want to do, but with how ridiculously retarded some Republicans have appeared to be, I would think twice before letting them play with my money.
View user's profileSend private message
Methid Man
Title: Spawn of Billy Mays
Joined: Nov 23 2010
Location: Hackensack, NJ
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 11:13 am Reply with quote Back to top

I'll be blunt: I'd rather trust the democrats than the republicans to run the country; I see them as the lesser evil.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailAIM AddressYahoo MessengerMSN Messenger
Drew Linky
Wizard
Joined: Jun 12 2009
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 12:23 pm Reply with quote Back to top

lavalarva wrote:
... but with how ridiculously retarded some Republicans have appeared to be, I would think twice before letting them play with my money.

I've said this numerous times in the chat, but with some of the things Romney's said this year ("47% of the country are free-loaders", encouraging corporate leaders to threaten employees with termination if he's not elected, the blatant lie about Chrysler moving Jeep across seas, etc.), why would anyone vote for that? Who would vote for an asshole, a liar as the president? And so far, no one's given me a straight answer. No one. "Some people just hate Obama more"? Why would you vote for Romney, when he is so utterly unlikeable and duplicitous? Someone said "Obama looks like a guy you could have a beer with. Romney looks like the guy that just fired you".

And yet they're nearly tied with the popular vote. Last I heard, Obama's at 60 million and Romney's at 57 million. How on earth is that possible? On top of that, none of this is taking into account stuff like Akin or Mourdock.


https://discord.gg/homestuck is where you can find me literally 99% of the time. Stop on by if you feel like it, we're a nice crowd.
 
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Beach Bum
Joined: Dec 08 2010
Location: At the pants party.
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 01:10 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Drew Linky wrote:
Who would vote for an asshole, a liar as the president?

So a politician then?
View user's profileSend private message
Fighter_McWarrior
Title: Gun of Brixton
Joined: Jun 05 2011
Location: Down by the River
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 02:03 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Syd Lexia wrote:
It just really boggles my mind what a big deal Obama's supporters made social issues into this election. Indulging social issues is all well and good in times of prosperity, but when the country's fucking drowning in debt and you choose to make anything but reducing that debt your number 1 priority, you're incredibly shortsighted and I severely question your judgment.


Social issues weren't Obama's number one priority on the campaign trail, but they do matter right now. Two gay people wanting to get married shouldn't have to wait for a good economy to have the same rights as everyone else. If a woman is raped and impregnated, she shouldn't have to wait for a budget surplus to be allowed to do something about it. These things matter to people in the now, and they're not abstracts to anyone who has to deal with it.

Quote:
All I can say, is Obama supporters, enjoy this while you can. He owns this economy, and I don't see it improving to a real recovery anytime soon. Economic stagnancy is the theme, just like the 30s & 70s.


So are you one of those Republicans who's too angry to play ball now that you lost a perfectly fair election? Because it sounds an awful lot to me like you're enjoying our country's economic pain to get some vindictive shots at the President. Try not to sound too excited about economic stagnation. It's unbecoming.

Besides, even if the economy keeps improving at its current pace, we'll be down to unemployment levels that are almost normal in 4 years time. There's no reason to believe that it won't pick up the pace, though. Economic growth tends to perpetuate itself.


"Spanish bombs, yot' quierro y finito
Yo te querda oh ma corazón
Oh ma corazón, oh ma corazón" - The Clash, Spanish Bombs
 
View user's profileSend private message
Cattivo
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Location: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 02:39 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Ash Burton wrote:
Right, because the trickle down economics of the past 30 years, two wars left off of budget and housing market crash all happen to be owned by Barry Obama.

No matter what you believe was responsible for the collapse in '08, everyone agreed that within four years the economy should have recovered. Even Obama said that if he failed to fix the economy and reach the stated goals of his Stimulus, that he would be facing a "one term proposition." Unfortunately, the economy has not reached a full recovery; it has only stopped the bleeding. Reagan, who inherited a comparably bad economy from his predecessor, was able to turn things around in two years. Meanwhile, under Obama in four years, the number of jobs and the Dow Jones have not risen above where they were before the collapse, and GDP growth is barely keeping up with inflation, instead of expanding like it should under a real recovery.

Ash Burton wrote:
Stop with this ownership of the economy bullshit, we all own it.

It's a phrase relaying his responsibility for it. Everyone is suffering in the current economy, including myself and all my unemployed & underemployed friends & relatives.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:
Social issues weren't Obama's number one priority on the campaign trail, but they do matter right now. Two gay people wanting to get married shouldn't have to wait for a good economy to have the same rights as everyone else. If a woman is raped and impregnated, she shouldn't have to wait for a budget surplus to be allowed to do something about it. These things matter to people in the now, and they're not abstracts to anyone who has to deal with it.

Which is why the states should be making decisions on all of this, under the tenth amendment, not the federal government and the people running for the presidency. If people in South Dakota want to outlaw abortions and gay marriage, and people in California want abortion on demand and gays to be able to marry, let them both have what they want. Why should someone in a far off capitol tell someone thousands of mile away how to run their personal life? The federal government is supposed to deal with fiscal matters, international diplomacy, and law & order. All other responsibilities not listed in the Constitution go to the states under the tenth amendment, and I believe that covers all social issues, as they are not addressed by our founding documents.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:
So are you one of those Republicans who's too angry to play ball now that you lost a perfectly fair election?

No, I'm glad Boehner is trying to compromise with Obama right now in order to deal with the fiscal cliff. If Obama wants to raise taxes, that's his right as the victor, but because we still have the House, some of our proposals deserve fair consideration as well, in the face of what's coming down the pike.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:
Because it sounds an awful lot to me like you're enjoying our country's economic pain to get some vindictive shots at the President.

Not the case at all; perhaps my phrasing let my current anger seep through too much, giving that impression. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see the economy improving by the 2014 midterms, which will cause GOP gains at that point. Further, I do not believe it will improve in four years, leading to a republican administration in 2016 with Marco Rubio either the President or Vice President, depending.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:
Besides, even if the economy keeps improving at its current pace, we'll be down to unemployment levels that are almost normal in 4 years time. There's no reason to believe that it won't pick up the pace, though. Economic growth tends to perpetuate itself.

Under normal circumstances, yes (and it should have taken two years to get back to 5% unemployment, not eight), but I see this resembling the 30s & 70s, resulting in our current stagnation, and possible, future stagflation due to Bernanke's continual quantitative easing, and Obama's addiction to deficit spending (just like Dubya before him). I truly believe that we've reached a tipping point in terms of our debt and entitlement spending. Republicans will eventually be able to get back into power, but it'll probably be too late to fix it in a timely manner.
View user's profileSend private message
Greg the White
Joined: Apr 09 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 04:00 pm Reply with quote Back to top

This is one of those things that makes conservatives completely insufferable to me. They're always wrong. Trickle-down never worked. It murders the middle-class and increases income disparity. Deregulation results in massive crashes that result in more massive crashes because nothing gets fixed. Slashing taxes and dumping money into the richest corporations as a begging measure to keep prices low is complete fucking lunacy, ignoring any sort of future problems. Complete isolationism makes us weak on an international stage, while blowing the shit out of everyone makes more enemies.I don't see any real, idealist conservative politicians out there, mostly politicians who bribe short-sighted dopes with laws that fuck up this country just so they can stay in power.

Remember the socialist shithole that we were supposed to be right now? Remember how the negro was going to avenge slavery by taking away all of our guns (so much so that there was an ammo shortage from fat, middle-aged sofa warriors gobbling it up)? Remember how we were going to lose all of the car companies, turning Detroit into Robocop Detroit? How about surrendering our forces in Iraq/Afghanistan? I'm not all that big into Maher, but man is the bubble that he goes on about that these people live in not for real.

Every progressive president, from Teddy to FDR to Clinton, even Eisenhower and Bush Sr. realized that the Randian view of the world is from bright-eyed dipshits with no grasp on reality, that monetary value doesn't immediately judge worth to society. A cheap subsidy large companies to keep prices down does not work better than a well-rounded stimulus (Obama), infrastructure overhaul (Eisenhower and FDR), worker's rights (Teddy), or even necessary tax raises (Bush Sr.).


So here's to you Mrs. Robinson. People love you more- oh, nevermind.
 
View user's profileSend private message
Cameron
Title: :O � O:
Joined: Feb 01 2008
Location: St. Louis, MO
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 04:15 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Syd Lexia wrote:
Indulging social issues is all well and good in times of prosperity, but when the country's fucking drowning in debt and you choose to make anything but reducing that debt your number 1 priority, you're incredibly shortsighted and I severely question your judgment.

This...eugh. I honestly got a sick feeling in my stomach reading this. Syd, you're not attracted to the same sex, and I get that that's why same-sex marriage isn't a big priority to you, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a priority for people whom it does affect. You telling someone that they should focus their attention entirely on the national debt and not at all on gay marriage is just as bad as someone telling you that you should focus your attention entirely on gay marriage and not at all on the national debt. I'd like to see equal attention devoted to both. The national debt is colossally influential to much of the population's happiness, but I don't think someone else is objectively wrong because whether or not they can marry their partner has just as much influence on their emotional well-being.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:
Social issues weren't Obama's number one priority on the campaign trail, but they do matter right now. Two gay people wanting to get married shouldn't have to wait for a good economy to have the same rights as everyone else. If a woman is raped and impregnated, she shouldn't have to wait for a budget surplus to be allowed to do something about it. These things matter to people in the now, and they're not abstracts to anyone who has to deal with it.

QFT.


Image
 
View user's profileSend private message
LeshLush
Joined: Oct 19 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 04:36 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Cameron wrote:
Syd Lexia wrote:
Indulging social issues is all well and good in times of prosperity, but when the country's fucking drowning in debt and you choose to make anything but reducing that debt your number 1 priority, you're incredibly shortsighted and I severely question your judgment.

This...eugh. I honestly got a sick feeling in my stomach reading this. Syd, you're not attracted to the same sex, and I get that that's why same-sex marriage isn't a big priority to you, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a priority for people whom it does affect. You telling someone that they should focus their attention entirely on the national debt and not at all on gay marriage is just as bad as someone telling you that you should focus your attention entirely on gay marriage and not at all on the national debt. I'd like to see equal attention devoted to both.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:
Social issues weren't Obama's number one priority on the campaign trail, but they do matter right now. Two gay people wanting to get married shouldn't have to wait for a good economy to have the same rights as everyone else. If a woman is raped and impregnated, she shouldn't have to wait for a budget surplus to be allowed to do something about it. These things matter to people in the now, and they're not abstracts to anyone who has to deal with it.

QFT.


Cam, I think that the point Syd and Cat were trying to make is that things like the deficit can only be fixed on the national stage, and therefore ought to be dealt with at the federal level. However, social issues are capably handled at the state level, so let it be done by the states. That way the federal government isn't too distracted to do it's job.
View user's profileSend private message
Cameron
Title: :O � O:
Joined: Feb 01 2008
Location: St. Louis, MO
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 04:38 pm Reply with quote Back to top

LeshLush wrote:
Cam, I think that the point Syd and Cat were trying to make is that things like the deficit can only be fixed on the national stage, and therefore ought to be dealt with at the federal level. However, social issues are capably handled at the state level, so let it be done by the states. That way the federal government isn't too distracted to do it's job.

If it can be capably handled at the state level then why hasn't Missouri capably handled legalizing it? Razz


Image
 
View user's profileSend private message
mjkefka
Joined: Apr 17 2011
Location: Vegas Baby
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 04:55 pm Reply with quote Back to top

"Yes, I also think the federal government should leave us alone and let states decide on social issues," said the majority of Southerners in 1860.
View user's profileSend private message
Drew Linky
Wizard
Joined: Jun 12 2009
PostPosted: Nov 08 2012 05:06 pm Reply with quote Back to top

mjkefka wrote:
"Yes, I also think the federal government should leave us alone and let states decide on social issues," said the majority of Southerners in 1860.

QFT


https://discord.gg/homestuck is where you can find me literally 99% of the time. Stop on by if you feel like it, we're a nice crowd.
 
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Cattivo
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Location: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 02:03 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Comparing the situation to slavery is just absurd.
View user's profileSend private message
Greg the White
Joined: Apr 09 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 02:12 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Cattivo wrote:
Comparing the situation to slavery is just absurd.

Denying Civil Rights to a group of people based on the supposed "moral" beliefs based on region. Yeah, no parallels at all.


So here's to you Mrs. Robinson. People love you more- oh, nevermind.
 
View user's profileSend private message
mjkefka
Joined: Apr 17 2011
Location: Vegas Baby
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 02:59 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Ok, I'll use a more recent example.
Segregation of schools had to be addressed on a national level because southern states did not want to desegregate. They were federally ordered to treat children of all races equally. Those states opposed it using the justification that it was their state's rights to govern how they see fit. It's the same thing I hear now defending the hate towards gays and denying them the same rights every "normal" human in this country gets. It's the same thing I'm reading in this thread.
Leaving social issues up to states is allowing people to infringe on other people's rights. No matter what some people wanted to do hundreds of years ago, times change; we are no longer individual states that band together in times of war. We are all one big country and social issues shouldn't be decided at a local level because even though that may sound good on paper, in reality it leads to discrimination based on "moral" or "religious" standards.
View user's profileSend private message
Vert1
Joined: Aug 28 2011
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 03:04 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Gay marriage (and gay rights for that matter) and Black civil rights are not the same thing at all. You're comparing people who were enslaved, raped, whipped, and killed by people for having a dark pigment to people who can go about their lives getting high positions in society (i.e. gay Hollywood, the government, etc.).

As far as the whole get married thing goes it is just done to make gays enslaved to government:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-libertarian-case-against-gay-marriage/

Another thing is Reagan was a racist and doubled the national debt. Bill Clinton raided social security to get a surplus. Bush and the neocons destroyed the country with two wars. And Obama is still pay rolled by the same people who will leave the country as residue.

And Romney was never the answer. He was a joke who never stood a chance.


Image
 
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
Cattivo
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Location: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 04:13 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I guess slavery & racism are a new corollary to Godwin's law of Internet discussions. Just ridiculous.

Washington engaging in central planning for a country as big as ours is ill-advised, expanding the scope of federal government beyond its primary purpose of protecting its citizens from foreign & domestic threats. Fear Hobbes' Leviathan when it gains too much power, whether or not you believe abortion & gay marriage are "civil rights."
View user's profileSend private message
mjkefka
Joined: Apr 17 2011
Location: Vegas Baby
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 04:26 pm Reply with quote Back to top

No need for that comment. It's so not ironic for a straight, white male to say that women's issues, race inequality, and gay rights are not domestic threats. They are threats to those people's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and the federal government has the right, and I would say responsibility, to intervene.
View user's profileSend private message
Cattivo
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Location: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 05:49 pm Reply with quote Back to top

This all boils down to differences in philosophies of the role of government. Basically, I just view government as a necessary evil that we all put up with by giving up rights in order to secure protection from criminals and foreign invaders. Social issues, having their connection to religion, only serve to divide us when we must be one, united country (e pluribus unum). Now, since the birth of our republic, the role of government has naturally, and understandably, expanded. A temporary safety net is needed after what we saw in the Great Depression, and we need the government to provide for infrastructure, because we are such a large nation, both geographically and population-wise, which also mandates higher organization in general. And of course, since the beginning of time, taxes have to be levied for government to fulfill these functions. However, government has also expanded in other avenues that are just unnecessary (e.g., the Department of Energy, which was created by Carter to decrease our dependency on foreign oil – it has failed, and the Department of Education, which continues to spend money to no effect, when this is more a responsibility of the states), resulting in worthless, inefficient, and ever-expanding bureaucracy. While the Civil War resulted in the great good of the end of slavery, it also resulted in the practical death of states’ rights (the tenth amendment), which is regrettable in my opinion, because ever since Reconstruction, the federal government has been growing into an over-encumbered Leviathan. Now, while we do need a strong enough federal government, as shown by the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, there does need to be a balance, so that the federal government does not grow too large, becoming a burden upon the people and compromising additional rights that are not a part of the original social contract that We The People forged by allowing the creation of a federal government.
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:      
Reply to topic

 
 Jump to: