# Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

gaute.r.nilsen said:


> Well, hope this result stands .-) The rest of the world will not understand you americans if you pick Romney for president! At least that´s my inpression when I read the european press


I've seen polls that suggest that Obama is more popular in Romney in at least twenty countries, including major global nations.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

Darklings said:


> Obama came out in support of gay marriage. Of course it's a campaign strategy to get the gay vote and the younger one for that matter, but still. Romney is all for the, "sanctity of marriage."
> 
> I know Obama will win. Romney is just too much of big business and everything we don't need in America. The people have just gotten over Bush, I don't think they want someone worse in office.


Yes, I know Obama has zero intention of doing anything regarding gay marriage, but in contrast to Romney's stark defense, he is still the best candidate for me.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

I think Obama will win but I sure as heck won't be voting for him. Not that my vote will matter, Maryland is almost 100% liberal.


----------



## SkyRunner (Jun 30, 2012)

I want Obama to win. I really don't like how corrupt politics are now and I am not a fan of either party but I like Obama more. He will screw us over less (even though he still will to an extent). Mitt Romney will send us back to the dark ages and be a horrible leader since he can never make up his mind on his opinion of things.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

KateMarie999 said:


> I think Obama will win but I sure as heck won't be voting for him. Not that my vote will matter, Maryland is almost 100% liberal.


yeah, I feel like my vote here is meaningless. I just moved to MD from PA, and at least PA had a LITTLE more play in it. But not like Ohio or Florida.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Darklings said:


> Obama came out in support of gay marriage. Of course it's a campaign strategy to get the gay vote and the younger one for that matter, but still. Romney is all for the, "sanctity of marriage."
> 
> I know Obama will win. Romney is just too much of big business and everything we don't need in America. The people have just gotten over Bush, I don't think they want someone worse in office.


I'm not convinced Obama will win. I also think, though, that the Republicans have really been pushing to spin this to make it look like Romney has a chance, and if they are successful enough, it could actually come true. I'm just not sure HOW much bluff is going on. But it's actually an impressive strategy for a candidate that a few months ago was a total joke even in his own party. 

That and Obama blowing the first debate (what WAS up with that?) has given Romney a chance. Of course, it doesn't say at all whether he'd actually be successful in the position if he gets it. I'm thinking not.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

gaute.r.nilsen said:


> Well, hope this result stands .-) The rest of the world will not understand you americans if you pick Romney for president! At least that´s my inpression when I read the european press


Europeans seem to be way more socially advanced than us, so I wouldn't blame them.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

JoanCrawford said:


> Europeans seem to be way more socially advanced than us, so I wouldn't blame them.


Pretty much. They also understand that Obama's had a far more nuanced approach to foreign policy than what Romney is stating as his preference.... although I suspect that Romney would not be nearly as extreme in practice as he is in rhetoric during the election season.


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

nádej said:


> I sure hope it's Obama.
> 
> I'm not Obama's biggest fan (and my political beliefs align more with some of the third-party candidates), but I think he's a decent human being with good intentions. And Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan scare me, to be quite honest.
> 
> My vote isn't going to matter though, in terms of the presidential decision. There is no way Obama will lose Illinois.


The last election was the first time Florida went blue in a _long_ time. I'm hoping it will happen again.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

i hope to GOD obama isn't re-elected. simply because of his wife, michelle obama. who is taking our school lunch from a hamburger, to a smaller than normal KRYSTAL.


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

Snow White said:


> Obama. I want my rights. /selfish motivation.


I don't understand how not wanting to be stripped of your right to control your reproductive organs is particularly selfish. I personally am not too keen on the idea of being forced into a situation where I have to choose between purchasing a flight to Canada or using the Detroit Escalator as an abortive method. 

I'm hoping for Obama. That's not saying much, I don't particularly like him and I think he's quite conservative, but the dem party is quite conservative as a general rule. Still, he's marginally better than Romney. Marginally.


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

bromide said:


> I don't understand how not wanting to be stripped of your right to control your reproductive organs is particularly selfish. I personally am not too keen on the idea of being forced into a situation where I have to choose between purchasing a flight to Canada or using the Detroit Escalator as an abortive method.
> 
> I'm hoping for Obama. That's not saying much, I don't particularly like him and I think he's quite conservative, but the dem party is quite conservative as a general rule. Still, he's marginally better than Romney. Marginally.


I actually wasn't referring to abortion, I was referring to LGBT rights - which I'm sure would eventually become obsolete should Romney be elected. I'm not naive enough to think that Obama is going to legalize gay marriage nationwide or anything remotely close to that, but at least I know he's not going to push the other way and undo what little progress has been made.

Abortion is also important to me, though. Just because I'm a lesbian doesn't mean that I might not find myself in a situation I don't plan; women can't foresee being raped. I'd rather not have to worry about "legitimizing" it.

EDIT: And how creepy is this. Right after I sent this post and clicked on an article not even remotely related to the election on google, an Obama clip started playing.


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

Snow White said:


> I actually wasn't referring to abortion, I was referring to LGBT rights - which I'm sure would eventually become obsolete should Romney be elected. I'm not naive enough to think that Obama is going to legalize gay marriage nationwide or anything remotely close to that, but at least I know he's not going to push the other way and undo what little progress has been made.
> 
> Abortion is also important to me, though. Just because I'm a lesbian doesn't mean that I might not find myself in a situation I don't plan; women can't foresee being raped. I'd rather not have to worry about "legitimizing" it.
> 
> EDIT: And how creepy is this. Right after I sent this post and clicked on an article not even remotely related to the election on google, an Obama clip started playing.


Yeah this is pivotal because we are going to have a couple openings for supreme court justices coming up here in the next couple years. This means that if Obama is elected, he's going to post dems to the supreme court. Now the supreme court is pretty much the only way that LGBT marriage is going to be legally legitimized and all of the homophobic state laws broadly overturned. As of yet of course the supreme court has not heard any of the cases for LGBT marriage, basically because denying it is unconstitutional, so if they did hear a case on it, they'd have to declare it legal. So, if we have two dems filling vacant seats, there is a higher likelihood of a case being heard. (learned that'n from a legal scholar)


----------



## PhoenixRises (Sep 17, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> Pretty much. They also understand that Obama's had a far more nuanced approach to foreign policy


Ha! Nuanced?! Pardon my French, but 'Putain, ça craint!' As a conservative I laugh because anyone who has studied foreign policy would realize that Obama has actually furthered a neoconservative agenda. I don't mind it, because I don't think neoconservativism isn't a dirty word and most people don't understand what it means from a scholarly or academic perspective.

He's actually very hawkish in his pursuits. There's been more UAV (or "drones" if you will) attacks than under him than any other President. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, has now said that we can target Americans abroad who are a national security threat, a huge no-no to what the Constitution says as our protected and endowed rights. Mind you, this threat doesn't have to be specific, and you don't have to be tried in court. They killed Anwar al-Awlaki despite him being an American citizen deserving of a fair trial; at the very least, they could have revoked his citizenship before choosing an extrajudicial assassination. Also, it should be noted most of these extrajudicial killings are often times done without the consent of the sovereign state whose airspace we are using and puts many countries at odds with their civilians who are also being killed in these imprecise bombings. This at the same time he's received a Nobel Peace Prize for having done nothing but _promise_ he's going to unite people and bring about peace. I find this extremely unsettling.

Another example: one of his first promises was to close Gitmo (I believe it was one of his first executive orders, I want to say Jan 22), but he reneged on this too, and all those detainees under Bush are still being detained. How come it's acceptable under Obama, and yet the liberals were up in arms when Bush originally detained them? The war in Iraq, while "over", still leaves a power vacuum that's dangerous and unresolved. AND, by the way, he didn't end the war there. We were supposed to reach a status of forces agreement with the government and he failed to do so, which led to an abrupt and messy end. He's also arbitrarily decided for us to leave Afghanistan based on a political timetable and against the advice of military and defense leadership, who have counseled we should leave on an objectives-based model. Meanwhile, the war has become more deadly under this administration than at any other time. Oh, and if you haven't been paying attention, we're currently in a dozen other unmentioned conflicts and shadow wars--look up any of the issues with the Gulf or the Horn of Africa and you'll see we've deployed even more troops there too.

I think there's a gross hypocrisy and ignorance when liberals and Democrats state they are peaceful, anti-War, and that the individual they are supporting follows these goals. He doesn't, and if you did your research I doubt you would support him so vigorously. On a final note, I find the "global trends" irrelevant to the election. It doesn't matter that France loves Obama, it matters that we as Americans select who best represents our nation and what we want for our future.


----------



## nádej (Feb 27, 2011)

Sorry this is slightly off-topic, but I'm giggling because the Obama bar on the graph is red and the Romney bar is blue. Opposite day, you guys! It's possible that it has been a long day and suddenly absolutely everything is amusing to me, but it's also possible that this is actually a little bit funny.

On-topic is that I just found out my 21 year-old brother, who posts endless (hilarious and spot-on) political commentary on Twitter, is not even registered to vote. And he lives in a swing state. Things like this are the things that do make me worry about this election outcome. My two homes (my own and my parents') are both in blue states, so I'm mostly surrounded by fellow liberals, but...then I remember that not all of the country is like that. And then I remember that even some people I think are solid Obama votes _aren't even registered_. And then I want to go pinch my brother like I used to do when we were little and he did something stupid.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

@_PhoenixRises_: You shouldn't assume what you think I believe or what I know. Most of your post also doesn't address "nuance," it describes your particular complaints against the Obama administration and ways in which it has been more hawkish than some people might think. But what you say is nothing new -- I just read two articles in the last day describing ways in which Obama is more hawkish than expected and Romney is more doveish than expected.

My comment about nuance refers to (1) Obama showing more nuance than Romney in his understanding of politics -- it's far less black and white than what Romney has articulated -- and (2) that same recognition by much of the rest of the world. None of that is really impacted by the things you describe in your post, you're focused on other things. But maybe someone will be enlightened by the information you've provided, if they haven't yet run across it.


----------



## Le Beau Coeur (Jan 30, 2011)

Obama!​


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Obama, for the love of God.


----------



## Feral (Jun 2, 2011)

I don't think Romney has much of a chance since he's demonstrated his inability to make up his mind. That and he's a compulsive liar.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Romney wins in a landslide -- Las Vegas oddsmaker doubles down on prediction | Fox News

I say Romney wins. I hope he wins too. You can't trust what politicians say. Almost all of them say whatever they need to. Ron Paul is the only one that is unchanging but he'll never win. Obama is more full of shit than Romney by far. Ultimately you have to look at what they do. Romney has been branded the flipflopper but it's mostly smoke and mirrors. He is a hell of a good leader. Everything he touches gets fixed property and turns to gold. His whole life has been about fixing things. After making a shit load of money fixing businesses he volunteered to fix the Olympics. Why? Because be believes in helping and giving back. He didn't just refuse a paycheck, he donated $1 million. So then he turned to Mass. What did he do? He fixed it. Why? Because he believes in public service. He's not a lazy-ass selfish person sitting on a yacht. He's donating his time and talents to help make the world a better place. Most politicians are dirty crooks looking for how they can benefit themselves. As governor Romney donated his salary to charity. The guy is clean as a whistle. No skeletons at all. The only thing people can talk about is stupid shit like carrying his dog on the car roof. He is as good as it gets for electable politicians. 

What is Obama? A charismatic smooth talker who picks losers and that obviously can't fix anything properly. He said it was going to be a one-term proposition if he couldn't get this country turned around and so it is. One term is all he'll get. 

My job is in the shitter right now. The well being of my wife and kids depends on someone who can fix this issue now. Goodbye Obama.


----------



## Curiously (Nov 7, 2011)

BensUsername said:


> I don't support either candidate, but my gut tells me Obama will be the victor.


Ditto.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

PhoenixRises said:


> I'm not assuming that's what you believe or know. Nowhere do I state this, and I'm sorry if you mistook it for a personal attack. More than anything I'm commenting that most people have no grasp of his policies, especially his foreign policy.


I go by tone, wording choices, and "heat" factor. I'm a pattern matcher, and I'm interested in what drives things rather than the thing itself. So yeah, you were pretty "hot" on that post, which surprised me since I've never even talked to you before from what I recall.



> Nuanced isn't the way I'd describe it. It has to do with worldview, and you are correct they have vastly different worldviews. Black and white thinking is actually a metric in psychology that's been described as cognitive complexity (I described this in another thread, on whether Romney is an INTP....which btw he is not!) and having low cognitive complexity (black or white thinking) is not an indicator of intelligence or the degree to which you are successful in decision making.


I agree with that, with the disclaimer that it depends on the situation and what you're making decisions about. Sometimes black and white thinking is appropriate (for example, we don't typically like creative accountants... they go to jail). 



> I am guessing by nuanced you meant Obama has a higher cognitive complexity, but all that means is that he more likely to believe some issues as shades of grey. So it's a personal preference, but it doesn't make for a better leader and there is an advantage to one style or the other depending upon the crisis.


This is starting to feel tedious, honestly. We're discussing foreign policy and how our country interacts with other countries. In that case, being flexible, able to perceive multiple frameworks and step into them, to grasp how they interplay with other frameworks, and not simply barging in like a bull in a china shop is what I am describing as "nuanced." Romney's comments were not; and it is understood that he's not just a black/white thinker, but also a judger type who likes to have closure and not revisit them, and he also is extremely religious and thus carries that into situations where there are a plethora of world-views floating around and thus is tempted to impose his own views / give them dominance, rather than seriously considering them and trying to find a balance that accommodates more than his own view. He showed similar behavior when governor of MA, in terms of gay adoption (as one example), where he seemed to just want to slap down his own moral values on situations against the advice of his own Health services branch. I'm sure I could dig up other examples as well. 

That's all. I don't really have much more to explain about it. It all seems quite obvious to me.



> Enough said.


Thanks.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

What I don't understand - 

is why being aesthetically nuanced is important to a presidential nominee. It comes down to aesthetics, not content - because the content _is _the aesthetics of the candidate, and not the other way around. People here have said they're voting for Obama because he's the "better" candidate - without citing a single thing that he has actually *done*. If one actually looks at what he has done over the past four years, you'll find that a significant amount is not really aligned with liberal causes. It's that he put up a nice face while dicking around the whole time, and seemed "diplomatic." 

I want output out of a president. I couldn't give a rats ass about how they look, or who they symbolize. "Possibilities" of output mean absolutely nothing. Show me the production, show me the improvement, show me the output. Obama would rather talk about it and romanticisze it than show it, and I won't be voting for him. 

Romney thinks he can cut the deficit by closing loopholes. All the while totally turning the economy around. Yep, won't be voting for him either, because he's an utter dumbass. I guess that leaves Gary Johnson, who won't win. 



Yep, I'll be running for President in 2016. I won't win, but I also won't dodge your questions, and will be happy to answer them directly. And, I'll actively work to cut the bullshit the American media has been propagating for centuries. Sound good?


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)

I'm not voting, but Mitt Romney is a bigot and he can rot.


----------



## Aqualung (Nov 21, 2009)

Looks like the one state they both need to win is Ohio & Obama is ahead 4 points there. Romney is winning the popular vote but that doesn't win elections. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. 16 years of failure is enough. Obviously Gary won't win but I can help get him on the map, someday.


----------



## PhoenixRises (Sep 17, 2012)

Shoekabob said:


> That and he's a compulsive liar.


What examples do you have in which he has lied compulsively? I can respect someone disagreeing with his platforms, fine. A lot of people disagree with them. But calling someone a compulsive liar is a bold statement, and requires some rationalization.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

LXPilot said:


> What I don't understand -
> 
> is why being aesthetically nuanced is important to a presidential nominee. It comes down to aesthetics, not content - because the content _is _the aesthetics of the candidate, and not the other way around. People here have said they're voting for Obama because he's the "better" candidate - without citing a single thing that he has actually *done*. If one actually looks at what he has done over the past four years, you'll find that a significant amount is not really aligned with liberal causes. It's that he put up a nice face while dicking around the whole time, and seemed "diplomatic."
> 
> ...


Yes, I will applaud you with my greatest thanks... if you make it out alive, my fellow politician.


----------



## nádej (Feb 27, 2011)

Aqualung said:


> I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. 16 years of failure is enough. Obviously Gary won't win but I can help get him on the map, someday.


Yeah, I'll be voting for Jill Stein. She doesn't have a chance, and I do want Obama to win, but I live in a firmly blue state and my vote for Obama wouldn't matter. He'll win my state regardless. The best use of my vote right now, I think, is in showing support for the recognition of more than just two parties. Also, my views at this point most closely align with hers and the rest of the Green Party.

If I lived in a swing state or a red state though, I would be voting Obama no question.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Las Vegas is the closest thing we have in the U.S. to a Libertarian government, Nevada has no state tax, prostitution and gambling are legal, people can drink in Vegas 24/7, etc.
> 
> It's also A COMPLETE FUCKING HELL HOLE. They have one of the highest suicide rates in the world (in the world, not in the country), there are homeless people everywhere, the exits are covered with scars from automobile collisions, and you have a greater chance of dying as a pedestrian in Vegas than you do in New York City.
> 
> ...


I hate Las Vegas too. It is a total shit hole. I travel there often on business. I'm always in and out as soon as possible. I don't really care where the author came from though.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Pete The Lich said:


> Are you aware of how often Romney flip flops?


They all flip flop, everyone except Ron Paul. It's the ugly world of politics. I like what he does more so than what he says. I think he has had a lot of bad press too and some of what we hear is just spin. He is a much better person in the real world than how he is portrayed in the press world. He is a good man. He has nothing to gain. He is running purely on the desire to help America. My hat is off to him. He is putting up with so much and sacrificing to much to do this. There is no paycheck, there is no glory. Just the opposite, he gets smeared everyday. The only reason he is running is because he wants to help and he knows he can make a positive difference.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

LXPilot said:


> What I don't understand -
> 
> is why being aesthetically nuanced is important to a presidential nominee. It comes down to aesthetics, not content - because the content _is _the aesthetics of the candidate, and not the other way around. People here have said they're voting for Obama because he's the "better" candidate - without citing a single thing that he has actually *done*. If one actually looks at what he has done over the past four years, you'll find that a significant amount is not really aligned with liberal causes. It's that he put up a nice face while dicking around the whole time, and seemed "diplomatic."
> 
> ...


Obama looks good because the press makes him look good. They don't hardly question or criticize anything he does. The owners of the papers and networks have ENORMOUS power over public opinion. They lead us around like dumb oxen with rings in our noses. 

I don't understand how you can say Romney is a dumbass when he has spent his whole life turning around fiscally messed up organizations It's what he does best, it's why he has $250 million. He will fix this country.


----------



## Liontiger (Jun 2, 2009)

duKempriZ said:


> Obama looks like a gang member, so...
> 
> Ron Paul


I realize this is a political debate and things get heated, but I'd like to encourage people to be more aware of what they're saying. This comment was intended to be funny, but really it is racially offensive. Of this calm and graying man, the only thing about him that looks "threatening" is the color of his skin. There really is no other explanation for this joke other than the stereotype that black men are gang members. So please, think before you post things like this.

This are not the only comment that I could have chosen to represent this issue, but you get the idea.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Everything Mitt Romney touches turns to gold. I hope that America will let him touch Washington and the entire United States.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Liontiger said:


> I realize this is a political debate and things get heated, but I'd like to encourage people to be more aware of what they're saying. This comment was intended to be funny, but really it is racially offensive. Of this calm and graying man, the only thing about him that looks "threatening" is the color of his skin. There really is no other explanation for this joke other than the stereotype that black men are gang members. So please, think before you post things like this.
> 
> This are not the only comment that I could have chosen to represent this issue, but you get the idea.


I always enjoy inhaling words of encouragement.. they are so pleasant and soothing. When I exhale is a different story to be told in seclusion.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

PhoenixRises said:


> Oh, riiiiight right right. So claiming someone is untrustworthy because of their religious beliefs makes _perfect_ sense. I can tell you right now, as a Republican I do not judge him based on being a Mormon. Your argument reminds me of the backwards paranoia people had about Kennedy simply because he was a Catholic. Wowzas.


Southern whites troubled by Romney's wealth, religion. 

If you don't realize what a blow to the face is, you clearly don't know what side the Republican party's bread is buttered on. Southern whites are your chippies, your bitches, your working class dumbasses who have been brainwashed into voting for rich oil magnates because of religious propaganda. If Southern whites don't like your candidate, you're in deep shit, my friend.

I, for one, am relieved that anything would relieve them from the delusion that the Republican party actually represents their personal causes.

Yes people have problems with Romney being a Mormon. I am not a Republican nor am I a religious Christian, so I clearly was not talking about myself. People have problems with Mitt Romney being a Mormon. Yes, they do. Accept reality.

These people wear magic underwear when they get married. Honestly, I do have a problem with it. My exes brother is a Mormon, and they're even fucking more insane than the general public thinks they are. Average people, like you know, family members and parents, can't be invited to their super secret wedding if they aren't registered Mormons.

Mormons are fucking batshit insane. It's a cult.

However, I was not referring to myself; this in no way shapes my view of Romney. If Romney were batshit insane, but an intelligent person with a policy I agreed with, I might vote for him, seeing as that I am not uber-religious, but he's not. 

There's no danger in me voting for a man whose idea of "struggling" is selling some stock to go to law school, and who argues against his own health care plan. Romney is simply a failure as a politician, he's like a baby-kissing, scary archetype, like the piece of shit nobody votes for because he's so sketchy; that's our Mitt Romney. 

That has nothing to do with his religious faith.



> Also, what do you have against his wealth? He may be rich, but again you cannot claim he is a "smug asshat" because he's happened to be immensely successful. This cracks me up because if you look up who is the most charitable candidate, you'll find he gives an insane amount of his personal wealth to charity (millions, in fact), while Biden gave a whopping $369 bucks a year for the ten years before becoming VP. In case you're curious, that's 0.3 percent of Biden's income...which is rather disproportionate, don't you think? I can't stand how people think that because you're one party or the other that you have a monopoly on virtue or generosity.


I am not here to argue with you about political policy, but I can tell you, any moron who argues against his own health care plan is not a generous person, in fact he is a complete fucking loser. I can't believe any Republican can even take him seriously after this, I don't know what's wrong with you people, like really, I sit and I wonder what is wrong with your minds, how you can even reconcile voting for a man who shoots down "Obamacare" when he essentially created it.

Of course, the Republican party is the very same who doesn't seem to be aware that Reagan argued for similar tax brackets to Obama, back in 85. 














> Care to elaborate on this one?







I don't know how you people even take yourselves seriously, honestly.

And I don't care if you don't like me, if you think I'm an unpleasant liberal, because seriously I don't know how people even keep a straight face when speaking with most American conservatives. Poor Europeans probably run screaming away, the only reason I can even tolerate you people for five minutes is because I was raised in the South, and I think my threshold is still much lower than most poker-faced NTs.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Liontiger said:


> I realize this is a political debate and things get heated, but I'd like to encourage people to be more aware of what they're saying. This comment was intended to be funny, but really it is racially offensive. Of this calm and graying man, the only thing about him that looks "threatening" is the color of his skin. There really is no other explanation for this joke other than the stereotype that black men are gang members. So please, think before you post things like this.
> 
> This are not the only comment that I could have chosen to represent this issue, but you get the idea.


Yeah it's bullshit because there is ZERO about Obama that looks like a gang member, he is like the antithesis of gang-member, apart from having darker skin.

Also, anyone who thinks Ron Paul is even a logically or realistically valid candidate at this juncture (or if they did at any juncture) are living in La-La land.

People who talk about Ron Paul make my Te angry, simply because they sound like such complete idealistic assholes. "Yes yes you agree with Ron Paul but only half of what Ron Paul says would even work in reality, and he's not going to be the president, so why don't you stop being such a child and actually vote for the lesser of two evils, because this is the real world we live in, jackass."


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

zelder said:


> Everything Mitt Romney touches turns to gold. I hope that America will let him touch Washington and the entire United States.


I don't want Mitt Romney to touch anyone.


----------



## Acey (Apr 14, 2010)

seeing these poll results have restored my faith in humanity.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Aqualung said:


> Looks like the one state they both need to win is Ohio & Obama is ahead 4 points there. Romney is winning the popular vote but that doesn't win elections. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. 16 years of failure is enough. Obviously Gary won't win but I can help get him on the map, someday.


No, your vote is a pointless vote against the lesser of two evils.

I hate when people vote "on principle." It's so abstract and retarded, as if people don't connect the reality of our political system with the state and national decisions which affect real people. YOU DON'T VOTE FOR SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS NOT EVEN IN THE RUNNING, BECAUSE IT'S A VOTE AGAINST THE CANDIDATE YOU HATE LEAST.

WTF. How do people not get this. Te fail. 

This is why some people are elitist. You ever wonder that? Why some people are elitist? This is why.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

zelder said:


> Everything Mitt Romney touches turns to gold. I hope that America will let him touch Washington and the entire United States.


Gold is useless for most things, so I guess you're right.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

zelder said:


> I hate Las Vegas too. It is a total shit hole. I travel there often on business. I'm always in and out as soon as possible. I don't really care where the author came from though.


You should care, because people who have actually EXPERIENCED things tend to be the experts of that place. I'd surely like to speak to someone from the former USSR than someone who read a book or saw a program about it.


----------



## nádej (Feb 27, 2011)

fourtines said:


> No, your vote is a pointless vote against the lesser of two evils.
> 
> I hate when people vote "on principle." It's so abstract and retarded, as if people don't connect the reality of our political system with the state and national decisions which affect real people. YOU DON'T VOTE FOR SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS NOT EVEN IN THE RUNNING, BECAUSE IT'S A VOTE AGAINST THE CANDIDATE YOU HATE LEAST.
> 
> ...


Agree, but also disagree. If someone lives in a firm red state and would vote for Romney or a firm blue state and would vote for Obama, I see nothing wrong with them voting for third-party candidates, especially if those are the policies you truly agree with. And especially for the presidential ticket because of the electoral college. My vote for Obama would be completely meaningless because there is no chance he will lose my state. It would be a vote against Romney, sure, but it still would be completely meaningless in reality. My vote for a third-party candidate will not cause Obama to lose my state, by any stretch of the imagination, and it will show support for something beyond the two-party system.

I think it's a different story for people who live in places where they would not be voting the same as the overwhelming majority. In those cases, I do agree with you. Someone in a swing state voting for a third-party makes me want to cry because, like you said, the reality of it is that those candidates just won't win and either Obama or Romney WILL, and it WILL affect you. It sucks that maybe they aren't voting for those who their views align with exactly, but this isnt a multiparty country yet. I certainly wish it were also, and that's why I do think third-party support should be shown elsewhere - where due to the electoral college it won't have an impact on the outcome of the election. We've still got a two-party system, and these are big decisions with real consequences. I hope that some practicality reigns over stubborn idealism, at least where it counts.


----------



## Aqualung (Nov 21, 2009)

fourtines said:


> No, your vote is a pointless vote against the lesser of two evils.
> 
> I hate when people vote "on principle." It's so abstract and retarded, as if people don't connect the reality of our political system with the state and national decisions which affect real people. YOU DON'T VOTE FOR SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS NOT EVEN IN THE RUNNING, BECAUSE IT'S A VOTE AGAINST THE CANDIDATE YOU HATE LEAST.
> 
> ...


 I'm in a very solid red state. If I were not voting for Gary Johnson, my second choice would be Romney. Would you rather I vote for him?


----------



## rycbar (Aug 2, 2011)

I'm not voting, but when it comes between the two, Obama needs to win.


----------



## Fallen Nocturne (May 13, 2012)

I'm firmly on the "Obama is the lesser of two evils" bus. I don't really care for Obama that much, but Romney is a moron and a bigot who must not get into power.


----------



## Beautiful Synthetic (Aug 30, 2012)

As of right now...Romney. That might change though.
Personally I'm for Romney, though I don't really like either two.


----------



## A_Small_Potatos_Mind (Oct 14, 2012)

Tega1 said:


> Who will win?


The military industrial complex


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

zelder said:


> Obama looks good because the press makes him look good. They don't hardly question or criticize anything he does. The owners of the papers and networks have ENORMOUS power over public opinion. They lead us around like dumb oxen with rings in our noses.
> 
> I don't understand how you can say Romney is a dumbass when he has spent his whole life turning around fiscally messed up organizations It's what he does best, it's why he has $250 million. He will fix this country.


He _can't _fix the country - nobody can in four years. 

Fixing a country and fixing a business are entirely different tasks. The operational and functional dynamics of the private sector and the public sector in a combined state across a country guarantee complexity that Romney does not have experience with yet. Optimizing a cost-revenue structure given the decifit, which is essentially what "fixing" means in a fiscal sense here, cannot be done on a national level by merely cutting loopholes, and that is his primary position. 

There are A.) far too many and B.) they will not be enough to cut the deficit. Particularly in the context of additional spending he plans to keep in place/increase, such as the military. The quantitative element of the plan, staying in debt, does not match his qualitative stance, which is to "get the economy running again." This is understandable, because it can't really happen anyway right now - but he's either lying, as all politicians do, or has chosen an obviously dysfunctional way of describing how he plans to accomplish what he wants to. 

Not that Obama's is better. It sounds like it will be worse.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

nádej said:


> Agree, but also disagree. If someone lives in a firm red state and would vote for Romney or a firm blue state and would vote for Obama, I see nothing wrong with them voting for third-party candidates, especially if those are the policies you truly agree with. And especially for the presidential ticket because of the electoral college. My vote for Obama would be completely meaningless because there is no chance he will lose my state. It would be a vote against Romney, sure, but it still would be completely meaningless in reality. My vote for a third-party candidate will not cause Obama to lose my state, by any stretch of the imagination, and it will show support for something beyond the two-party system.


No, it's a symbolic waste of time, and if enough people believe that their vote doesn't matter, then oops, maybe what you are presuming isn't going to come true. I think there's an ALARMING number of young people who believe that even if they don't vote, or if they vote for Count Chocula or Boo-Berry that their state will magically still be red or blue. That only happens if enough people are voting. I mean if Florida can blue (it did in the last election) anything can happen. I've also seen normally blue state WV go red temporarily following 9/11, so these assumptions are kind of silly and irresponsible.

You aren't making a point by voting for someone who isn't going to win, that's NOT how the political system is going to change. I have an ENTP who agrees with me on this, but from a different angle. Because I think that not acting is a form of irresponsible acting, I become infuriated with people who don't vote at all or who think their voting for a third party won't skew results, because to me it's fucking impractical and it simply doesn't work in logical reality (Se/Te). My ENTP friend on the other hand, completely disengages, refuses to vote or participate at all, but he also thinks that people who do things like support Ron Paul or "symbolically" vote for Gary Johnson or The Cookie Monster are idiots who don't understand how the system works, that they simply do not grasp our system at all, and while he doesn't agree with me that a missing vote is a tragedy, he agrees that a vote for a third party candidate accomplishes nothing from the standpoint of logic. 

If you want to change the system, that's not how it's going to happen, so please don't delude yourself into thinking you're doing ANYTHING AT ALL. In my opinion, your action is negative and irresponsible, and from my ENTP friend's view, your action is just an illogical waste of time, but it's yours to waste since you're not educated enough to understand how a change in our political system would actually come about. 



> I think it's a different story for people who live in places where they would not be voting the same as the overwhelming majority. In those cases, I do agree with you. Someone in a swing state voting for a third-party makes me want to cry because, like you said, the reality of it is that those candidates just won't win and either Obama or Romney WILL, and it WILL affect you. It sucks that maybe they aren't voting for those who their views align with exactly, but this isnt a multiparty country yet. I certainly wish it were also, and that's why I do think third-party support should be shown elsewhere - where due to the electoral college it won't have an impact on the outcome of the election. We've still got a two-party system, and these are big decisions with real consequences. I hope that some practicality reigns over stubborn idealism, at least where it counts.


Philosophically, I am Green Party. I am actually more of what someone would call an environmentalist and a supporter of democratic socialism, which clearly works in the real world, and produces countries full of much more educated and sane people. I am idealist, but my ideals are firmly centered in what I see working better in other parts of the world, not because of some lunatic vision (I'm sorry, but I think Ron Paul is a bit delusional, and his world view partly good, but overall would not work in terms of the real world, and would have dire consequences that he CLEARLY does not anticipate.)

However, I am not going to vote for Jill Stein, because I think doing so is irresponsible and could potentially impact real people's lives, and to me the real world comes first over my own fantasies of how I wish things were.


----------



## PhoenixRises (Sep 17, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Southern whites are your chippies, your bitches, your working class dumbasses who have been brainwashed into voting for rich oil magnates because of religious propaganda. If Southern whites don't like your candidate, you're in deep shit, my friend.


When I brought forth legitimate questions, you stoop to discriminatory speech about an entire region of people. Your tone is prejudiced and rude. Way to generalize. If you'd like to have conversation that doesn't resort to name-calling and personal attacks, then be my guest. But you should know that no one will take your argument seriously. I would have genuinely liked to hear your points.



fourtines said:


> Yes people have problems with Romney being a Mormon...My exes brother is a Mormon, and they're even fucking more insane than the general public thinks they are...Mormons are fucking batshit insane. It's a cult.


Again, this is hate speech. And I don't appreciate anyone who has to resort to expletives to get their point across. It's what I like to call the 'breakdown of intellect'.



fourtines said:


> I am not here to argue with you about political policy, but I can tell you, any moron who argues against his own health care plan is not a generous person, in fact he is a complete fucking loser.


Again, you don't want to really discuss this in an appropriate format. You'd rather call the individual who could potentially be our next President a "complete f**king loser." Sliding in that aside about healthcare while claiming you're not interested in political policy demonstrates the hypocrisy of your statement.



fourtines said:


> And I don't care if you don't like me, if you think I'm an unpleasant liberal, because seriously I don't know how people even keep a straight face when speaking with most American conservatives.


I don't dislike you at all. In fact, I don't know you. I'm rather neutral about it. But I do have issue with you not using Personality Cafe properly and treating others (and this forum) with respect. So you should know I've reported your post for inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, and hate speech. This has no place here and if you can't discuss the issues like a mature and tolerant person you have no place posting here.


----------



## Stray_Arrow (Mar 23, 2012)




----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Fallen Nocturne said:


> I'm firmly on the "Obama is the lesser of two evils" bus. I don't really care for Obama that much, but Romney is a moron and a bigot who must not get into power.


I think he's potentially a complete and utter moron. Either that, or he's some Si dom who is SO rigid in what his sense impressions are that he automatically rejects new evidence (inferior Ne) to the contrary.

I mean what kind of person really thinks single parents are to blame for gun violence? I mean, doesn't he think it's odd that most school shootings were perpetrated by young people from traditional two parent homes?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

PhoenixRises said:


> When I brought forth legitimate questions, you stoop to discriminatory speech about an entire region of people. Your tone is prejudiced and rude. Way to generalize. If you'd like to have conversation that doesn't resort to name-calling and personal attacks, then be my guest. But you should know that no one will take your argument seriously. I would have genuinely liked to hear your points.


I'm from the South, and my family is working class, so would you like to discuss that? I'm not upper class, I'm not a Yank from the big city, and I know what I see around me: a bunch of less educated people who have been misled by religious propaganda to essentially trick them into fiscally voting against their own best interests. However, as Wal Mart starts to drive out all of their small business and so forth, some of them really are starting to wake up.

I didn't personally attack you, so I don't know what you're talking about. 





> Again, this is hate speech. And I don't appreciate anyone who has to resort to expletives to get their point across. It's what I like to call the 'breakdown of intellect'.


I majored in English, minored in French, speak bits and pieces of three to five other languages and used to write for pay. I can assure you that using expletives or alarming words isn't a breakdown of intellect, it's just the way I choose to express myself, and you focusing on my word choice instead of the content of what I'm saying tells me a lot. Essentially I feel you are making a non-argument. 





> Again, you don't want to really discuss this in an appropriate format. You'd rather call the individual who could potentially be our next President a "complete f**king loser." Sliding in that aside about healthcare while claiming you're not interested in political policy demonstrates the hypocrisy of your statement.


WHAT?




> I don't dislike you at all. In fact, I don't know you. I'm rather neutral about it. But I do have issue with you not using Personality Cafe properly and treating others (and this forum) with respect. So you should know I've reported your post for inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, and hate speech. This has no place here and if you can't discuss the issues like a mature and tolerant person you have no place posting here.


I didn't personally attack you, and yes, many working class whites in the South who vote Republican do so because of lack of education and because they've been misguided by religious propaganda, and when I am also a white Southerner from a working class family where my grandfather voted Republican, I can say these things all I like. Does that bother you? I don't particularly care. The right wing has disintegrated into a complete travesty.

I don't even think you watched those videos about Reagan, and like many Republicans, you aren't even aware of how bizarre and mutated your party has become since Reagan was in office in the 1980s. Yes, I would say that's pretty ignorant, and it's the sort of ignorance which can be easily led by propaganda. 

There are Republicans I respect but most of them are moderate, and most of them are intelligent enough to recognize how incredibly conservative Obama is for a Democrat and how extremist their own party has become, and how it does not even vaguely resemble either Eisenhower's or Reagan's Republican party. 

Report me all you like, I never personally attacked you, and yes, I do think Mormonism is a cult, and I learned alarming things about Mormons after actually knowing some Mormons personally.

*EDIT: In fact, when I say working class Southern whites are your chippies and bitches, that isn't an insult to them, but to the people in power who are manipulating and exploiting people who are relatively financially poor and also poorly educated...it makes me angry that wealthy people in positions of power use people's religious beliefs against them in order to get votes for what is really about money and power, and has almost nothing to do with religion, in reality. The Republican party has become about special corporate interests and oil, and the religious aspect is all kind of a dazzling side show. It's kind of like making a fancy advertisement to trick people into buying your toothpaste, because your toothpaste is fun and has a dancing bear as a trademark. 
If anything, as someone who grew up as a working class white Southerner, I have a lot to be angry about, and I am just as angry about the exploitation of MY people as minorities may be about what big players in the current Republican party do their groups.*


----------



## nádej (Feb 27, 2011)

@fourtines

I agree with you on so many things, but just not this! I understand where you're coming from, I think, and I do agree on some points, but not all of it.

I'm an Illinois voter. For real this state is not going to Romney. Votes are important, and I think that's something we're in agreement on. It's because I believe votes are important and votes matter, coupled with living in a state that is *in no way* going to go to Romney, that I'm choosing to give that vote to Jill Stein. Those votes that third-party candidates get _do_ matter, especially with funding. If I were a Michigan voter, I'd vote Obama. If I were a Wisconsin voter, I'd vote Obama. If I were a Minnesota voter, I'd vote Obama. If I were an Ohio voter, I'd certainly vote Obama. But Illinois is a firmly Obama state...which does give some freedom to lend support to the Green Party. This is no Florida - it's not going to be flipping. It's not anywhere near there.

This isn't something I take lightly; I've given a lot of thought to it and done a lot of research. Because I, like you, fear living in a country with Romney as president. I fear that so much! And I, like you, believe that votes matter. This isn't an uneducated decision, and it's not some "well it would just be nice to have someone who cared about ______" decision either. It's a decision made with thought to both practicality and potential impact and one made within a certain context with the understanding of the electoral college and its implications. I'm not typically a third-party voter, either...I voted Obama in '08! Certainly great political change is not going to result merely by a smattering of third-party votes, and I _certainly_ do not advocate people voting third-party in states where there is *any* possibility of change in who that state will go to...because that would be stupid and potentially quite harmful. I'm not an idiot, I do care deeply about who wins this election (and am pulling for Obama and have campaigned rather extensively for Obama this election season), and I do understand how the system works. I hope that we can respectfully disagree on this, as it's clear that we are in agreement about so many other things.


----------



## Chickadee (Oct 13, 2012)

I don't know who will win, but I will be voting for Mitt Romney. I don't like either of them, but Romney is the lesser of two evils. The president had his chance and blew it. I think we need someone else in to get our economy growing again. It still feels like a recession to me. I don't think enough has been done legislatively to give a kick-start to our economy. I feel like all of the boost we got from the president was for the public sector, and I don't think it was very cost effective. I would have rather had a check sent to each citizen than all of the waste we got for our debt. I'm aware this is not a popular opinion :bored:


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Two sides of the same coin.

Romney will win.


----------



## Donkey D Kong (Feb 14, 2011)

I don't think it really matters who wins, but I'm guessing Obama is going to win. Romney is basically a joke in the real world.


----------



## nottie (Mar 2, 2011)

GARY JOHNSON

Jk, it'll be one of the two assholes.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

I think it's looking really close, so that worries me.

A disputed election would not surprise me.

I think Romney will get Virginia and Wisconsin... Here's the main thing as an incumbent President, having this many battleground states isn't good because come election day, I would expect more anti-Obama people to show up than his own party, largely because he's been an all-around crap President and his party has lost enthusiasm. The younger generation has lost enthusiasm, I expect them to revert to previous behavior of not turning out for elections.

So the momentum has favored Romney for the last month, I don't see why that would change. This means that battleground states have slipped toward Romney's favor and perhaps are still doing so, not in terms of support but in terms of turnout.

I honestly don't know, either winning would not surprise me, because even if momentum favors Romney, he has to win more states than Obama to secure his spot as President.


----------



## nádej (Feb 27, 2011)

Razare said:


> I think it's looking really close, so that worries me.
> 
> A disputed election would not surprise me.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's necessarily as close as the media is portraying it to be. A close election makes for a good story, and certainly it is likely closer than I wish it were, but...Obama is ahead in polling in most 'battleground' states, and _has_ been ahead the entire time. Any momentum Romney had has largely stopped. Furthermore, most of the polling that is done is done via landline. This creates some misleading numbers, as many likely Obama voters (namely the younger demographic, a fair portion of the Latino population, and a fair portion of the African American population) do not even have landlines. Statistics show that those reached by cellphone only in polls favor Obama by 11 points.

I don't doubt that whatever happens is going to be disputed...politics and the Democrat/Republican divide are so contentious right now. I do think though that Obama has a better shot at winning than the media is portraying, and I do hope that this is true. It's going to be interesting because motivations for voting are so interesting this time around. It's my understanding that many who will vote for Romney are doing so because they really are afraid of Obama and think he is a terrible human being and also a terrible president and envision the country crumbling if Obama remains in office. Many who will vote for Obama are doing so because they really are afraid of Romney and think he is a terrible human being and also would be a terrible president and envision the country crumbling if he were in office. So while I think you are right that people will coming out to vote Romney because they are anti-Obama, I also think there will be a lot of people coming out to vote Obama because they are anti-Romney. I guess we'll see.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

CCCXXIX said:


> @_possiBri_ lol you having some trouble finding the tampon aisle?
> 
> Edit: nvm I see you're from California, you guys really know how to run a government, apologies.


Do not stoop to that level. You are making Republicans and Conservatives look like ignorant twats.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

possiBri said:


> Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion or get gay married (or even see a gay marriage), so to say that I am forcing my beliefs is pretty silly. I'm supporting the right to have a choice. Isn't America all about choices? You say you want government out of this, I agree. But apparently marriage is regulated by the government, so unless NO marriage is controlled by the government, what right does the government have to say WHO can get married? It's illogical.


Republicans seeking federal control of marriage seems pretty funny to me. Opportunistic? Hypocritical? That men and women can get married in Vegas by, essentially, anyone and have it last a week ... and 'Republicans' don't bat an eye ... but then two people in love want to be monogamous and responsible and live a happy life together and we freak out 'in defense of marriage' is .. probably a biases and poorly considered position. It's fishy at the very least. If we really wanted to defend marriage against corruptive forces, we'd be doing it across the board. This is more likely about homosexuality being allowed to be accepted as normal. 

I don't think we have a right to say that... certainly not on a national level... and I think gay marriage is an inevitability anyway... the Conservative position is bound to be on the wrong side of history on this one. I hope that whoever wins is moderate on this issue, since regardless of what is right or wrong, it's going to take time for people to accept it without going crazy about it. That's just human nature.



possiBri said:


> ...I feel that the Age of the Individual has truly ruined our country, and my only hope is that more people start caring about other people and realizing that we aren't all independent islands, but a massive network that works best when we're ALL thriving.
> 
> *I AM BECAUSE WE ARE.*


Communal societies exist, such as Japan, and I don't think they are necessarily better off than we are.... philosophically speaking. Maybe they are according to certain criteria. Interesting thought.


----------



## CCCXXIX (Mar 11, 2011)

JoanCrawford said:


> Do not stoop to that level. You are making Republicans and Conservatives look like ignorant twats.


I do not identify myself with any party, I would be an independant in the sense that I do no believe in a party system. George Washington stated that the party system of government would result in a split of the union, which it almost did... And probably will again at some point in the future. Funny thing is people let their opinions be ruled by their party, I have no such convictions. Though I find it amusing that you thought I was somehow a Republican, when many of the views I stated are not shared by that party. Assumptions are a dangerous game.

As for stooping, well you telling me not to do it makes me want to do it more. Welcome to America, the land of the free (freedom for the pursuit of happiness, not health care, how is redistribution an inalienable right?), for now(patriot act anyone?).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

possiBri said:


> Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion or get gay married (or even see a gay marriage), so to say that I am forcing my beliefs is pretty silly. I'm supporting the right to have a choice. Isn't America all about choices? You say you want government out of this, I agree. But apparently marriage is regulated by the government, so unless NO marriage is controlled by the government, what right does the government have to say WHO can get married? It's illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A LOT of the problem is that many people seem to be flat out delusional. Like the people collecting SSI or other forms of government benefit who complain about "all those losers on welfare" or say that they think Obamacare is communism. I have seen some flagrant shows of stupidity even on my own friends list on facebook, like wow there are some incredibly poorly informed people in this country, even in terms of how they themselves benefit from our present government structure (kind of like their oft-sung heroine, Ayn Rand, who decided it was A-OK to collect social security benefits later in life, even after all of her bitching about those horrid dependent people and how she was such a rugged individual).

I don't think that there's anything wrong with being an individual. In fact, the recognition of individual worth led to democracy, and away from a time when people served as basically minions to their church or king, and it led to rights for people who had previously been viewed as "lower on the hierchy" in society, such as women, children, homosexuals, and disabled persons. 

On the other hand, the romantic ideal that many current Americans have of "rugged individualism" is a lie, a lie, a lie, a lie, and they're going to be quite shocked if they get what they think they want and have the rug pulled out from underneath them (more than it already is in our extremely capitalist country). 

It never fails to amaze me how the very same people who claim to want to reconnect of the history of the U.S. actually know so very little about it, in terms of things like taxes and community and so forth. 

And sometimes even when you point it out to them (like me posting the Reagan tax videos, for example) they just kind of...pretend it doesn't exist. It's some bizarre mass delusion. I am seriously starting to believe people really have been brainwashed by corporate advertising, it scares me.

And of course people are easier to brainwash when poorly educated, and because of these people who are so against funding for education, we have some of the worst schools in the first world. That's prime, fertile ground for mass ignorance. Not stupidity, per se, these people may be very good at fixing cars, playing the stock market, or caring for the elderly, but in terms of actual knowledge and facts known, they have no real point of reference for their ideology. IT'S WEIRD.


----------



## INFJess (Mar 9, 2012)

I really hope Obama wins. I don't agree with everything, but I do think he cares more about people. I think he realizes that we aren't the only country on this earth and that we shouldn't continue to act like it. I hope that some day there is a candidate that I can really believe in 100%.


----------



## INFantP (Jul 11, 2012)

I think the results here are favouring Obama by a landslide because people who are here are generally more intelligent than the average person lol


----------



## hulia (Sep 13, 2012)

If Romney wins I'm going to cry for the sake of America.


----------



## HippoHunter94 (Jan 19, 2012)

Obama will win.

Gary Johnson should win.

Mitt Romney can go die.


----------



## Rogue Eagle (Oct 14, 2009)

I'm not American, but to hell with it. 

I've been a little disappointed with what Obama has done. But I don't think the Republicans are capable of putting forward a 'real' candidate, they love their plastic car salesmen and Alaskan huntresses.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

INFantP said:


> I think the results here are favouring Obama by a landslide because people who are here are generally more intelligent than the average person lol


I tend to agree with this, honestly. I think a lot of people who frequent on-line discussion forums are better educated people, however, sometimes even better educated people are unethical or self-absorbed, but I've honestly found SO MANY REPUBLICANS do not like Mitt Romney as a candidate, I even know an elderly couple who were former Republicans until they were like 70 years old who switched to Democrat after George W, no lie. These people are so intelligent and free thinking that they actually changed their political party in their 70s when given new evidence that their political party had turned to a steaming pile of dogshit. I think these sorts of people are behind movements like Republicans for Obama and Republican Women For Obama.

I don't mean to start a debate with you, but the combination of this topic and your avatar seems extremely fitting to this article ...it was written by a woman who was a rabidly pro-life conservative until she apparently developed logic skills and realized she could no longer stand behind something so completely and utterly illogical and insane.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

volcarona said:


> If Romney wins I'm going to cry for the sake of America.


I cry for people who I see as maintaining the gullibility of childhood into adulthood. I thought I was a Republican until I was about 15 years old, then increasingly realized I had essentially been fed a lie and an illusion. A lot of Republicans aren't bad or cruel people, but they are just ignorant, or VERY trusting of their family's belief systems.

I tend to see Republicans as being in those two camps. There are the people who are Republicans who are very intelligent and educated and successful, who are blind selfish greedy unethical, et al. These people manipulate the Republican party, I believe these are the people actually in the driver's seat of the Republican party, the more intelligent and educated Republicans, who essentially use and manipulate all of the religious shtick as a nice ploy to distract the ignorant masses that their main intent is actually to protect the interests of wealthy people, oil production and sales, and corporate America.

Then there are the people who are either A) deeply ignorant OR B) naive (sometimes both*) but I've found that some more intelligent Republicans are just ethically naive, they're like the woman describing herself in college in the article I posted above, they really think it's about saving unborn babies and protecting small town U.S.A. and family values. 

I don't even have a problem with the Republican party as it once was, I have a serious problem with what it has become.

My ESFJ friend was pointing out to me today that Mitt Romney comes from old money, and that it's clearly obvious that people who hang on to old money often their number one interest is in holding on to large stores of money, more money than they or their children could ever use, and this drives their incredibly self-absorbed ethics. It's basically writ large that Romney's interests are not in protecting small business or to lower taxes for working class families, but to protect millionaires and billionaires, so they hang on to all of their money.

It's actually a very antiquated and aristocratic mindset. That's what I find so ironic about Republicans, they think they want small government and are protecting American values, but it's actually the party of out-dated aristocratic values, it has become that, although that is not what it was during the Civil War, or even during the Cold War.

EDIT: Excuse me, Mitt Romney is not "old money" proper, he is simply a spoiled brat from a prep school and a wealthy family. I should not have implied that he was old money in the sense of being handed down from generations. IN FACT, his father was on welfare as a child. MITT ROMNEY'S DAD WAS ON WELFARE BRIEFLY WHEN HIS FAMILY WAS ON REFUGEE STATUS FROM A MORMON CULT IN MEXICO.

Oooh weee. Dear god there is so much wrong with this man. I can't believe the intensity of the hate I can feel for a spoiled brat who went to prep schools hypocritically saying he wants to end food stamps etc. after his own father survived on them as a child. 

I should have just agreed with the person who said "Mitt Romey needs to die." and left the thread, because honestly it says it all. 

I just always feel a need to over explain why I am so opposed to the current manifestation of the Republican party. It's like I want some conservatives to wake the fuck up and see the information that is out there, see what is really going on, because it astounds me the crap they fall for hook line and sinker, it reminds me of being a naive 11/12 year old and writing a letter to the president about how terrible and corrupt the world had become and how the Republican party was so great and moral. Yeah, those were the days.

Must be nice to be 25, 45 or 65 and still feel that secure in some idiotic infantile beliefs.

Why are conservative beliefs infantile while liberal are not? Oh sure, there's a form of liberalism that is overly idealistic, I agree, but conservative beliefs are infantile because they are black and white. "Good people who work hard have money. All poor people must be bad and lazy." "God hates gay people." Just completely unexamined, simplistic black and white morality. No, Virginia, there's not a fucking Santa Claus.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Remember, choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil. :wink:


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Snow Leopard said:


> Remember, choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil. :wink:


I guess that settles it, then: We're all damned no matter who we vote for.

But damnation can still go a lot smoother and be more enjoyable with the right vote. :wink:


@_fourtines_: Thattagirl, I was wondering when that fire would kick in.

Ironically, I started as Republican too (I grew up in the 70's and am a Family Ties kid) and was handled the "Democrat is evil" line from my parents and culture, but grew more and more unsettled in adulthood watching the attitudes of those around me as well as what was happening on the national level. I voted Republican until about 2000, when Bush ran and I saw the grooming process in full effect, and it left me ill. I still don't vote "by party," but I'm simply saying the Republican party seems to have nothing in it that I can respect enough to vote for anymore. Maybe someday that will change. Right now the people I have to deal with seem to be more about preserving their tiny way of life and putting up boundaries against change instead of considering how to make the United States best for everyone regardless of religion, race, or culture.


----------



## INFantP (Jul 11, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I don't mean to start a debate with you, but the combination of this topic and your avatar seems extremely fitting to this article ...it was written by a woman who was a rabidly pro-life conservative until she apparently developed logic skills and realized she could no longer stand behind something so completely and utterly illogical and insane.


I'm actually a supporter of abortion if the circumcises require it. My avatar just symbolises life, I wasn't really thinking too much into it. Thank you for the article, I'll read into it. Wonder how can someone like do a 180 in their beliefs ^^


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

INFantP said:


> I'm actually a supporter of abortion if the circumcises require it. My avatar just symbolises life, I wasn't really thinking too much into it. Thank you for the article, I'll read into it. Wonder how can someone like do a 180 in their beliefs ^^


Oh I'm not pro-abortion or anything, and her switch away from the pro-life movement was simply because it was entirely illogical and non-sensical and really had nothing to do with saving babies or helping children, she still didn't believe in abortion at first, but simply felt that the pro-choice movement makes more sense for what the pro-lifers *claim* they are trying to accomplish. 

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion and being a liberal does not mean you hate rich people, and I'm always really relieved when a conservative or former conservative moves away from this kind of absurd rhetoric of black-and-white, good-and-evil, naughty-and-nice, Santa-Claus-is-coming-to-town thinking and realizes that. 

And no, I don't think the Republican party has always been that way, it's just increasingly become that way since the religious right gained momentum in the 70's and built up to a shitstorm of it by the 90's, combined with the neo-conservative fiscal beliefs which started to become so extreme in the late 80's.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> I guess that settles it, then: We're all damned no matter who we vote for.
> 
> But damnation can still go a lot smoother and be more enjoyable with the right vote. :wink:
> 
> ...



I'm actually registered as a Green Party member, not actually straight Dem or an American Socialist or anything lol. But that's as far as my symbolic movement goes, is being registered as a party member, I don't think I'd ever actually vote for a Green Party candidate unless it was here in the state of California where they potentially might _win_ a local election. And if this country ever becomes less ridiculously polarized, I would even vote for a moderate Republican. I even looked into Ron Paul several years back and I also attempted to read Ayn Rand, and found by actually reading what they were about that there was no way I could support it. 

I was a registered Democrat at first though, I am a big fan of the New Democrats, which are a more moderate group, like Obama and the Clintons, and when I was younger I was more able to buy into the polarization than I am now, the more I've learned the more I believe that being moderate is probably the best solution. However, in an election where the economy is this bad, and so many other issues hang in the balance, I can't afford the luxury of being diplomatic, as I feel that this is actually near life-and-death importance in terms of the real world, and how a Romney election would actually wreck this country.


----------



## MonieJ (Nov 22, 2010)

Obama
* this was actually the first time I've voted in my 23 years of life.*


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> Remember, choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil. :wink:


No it isn't when you think in terms of real world consequences instead of philosophical purity.

I'm calling volunteers in Ohio right now to make sure Romney isn't elected. Evil in action?


----------



## Ectoplasm (May 2, 2010)

Please vote Romney this November 6th. He is unbeatable and you don't want to be remembered as one of his opponents when he's in the Oval Office.


----------



## possiBri (Jan 4, 2011)

ectoplasm said:


> please vote romney this november 6th. He is *unbeatable* and you don't want to be remembered as one of his opponents when he's in the oval office.


hahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaha


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Acey said:


> You can think he's a racist based on some newsletters *someone* else wrote, but I for one choose not to condemn someone without some real evidence.
> 
> The reason I believe he's ahead of his time is because he is anti-war. We have never had a president that believed war wasn't necessary in protecting american freedom, but I think that will soon change. In that sense, it is forward thinking.
> 
> ...


My advice to you is that you lay off the weed and read more history, because you sound like a completely oblivious stoner to me saying Ron Paul is "forward thinking."

This is only excusable in excitable 18 year olds. Are you 18? Or are you just completely ignorant of your own country's history?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

In fact, for those of you too busy getting stoned to find out why Ron Paul is actually STUCK IN THE PAST (with some really idealistic fanciful wishful thinking about there never, ever being any war again), let me explain.

Ron Paul, first of all, wants to return to the gold standard. In the 19th century, at the time the country actually was on the gold standard, the economy was so erratic as to be hellish. There were constant dips and crashes and forward surges. The economy became more regulated for a very good reason, and it's an experience you actually take for granted as residents of the early 21st century. You don't even know the horrors of the Great Depression, being as padded and cozy as you are by the current economic system. Guess why you guys are stable enough to sit on your fat asses munching pizza and typing on the Intertardz bemoaning your fate instead of working yourself to death in a factory in the 1800's or eating dirt in the dust bowl during the 1930's. Thanks to us NOT being on the gold standard, you guys can stuff your face and smoke weed and hang out in your mom's house instead. 

Next, Ron Paul believes we don't need the Environmental Protection Agency. I believe this would be a no-brainer to anyone with eyes, ears, noses, and mouths that our environment is much more polluted now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. There was a time when we did not need an Environmental Protection Agency. That time is NOT 2012, it was something more around _1793, _when the earth was fairly lush and unspoiled by industrial waste.

Oh, and he's quite overtly classist and covertly sexist and racist, but to anyone who was born after 1975, unless they were well educated or shown this by life experience in particular areas in the deep South or the gritty inner city landscape, you also take this for granted, that everyone is equal. Here's a hint, buttercup, these things only happened in the past 30-40 years because of those laws and policies Ron Paul wants to do away with.

Sure, there are some good ideas he has, but I've always believed him to be an INFP with some serious tertiary Si fetish, he has built his idealism around a past which never existed, or only existed for middle class white men, and he thinks he has such good intentions that he's somehow not aware of it. 

What baffles me is that OTHER PEOPLE buy into it, I mean for anything longer than a semester of college.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Acey said:


> If you're pro war, than maybe you should smoke some marijuana some time. (joking, you dont seem like you are pro war, but marijuana can fix that if you are)


 Oh, not this shit again.

Quite happy to watch the world burn around you while your country has absolutely no influence on the world stage at all, sit at home and smoke some dope and watch cartoons and talk about how funny it would be if the dog got high as well, Jimmy Carter "let the Soviets have it, we don't want it anyway" bullshit.

If you think that you can sit at home on your sofa hittin da bong and talking about Carl Sagan and the whole world is going to go on all fine around you and nothing's ever gonna touch you because AMERICA then you have been smoking too much dope, sorry. 

The US did not become a superpower because it elected Presidents who appeal to college kids who just want to get blazed all day. None of the great accomplishments of your country came about because of idleness or apathy. 

Well, the Roman Empire became decadent too.

A great American once said "Our country won't go on forever if we stay as soft as we are now... some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race." Shame that people forget this.


----------



## Acey (Apr 14, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Oh, not this shit again.
> 
> Quite happy to watch the world burn around you while your country has absolutely no influence on the world stage at all, sit at home and smoke some dope and watch cartoons and talk about how funny it would be if the dog got high as well, Jimmy Carter "let the Soviets have it, we don't want it anyway" bullshit.
> 
> ...


wow.
10char

edit: didn't see @fourtines reply

I mention marijuana and I have you guys using it as an excuse to invalidate my point of view lol. I think it's people that discriminate so quickly that need to grow up. It's so easy to judge some one based on one small irrelevant thing, and that's exactly what you've done with Ron Paul, and me. 

I'm pro marijuana, so wat?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

XD I'm on the left and liberal..so myeah if I were in the US my vote would be wasted on a third party candidate. Overall I hope Obama wins. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

@Diphenhydramine

 I find patriotism and nationalism....disturbing to say the least (I'm part of a minority and we had nazis to contend with here ^^; so I come from a completely different background), imo current political leaders are making a joke out of democracy, not just in the US. 

:dry: I don't understand how so many people can still swallow all the lies, false promises, propaganda and bullshit coming from those currently in power or those who run for office. 

o.o to me it doesen't matter if somene is greek, american, spanish, german, chinese, etiopian, japanese or who knows what else. Its all the same. Really...countries are just there to divide people into groups for or against whatever random thing is decided.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Sorry, its just the "if youre pro war why dont you smoke some marijuana" attitude.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

fourtines said:


> @_Acey_ and @_benr3600_If I were to stereotype, I would actually guess you both to be ISTJs in the way you actually believe that there's anything "forward thinking" about Ron Paul's blaise belief that it's still 1957, and he's just a decent, respectable white man thinking decent respectable white thoughts.Growing up in the South, I was quite used to this polite, nonchalant bigotry, especially from my grandparents' generation and those a bit younger, like Paul (who is currently in his 70s, my maternal grandfather would be 86 if he were alive) ...but yeah, that kind of kindly, oblivious racist, sexist, homophobic, classist asshattery...but they think they're good people, and in dealings with them, if you are also white and heterosexual and so forth, they treat you with nothing but kindness and respect, and are even polite to the ******* and the hired help, with the understanding that we have that they are quietly beneath us.I grew up too close to my grandparents generation to be as UTTERLY RETARDED as many members of Generation X and Y apparently are about history. I am thankful nearly every single day that I have the knowledge of history that I have, and that I was exposed to so many of my older relatives and extended families, so that I don't have stupid ideas like going back to the 1950's is in any way, shape, or form, progressive.


Doesn't matter what you choose to "stereotype." Empirically, something like 40% of Ron Paul supporters on the internet are INTJs, and a great deal also fall on the autism spectrum. Perhaps people care about his character and integrity, and not just "he's a rich white male from the South, which makes him the next Hitler" character assassination. Maybe some of us don't have our head up our asses enough to actually think he would hypothetically implement everything he plans on implementing (especially when Obama can't even get much momentum with a majority Congress each session), including cray shit like the EPA abolition. Maybe people see RP as the hero we need, but not the hero we deserve right now, a white knight to begin the war on oppression and Big Money's stranglehold on Washington therefore us. Because every time there is a type like RP who stands against the PTB, there are always going to be cowards who dissent until the tides turn and then they jump ship like a rat. Some people would rather go all-in on his longshot, than do the pragmatic thing, especially when it carries with it the ancillary benefit of taking votes away from Romney, even though many of us (including a multiple engineering PhD holder including aeronautical, I know) are social liberals (sorry to blow your racist white male garbage out of the fucking water, but this is absolute truth) are at least thinking about voting Obama. Funny how that works, you are accused of supporting a classist/racist/misogynist/misanthropist/genocidist/omnicidist/apartheidist candidate yet the only candidate you don't want to vote for wages overt class warfare, imperialism, chauvinism etc. Some of us yearn for the time when you can actually trust the words coming out of a politician's mouth, because until then, it is not even politics, it is plutocracy.


----------



## Acey (Apr 14, 2010)

fourtines said:


> In fact, for those of you too busy getting stoned to find out why Ron Paul is actually STUCK IN THE PAST (with some really idealistic fanciful wishful thinking about there never, ever being any war again), let me explain.
> 
> Ron Paul, first of all, wants to return to the gold standard. In the 19th century, at the time the country actually was on the gold standard, the economy was so erratic as to be hellish. There were constant dips and crashes and forward surges. The economy became more regulated for a very good reason, and it's an experience you actually take for granted as residents of the early 21st century. You don't even know the horrors of the Great Depression, being as padded and cozy as you are by the current economic system. Guess why you guys are stable enough to sit on your fat asses munching pizza and typing on the Intertardz bemoaning your fate instead of working yourself to death in a factory in the 1800's or eating dirt in the dust bowl during the 1930's. Thanks to us NOT being on the gold standard, you guys can stuff your face and smoke weed and hang out in your mom's house instead.
> 
> ...


Sorry didn't read. Was too busy looking for some cookies to eat cuz I got the munchies.

Get that stick out of your ass and smoke a joint because you really need to lighten up... or light IT up..LOL

fuck it...i'm gonna pass out. I vote for whomever will legalize the weed and guess what, my vote counts just as much as yours BAHAHAHA actually I'm canadian did I forget to mention that?

If you're willing to get off your high horse and stop shoving your opinions down people's throat as if they were cold hard facts then maybe we can have a nice discussion. Until then, smoke a joint and chill out. Or whatever floats your boat.

And nice jab at INFP's at the end. How immature of you.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

benr3600 said:


> Empirically, something like 40% of Ron Paul supporters on the internet are INTJs, and a great deal also fall on the autism spectrum.


 Why does this not surprise me.



Acey said:


> I vote for whomever will legalize the weed and guess what, my vote counts just as much as yours BAHAHAHA


 If democracy dies then this will be why.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Rim said:


> XD I'm on the left and liberal..so myeah if I were in the US my vote would be wasted on a third party candidate. Overall I hope Obama wins. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
> 
> @_Diphenhydramine_
> 
> ...


 There are different forms of nationalism, tbh. I'm a civic nationalist, which is vastly different from ethnic nationalism. 

Yeah, all Europeans had to "contend" with Nazism. It's poppy season in Britain atm because Remembrance Day is coming up. That's a (very different) reminder of a different sort of "contending" with Nazism.

Humans are social, gregarious creatures and there's nothing arbitrary about them banding together in a group bound together by a number of homogenous factors (language, religion, shared history etc) and then establishing a nation state to protect this group.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> There are different forms of nationalism, tbh. I'm a civic nationalist, which is vastly different from ethnic nationalism.
> 
> Yeah, all Europeans had to "contend" with Nazism. It's poppy season in Britain atm because Remembrance Day is coming up. That's a (very different) reminder of a different sort of "contending" with Nazism.
> 
> Humans are social, gregarious creatures and there's nothing arbitrary about them banding together in a group bound together by a number of homogenous factors (language, religion, shared history etc) and then establishing a nation state to protect this group.


Hmm maybe its just me as I have no real country to call my own, language was never a problem as I speak 5 and I always loved that people are different and diverse from one individual to the other.

Patriotic pride is something I never experienced. On some level maybe I envy that you did.

@Acey WTF man...seriously what the fuck!? *facepalm* :dry: you freaking pothead.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

@fourtines have you ever engaged in a debate in which you haven't contained at least an implicit ad hominem in each post? The reason I tend to antagonize you is that I feel you are a worthy opponent - even when sifting through labels and insults to get to your point. Please tell me you've brought more than hatred for INFPs and accusations of idealists being closet egoists and racists to the table.


----------



## Reggie (Sep 30, 2012)

I hope Obama. He has a European 'vibe' . Well educated, humane, can deal with ambiguity, good inspiring leader


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Reggie said:


> I hope Obama. He has a European 'vibe' . Well educated, humane, can deal with ambiguity, good inspiring leader


He is a phony...every time I see him speak it makes me cringe....and that is my xi talking...there is something off about him. Romney is even worse. I think they are all trained in how to work the crowd or have learned it by themselves idk. This is to the advantage of the USA thou as it works well in dealing with foreign countries and the public...which is what the president does. He is intelligent I'll give him that.

Also imo one man can't change things unless he has bigger powers backing him and the interests of those with power lie elsewhere. It doesn't matter who the president is.


----------



## Reggie (Sep 30, 2012)

Rim said:


> He is a phony...every time I see him speak it makes me cringe....and that is my xi talking...there is something off about him. Romney is even worse. I think they are all trained in how to work the crowd or have learned it by themselves idk. This is to the advantage of the USA thou as it works well in dealing with foreign countries and the public...which is what the president does.
> 
> Also imo one man can't change things unless he has bigger powers backing him and the interests of those with power lie elsewhere. It doesn't matter who is the president.


I do agree they are both very consciously managing perceptions; but which politician doesn't? I really like Obama's healthcare reform plans... In Belgium we have a very accessible healthcare program for everyone. We do pay high taxes, but even the poorest chap has access to excellent docs...


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Reggie said:


> I do agree they are both very consciously managing perceptions; but which politician doesn't? I really like Obama's healthcare reform plans... In Belgium we have a very accessible healthcare program for everyone. We do pay high taxes, but even the poorest chap has access to excellent docs...


o.o yeah as far as I know its the same in every country here. To me the US way always seemed kinda selfish. The health reform is certainly a plus.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Trust me @Rim I am very much more envious of you being able to speak five languages than you are of my patriotism.

Re the two choices, for purely selfish reasons I would prefer Romney because he is for a better and stronger Anglo-American relationship, but if I was American I would probably vote Obama, if I voted at all in presidential elections. Really this sort of democracy is a bit pale; as someone pointed out earlier it more accurately resembles a plutarchy.


----------



## Acey (Apr 14, 2010)

@_Rim_
It seems a lot of people seem to overlook my sarcasm. O well lol
basically, if @_fourtines_ is going to have her own preconceptions of me because I'm pro marijuana, like I'm an "oblivious stoner", then I'll respond to her as one. 

That being said, if she decides to smoke up I dont think it would hurt.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Acey said:


> @_Rim_
> It seems a lot of people seem to overlook my sarcasm. O well lol
> basically,* if @fourtines is going to have her own preconceptions of me because I'm pro marijuana, like I'm an "oblivious stoner", then I'll respond to her as one.
> 
> That being said, if she decides to smoke up I dont think it would hurt.*



The reason why the bolded sounds so retarded to me is because I used to smoke, and the guy I've been seeing for a year does, and so do some of my friends.

But saying that people need to smoke and that will make them against war is like saying smoking enough weed will give you a lobotomy. If you have any logic skills at all, you would realize that war is a necessary evil, it's just reality, and being a pacifist living in a dream world. Kind of like "that's nice dear." I feel that way a lot when I speak to libertarians like "that's nice dear, when you end up homeless and eating out of a garbage can instead of being one of the 1% like you pathetically imagine yourself to be, you'll re-think this."

I actually signed a petition today to keep medical marijuana centers open. 

You have to understand though, that grasping to Paul's anti-war stance while ignoring the rest of his ignorant, aristocratic, archaic policy makes you look silly.

Also, using marijuana as a crutch or something you do every day isn't any better than drinking whiskey every day, don't delude yourself. Marijuana is a recreational drug, nothing more.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

benr3600 said:


> @_fourtines_ have you ever engaged in a debate in which you haven't contained at least an implicit ad hominem in each post? The reason I tend to antagonize you is that I feel you are a worthy opponent - even when sifting through labels and insults to get to your point. Please tell me you've brought more than hatred for INFPs and accusations of idealists being closet egoists and racists to the table.


I don't hate INFPs, what are you talking about? I just think Ron Paul is a particularly delusional one who has built his idealism around an over-used tertiary Si creative function.

I also said you guys sound more like ISTJs than INTJs because you said "oh Ron Paul has a lot of INTJ voter base." How do you know? 

Then your friend over there said I would become an illogical anti-war moron if I would only smoke some weed (like he knows anything about my personal life).He also didn't read my post where I said Paul has some good ideas about marijuana and prison. READING COMPREHENSION. 

I noticed that neither one of you refuted anything I said about Paul's policies being stuck in the past, archaic, sexist, racist, classist, and in some regards completely foolish.

It's because, I think, a lot of Ron Paulites like to cling to the delusion that they'll be one of the "winners" in his 1950's white man dream world, like they are the hard working, successful John Gaults and everyone else is such losers.

Yes, when I post that I think Ron Paul is pathetically stuck in an illusory past rather than being a "visionary" and that he is politely and nonchalantly sexist, racist, and classist, it means I have much more of a problem with him than "he's neither a Democrat nor a Republican."

Did you see my post where I said I was registered Green party?

The reason I take this tone with you people is because you sound like smart-assed children to me who don't know WTF they're talking about.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Oh and also this pre-preemptive answer: 

The reason why Paul's voter base is mostly young is because of what I said in my earlier posts. A really disturbing number of Gen X-Y, especially Gen Y and when I say Gen X I mainly mean the youngest Gen X'ers who are borderline Gen Y, are ridiculously poorly educated about history. They also take their own time period for granted, not realizing that the creature comforts they enjoy are largely due to all of the things that Democrats, and even some Republicans, fight to keep in place, and people like Ron Paul want to strip away. You think life was better during the Great Depression? Okay, fine, be my guests, you guys go get an island somewhere and live that way.

There's also a very good reason most libertarians are white, male, and middle class. It's easier for them to cling to the delusion. It's also a reactionary stance against the increasing equality and slow loss of white male privilege.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I don't hate INFPs, what are you talking about? I just think Ron Paul is a particularly delusional one who has built his idealism around an over-used tertiary Si creative function.
> 
> I also said you guys sound more like ISTJs than INTJs because you said "oh Ron Paul has a lot of INTJ voter base." How do you know?
> 
> ...




It is obvious this contest cannot be decided by our concrete knowledge of the past, but with our skills with a value judger :tongue: Until next time...:happy:


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

benr3600 said:


> It is obvious this contest cannot be decided by our concrete knowledge of the past, but with our skills with a value judger :tongue: Until next time...:happy:


Well our concrete knowledge of the past tells us that only a small, particular segment of the population fared well. These weren't necessarily the hardest workers. In fact, by the 1950's, the government gave veterans of WWII grants and housing which led to a time of seemingly (at the time) unlimited prosperity. Because of the New Deal, and the benefits veterans of WWII received (these would be the parents of the Baby Boomers and some of the older Gen X'ers) we experienced a "Golden Age" in our nation. However, because things were so sexist and racist, it wasn't until the 60's and 70's that all African-Americans and white women had more rights, and homosexuals became less afraid to be open. 

So all we have experienced in our lifetime is thanks to government regulation, and in fact Dwight D. Eisenhower was nothing like Ron Paul, because Ron Paul essentially wants to go back to the 19th century fiscally and only to the 1950's socially, aside from his views that marijuana should be legal and that he's a pacifist.

Everything Ron Paul supports essentially points to late 19th century robber baron/roller coaster economy, as well as a kind of early 20th century Nationalism. 

Sure you can say this is a values thing, that only values can determine whether or not you approve of Ron Paul, but I do think it is because of concrete knowledge of the past because what you're espousing will probably punish most people who support Ron Paul in the end; very few people who support Ron Paul are actually wealthy and white enough to live safely in his dream world.

Oh, and also, without the EPA, our businesses may become so out of control that large swaths of people will die of pollution-related disease, and other countries may decide to bomb us for being so environmentally irresponsible. Then we will be forced to go to war. The EPA thing is no joke, it affects everyone, including on a global scale.

You can't go back in time and live in a dream world, ok, you just can't. I'd like to go live in the Roaring Twenties too without experiencing the Great Depression, but alas real life doesn't work that way. 

I'd also like to believe that the 19th century was all like historical period-piece films with beautiful costumes, but it wasn't. Those characters were largely based upon some of the wealthiest members of society, or at least aristocratic people who may have been broke, but still maintained a family estate.

I like small business and privacy too, but we have to be sane. It's why I refuse to vote for Jill Stein. Sure, I'd like single payer healthcare, BUT IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. Obama's healthcare plan is more realistic, single payer healthcare would be thrown in the trash by most Republicans. 

I just feel like saying, Jesus Christ people, get a grip. Life isn't a movie.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

To go back to the point a bit, if I was American I would vote for Obama probably, if I voted, but I would prefer Romney to win because Obama is an out and out Anglophobe and I really do not want to see another four years of Anglophobia in the Whitehouse. That is very, very bad for us. France as the greatest ally of the US... :/


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> To go back to the point a bit, if I was American I would vote for Obama probably, if I voted, but I would prefer Romney to win because Obama is an out and out Anglophobe and I really do not want to see another four years of Anglophobia in the Whitehouse. That is very, very bad for us. France as the greatest ally of the US... :/


He is an Anglophobe? This is interesting, I did not know this. I don't like this. However, I have more important things to think about, like health insurance.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Well our concrete knowledge of the past tells us that only a small, particular segment of the population fared well. These weren't necessarily the hardest workers. In fact, by the 1950's, the government gave veterans of WWII grants and housing which led to a time of seemingly (at the time) unlimited prosperity. Because of the New Deal, and the benefits veterans of WWII received (these would be the parents of the Baby Boomers and some of the older Gen X'ers) we experienced a "Golden Age" in our nation. However, because things were so sexist and racist, it wasn't until the 60's and 70's that all African-Americans and white women had more rights, and homosexuals became less afraid to be open.
> 
> So all we have experienced in our lifetime is thanks to government regulation, and in fact Dwight D. Eisenhower was nothing like Ron Paul, because Ron Paul essentially wants to go back to the 19th century fiscally and only to the 1950's socially, aside from his views that marijuana should be legal and that he's a pacifist.
> 
> ...


You seem like a smart person who knows about economics.

Well, I'm socially libertarian. I am completely against the government exerting force or control in social matters.

I don't really understand enough about the whole argument of economics, though. I see both situations being detrimental to the poor, lower-class people.

I mean, if there's too much government regulation for stuff like welfare, that could be bad because self-interested corporations could use lobbying and the like to alter the contingencies of the laws in order to eliminate competition and increase dependency. Laws that were originally made to protect the small businesses could be twisted to hurt them further.

But then again, if we don't use the laws to regulate the big businesses, then we could fall into the same trap. They could overtake the small businesses through other means.

I'm also worried that taxation regulations will simply benefit the rich due to such lobbying where they can find ways to avoid said taxation.

I can see both the economically libertarian and populist models arguments as conceivable. Too many regulations on the economy, and we could have the rich people make and use loopholes in order to bypass them, and the poor would end up paying more in terms of taxation. Too little, and you become too individualistic, and unwilling to lend a helping hand to the people who are downtrodden.

I think economic conservatives can be a little too optimistic when it comes to people willingly donating to charity, though. I think people often have to have their arms twisted a little to contribute to welfare.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

fourtines said:


> He is an Anglophobe? This is interesting, I did not know this. I don't like this. However, I have more important things to think about, like health insurance.


 Well yep, of course for an American these issues are more important. As I say, if I was an American I would vote for Obama.

Barack Obama

But yeah, he is known as quite a strong Anglophobe actually, likely because his Kenyan grandfather was interned by the British or whatever, because he was associated with insurgent forces. Did Barack ever get round to closing Guantanamo anyway?

The most egregious of these, in my view, are:
1. Clinton signed an OAS resolution for negotiation over the sovereignty of the Falklands. In other words, the US foreign minister believes Britain should negotiate the status of a sovereign territory populated 99.99% by British people. Not even the UN has passed a resolution like this. 

2. "We don't have a stronger friend and a stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people." ??? what? I'm not a Francophobe, quite the opposite, but this is a bit :/ 

3. Since you are a registered green this probably doesn't bother you, but for the new START treaty, part of the Russian demands were that Obama hand over classified information on our nuclear deterrent. Which of course, he did.

4. Obama seems to completely ignore, doesn't know, or doesn't care that Britain is the second largest contributor to Afghanistan and holds down a whole sector of the country on its own. Since we got into this war from the beginning pretty much because our closest ally was attacked, and since we have contributed more, and lost more than any other NATO country, it is pretty insulting to see Obama's officials go to Europe and make a speech praising Germany, who's troops are not actually allowed to attack the Taliban, and not even mentioning Britain, who's casualty rates are mounting every day. 

Luckily I know that the American people are not as Anglophobic as their leader. This concept is very dangerous for us because we don't really have any friends anymore, especially after latest Europe debacle, but it's ok because the most powerful country in the world has our back. Or does it? 

I mean people here hated Bush for the same reasons people in the USA hated him, but there was a guy who was a friend.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Oh, and btw Americans, when it comes to healthcare, no, we don't have "death panels." And we spend less on healthcare than you do as a % of GDP.

We do have vice taxes though... fuck, the cost of cigarettes in this country :|


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)




----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Acey said:


> @_Rim_
> It seems a lot of people seem to overlook my sarcasm. O well lol
> basically, if @_fourtines_ is going to have her own preconceptions of me because I'm pro marijuana, like I'm an "oblivious stoner", then I'll respond to her as one.
> 
> That being said, if she decides to smoke up I dont think it would hurt.


You are writing on a forum, I can't hear your voice.  also its annoying to see that kind of behaviour...is it really helping your case or worsening it? 



fourtines said:


> The reason why the bolded sounds so retarded to me is because I used to smoke, and the guy I've been seeing for a year does, and so do some of my friends.
> 
> But saying that people need to smoke and that will make them against war is like saying smoking enough weed will give you a lobotomy. If you have any logic skills at all, you would realize that war is a necessary evil, it's just reality, and being a pacifist living in a dream world. Kind of like "that's nice dear." I feel that way a lot when I speak to libertarians like "that's nice dear, when you end up homeless and eating out of a garbage can instead of being one of the 1% like you pathetically imagine yourself to be, you'll re-think this."
> 
> ...


I agree with what you said here and I'm left libertarian . I don't agree with how the economy works however, especially with how the FED works, bailouts, and the global fallout it caused. The system needs to be rethought.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Oh, and btw Americans, when it comes to healthcare, no, we don't have "death panels." And we spend less on healthcare than you do as a % of GDP.
> 
> We do have vice taxes though... fuck, the cost of cigarettes in this country :|


This is the single greatest irony of all time. I have posited from the beginning that those with the loudest voices against socialized healthcare, are generally those who would not be paying more, and likely even less, if the middle man(insurance) were left out of the equation. I know of people who pay as much as $1200 a month to insure their standard young family with no health issues. That is absolutely outrageous. Some rates are reasonable, but it seems it is directly proportionate to income; how is this any different from a tax? Only difference being who is able to receive what we should be entitled to. In order to fix the healthcare system I believe it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up in a model which greatly resembles that of Canada or many European models.

And the cost of cigarettes here is a little more than 2x what they were a decade ago. Kind of like gasoline :tongue:


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Rim said:


> I agree with what you said here and I'm left libertarian .


 I should have said right wing libertarians or anarcho-capitalist libertarians. My apologies. :kitteh:


----------



## Acey (Apr 14, 2010)

fourtines said:


> The reason why the bolded sounds so retarded to me is because I used to smoke, and the guy I've been seeing for a year does, and so do some of my friends.
> 
> But saying that people need to smoke and that will make them against war is like saying smoking enough weed will give you a lobotomy. If you have any logic skills at all, you would realize that war is a necessary evil, it's just reality, and being a pacifist living in a dream world. Kind of like "that's nice dear." I feel that way a lot when I speak to libertarians like "that's nice dear, when you end up homeless and eating out of a garbage can instead of being one of the 1% like you pathetically imagine yourself to be, you'll re-think this."
> 
> ...


I think you took my original statement that smoking will make you anti-war a little too seriously. I was referencing how most people associate marijuana with the hippy movement in the 1970's (make love, not war ring a bell?), and it was more of a humorous statement more so than a literal one. Sorry for the misinterpretation, but hopefully that clears things up.

Like I had said before, I like Ron Paul's foreign policies. I never said I agreed with all of his proposals (going back to gold standard is not something I agree with, for example) but with regards to his foreign policies, I strongly believe the idea that war is a "necessary evil" as you've previously stated, will become an outdated concept.

Even John Lennon thinks so, and you can thank marijuana for that. Don't take that last statement all that serious either
Ps: @Rim My bad. haha


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I should have said right wing libertarians or anarcho-capitalist libertarians. My apologies. :kitteh:


Many RP supporters are social liberals doe


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> But, a huge part of his voter base is INTJs. That's gotta count for something, right?


INTJ is also the most common type on stormfront and the radical left counterparts ironic?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Acey said:


> You can think he's a racist based on some newsletters *someone* else wrote, but I for one choose not to condemn someone without some real evidence.
> 
> The reason I believe he's ahead of his time is because he is anti-war. We have never had a president that believed war wasn't necessary in protecting american freedom, but I think that will soon change. In that sense, it is forward thinking.
> 
> ...


That's part of the idealism, do you really think that everyone whats war? If everyone was passive and spineless doormat which on the flip side is being a pacifistic angel who agrees with everything; then there would be no need to initiate violence we'd all be happy bunnies. However with finite resources zero sum games emerge thus violence due to that sad reality, someone has to lose for one person to win hence the unfairness and resentments, breeding enmity. Plus also with the concept of the power vacuum a dominate power is suppose to remain active, hence the massive military spending justifies that.

But I guess if you believe governments are the antithesis of evil, then in your weltanschauung criticism are largely irrelevant.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> INTJ is also the most common type on stormfront and the radical left counterparts ironic?


It was actually sarcasm based on 14's tendency to slam INTJs every chance she gets; not aggrandizing. And you're welcome to read the post above, that was truthful from what I've seen with dozens of RP supporters I know. 

Is it not rational to want to enjoy the freedoms that our country was designed to afford, meanwhile not wanting that to end abruptly by bankrupting it?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> It was actually sarcasm based on 14's tendency to slam INTJs every chance she gets; not aggrandizing. And you're welcome to read the post above, that was truthful from what I've seen with dozens of RP supporters I know.
> 
> Is it not rational to want to enjoy the freedoms that our country was designed to afford, meanwhile not wanting that to end abruptly by bankrupting it?


I'm not American but that idea that "values our country was built on" is a joke to me personally. Everything is man made especially values, its not a good reason to uphold values merely because they are old. I mean do you think Greeks should resort back to the values they had 2000+ years ago? Its important to keep adapting and changing with the times remaining relevant.

There is a lot that is wrong with your country, the whole issue of debt/bankruptcy is a side illusion and not even an issue directly; whoever financed that debt is not getting paid back, the Chinese aren't stupid and they know that fact yet still finance...Niall Ferguson talked about this in his Chimerica documentary but his conclusion that a giant debt is bad is not conclusive. The Japanese example proves otherwise, their debt is more than their GDP yet it never destroyed their economy. There is a lot to say about Japan and why they took 10 years to climb out of their recession, the suggested cause of debt. Considering that money is a facade, were its power lies merely in being used facilitating trade, the question of debt at the macro governmental is not the same provided that Wiemar Germany money printing is not used its not an issue (though it wasn't their fault that they were in debt slavery, the same mistake wasn't repeated with he fall of the third Reich). 

The fundamental problem that America is failing to acknowledge that you exist in a global economy, especially at the grassroots level were there is an illusion that trade with the world is detrimental; and somewhat an isolationist route would be the solution. Your currency advantage in trade is temporary and that is not because of the gold standard (ahh Ron Paul's fetish) but the instead competition for resources from the ever developing economies. The Chinese Indians or Russians don't like the dollar (as reserve/trade currency) and nationalistic pride seems to be at the core along with acknowledging the unfair advantage that brings. Influenced from Friedman, Niall Ferguson brought fourth the argument that your country is just not as competitive and its competitive economic advantage is weaning.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> I'm not American but that idea that "values our country was built on" is a joke to me personally. Everything is man made especially values, its not a good reason to uphold values merely because they are old. I mean do you think Greeks should resort back to the values they had 2000+ years ago? Its important to keep adapting and changing with the times remaining relevant.
> 
> There is a lot that is wrong with your country, the whole issue of debt/bankruptcy is a side illusion and not even an issue directly; whoever financed that debt is not getting paid back, the Chinese aren't stupid and they know that fact yet still finance...Niall Ferguson talked about this in his Chimerica documentary but his conclusion that a giant debt is bad is not conclusive. The Japanese example proves otherwise, their debt is more than their GDP yet it never destroyed their economy. There is a lot to say about Japan and why they took 10 years to climb out of their recession, the suggested cause of debt. Considering that money is a facade, were its power lies merely in being used facilitating trade, the question of debt at the macro governmental is not the same provided that Wiemar Germany money printing is not used its not an issue (though it wasn't their fault that they were in debt slavery, the same mistake wasn't repeated with he fall of the third Reich).
> 
> The fundamental problem that America is failing to acknowledge that you exist in a global economy, especially at the grassroots level were there is an illusion that trade with the world is detrimental; and somewhat an isolationist route would be the solution. Your currency advantage in trade is temporary and that is not because of the gold standard (ahh Ron Paul's fetish) but the instead competition for resources from the ever developing economies. The Chinese Indians or Russians don't like the dollar (as reserve/trade currency) and nationalistic pride seems to be at the core along with acknowledging the unfair advantage that brings. Influenced from Friedman, Niall Ferguson brought fourth the argument that your country is just not as competitive and its competitive economic advantage is weaning.


That's funny because A. the men who built this country predicted many of the failures our country would eventually have if the government became large enough, and B. pretty sure Greece circa 2000 years ago is something Ron Paul is explicitly diametrically opposed to. How did their imperialism work out for them?

I'm glad you agree that a debt-based economy is intrinsically, fatally flawed. I don't pretend to know much about macroeconomics, especially on the global/international level, but I would like to ask: if we're some pillar, what is to stop the entire world from reverting to something legitimate? The EU has already tried to get this into gear somewhat AFAIK, and IMHO the only sustainable options over the long term would be to either unify the globe, or changing the economic system as we know it so as to prevent the largest domino-effect this planet has ever seen.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> That's funny because A. the men who built this country predicted many of the failures our country would eventually have if the government became large enough, and B. pretty sure Greece circa 2000 years ago is something Ron Paul is explicitly diametrically opposed to. How did their imperialism work out for them?
> 
> I'm glad you agree that a debt-based economy is intrinsically, fatally flawed. I don't pretend to know much about macroeconomics, especially on the global/international level, but I would like to ask: if we're some pillar, what is to stop the entire world from reverting to something legitimate? The EU has already tried to get this into gear somewhat AFAIK, and IMHO the only sustainable options over the long term would be to either unify the globe, or changing the economic system as we know it so as to prevent the largest domino-effect this planet has ever seen.


The term large government seems pretty subjective however it wouldn't have been news back then, any government that goes on a prolonged deficit binge will be forced to change or be destroyed. Printing money is usually the easiest way to destroy an economy as Wiemar Germany, Argentina... and recently Zimbabwe as done, however the difference with the way America creates money is different today. The government actually doesn't print money directly but instead it borrows it from people who already have money, real dollars, in the economy. So money is not actually printed (unless its the standard gold mining simulation were new money is added to match the new growth) and that is the legacy of government borrowing under the gold standard were bonds were used; the concept is like adding new money into the economy except non is actually added in reality, alas the legacy of fractional reserve practices: "sharing money". People who lend their gold to the government find them selves re-earning their gold again under the mask of money sharing. And when the government defaulted people lost their gold, actually lost gold. 

The current 14tril+ debt is pretty much financed the same way and China know that they are fulling the ponzi scheme; however China benefits from the technology and know how that is passed to their economy so they keep the charade going. Money is not created its just shared. 




However in modern times it seems that most governments have some odd averse nature to defaulting hence they choose to physically print their way out of debt. And its something that is pretty stupid at the same time since its no different from defaulting, they are simply erasing the lender's money in the same way.


----------



## Blackwing (Nov 5, 2012)

Internet = Democrat


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

So, when is Obama going to be declared the winner?


----------



## HAL 9000 (Aug 26, 2012)

I think it's funny that Obama gets the red bar and Romney gets the blue one XD
It's a little counterintuitive, not that it could have really been anticipated...

Anyway, I'm not getting into who I want to win, but just by the numbers.... It looks like Obama's going to be re-elected


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

it's sad that Election Day is tomorrow and I'm still not sure who to vote for, mainly because I'm not completely satisfied with how either major candidate stands on key issues. but I have a feeling Obama will win because a lot of people seem to be afraid of Romney and consider him a big risk if he's elected.

my main issue is the economy and jobs, and I'm quite worried about how regulations will affect small businesses that may be less able to afford health insurance and other benefits to their employees. on the other hand, too much deregulation may allow corporations to treat employees as dispensable bodies. today I was thinking about that would be great for society, if only we were trying to get back to a state of natural selection, where all the "unfit" people would die out. but realistically, not sure if that would be feasible.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

fihe said:


> *it's sad that Election Day is tomorrow and I'm still not sure who to vote for, mainly because I'm not completely satisfied with how either major candidate stands on key issues. * but I have a feeling Obama will win because a lot of people seem to be afraid of Romney and consider him a big risk if he's elected.
> 
> my main issue is the economy and jobs, and I'm quite worried about how regulations will affect small businesses that may be less able to afford health insurance and other benefits to their employees. on the other hand, too much deregulation may allow corporations to treat employees as dispensable bodies. today I was thinking about that would be great for society, if only we were trying to get back to a state of natural selection, where all the "unfit" people would die out. but realistically, not sure if that would be feasible.


Don't worry, it just means you're more open-minded/informed than your average voter who blindly votes up and down party lines. It is generally the independent voters who decide elections.


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

@benr3600 another major problem is that I haven't done much research on the candidates. I keep putting it off  I would have done it this week but I had no power and therefore no internet. speaking of Hurricane Sandy, Obama came to visit my state, but I didn't hear about Romney doing anything. granted, he's not president yet, but it would have at least been good PR.

I was also rethinking my natural selection theory, where the poor would die out if society had no government programs and no public schools or anything like that. eventually many of the rich job creators would die out too, once their customer base dies out. YAY SOCIETY IS DOOMED


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Acey said:


> I think you took my original statement that smoking will make you anti-war a little too seriously. I was referencing how most people associate marijuana with the hippy movement in the 1970's (make love, not war ring a bell?), and it was more of a humorous statement more so than a literal one. Sorry for the misinterpretation, but hopefully that clears things up.
> 
> Like I had said before, I like Ron Paul's foreign policies. I never said I agreed with all of his proposals (going back to gold standard is not something I agree with, for example) but with regards to his foreign policies, I strongly believe the idea that war is a "necessary evil" as you've previously stated, will become an outdated concept.
> 
> ...


John Lennon said "imagine" and yeah, it's imaginary. If you don't fight back against some cultures of people via war, you will be in deep shit. Don't like it? Tough. In WW2, the Japanese would not stop fighting, even if it meant their own deaths. Do you know why we dropped nuclear bombs on them? I'm not saying we should have, but if you're confronting with people who won't stop, you have to go to war with them.

Hitler could not have been stopped by anything less than war, either.

It's not "an outdated concept." It's simply outdated as a first resort, but since we are still biologically human, it will probably _always _be a last resort.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> INTJ is also the most common type on stormfront and the radical left counterparts ironic?


I honestly believe most of these people are probably mistyped ISTJs. I have nothing against ISTJs, but people with a deep abiding interest in the extremely conservative fascist and racial aspects of European preservation (something I'm quite familiar with as a more liberal, European cultural preservationist) tend to type themselves as IxTJs. There are a lot of people who type themselves as INTJ and INTP on Skadi forum, but Skadi tends to be a little more "high brow" than Stormfront; still it has a large racial component amongst certain members.

On Stormfront they completely deny the holocaust, re-write history, blame black people for everything, and typically remind me of white trash I would encounter in a West Virginia Wal-Mart; however, I know that all INTJs are not well-educated nor do they all have high IQs.

It may have something to do with tertiary Fi in IxTJs being very extremely rigid, meglomaniac, prideful, childlike (read, in this case, CHILDISH), though. I would think that extremist (read Nazi, fascist, et al) preservationism, in the fearful sense, would be more common in Si doms, particularly in ISTJs having both Si and tertiary Fi. Of course, Ni/Fi can also make people self-absorbed and paranoid, so who knows.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

fihe said:


> it's sad that Election Day is tomorrow and I'm still not sure who to vote for, mainly because I'm not completely satisfied with how either major candidate stands on key issues. but I have a feeling Obama will win because a lot of people seem to be afraid of Romney and consider him a big risk if he's elected.
> 
> my main issue is the economy and jobs, and I'm quite worried about how regulations will affect small businesses that may be less able to afford health insurance and other benefits to their employees. on the other hand, too much deregulation may allow corporations to treat employees as dispensable bodies. today I was thinking about that would be great for society, if only we were trying to get back to a state of natural selection, where all the "unfit" people would die out. but realistically, not sure if that would be feasible.


Obamacare is going to kill jobs, that is a guarantee. Romney is going to kill Obamacare. Romney wants to open public land for energy extraction. This will create jobs, lots and lots of jobs. Obama has denied the use of public land. Oil production has increased over the past four years despite Obama but the price of gas has gone through the roof and will continue unless something is done. 

Just a thought on Obamacare. My grandma goes to the doctor multiple times a month. Not because she needs to but because she can, they recommend it and medicare pays for it. When she does she get prescriptions. Last time she got antibiotics and sleeping pills. Not because she is sick but because she figures she might as well get something out of the visit. It's crazy, it's wasteful and it's wrong because my medicare taxes are huge! Obamacare is going to be a disaster. Please help put a stop to it because if it goes through the whole country will end up like my grandma and the taxes will be crushing.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Obama wants to promote renewable energy, not make rich people richer. Romney will be effectively killing tens of thousands of human beings if he kills obamacare.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

(Edit: this is a reply to zelder) On the contrary, Obamacare is going to create jobs. Health is going to be a key growth area, given our current demographics. Why would we choose increased fossil fuel consumption over the health of our citizens?

If you feel there are issues with how medicine is practised today (For example, excessive prescription of sleeping pills), then you should target those areas directly.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Blackwing said:


> Internet = Democrat


Do you hang out on forums a lot? Because they aren't all liberal, I can assure you.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

benr3600 said:


> Many RP supporters are social liberals doe


You don't know the difference between a left and right libertarian. All libertarians are social liberals. People who are fiscally conservative and socially conservative are Republican, or in some cases, fascist. 

Left libertarian means that there are social programs to help people, but on a smaller, local scale. Left libertarian roughly translates to anarchist.

Ron Paul is a right wing libertarian. 

I'm not sure if you meant "doe" condescendingly like "deer" or "dear" or if you meant to type "doh" but I really think you should refrain from doing either, especially when you are wrong.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

zelder said:


> Obamacare is going to kill jobs, that is a guarantee. Romney is going to kill Obamacare. Romney wants to open public land for energy extraction. This will create jobs, lots and lots of jobs. Obama has denied the use of public land. Oil production has increased over the past four years despite Obama but the price of gas has gone through the roof and will continue unless something is done.


Has it ever occurred to you that if wealthy Republicans wanted to create jobs they would have done so already? No one is stopping them. As a matter of facts, CEOs are making more money now than they were before the recession. That's because they aren't creating jobs and are keeping money for themselves.

Don't fall for the lie. There's nothing more transparent than a bunch of people profiting from everyone else's loss saying they're going to create jobs when they clearly could have and should have already.

New sources of energy would create new jobs, I'm not sure what you don't get. 



> Just a thought on Obamacare. My grandma goes to the doctor multiple times a month. Not because she needs to but because she can, they recommend it and medicare pays for it. When she does she get prescriptions. Last time she got antibiotics and sleeping pills. Not because she is sick but because she figures she might as well get something out of the visit. It's crazy, it's wasteful and it's wrong because my medicare taxes are huge! Obamacare is going to be a disaster. Please help put a stop to it because if it goes through the whole country will end up like my grandma and the taxes will be crushing.


You sound paranoid. I suggest you study countries which already have single payer health care (in fact, Obamacare is still much more moderate than single payer) and try to answer this question again.


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> Romney will be effectively killing tens of thousands of human beings if he kills obamacare.


But...but NATURAL SELECTION!


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> (Edit: this is a reply to zelder) On the contrary, Obamacare is going to create jobs. Health is going to be a key growth area, given our current demographics. Why would we choose increased fossil fuel consumption over the health of our citizens?
> 
> If you feel there are issues with how medicine is practised today (For example, excessive prescription of sleeping pills), then you should target those areas directly.


Because big oil wants to keep its grubby hands in the pie. Russia agrees, but at least they're smart enough to start diversifying their energy portfolio NOW.

We have got to keep up, seriously, this is another concern of mine, I'm not so sure people comprehend that U.S.A. isn't just automatically Number One Imperialist Country anymore by a raging landslide.

I really honestly would like to leave, though, if it comes down to it, I will move to Europe and I've been preparing myself for it for quite sometime, it would just be a matter of plotting out a concrete way of making it happen, as they've made it more difficult to immigrate there because of the invasion from the East.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

fourtines said:


> You don't know the difference between a left and right libertarian. All libertarians are social liberals. People who are fiscally conservative and socially conservative are Republican, or in some cases, fascist.
> 
> Left libertarian means that there are social programs to help people, but on a smaller, local scale. Left libertarian roughly translates to anarchist.
> 
> ...


Thank you for clarifying. 


Doe*497* up, *280* downAn alternative term for the word "though"
_ex. "but not really doe"

ex. "put yo team on yo back, doe"

ex. "you mad ignint doe"_

Urban Dictionary: doe

On urban dictionary doe :kitteh:


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

fihe said:


> But...but NATURAL SELECTION!







I sometimes have thoughts of mild eugenics, but the only really reasonable way to improve the net quality of life in the country is to give the poor and downtrodden incentive to not reproduce and procreate more poor people; similar to what China has done, but not quite as classist. It's far better than punishing those who are generally a product of their environment IMHO. Something like nice tax refunds for the impoverished couples who do not have children, instead of incentives for the impoverished having them, or maybe like incentive for one kid and then nothing for two or more.


----------



## Blackwing (Nov 5, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Do you hang out on forums a lot? Because they aren't all liberal, I can assure you.


I'm aware. The statement was made primarily in reference to this thread's poll.

In general, though, the Internet is, and pardon the irony in the following statement, simply too brutal, stark, and honest for many right-wing people. I honestly do commend most right wingers who take the time to state their case, because the Internet just isn't a forum for the sorts of things they tend to stand for.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Blackwing said:


> I'm aware. The statement was made primarily in reference to this thread's poll.
> 
> In general, though, the Internet is, and pardon the irony in the following statement, simply too brutal, stark, and honest for many right-wing people. I honestly do commend most right wingers who take the time to state their case, because the Internet just isn't a forum for the sorts of things they tend to stand for.


???

These people don't seem especially frightened or afraid to state their case.

Neither do these far more ignorant right wingers. 

Or did you mean the right wingers who are completely fiscal and utterly lack any ethnic or racial component (um, that is, overly, ignore the fact that most of them are white, and far more male on this site)?

Because otherwise I am going to presume you specifically mean the religious right, and they have their forums and hang-outs, depending on their church or interests or favorite talk show pundit.

Personality forums and places like 4chan do tend to be a lot more liberal. I don't know why people on personality forums are almost exclusively either liberal or libertarian, with a random Republican here and there, but I would guess it has something to do with people on the religious right maybe thinking Jung was an evil supporter of mysticism or something. 

Most of the Republicans I encounter on personality forums aren't evangelical Christians.


----------



## Blackwing (Nov 5, 2012)

fourtines said:


> It's also good to think critically about how dogmatic and out-of-control liberals can become, and it's good to reflect upon these things lest one gets too blindly carried away with one's own ideology.


I don't consider myself an ideologue, rather, I consider myself something of a number cruncher: I'm about looking at statistics, numbers, polls, facts, and so on.

Either way, you and I are definitely no longer talking about the same thing at all anymore. That, and I don't in any way care for your misinterpretation of me. Not that you did it intentionally, but you're trying to make a discussion out of said misunderstanding, so, yeah, I think I'm done here.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Blackwing said:


> I don't consider myself an ideologue, rather, I consider myself something of a number cruncher: I'm about looking at statistics, numbers, polls, facts, and so on.
> 
> Either way, you and I are definitely no longer talking about the same thing at all anymore. That, and I don't in any way care for your misinterpretation of me. Not that you did it intentionally, but you're trying to make a discussion out of said misunderstanding, so, yeah, I think I'm done here.


Okey dokey.

I'm not sure how I "misinterpreted you" but ok.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Obama, WOOT-WOOT


----------



## xxsnowflakexx (Nov 6, 2012)

Selected Romney.
True villain=Romney
Hypocrite=Obama


----------



## cue5c (Oct 12, 2011)

But where's Roseanne? :sad:


----------



## ThatName (Nov 9, 2011)

I'm for the working class (Democrats), and that's the way it will be for me for life.


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

I voted for Gary Johnson! I also did a few write-ins.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

fihe said:


> I voted for Gary Johnson! I also did a few write-ins.


America is finally going in the way of Europe were even the "right" are strongly on the left. I guess like Europeans most Americans don't believe that no government correlates with prosperity. Fundamentally people either believe that the "invisible hand" actually works or somewhat doesn't a temporary illusory correlation; which is why Adam Smith rationalized its working with the conditions of "perfect liberty" and "perfect equality" thrown in.


----------



## Nickel (Apr 7, 2010)

Funny how Obama's votes are in red and Romney's votes are in blue.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Our country is screwed.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

xxsnowflakexx said:


> Selected Romney.
> True villain=Romney
> Hypocrite=Obama


Wrote in the hero we deserve, and especially the one we need right now


----------



## CompassRose (Jul 25, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> I'm not American but that idea that "values our country was built on" is a joke to me personally. Everything is man made especially values, its not a good reason to uphold values merely because they are old. I mean do you think Greeks should resort back to the values they had 2000+ years ago? Its important to keep adapting and changing with the times remaining relevant.


If you haven't studied the American Constitution and the principles of the American founders, you really shouldn't be making judgements about it. If you had studied these things, you would realize that some "values" are worth upholding not because they are old, but because they are _good_.* 

And I don't know if you've checked up on Greece lately, but for a place that used to be the most culturally rich country in the world, THEY'RE NOT DOING SO WELL. 


*(The term "conservative" is problematic for this reason; it encourages the fallacious belief that all conservatives have some fanatical, unqualified love for what is old, when in fact it's more likely that they're cherry-picking the good ideas out of history and preserving only what deserves to be preserved.)


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

CompassRose said:


> If you haven't studied the American Constitution and the principles of the American founders, you really shouldn't be making judgements about it. If you had studied these things, you would realize that some "values" are worth upholding not because they are old, but because they are _good_.*
> 
> And I don't know if you've checked up on Greece lately, but for a place that used to be the most culturally rich country in the world, THEY'RE NOT DOING SO WELL.
> 
> ...


Everything is subjective, especially the *good part. I'm sure the Indians that were rid of of the land had values and ideas they believed should have been upheld but weren't. Its all a joke in the grander scheme of things, nothing is perfect and there is always something superior out there. Most Americans really have a narrow view of the world, history and sadly top of all, the exaggerated importance of the country and the principles. The rest of the world has various systems that are different, work fine and are superior in other senses. You know soon (even now its starting) we will be hearing the hoards of Chinese Netizens telling us about how superior "Zhōngguó" is as their economy dominates the world akin to how America took the torch from Britain over a 100 years ago. 

Understanding economics and politics impartially and sincerely, should tell you why the Eurozone is the way it is now. Why the problems that are there stem from the 1999 architecture and deployment of the system? Why the "politics" drove out rational economics principles that were omitted? What the "politics" were? etc. And in addition the whole European "socialism" and what it has really meant, PS its nothing like your medicare and entitlement issues.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> Wrote in the hero we deserve, and especially the one we need right now


To be fair there are both 2 fundamental reasons for accepting or rejecting Ron Paul, first through ignorance:
(*)rejecting him for being crank, without a reason why
(*)accepting him for his utopia, without understand what the true positives and negatives are in his vision (Austrian economics, world peace, libertarianism).
Or instead through knowledge seeing his vision for truly what it is, from there it loses all its magic and rhetoric. Drawing away from the conspiracy theories uttered through ignorance the true picture images, about government, modern economics and even capitalism itself why it has emerged in the way it is.


----------

