Does anyone here actually believe what Mitt Romey says?

@jsnyder82 said:

@bunnymud said:

"Does anyone here believe what Mitt Romney says?"

Yes. But a better question is do you believe anything that Obama says, considering what has come to light in recent events

What has come to light in recent events?

You dawg, despite conflicting reports, one anonymous source on the ground that can't be verified or backed up said that Obama told people who could save the embassy to stand down, cuz, lol, he loves watching American citizens die. He hates America and did the presidency for the lulz.

So because Obama may or may not have had concerns or knew exactly what was going on at that very moment 4 people died that means the man can't be president.

I've always said people have a terrible sense of judgment of value and risk where this stance taken by some is a prime example.

@bunnymud said:

Oh...i don't know. How about that whole Benghazi mess. For 10 days he was saying "IT'S THE VIDEO! IT WAS NOT A COORDINATED ATTACK!" and now we know that it was. And that it was a terrorist attack to boot. Not to mention that whole "Imma gonna close Gitmo day one in office." thing

But, I rather keeping liberal circlejerks on Reddit and not sully GB with such nonsense

EDIT: I should have said political circlejerks in general

You are aware you can edit a post, so why not just edit that part? I hate when people put EDIT: then suggest what they should have edited. Just fucking edit it, you have the power to do that!

See, now I'm editing because I want to add to my discussion. How about when Romney said "I'm not concerned about the very poor", or when he said he didn't care about 47% of the country, and then claimed they were all government moochers (which is total bullshit). You may or may not have proof about knowledge Obama may have or may not have had. There is actual proof of Romney saying these things.

@jsnyder82 said:

@bunnymud said:

"Does anyone here believe what Mitt Romney says?"

Yes. But a better question is do you believe anything that Obama says, considering what has come to light in recent events

What has come to light in recent events?

You dawg, despite conflicting reports, one anonymous source on the ground that can't be verified or backed up said that Obama told people who could save the embassy to stand down, cuz, lol, he loves watching American citizens die. He hates America and did the presidency for the lulz.

@TooWalrus said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@jsnyder82 said:

@bunnymud said:

"Does anyone here believe what Mitt Romney says?"

Yes. But a better question is do you believe anything that Obama says, considering what has come to light in recent events

What has come to light in recent events?

You dawg, despite conflicting reports, one anonymous source on the ground that can't be verified or backed up said that Obama told people who could save the embassy to stand down, cuz, lol, he loves watching American citizens die. He hates America and did the presidency for the lulz.

Sounds like the kind of info my grandparents would eat up and ask for seconds.

Well there's an ongoing investigation into what exactly happened. There are things that don't really add up and we need to figure out what happened. Especially since they may or may not have known as it happened. Obama probably didn't have anything to really do with it. There are a lot of people between him and an ambassador that could let things slip. It's too bad the report will come out after the election though. But I guess if something came out that was gross negligence then they'd call for impeachment. Time well tell I suppose.

@Wrighteous86 said:

@jsnyder82 said:

@bunnymud said:

"Does anyone here believe what Mitt Romney says?"

Yes. But a better question is do you believe anything that Obama says, considering what has come to light in recent events

What has come to light in recent events?

You dawg, despite conflicting reports, one anonymous source on the ground that can't be verified or backed up said that Obama told people who could save the embassy to stand down, cuz, lol, he loves watching American citizens die. He hates America and did the presidency for the lulz.

I'm telling you Obama is hiding SOMETHING. I don't know what! But it's something and when the LAMESTREAM media wakes up and we find out what it is, the AMERICAN PEOPLE will want answers!

@bunnymud said:

Oh...i don't know. How about that whole Benghazi mess. For 10 days he was saying "IT'S THE VIDEO! IT WAS NOT A COORDINATED ATTACK!" and now we know that it was. And that it was a terrorist attack to boot. Not to mention that whole "Imma gonna close Gitmo day one in office." thing

But, I rather keeping liberal circlejerks on Reddit and not sully GB with such nonsense

EDIT: I should have said political circlejerks in general

You are aware you can edit a post, so why not just edit that part? I hate when people put EDIT: then suggest what they should have edited. Just fucking edit it, you have the power to do that!

See, now I'm editing because I want to add to my discussion. How about when Romney said "I'm not concerned about the very poor", or when he said he didn't care about 47% of the country, and then claimed they were all government moochers (which is total bullshit). You may or may not have proof about knowledge Obama may have or may not have had. There is actual proof of Romney saying these things.

@hwy_61 said:

@jsnyder82

@bunnymud said:

Oh...i don't know. How about that whole Benghazi mess. For 10 days he was saying "IT'S THE VIDEO! IT WAS NOT A COORDINATED ATTACK!" and now we know that it was. And that it was a terrorist attack to boot. Not to mention that whole "Imma gonna close Gitmo day one in office." thing

But, I rather keeping liberal circlejerks on Reddit and not sully GB with such nonsense

EDIT: I should have said political circlejerks in general

You are aware you can edit a post, so why not just edit that part? I hate when people put EDIT: then suggest what they should have edited. Just fucking edit it, you have the power to do that!

See, now I'm editing because I want to add to my discussion. How about when Romney said "I'm not concerned about the very poor", or when he said he didn't care about 47% of the country, and then claimed they were all government moochers (which is total bullshit). You may or may not have proof about knowledge Obama may have or may not have had. There is actual proof of Romney saying these things.

No edit button on mobile, maybe s/he was posting on that.

Oh, that's true. I always forget that the mobile version is so gimped.

Oh wait. It clearly was edited using the edit button. So I guess my point still stands.

Anyone believing any politician is foolish. The two political gangs running the US are equally corrupt.

Well, enough Americans voted for Bush, twice. I wouldn't put anything past us, we're pretty stupid.

I like turtles.

@Wrighteous86 said:

@imsh_pl said:

@SargeGulp said:

@imsh_pl: You should have made your point without linking to that website.

What's wrong with wanting to use sources to rebut one's argument?

I prefer this more unbiased source: Politifact.

Almost all of the quotes on the site I linked have Politifact articles cited as their sources.

EDIT: Ok, mybe not almost all of them. But they all have linked sources.

@imsh_pl said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Flawed_System said:

The real question:

Does anyone here actually believe what Barrack Obama says?

Yes, he has kept alot of his Campaign Points of 2008 and its hard to push his healthcare act with Congress and the RNC being stubborn and in the pockets of the health care companys.

http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

I'm reading that list and I'm not actually finding many things that are actual lies. There's a big difference between lying and not being able to fulfill promises. Hell, half of those quotes listed are opinions, not stated facts; or they're things he had absolutely no control over. Whoever is running that is really reaching in a desperate manner. I'm all for calling out his lies, but not from a site with an agenda.

“You Didn’t Build that” - Okay, that page is just stupid.

@Jams said:

@TooWalrus said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@jsnyder82 said:

@bunnymud said:

"Does anyone here believe what Mitt Romney says?"

Yes. But a better question is do you believe anything that Obama says, considering what has come to light in recent events

What has come to light in recent events?

You dawg, despite conflicting reports, one anonymous source on the ground that can't be verified or backed up said that Obama told people who could save the embassy to stand down, cuz, lol, he loves watching American citizens die. He hates America and did the presidency for the lulz.

Sounds like the kind of info my grandparents would eat up and ask for seconds.

Well there's an ongoing investigation into what exactly happened. There are things that don't really add up and we need to figure out what happened. Especially since they may or may not have known as it happened. Obama probably didn't have anything to really do with it. There are a lot of people between him and an ambassador that could let things slip. It's too bad the report will come out after the election though. But I guess if something came out that was gross negligence then they'd call for impeachment. Time well tell I suppose.

That's a reasonable way to approach it for someone who (if I remember your history right) is inclined to not like Obama. I appreciate that. I feel the same. Mistakes were made, I'm just hesitant to automatically blame Obama. I think most of our Presidents in recent history have suffered through attacks on our embassies before, so it's not unheard of, and most of them weren't blamed as vehemently as this one has been. But yes, I support the investigation and will try to take whatever results from it from a neutral perspective. I just find it hard to believe that he "allowed" their deaths, which some of my more extremist relatives seem to think. I think if something untoward happened, it's much more complex than that.

@imsh_pl said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@imsh_pl said:

@SargeGulp said:

@imsh_pl: You should have made your point without linking to that website.

What's wrong with wanting to use sources to rebut one's argument?

I prefer this more unbiased source: Politifact.

Almost all of the quotes on the site I linked have Politifact articles cited as their sources.

EDIT: Ok, mybe not almost all of them. But they all have linked sources.

True, but you mentioned that Obama's a liar, and I think it's unfair to say that without pointing out the other side tends to be worse. Unless your argument was that both candidates are politicians and invariably lie to entice voters, it was a skewing of the facts. For the most part, Obama has been a fairly truthful President, although he has indeed lied.

The only reason people are voting for Romney is because they hate the living shit out of Obama. Like a really intense, burning hate and I really don't know where it comes from. Is it cause he's black? Because overall he has not been that terrible of a president. I mean he's definitely not perfect, but not the spawn of satan that some people act like he is...

@Vashyron said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Jams said:

If you don't make more than 500,000 a year, there is no reason you should support, or defend the republican party.

Excuse me, what?

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Vashyron said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Jams said:

If you don't make more than 500,000 a year, there is no reason you should support, or defend the republican party.

Excuse me, what?

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Where the hell did you get that idea? That's like saying you need to be poor to vote democrat.

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Vashyron said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Jams said:

If you don't make more than 500,000 a year, there is no reason you should support, or defend the republican party.

Excuse me, what?

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

Let's see. Most Republicans in power want to eliminate abortion, stop funding planned parenthood, stop funding public access and educational programming on television and radio, want more emphasis on "Christianity" in our government and in our lives, want to ensure that gays are not provided the same rights as straights, think America has never done anything worth apologizing for, think our previous health care system was "the best in the world", think that America has nowhere to go but down because we're already #1 despite all evidence to the contrary, that eliminating liberty in the name of security is all right, and that every other country in the world, including our allies, should kowtow to our every whim. Also, "socialism" is not a dirty word. A total socialist society would be a broken one. So would a total capitalist society (we're starting to see how ruthless capitalism is hurting our nation). A mixture of the two, given the circumstances, is probably the best we can get. The people calling Obama a socialist probably don't understand the word enough to realize that we already have a number of "socialist" systems in place in our government that they take for granted.

Are the Democrats much better? Will they eliminate these problems? Definitely not. But they won't continue pushing us backwards. Non-regression is enough of a "change" in my mind to make it worthwhile.

@Wrighteous86 said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Vashyron said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Jams said:

If you don't make more than 500,000 a year, there is no reason you should support, or defend the republican party.

Excuse me, what?

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

Let's see. Most Republicans in power want to eliminate abortion, stop funding planned parenthood, stop funding public access and educational programming on television and radio, want more emphasis on "Christianity" in our government and in our lives, want to ensure that gays are not provided the same rights as straights, think America has never done anything worth apologizing for, think our previous health care system was "the best in the world", think that America has nowhere to go but down because we're already #1 despite all evidence to the contrary, that eliminating liberty in the name of security is all right, and that every other country in the world, including our allies, should kowtow to our every whim. Also, "socialism" is not a dirty word. A total socialist society would be a broken one. So would a total capitalist society (we're starting to see how ruthless capitalism is hurting our nation). A mixture of the two, given the circumstances, is probably the best we can get. The people calling Obama a socialist probably don't understand the word enough to realize that we already have a number of "socialist" systems in place in our government that they take for granted.

Are the Democrats much better? Will they eliminate these problems? Definitely not. But they won't continue pushing us backwards. Non-regression is enough of a "change" in my mind to make it worthwhile.

The healthcare system is a disgrace in America, every living person in America has spent about 8000 dollars on the Iraq\Afghanistan wars, but god forbid you need treatment for cancer.

@SamFo said:

Well this doesn't bode well for CBS's campaign to avoid a media bias after all those huge miss steps of perceived bias during the Bush administration. Thinking of that famous party they threw for democrats and the whole Killian documents thing.

@No0b0rAmA said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Vashyron said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Jams said:

If you don't make more than 500,000 a year, there is no reason you should support, or defend the republican party.

Excuse me, what?

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Where the hell did you get that idea? That's like saying you need to be poor to vote democrat.

Look at some Republicans and see what they vote on, it's clear they favor a certain group. I can't explain it further, and especially won't with someone being hostile towards me for sharing a different outlook on the matter.

@Wrighteous86 said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Vashyron said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Jams said:

If you don't make more than 500,000 a year, there is no reason you should support, or defend the republican party.

Excuse me, what?

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

Let's see. Most Republicans in power want to eliminate abortion, stop funding planned parenthood, stop funding public access and educational programming on television and radio, want more emphasis on "Christianity" in our government and in our lives, want to ensure that gays are not provided the same rights as straights, think America has never done anything worth apologizing for, think our previous health care system was "the best in the world", think that America has nowhere to go but down because we're already #1 despite all evidence to the contrary, that eliminating liberty in the name of security is all right, and that every other country in the world, including our allies, should kowtow to our every whim. Also, "socialism" is not a dirty word. A total socialist society would be a broken one. So would a total capitalist society (we're starting to see how ruthless capitalism is hurting our nation). A mixture of the two, given the circumstances, is probably the best we can get. The people calling Obama a socialist probably don't understand the word enough to realize that we already have a number of "socialist" systems in place in our government that they take for granted.

Are the Democrats much better? Will they eliminate these problems? Definitely not. But they won't continue pushing us backwards. Non-regression is enough of a "change" in my mind to make it worthwhile.

The Democrats and Republicans share many traits, including corporate involvement, signing of many of the same bills and general agreement of NDAA and the drug war. The "two" parties are essentially one party, the business party, neither serve the people.

As long as our politics are completely focused on election and marketing to the lowest common denominator it doesn't matter which ineffective figurehead we choose. Maybe someday we will choose leaders based on more than a media sideshow.

I think I'll add that I don't think I've seen anyone give actual reasons for why we should vote for Romney other than the fact that he is not named Obama. I guess it might be a race thing for many people even if they don't realize it.

Either way, the American people are going to complain about the president that they elected because they feel entitled to

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Vashyron said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Jams said:

If you don't make more than 500,000 a year, there is no reason you should support, or defend the republican party.

Excuse me, what?

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

Let's see. Most Republicans in power want to eliminate abortion, stop funding planned parenthood, stop funding public access and educational programming on television and radio, want more emphasis on "Christianity" in our government and in our lives, want to ensure that gays are not provided the same rights as straights, think America has never done anything worth apologizing for, think our previous health care system was "the best in the world", think that America has nowhere to go but down because we're already #1 despite all evidence to the contrary, that eliminating liberty in the name of security is all right, and that every other country in the world, including our allies, should kowtow to our every whim. Also, "socialism" is not a dirty word. A total socialist society would be a broken one. So would a total capitalist society (we're starting to see how ruthless capitalism is hurting our nation). A mixture of the two, given the circumstances, is probably the best we can get. The people calling Obama a socialist probably don't understand the word enough to realize that we already have a number of "socialist" systems in place in our government that they take for granted.

Are the Democrats much better? Will they eliminate these problems? Definitely not. But they won't continue pushing us backwards. Non-regression is enough of a "change" in my mind to make it worthwhile.

The Democrats and Republicans share many traits, including corporate involvement, signing of many of the same bills and general agreement of NDAA and the drug war. The "two" parties are essentially one party, the business party, neither serve the people.

All I know is that the most of the world is ran like a bad game of Sim City 2000. I'd know because all my cities end up like this country. With too many bonds and not enough growth to ever pay them back.

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Vashyron said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Jams said:

If you don't make more than 500,000 a year, there is no reason you should support, or defend the republican party.

Excuse me, what?

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

Let's see. Most Republicans in power want to eliminate abortion, stop funding planned parenthood, stop funding public access and educational programming on television and radio, want more emphasis on "Christianity" in our government and in our lives, want to ensure that gays are not provided the same rights as straights, think America has never done anything worth apologizing for, think our previous health care system was "the best in the world", think that America has nowhere to go but down because we're already #1 despite all evidence to the contrary, that eliminating liberty in the name of security is all right, and that every other country in the world, including our allies, should kowtow to our every whim. Also, "socialism" is not a dirty word. A total socialist society would be a broken one. So would a total capitalist society (we're starting to see how ruthless capitalism is hurting our nation). A mixture of the two, given the circumstances, is probably the best we can get. The people calling Obama a socialist probably don't understand the word enough to realize that we already have a number of "socialist" systems in place in our government that they take for granted.

Are the Democrats much better? Will they eliminate these problems? Definitely not. But they won't continue pushing us backwards. Non-regression is enough of a "change" in my mind to make it worthwhile.

The Democrats and Republicans share many traits, including corporate involvement, signing of many of the same bills and general agreement of NDAA and the drug war. The "two" parties are essentially one party, the business party, neither serve the people.

I know that, but as I said, there are subtle, yet important, differences on social issues. Ask any gay people you know if there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Or most non-Christians for that matter. Or immigrants. Or minorities.

Are both parties in corporate pockets? Yes. But with the little freedom they are afforded, they delineate themselves. Or, if you prefer, they have different corporate masters with different social agendas.

I'll just leave this here.And to be fair I'll leave this as well.

Honestly, I don't really comment on political statements others make since it often spirals downward and I live under the notion that my beliefs don't require that everyone (or anyone for that matter) believes what I believe, so I shrug most wild notions off. However, since I did and people actually took the time to respond to those comments I should also respond in kind.

I will try to reply to everyone's comments, however, please be understanding if I miss someone's comment(s). I only say this because there has been a certain amount of assholishness on this thread already and I have little desire to engage it. Also, it's the internet, so...

@TooWalrus said:

My parents support the Republicans because they take the "moral high ground" when it comes to social issues like gay marriage, abortion etc. (I tend believe the opposite, though).

I'm sure that Democrats also believe they stand on a "moral high ground" as well. That is part of the problem. Everyone thinks they are completely right and hardly anyone, if anyone, is willing to fess up when they fuck up. Instead Democrats and Republicans just yell and scream and would lead the American people to believe that the other side is wrong and they are to blame for your problems in life.

@BestUsernameEver said:

@No0b0rAmA said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Where the hell did you get that idea? That's like saying you need to be poor to vote democrat.

Look at some Republicans and see what they vote on, it's clear they favor a certain group. I can't explain it further, and especially won't with someone being hostile towards me for sharing a different outlook on the matter.

I don't necessarily agree with No0b's tone, but the overall idea. It's somewhat of a absurdest notion. There are plenty of reasons to not support Democrats, but it mostly comes down to national priorities and ideals. Yes, Republicans do favor certain groups, this is true. However, Democrats also favor certain groups that also do not have the American people's best interests at heart. Do you think Democrats are really going to make the wealthy pay that much more in taxes? No, because the wealthy are what help Democrats (just like the Republicans) get into and stay in office. No one really wants to pay more in taxes, even if they can afford it.

@Wrighteous86 said:

Let's see. Most Republicans in power want to eliminate abortion, stop funding planned parenthood, stop funding public access and educational programming on television and radio, want more emphasis on "Christianity" in our government and in our lives, want to ensure that gays are not provided the same rights as straights, think America has never done anything worth apologizing for, think our previous health care system was "the best in the world", think that America has nowhere to go but down because we're already #1 despite all evidence to the contrary, that eliminating liberty in the name of security is all right, and that every other country in the world, including our allies, should kowtow to our every whim. Also, "socialism" is not a dirty word. A total socialist society would be a broken one. So would a total capitalist society (we're starting to see how ruthless capitalism is hurting our nation). A mixture of the two, given the circumstances, is probably the best we can get. The people calling Obama a socialist probably don't understand the word enough to realize that we already have a number of "socialist" systems in place in our government that they take for granted.

Are the Democrats much better? Will they eliminate these problems? Definitely not. But they won't continue pushing us backwards. Non-regression is enough of a "change" in my mind to make it worthwhile.

Ideally abortions and Planned Parenthood shouldn't be necessary. That is, however, not the reality with which we live in. I'm not sure that anyone other than hard right wing Republicans want to eliminate abortions entirely, despite what ads might say and honestly, no one should really be worried about it either. Abortions and Planned Parenthood aren't going to go away unless science is produced that irrefutably proves that life begins at conception, which would then make abortion murder, which is illegal. Since science hasn't proven that yet and Planned Parenthood is really well funded, they are here to stay regardless of how you feel about it. Most Republicans, however, probably don't think that abortions should be a common practice. Other than Romney, I'm not sure how many Republicans actually want to stop funding public access and educational programming on television on radio. In regards to more emphasis on "Christianity", that is less true. Republican ideals do tend to attract Christian groups and a fair number of their ideals align, however, there isn't a vast movement by the Republican party to force people to be Christian. Besides, the Democrats don't really care that much about Christian groups that don't align with their ideals anyway, so why should they bother trying to get those groups to vote for them? Other than marriage rights, I'm not entirely sure what other rights the LGBT community are being denied. Besides, that will likely end up being a State issue rather than a Federal one, so it will be dependent upon the societal view of each State as to whether or not they are allowed to get married in said State. Neither the Democrats or Republicans can get foreign policy quite right as it requires not taking shit from other countries, but also not pissing everyone else off. Yeah, Republicans are guilty of eliminating liberty in the name of security, but Democrats are also about making people more dependent on the Government so that the Government has more say in what they do. Yes, neither a socialist nor a capitalist society in its entirety is good. However, the problem, in regards to "socialist" policies such as Obamacare, is that in order for them to be effective, they require a Government that actually gives a shit about its people. If you think that the Government is going to be a better insurance provider than privatized insurance companies, you're high, because they want to also pay out on claims as little as possible, just like privatized insurance. If they have to pay out on a claim, you can bet taxes are gonna go up, because that money has to come from somewhere. The whole system is fucked from the word go.

The question you should ask is "Do the Democrats represent the values I believe to be true?" If yes, then by all means vote for them, because I can tell you that so long as crazy liberals and crazy conservatives are allowed room to talk, influence others, and positions of power, neither side is capable of fixing this country as neither side is willing to talk rationally with each other. Obama tried being moderate. He got criticized heavily by his party and ended up pushing more liberal policies because he needed to run for re-election. Such is the nature of American Politics.

@Jams said:

All I know is that the most of the world is ran like a bad game of Sim City 2000. I'd know because all my cities end up like this country. With too many bonds and not enough growth to ever pay them back.

Then your games of Sim City fair far better than mine do, as by that point in the game, a monster or aliens have started attacking the city on a regular basis. Also, earthquakes and flooding tend to be common themes.

Edit: Grammar and Syntax

@Vashyron said:

Ideally abortions and Planned Parenthood shouldn't be necessary. That is, however, not the reality with which we live in. I'm not sure that anyone other than hard right wing Republicans want to eliminate abortions entirely, despite what ads might say and honestly, no one should really be worried about it either. Abortions and Planned Parenthood aren't going to go away unless science is produced that irrefutably proves that life begins at conception, which would then make abortion murder, which is illegal. Since science hasn't proven that yet and Planned Parenthood is really well funded, they are here to stay regardless of how you feel about it. Most Republicans, however, probably don't think that abortions should be a common practice. Other than Romney, I'm not sure how many Republicans actually want to stop funding public access and educational programming on television on radio. In regards to more emphasis on "Christianity", that is less true. Republican ideals do tend to attract Christian groups and a fair number of their ideals align, however, there isn't a vast movement by the Republican party to force people to be Christian. Besides, the Democrats don't really care that much about Christian groups that don't align with their ideals anyway, so why should they bother trying to get those groups to vote for them? Other than marriage rights, I'm not entirely sure what other rights the LGBT community are being denied. Besides, that will likely end up being a State issue rather than a Federal one, so it will be dependent upon the societal view of each State as to whether or not they are allowed to get married in said State. Neither the Democrats or Republicans can get foreign policy quite right as it requires not taking shit from other countries, but also not pissing everyone else off. Yeah, Republicans are guilty of eliminating liberty in the name of security, but Democrats are also about making people more dependent on the Government so that the Government has more say in what they do. Yes, neither a socialist nor a capitalist society in its entirety is good. However, the problem, in regards to "socialist" policies such as Obamacare, is that in order for them to be effective, they require a Government that actually gives a shit about its people. If you think that the Government is going to be a better insurance provider than privatized insurance companies, you're high, because they want to also pay out on claims as little as possible, just like privatized insurance. If they have to pay out on a claim, you can bet taxes are gonna go up, because that money has to come from somewhere. The whole system is fucked from the word go.

The question you should ask is "Do the Democrats represent the values I believe to be true?" If yes, then by all means vote for them, because I can tell you that so long as crazy liberals and crazy conservatives are allowed room to talk, influence others, and positions of power, neither side is capable of fixing this country as neither side is willing to talk rationally with each other. Obama tried being moderate. He got criticized heavily by his party and ended up pushing more liberal policies because he needed to run for re-election. Such is the nature of American Politics.

I think it's very naive to think that Republicans and conservatives in general are just kidding around when they say they want to get rid of abortions (overturn Roe v. Wade via Supreme Court appointment) and when their party platform states exactly what they'd like done regarding that issue. There have been some high profile Republican cases lately in regards to rape and abortion and their thoughts on that. I also believe that the LGBT community has quite a list in regards to what rights they'd like to have.

@golguin said:

I think it's very naive to think that Republicans and conservatives in general are just kidding around when they say they want to get rid of abortions (overturn Roe v. Wade via Supreme Court appointment) and when their party platform states exactly what they'd like done regarding that issue. There have been some high profile Republican cases lately in regards to rape and abortion and their thoughts on that. I also believe that the LGBT community has quite a list in regards to what rights they'd like to have.

I never said they were just kidding. I believe I mentioned that hard right wing Republicans do want that. Most however don't want to get rid of it in its entirety, I'm pretty sure. A few people with crazy ideas don't necessarily reflect the view of the entire group. They simply are the ones that speak the loudest. Also, in regards to overturning Roe v Wade, won't happen. If it were going to happen, it would have happened already. The Court only handles issues that require an interpretation of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade has already be ruled upon and the Court isn't going to handle a court issue dealing with abortion unless something new comes up that hasn't already been ruled upon, i.e. scientific evidence that proves irrefutably that life begins at conception.

EDIT: Also, it's possible that the LGBT have more demands that just Marriage Rights, however Marriage Rights are what seems to come up in the news the most and as I don't follow that community, I'm mostly ignorant to what they want.

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Vashyron said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Jams said:

If you don't make more than 500,000 a year, there is no reason you should support, or defend the republican party.

Excuse me, what?

What do you mean what? Anyone who is not wealthy voting republican is clueless. If you're voting democrat and thing you're changing anything, you're not much better either.

Let's see. Most Republicans in power want to eliminate abortion, stop funding planned parenthood, stop funding public access and educational programming on television and radio, want more emphasis on "Christianity" in our government and in our lives, want to ensure that gays are not provided the same rights as straights, think America has never done anything worth apologizing for, think our previous health care system was "the best in the world", think that America has nowhere to go but down because we're already #1 despite all evidence to the contrary, that eliminating liberty in the name of security is all right, and that every other country in the world, including our allies, should kowtow to our every whim. Also, "socialism" is not a dirty word. A total socialist society would be a broken one. So would a total capitalist society (we're starting to see how ruthless capitalism is hurting our nation). A mixture of the two, given the circumstances, is probably the best we can get. The people calling Obama a socialist probably don't understand the word enough to realize that we already have a number of "socialist" systems in place in our government that they take for granted.

Are the Democrats much better? Will they eliminate these problems? Definitely not. But they won't continue pushing us backwards. Non-regression is enough of a "change" in my mind to make it worthwhile.

The Democrats and Republicans share many traits, including corporate involvement, signing of many of the same bills and general agreement of NDAA and the drug war. The "two" parties are essentially one party, the business party, neither serve the people.

This last bit especially. America(also everyone else) seems to get lost in the rhetoric of social issues. Hypothetically each party is very different, when they talk they sound very different, in truth they are virtually the same, as far as what they'll actually do. Whether that's because of how expensive campaigning is these days I.E all the favors they end up owing, or because they're merely more corrupt, perhaps because of an overall calcification of the political system in it's entirety. Whatever the cause the result is the same, a lot of very angry people who end up shouting about what amounts to mean (seemingly) very little.

@SargeGulp: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/what-president-obama-has-done-for-the-gay-communit

Are these tiny steps? Yes. But they are significant in the changes towards social acceptance of the gay community, and most, if not all, would likely not have been enacted by Mitt Romney.

@imsh_pl said:

I see you didn't adress my argument, well...

Premise 1. The government is supposed to reflect the will of the people

Premise 2. The government is supposed to be helping the poor

Conclusion. People want to help the poor and there is no reason why the government should force anybody to do it.

I'd rather you showed me what's wrong with the premises or the conclusion this time please, no ad homines and appeals to ridicue would be nice.

And yeah, I'm one of those pesky selfish assholes who believes that threats of violence are not the way to solve complex social problems, and that forcing someone to pay for someone else is not compassionate, it's theft.

Boy, it really chafes me that libertarians are uniformly too dumb or myopic to realize that government helps the rich more than it helps the poor. You know all that wealth that rich people worked so doggone hard to accumulate? It all kind of disappears without a government to guarantee their property rights. The more you have, the more invested you are a society with a functioning, stable government. Therefore, you pay more taxes. Too bad. The people who have thrived in such a society and then try to pull the ladder up so that nobody else gets the same opportunity are the real thieves. Pay the damn piper.

Also, it really chafes me that libertarians love to project this image of being sober intellectuals by name-checking Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek constantly, yet they are so ignorant about the subject of economics that they apparently are unaware of the free rider problem.

Mitt Romney seems like a horrible human being to me... just blows my mind he has any support.

I don't think anyone who actually pays attention and is moderately well informed believes what he says. The problem is that there are large swaths of America that don't pay attention, and aren't well informed, never mind the people who are greedy and will vote for him based solely on the belief that their taxes will go down.

Nate Silver says Obama will win so there's nothing to worry about. He has statistics and whatnot.

@Vashyron said:

@golguin said:

I think it's very naive to think that Republicans and conservatives in general are just kidding around when they say they want to get rid of abortions (overturn Roe v. Wade via Supreme Court appointment) and when their party platform states exactly what they'd like done regarding that issue. There have been some high profile Republican cases lately in regards to rape and abortion and their thoughts on that. I also believe that the LGBT community has quite a list in regards to what rights they'd like to have.

I never said they were just kidding. I believe I mentioned that hard right wing Republicans do want that. Most however don't want to get rid of it in its entirety, I'm pretty sure. A few people with crazy ideas don't necessarily reflect the view of the entire group. They simply are the ones that speak the loudest. Also, in regards to overturning Roe v Wade, won't happen. If it were going to happen, it would have happened already. The Court only handles issues that require an interpretation of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade has already be ruled upon and the Court isn't going to handle a court issue dealing with abortion unless something new comes up that hasn't already been ruled upon, i.e. scientific evidence that proves irrefutably that life begins at conception.

EDIT: Also, it's possible that the LGBT have more demands that just Marriage Rights, however Marriage Rights are what seems to come up in the news the most and as I don't follow that community, I'm mostly ignorant to what they want.

I don't believe that the people that want it gone entirely are as hard right wing as you'd think. However, those that aren't as far right still would only allow it in the cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc. and only applying it under those conditions is wrong.

The balance of power in the court will tip in favor of the side that gets to make the next appointment. Issues and challenges will always come up and nothing is ever truly settled if there are still people willing to fight. The Citizens United ruling as an example wont stand for long if a democrat makes the appointment.

@imsh_pl said:

I see you didn't adress my argument, well...

Premise 1. The government is supposed to reflect the will of the people

Premise 2.The government is supposed to be helping the poor

Conclusion. People want to help the poor and there is no reason why the government should force anybody to do it.

I'd rather you showed me what's wrong with the premises or the conclusion this time please, no ad homines and appeals to ridicue would be nice.

And yeah, I'm one of those pesky selfish assholes who believes that threats of violence are not the way to solve complex social problems, and that forcing someone to pay for someone else is not compassionate, it's theft.

I know this was way back on page 6 but nobody gave a sufficient answer and that was bugging me so I'll do it.

Premise 1. Supposed to. The problem is that we have a system of political lobbying which means mainstream politicians act on the will of the rich people who pay them. According to the latest SCF (conducted in July of this years) the lower 50th percentile of Americans own 1.1% of the wealth, the 50th to 90th percentile owns 24.4% of the nation's wealth. This means that 74.5% of all of our nation's wealth is owned by 10% of the country. We could have have 90% of Americans for policy x but as long as the 10% wants policy Y it doesn't matter what 90% of Americans want since while we can effect who gets in office both major parties can receive more than twice the money from the top 10% than the lower 90% could afford to pay. As long as lobbyists affect politics the government won't represent the people.

Premise 2. Only if we vote the people who would help the poor into office, and once you consider that the richest 10% of Americans have more influence on policy than the other 90% it simply doesn't make sense that they would.

Conclusion. If premise 1 and 2 were true (which they're not for the reasons stated above) you could logically replace "help the poor" with anything and conclude that there is no necessity for the government to exist at all. However, I'd argue that a governing body necessarily exists because society has a structure.

Or to look at it another way; If the government doesn't need to exist that would mean people are inherently good-natured without governance. The most efficient way to help the poor is systemically, otherwise you'd just be haphazardly spreading wealth based on locale and what people say. Since we know that taking people at their word about how much they actually own wouldn't necessarily lead to proper wealth distribution (also proof that people aren't inherently good-natured) we need a system to check the truthfulness of the claims of the people asking for society to help them financially. So we set up a governing body to make sure people aren't lying about their assets and income. We then need that governing body to disperse money to be functional, so it needs revenue. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. If we don't call it a government, society helping people necessarily requires a governing body. Your argument for why people don't need the government to do something is reductive and leads us back to where forming a government happened. As it turns out the most efficient system is a well regulated government doing said function.

@A_Talking_Donkey said:

Conclusion. If premise 1 and 2 were true (which they're not for the reasons stated above) you could logically replace "help the poor" with anything and conclude that there is no necessity for the government to exist at all. However, I'd argue that a governing body necessarily exists because society has a structure.

I fully agree that the government neither does help the poor nor reflects the will of the people. But you're missing the point. EVEN IF you consider a perfect government, that is one that does reflect the will of the people, you still don't need it to do the things that people want to do.

Or to look at it another way; If the government doesn't need to exist that would mean people are inherently good-natured without governance.

But the idea that people are not good in nature is EXACTLY why we can't have a government, because it is composed of the same people who are not good in nature.

And you cannot say that people by nature require government. Because then no person would be fit to govern.

You have to consistently apply the features of 'the people' to the government, because the government is composed of 'the people'.

The most efficient way to help the poor is systemically, otherwise you'd just be haphazardly spreading wealth based on locale and what people say.

But you don't need the government to do that. There are hundreds of charity organizations, many of which are more efficient at achieving their specific goal that the government (see charities working at helping people after Katrina and the catastrophe in Japan).

Since we know that taking people at their word about how much they actually own wouldn't necessarily lead to proper wealth distribution (also proof that people aren't inherently good-natured)

There is strong scientific evidence that there is, in fact, no such thing as human nature, and that people's behaviour is majorly dependant on their environment. For example, if you're brought up peacefully, you're statistically much less likely to be violent, aggressive, prone to addiction, etc. And vice versa.

we need a system to check the truthfulness of the claims of the people asking for society to help them financially. So we set up a governing body to make sure people aren't lying about their assets and income.

Again, you forget that the government is composed of people. And your argument pretty much goes 'becasue people can lie we need the government composed of people to make sure nobody is lying'. Which, I'm sorry, is not very convinving.

We then need that governing body to disperse money to be functional, so it needs revenue. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. If we don't call it a government, society helping people necessarily requires a governing body.

Oh come on. That is flat out not true! Charities are not governments, and are extremely functional at allocating resources meant to help people.

And, again, you can't say that 'people by nature require governing so we need some people who will do the governing but will not be governed themselves'. You're not consistently applying your 'by nature' argument.

Besides, I'd like to see you prove that 'people by nature require governing', because this is a factual, scientific claim, just like 'people by nature require food'.

Your argument for why people don't need the government to do something is reductive and leads us back to where forming a government happened.

But government didn't form to help people. The first governments were in Egypt, where they were used to enslave the citizens to benefit a few elites.

Governments are always imposed. Give me a historical example of people living without a government, then a few others who propose to form one and leaving a choice to the former if they want to be under its jurisdiction or not.

Every example of anarchy which occurs right after a major revolution is then followed by the newly formed government IMPOSING taxation on the people. They are never given a choice to not participate!

As it turns out the most efficient system is a well regulated government doing said function.

Completely false. The most efficient system at managing resources is a system based on voluntary exchange of goods and services, in other words: the free market.

@pyrodactyl said:

@imsh_pl
@A_Talking_Donkey Got it all wrong. We have a government because without it, the only metric for power would be money.

I'm sorry, you think that people in the government are not motivated by profit, and instead just want to govern good because they're really, really nice people?

In a world without gouvernance, you have the money, you decide who gets to live happy or who gets a chance for a better life.

And how do you get money in a free market most efficiently?

You have to have people who want to voluntarily trade it with you.

How do you do that?

By providing the best service at the lowest price.

There is nothing bad with having money in a free market because every dollar was given to you voluntarily.

How do you get money if you're in the government most efficiently?

Accept bribes, because even if you govern badly, people have no choice but to pay for your services. And maybe you won't get reelected in 4 years, so grab as much as you can!

How does the government solve the issue of power for money?

As it stands right now, there is an army of well meaning intelligent people between people with money and the power.

Not sure what you mean... I hope you don't mean politicians!

As it stands right now, the vision of an ideal is way more usefull to get power than a big wallet.

Uhm... no? The best way to get power is to promise the people with resources that you'll serve their interest once you're in office to get campaign donations?

@imsh_pl said:

How do you get money if you're in the government most efficiently? Accept bribes, because even if you govern badly, people have no choice but to pay for your services. And maybe you won't get reelected in 4 years, so grab as much as you can!

Uhm... no? The best way to get power is to promise the people with resources that you'll serve their interest once you're in office to get campaign donations?

Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me dude. :)

@golguin said:

@Vashyron said:

@golguin said:

I think it's very naive to think that Republicans and conservatives in general are just kidding around when they say they want to get rid of abortions (overturn Roe v. Wade via Supreme Court appointment) and when their party platform states exactly what they'd like done regarding that issue. There have been some high profile Republican cases lately in regards to rape and abortion and their thoughts on that. I also believe that the LGBT community has quite a list in regards to what rights they'd like to have.

I never said they were just kidding. I believe I mentioned that hard right wing Republicans do want that. Most however don't want to get rid of it in its entirety, I'm pretty sure. A few people with crazy ideas don't necessarily reflect the view of the entire group. They simply are the ones that speak the loudest. Also, in regards to overturning Roe v Wade, won't happen. If it were going to happen, it would have happened already. The Court only handles issues that require an interpretation of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade has already be ruled upon and the Court isn't going to handle a court issue dealing with abortion unless something new comes up that hasn't already been ruled upon, i.e. scientific evidence that proves irrefutably that life begins at conception.

EDIT: Also, it's possible that the LGBT have more demands that just Marriage Rights, however Marriage Rights are what seems to come up in the news the most and as I don't follow that community, I'm mostly ignorant to what they want.

I don't believe that the people that want it gone entirely are as hard right wing as you'd think. However, those that aren't as far right still would only allow it in the cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc. and only applying it under those conditions is wrong.

The balance of power in the court will tip in favor of the side that gets to make the next appointment. Issues and challenges will always come up and nothing is ever truly settled if there are still people willing to fight. The Citizens United ruling as an example wont stand for long if a democrat makes the appointment.

Possibly. From your viewpoint, certainly it is wrong to only allow birth control under those conditions. Many others agree with your viewpoint, for sure. However, understand that people do believe that life starts at conception, which under that view means that abortion, in most cases, is ethically and morally wrong. They, like you in your belief, think that abortions being allowed to anyone who wants it is wrong. You both can't be right, however, I know that both sides of the argument are happy to say that the other side is completely wrong.

Everyone always worries about the balance of power in the Supreme Court. I remember hearing a whole bunch about how "If the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare, they are simply using the Conservative majority to further the Republican political agenda." Guess what happened? Chief Justice Roberts, who is a conservative judge, upheld Obamacare and surprised the shit out of everyone cause everyone thought for sure he'd cast his vote against it. So, like I said, if Roe v. Wade was going to get overturned, it would have happened already, since the reason why the court ruled that abortion, at a certain stage, is not illegal was because the science did not meet judicial scrutiny as to proving that life began at conception. Yes, there are always issues and challenges, literally thousands upon thousands are presented to the Supreme Court and the Court only hears a handful of them, maybe, and they choose the ones they handle and then it is a several month process involving hearings and deliberation. And they certainly don't pick cases that will help further political agenda. So no, Citizens United won't get overturned immediately if a liberal judge is appointed.

EDIT: And just one more thing. When the Supreme Court does hear cases, they usually deal with laws that are questioned in regards to their Constitutionality, since that is the realm in which Supreme Court holds domain.

@Spaceyoghurt said:

@imsh_pl said:

How do you get money if you're in the government most efficiently? Accept bribes, because even if you govern badly, people have no choice but to pay for your services. And maybe you won't get reelected in 4 years, so grab as much as you can!

Uhm... no? The best way to get power is to promise the people with resources that you'll serve their interest once you're in office to get campaign donations?

Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me dude. :)

It is. The most efficient way to profit in the government ladder is to promise the people with resources to govern in their favour once you are promoted/elected.

The funny thing is that many people acknowledge this, yet when talking about whether we need a government they all tend to say "yes but we need unbiased people who will govern independant of their profit incentive and instead will just care for the people".

@imsh_pl said:

I fully agree that the government neither does help the poor nor reflects the will of the people. But you're missing the point. EVEN IF you consider a perfect government, that is one that does reflect the will of the people, you still don't need it to do the things that people want to do.

How does the government not help the poor? As someone who has had to use food stamps while in college and also has been homeless for a brief time I have to wonder if you drooled on yourself while typing this. Also, what if the people want to act through the government? I haven't seen many people voting to get rid of the government which seems to suggest Americans want government to act on their behalf.

But the idea that people are not good in nature is EXACTLY why we can't have a government, because it is composed of the same people who are not good in nature.

And you cannot say that people by nature require government. Because then no person would be fit to govern.

You have to consistently apply the features of 'the people' to the government, because the government is composed of 'the people'.

This is why I carefully chose the wording "inherently good-natured". I think people are capable of being good, I just don't think people are good by default. Humans aren't some hive-minded creature working in complete unity. Choosing political leaders isn't easy, it's hard. Finding the stand out people who are well qualified to lead is probably both the most difficult thing to do and the most important thing we have to decide on in our lives. I also didn't say "people" need to be governed, I said societies do. Governing isn't about micro-managing persons, its about macro-managing economic flow.

But you don't need the government to do that. There are hundreds of charity organizations, many of which are more efficient at achieving their specific goal that the government (see charities working at helping people after Katrina and the catastrophe in Japan).

This is comparable apples to oranges. Charities may seem more efficient because they have less bloated surface costs which means that in some major ways they are more efficient. However that misses the key difference between a charity and the government which is one is mandatory. While I can't give you statistics for this year, according to the AAFC America gave 298 billion dollars to charity last year. "Welfare" isn't a thing the government spends on and is a rather hard thing to pinpoint exact numbers but about 77 billion was spent on SNAP last year, 5 billion on LIHEAP, 17 billion on TANF, and 43 billion on HUD so we spent 142 billion dollars on helping poor people (specifically) last year. Of that 298 billion dollars of charity 12% or 35.76 billion was spent on social service charities with only some fraction of that going to help the poor directly. The government does almost 4 times as much for poor people as charity does, efficiency be damned.

Again, you forget that the government is composed of people. And your argument pretty much goes 'becasue people can lie we need the government composed of people to make sure nobody is lying'. Which, I'm sorry, is not very convinving.

I sorta already answered this but to sum up that point again some people do things which are detrimental to society, some people are good. People naturally create governing forces (call it government or not, whatever) so inevitably we need to choose good leaders.

Besides, I'd like to see you prove that 'people by nature require governing', because this is a factual, scientific claim, just like 'people by nature require food'.
But government didn't form to help people. The first governments were in Egypt, where they were used to enslave the citizens to benefit a few elites.

This question is a bit hard to answer without first asking you a question (which is really poor debate form btw). Are you assuming humans are free actors and laws only take away freedom or are you assuming humans are agents acting upon laws that specifically tell them what actions they can or can't make?

Governments are always imposed. Give me a historical example of people living without a government, then a few others who propose to form one and leaving a choice to the former if they want to be under its jurisdiction or not.

This depends on how you're defining government. If you take government to mean body of people who govern part of or all of a society than technically there has never been human civilization without government since in a naturalistic primitive communism (in other words hunter-gatherer society) the people had to distribute agriculture since there was no concept of capital and they also had to enforce some form of social code. There are also cultures of subsistence agriculturalists but really, they too have the head of families as governing bodies so in the loosest definition of government they've always had one too.

I do

@AgnosticJesus said:

As an American in the swing state of Ohio who has been inundated with negative TV ads and robo calls, I can't wait for this fucking election to be over.

This.

(Sorry for not adding anything to the conversation, I assume it's just people screaming at each other any way.)