Election Day 2012

[DGFone]

Another thing that I've seen posted everywhere by Obama supporters: That Obama killed Bin Laden.

Well he did, sorta... What Obama did was finish a fight that we started... in the Bush years. So what really tics me off is when people say things along the lines of this: "Curses to Bush, he started so many wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!" Yeah, but we killed Osama... "Praise be to Obama, who killed the terrorist!"

Obama was the guy in charge when we found where Osama is hiding, and I am glad to say, did not hesitate to order the attack. I do give him credit for that. But not 100% of the credit belongs to him, because we used forced already in the Middle East that were already there and ready to move due to a war that is considered 'uinjust'. Killing Osama on the other hand, oh, Obama can do no wrong... At best, Obama can be qualified as 'the guy in charge when we discovered Osama and ordered the attack'.

Bye the way, for everyone who said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Yes. Yes it did. Just not nukes. But poison gas I do believe is in the "mass destruction" category, and it can certainly kill as many people as a nuke.

[Azdgari]

For all the economic figures you post, you ignore the most basic fact: jobs continue to be added to the economy steadily. It will recover. 2% was well over what was projected. We are on a trajectory, even your deficit numbers agree with it (although I concede that one increase). Besides, with Romney's $2 trillion dollar unasked defense increase, he won't be shrinking much of any deficit. No expert backs his plan--they say it's too vague to judge. And mathematically impossible. But that doesn't seem to worry anyone. Yes, there are many unemployed Americans. You know as well as me the state of the economy he had coming in. You know the trend it's on. Do you deny that the economy is on a positive trend? Do you think it's a good idea to deregulate and return to policies that destroyed our economy ? It wasn't five hundred years ago.

To address healthcare, Americans disagreed mostly with the mandate, which I think is by far the most important part. So I suppose I'm not much good to argue there.


I will post a New York Times article tomorrow morning on Obama and Romney I found compelling. If you guys could maybe post an article or explanation of what really compels you about Romney, that would be cool. :]





@DG: It's all about circumstance! Indeed, he didn't have control over that. He also didn't have control over taking an economy losing 800+ thousand jobs a month. But in the end, he is associated with both. That's the game of politics.

[DGFone]

Here is what experts agree with (I heard it on NPR): Both sides are wrong. Romney is too vague. Obama's math doesn't add up.

And you know? I don't think any politician knows how to solve the economic problems. At least, non close to being President now or in the near future. Why? Because people who become presidents tend to study law. But if you want to solve an economical crisis, you know, it's a good idea to take that economics course you skimmed in school.

Nor do I trust those so called 'economics experts' that Presidents on both sides use. Those guys are lawyers first, economics expert second. Not to mention that it is the president who calls the final shot, and he didn't take economics...

So what I think is the best solution for the crisis? Let individual people and companies work it out. Yes, there will be hardships and loss. But the people and companies that will survive know that they survived because they did something right, and they know how to handle a crisis, while those who won't survive... that's evolution.

And what I also know is happening where I live: countless of businesses are withholding hiring in preparation for a potential Obama victory and almost certain tax increase. Because this is what most people don't know about many businesses: they file their taxes as individuals. So when you say "let's tax the rich, those who make over $250k a year", you are not taxing people, but businesses. Entities that hire people and increase the economy will suffer because it is easier for them to file taxes as individuals and not as businesses (which you need expensive lawyers for...). So a "rich tax" will harm the economy, because actual individuals who make that much can afford a lawyer who will tell them how to avoid this tax.

[TheRoguePrince]

So then, do you believe that we do not have a real responsibility to take care of our impoverished, but rather a luxury, something to be done when and if we feel like it?

No one is suggesting cutting off disability. It's the definition of disadvantaged beyond that that is the question. Guess what? We're broke. No amount of tax increases can balance the budget. It may suck but there's no money.

Another thing that I've seen posted everywhere by Obama supporters: That Obama killed Bin Laden.

Well he did, sorta... What Obama did was finish a fight that we started... in the Bush years. So what really tics me off is when people say things along the lines of this: "Curses to Bush, he started so many wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!" Yeah, but we killed Osama... "Praise be to Obama, who killed the terrorist!"

Actually, as The Lion Prince pointed out in another thread, it was because of the Bush Administration's enhanced interrogation techniques that we got Bin Laden. We waterboarded an al-Qaeda official and were about to locate bin Laden's driver and follow him into the compound where he was killed. So yes, please tell me some more about how torture is wrong and how Guantanamo Bay should be shut down, something Obama promised to do in 2008 and hasn't done yet (I wonder why)

And what I also know is happening where I live: countless of businesses are withholding hiring in preparation for a potential Obama victory and almost certain tax increase.

Lol, the exact same thing is happening over here. My dad says his boss is really scared (he works at a small business FYI)

So a "rich tax" will harm the economy, because actual individuals who make that much can afford a lawyer who will tell them how to avoid this tax.

This repeats what I said a few pages back, but no one rebuked it (Maybe cause I was right? LOL) Seriously, if you think the rich are going to hand over their money cause the government says so, you're gonna have a bad time.

[Regulus]

Think bigger. There is no 'Small Town,' Mississippi. There is no Mississippi. These are all just abstract ideas. There's no reason why 'Small Town,' Mississippi needs its own set of laws from 'Buttcreek Canyon Falls,' Missouri.

Go visit San Francisco, and just the west coast in general, and then go to Louisiana, Alaska, etc. They are very different places, different people, different attitudes. Different ways of life. Those are the extreme. I live in WV. When I go to Florida or Ohio, I see some differences. North of the Mason-Dixon line can be like a whole new world. You’d be surprised what you learn when you get off your furry butt and into the real world

I've lived in Florida for 3 years. I've lived in Virginia for 5 years. I've lived in North Carolina for 5 years. I've lived in Texas for a year. I've lived in California for a year. And I lived in Arizona for 3 years.

If there's anything I've learned about living in all these places, it's that they're all very similar. There are some differences, like the southeast being more religious, and the southwest having a lot of Hispanic influence. But all-in-all, we live in a very global world.

More than half of my teachers at my high schools were from states other than the one I lived in. My physics teacher was originally from New York. One of my geometry teachers was from Ohio, the other was from Iowa. My best friend in high school moved to Florida last year. My calculus professor right now isn't even from America. I had a teacher in High School that was actually a first generation immigrant from Germany. I knew a girl in one of my English classes that used to live in the UK. One of my other classmates was Russian.

We don't live in the 1800s anymore. Moving from state to state is actually rather common now. There's a lot more diversity, and the differences in locations are only going to lessen as time goes on.

Sure, the closest thing I can get to Mexican food is Taco Bell, and if I lived in Arizona, I wouldn't be able to get sweet tea at restaurants. But in the big picture, no matter where I live, there are so many things that don't change. There's always going to be Walmart and McDonald's. In any town, there's always going to be people that go to church every week, and there's always going to be atheists. There's always going to be criminals, and there's always going to need to be a police force. Every city has a power grid, every city has a water supply, every city has cars and roads and utilities...

The only exceptions I can truly think of are the few, rare cases. Like the Amish people. But for the rest of America, we all have very, very similar lives. We just don't realize it, because we get caught up in the superficial things, like accents. ZOMG THESE PEOPLE TALK DIFFERENT THEY'RE SO WEIRD!!!1111oneoneone!!!!111

Seriously, if you think the rich are going to hand over their money cause the government says so, you're gonna have a bad time.

As long as Republicans are in office, yep.

[DGFone]

^ I read what you posted, and I hate to say... you're wrong. You might say that you debate in a respectful manner, but the tactics I saw you use can be summed down to "repeat the same argument, getting angrier as needed, in order to shame the opposition into silence". It's the primary reasons why I dislike 'debating' with you. Because they are not debates. Countless of times I would ask you a question to answer, and you respond not by answering it, but by deflecting the focus away from it. So by not cooperating, you show complete disregard to others, and I often feel insulted when you start talking.

Examples:

1. In the gun topic, I asked you "How do you justify removing the best way for people to defend themselves from intruders and criminals" to which your response was again your "justify all the gun deaths". You never answered the original question, and I doubt that you will. Call it debate or not, but that is just plain rude.

2. When I talked with you on Skype about what Science is. No matter how much I kept telling you that "I am telling you what science is from a scientific standpoint" you kept telling me that nope, I am wrong, and that science seeks the Ultimate Truth, because that's what you learned in Philosophy. (If you are curious, send me a PM and I can explain to you what Science is. It doesn't seek any sort of truth at all). No matter how many times I told you that I am not talking about how philosophers few science as, you still told me that I am wrong, and proceeded to lecture me about something that I know much better than you, and not only showed me how ignorant you can get, but also how rude. There's a reason why we formed the pact where you won't post things about U.S. politics anymore, and that was because you failed to show me even basic understanding of what you preach about.

So where does this lead me: If you want to actually "debate" with people as a respectable person, you need to listen to them as well. Notice how many times people will quote one of your arguments and then provide a counter argument. Deflecting the focus is not providing a counter-argument. For instance, using the gun topic again as an example: Instead of deflecting with "justify all the gun deaths", try something like "studies were done that show that people survive crime more often if they don't have guns in their house" [THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, I MADE THIS UP]. If you have an argument, and people don't seem to be getting it, instead of repeating it like hammering a point in (which is what you do currently), try explaining it in a different manner. Use metaphors or similes and other examples.

I hope you see this as a critique of your 'debating' style so that I hope you will use it to improve so that when you post again others in these topics, you won't look like a radical preacher, but as a human with an opinion to share.

[DGFone]

^ Did. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=25794

And to get back on topic, here is why I don't trust Big Government (and therefore Democrats). It's rather simple. First, let's state some facts: These are true, and cannot be argued against, because it's been proven time and time again (along with common sense):

Economics. Everything costs money. There is a limited amount of money in the world (or in this case, the U.S.) Governments are inefficient systems: the more money you put in, the less you get out. Somewhat like the force of drag on a moving car: the faster you go, the harder drag slows you down.

/facts.

What is the best case: All the money that the U.S. generates goes to U.S. citizens to do with as they please. Yes, this will be an extremely unbalanced system, with poor and filthy rich, but I am using simplified systems here. With all the money in circulation actually in circulation, the economy will grow much faster, and the poor will be able to find new jobs to get them out of the hole.

What if you have big government: The government directs money towards places that need it, but might otherwise be overlooked by the general populace. Problem is that it's the government that's doing the work, so to be generous, you can expect for every $2 dollars that are paid in taxes for a cause, only $1 will actually end up in said cause. So if the government controlled all the money in circulation, what you actually end up is an economy with only half the output it generated being usable.

So I really don't see how Obama can promise an improving economy, when by the very nature of his belief system (that the government should do everything for you) results in a loss of wealth for the people?

And this is not even touching the ethical issues of individual freedom versus government control...

[Azdgari]

Right. Liberalism: use of government power to solve problems. So! What's this money being used for that's destroying the economy? Well,

1) Defense spending
2) Health Care
3) Social Security
4) Welfare
5) Funding Govt. Regulatory Agencies
6) Other nonessential agencies


To narrow things down quite a bit. So you use a lot of rhetoric, DGFone, but let's talk spending specifically. Which of those do you want to eliminate?

1) You ultimately support Romney who supports a drastic unnecessary increase in defense spending, so you must be fine with it.
2) You disagree with Obamacare. What is your proposed solution that does not leave millions of Americans uninsured? Noting that the most sensible solution adopted by almost all other first world countries is nationalized healthcare (big govt.)

3) What would you do here? Privatize it?

4) I'm guessing you would eliminate it and rely entirely on charity?

5) I'm guessing eliminate govt. regulation and let everyone do whatever they want. I already know that's your view on guns, which is... tough to address without being disrespectful. Would you eliminate regulation on drilling (->oil spills), eliminate regulation on oil fracking (->even more contaminated American drinking water), eliminate the EPA (self explanatory), eliminate the FDA (allow any drugs to be sold without being regulated or approved), etc etc?

6) Eliminate discretionary funding? I think you would cut govt. assistance to public radio and broadcasting, national parks, wildlife conservatory, any and all cultural agencies, etc. America the beautiful, baby.


I don't mean any of this to be "gotcha". How do we replace these govt. services if you don't believe the government has any place providing them?

[DGFone]

1) Defense spending
2) Health Care
3) Social Security
4) Welfare
5) Funding Govt. Regulatory Agencies
6) Other nonessential agencies

Let me answer all your points one by one:

1. We need defensive spending. As the largest and most powerful nation in the world, many people hate us just because we exist. The problem is that we spend too much. Not because it's bad, but because often we are spending it on the wrong things. For instance, NASA: (It's part of our defensive budget). Right now, we are spending loads on the Orion Spacecraft. It will take us to the moon, to Mars. Wonderful places! ...And we cut all funding to build a rocket to actually get Orion into orbit. It's like trying to build a Formula 1 car, but without any money for wheels. What's the point? What I would do is divert funding from something that gets too much and put it into developing the rocket, because technological investment tends to pay back. But if you really want to lower the deficit, I can give you an easy step one: Put Orion on hold.

2. The best thing for health care is market competition. If you go and get a medicine and it doesn't work, you won't buy it anymore. You will buy medicine that works. Plus, competition lowers prices. To use a personal example of quality of healthcare when I was in the hospital of Government versus private: My private healthcare won't pass everything. But on the other hand, those on Medicaid always had everything pass for them. But it was at twice the price, lower quality, and they had no control over how much of the care they get. Why? Because instead of them choosing, it was pre-determined by some lawyer. So for me, nationalized health care is a big no-no.

3. Social Security is one of those things that I do agree with. But we need to strive for the most efficient system possible, so that the most amount of money going in can be used to get back out to the retired. This means having a smaller government. I also think we need to raise the retirement age. If you retire at 55, that's just low.

4. Welfare: Tricky part. You need to have it be where people can live, but only at a bare minimum. They need to have a high incentive to get a job and get themselves off the welfare. This means that while they need to survive on welfare, it's needs to be a miserable life unless they do something about it.

5. I think that the more regulation you have, the worse things will get. This all comes back to a free market and the innovation that stems from it. If you put caps and limits on the free market, people will be more and more limited, making it easier to stick with what is already available instead of experimenting. When you innovate, sometimes you do the wrong thing and accidents happen. There is no way to improve without making sacrifices. So if you regulate the economy to reduce accidents, you are directly effecting its ability to adapt and innovate.

6. If they are no-essential, we really need to look into them and see if we are doing anything useful, and if the economy increase of these programs outweighs their cost. For instance: road fixing. I am all fine with fixing broken roads. I am utterly disgusted how all the roads in my town that are being 'fixed' had nothing wrong with them in the first place.

So I don't know if these arguments make me automatically a Romney supporter or not (I'm not a Romney supporter), but they do make me an Obama-opposer. And with the political climate of this presidential race, if you don't vote for Romney, it doesn't matter who you vote for, because you just voted for Obama.

[TheGunner18]

2. The best thing for health care is market competition. If you go and get a medicine and it doesn't work, you won't buy it anymore. You will buy medicine that works. Plus, competition lowers prices. To use a personal example of quality of healthcare when I was in the hospital of Government versus private: My private healthcare won't pass everything. But on the other hand, those on Medicaid always had everything pass for them. But it was at twice the price, lower quality, and they had no control over how much of the care they get. Why? Because instead of them choosing, it was pre-determined by some lawyer. So for me, nationalized health care is a big no-no.

Nationalised healthcare is, more often than not, a great thing to have. The NHS in Britain is a prime example of that. Instead of being turned away by a private company for having a certain condition, the NHS treats you no matter what. It's free for anybody so even the poorest people can have treatment. Take me, for example. Just a few months ago I had an operation for major reconstruction of my foot. I'm still recovering from it now. That was completely free. Imagine how much it would have cost if I needed to have it done with a private company. Easily at least £1000. We still have private healthcare companies in Britain such as Bupa, so if you really want, then you can go for them.

I'm just going to say here that I'm not suggesting the NHS has no faults. It does. Nothing's perfect.

4. Welfare: Tricky part. You need to have it be where people can live, but only at a bare minimum. They need to have a high incentive to get a job and get themselves off the welfare. This means that while they need to survive on welfare, it's needs to be a miserable life unless they do something about it.

I agree that welfare shouldn't be too much that people can live on it without ever going to work. That can easily diminish the productivity of a country and detriment the economy, and it's true that many people who complain about not being able to get jobs just aren't looking or working hard enough. However, giving them too little welfare could just as easily lower their morale or happiness. If I wanted to delve into it deeper then I could say that this might also cause them to go onto drugs for some sort of 'short-term satisfaction' rather than encouraging them to find a job.

Then again, you could counter that by saying it's their own fault and they should have more willpower etc.

Anyway, that's probably overthinking and overanalysing it.