Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 27, 2014, 11:59:04 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Sell me on your candidate.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: Sell me on your candidate.  (Read 1907 times)
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2012, 06:53:14 pm »
Ignore

Drug trafficking is harmful to people and neighbourhoods where it occurs. 
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4817
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2012, 06:53:48 pm »
Ignore

Quote
and guarantee legal abortion for the next 20-30 years.

If the choice is enemy fire or friendly fire, I chose enemy fire.

If Mitt thinks we're going to come over and support him after he's been shooting at us, he's got another think coming. At least I can toss grenades at Obama without hitting our own team.

So you don't actually care whether abortion is legal or not, just whether it comes from 'enemy fire' or 'friendly fire' or who you can criticize without hurting your side?
Logged

IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2012, 07:03:01 pm »
Ignore

Quote
So you don't actually care whether abortion is legal or not, just whether it comes from 'enemy fire' or 'friendly fire' or who you can criticize without hurting your side?

Given the choice between a pro abortion candidate for the democrats and a pro abortion candidate for the republicans, I much prefer having a pro abortion candidate for the democrats.

Does it really need to be explained to you why? Obama can be defeated with zero collateral damage to team conservative.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
I'm JewCon in name only.
Klecly
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 923
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.61, S: 6.52

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2012, 07:05:06 pm »
Ignore

Ben Kenobi, I'm just as Pro Life as you, but I want Obama OUT!

I don't care if Romney is the nominee or if Poopy Pants Pedro is.

If you really want Obama out you should at least consider Mittens.
Logged

IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2012, 07:12:26 pm »
Ignore

Quote
If you really want Obama out you should at least consider Mittens.

I'm not sure how I get Obama out by voting for someone with the exact same positions in.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4817
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2012, 07:13:20 pm »
Ignore

Given the choice between a pro abortion candidate for the democrats and a pro abortion candidate for the republicans, I much prefer having a pro abortion candidate for the democrats.

Does it really need to be explained to you why? Obama can be defeated with zero collateral damage to team conservative.

But Obama can't be defeated by anyone else and Mitt Romney isn't pro-abortion, at least not by what he is currently saying. He is saying such for political expediency, but what makes you so certain he won't appoint pro-life judges if the Republican Party demands it of him? Why are you so determined to lose?

Obama and Romney are not equally pro-abortion. There isn't some magic line out there somewhere that everyone on one side of is pro-life and everyone on the other side of is pro-abortion. There are nuances and varying degrees of both. President Obama is one of the most solidly pro-abortion politicians in the country and Mitt Romney is whatever people want him to be. Surely you can see the difference?
Logged

Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2012, 07:18:46 pm »
Ignore

Given the choice between a pro abortion candidate for the democrats and a pro abortion candidate for the republicans, I much prefer having a pro abortion candidate for the democrats.

Does it really need to be explained to you why? Obama can be defeated with zero collateral damage to team conservative.

But Obama can't be defeated by anyone else and Mitt Romney isn't pro-abortion, at least not by what he is currently saying. He is saying such for political expediency, but what makes you so certain he won't appoint pro-life judges if the Republican Party demands it of him? Why are you so determined to lose?

Obama and Romney are not equally pro-abortion. There isn't some magic line out there somewhere that everyone on one side of is pro-life and everyone on the other side of is pro-abortion. There are nuances and varying degrees of both. President Obama is one of the most solidly pro-abortion politicians in the country and Mitt Romney is whatever people want him to be. Surely you can see the difference?

Oh no rino alert. :p Wink
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2012, 07:20:47 pm »
Ignore

Quote
But Obama can't be defeated by anyone else and Mitt Romney isn't pro-abortion

Mitt Romney is pro abortion in his actions as governor of Massachusetts in implementing both public funding for it and forcing the people of Massachusetts to pay for it. I'm aware that Mitt Romney is saying he'd eliminate planned parenthood, but before that he was saying he was the rational one on the women's rights issue. He'll say whatever he believes helps him for political expediency.

Quote
so certain he won't appoint pro-life judges if the Republican Party demands it of him?

Because he didn't do so in MA.

Quote
Why are you so determined to lose?

I should ask of you the same question. Why are you so determined to win on technicalities, but lose on points? Nominating Romney, even in the event that he does win is an enormous loss. It does us no good to remove Obama if we are installing someone who believes in the exact same things.

Quote
Obama and Romney are not equally pro-abortion. There isn't some magic line out there somewhere that everyone on one side of is pro-life and everyone on the other side of is pro-abortion.

Yes, there is.

Quote
There are nuances and varying degrees of both. President Obama is one of the most solidly pro-abortion politicians in the country and Mitt Romney is whatever people want him to be. Surely you can see the difference?

You are arguing I should vote for Mitt and see what I get? No thanks. I'll go get a hamburger from the Mickey D's. At least I know what I'll be getting.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
America First
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2012, 07:24:20 pm »
Ignore

Drug trafficking is harmful to people and neighbourhoods where it occurs.  
If drugs were legalized, that harmful activity would dissipate and the quality of life in those neighborhoods would improve.  I think that just strengthens the legalization case.

Prohibition turns free markets into black markets.  It happened with alcohol and now it's happening with other drugs.
Logged

I have no problem with a two party system.  I'm just waiting for the second party.

Proud isolationist!  I prefer the United States of America, not United People's Republic of the World.
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18866
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2012, 07:26:46 pm »
Ignore

Abortion is a question that America has answered.  It will never, ever be illegal in any state.  Thus, basing your vote on a candidate's position on abortion is absurd.
Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2012, 07:30:53 pm »
Ignore

Quote
If drugs were legalized, that harmful activity would dissipate and the quality of life in those neighborhoods would improve.

The harms of drug trafficking are intrinsic not extrinsic.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
America First
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2012, 07:34:45 pm »
Ignore

Quote
If drugs were legalized, that harmful activity would dissipate and the quality of life in those neighborhoods would improve.

The harms of drug trafficking are intrinsic not extrinsic.
So you're speaking of drug use, not drug trafficking?  If drugs were legal, there would be no significant drug trafficking business.  Either way, legalization has been shown to decrease drug use, something our expensive War on Drugs hasn't.
Logged

I have no problem with a two party system.  I'm just waiting for the second party.

Proud isolationist!  I prefer the United States of America, not United People's Republic of the World.
Nagas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1673
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2012, 07:36:10 pm »
Ignore

Abortion is a question that America has answered.  It will never, ever be illegal in any state.  Thus, basing your vote on a candidate's position on abortion is absurd.

Shhhh. They don't realize they lost the culture war decades ago. Gay rights is the closing act.
Logged

IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2012, 07:46:26 pm »
Ignore

Quote
So you're speaking of drug use, not drug trafficking?

I'm speaking specifically of drug trafficking. In many different communities it's one of the most productive economic activities in terms of actually earning money. This will persist after legalization because there will always be people without the permits and choosing to reject government intervention. Just like there are people who make and sell moonshine today.

Quote
If drugs were legal, there would be no significant drug trafficking business.

That's not what legalization is showing. Quite the opposite. Demand increases substantially with legalization. Selling it without a permit is a quick buck.

Quote
Either way, legalization has been shown to decrease drug use, something our expensive War on Drugs hasn't.

Not so. Demand increases substantially with legalization.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4817
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2012, 07:47:27 pm »
Ignore

Quote
But Obama can't be defeated by anyone else and Mitt Romney isn't pro-abortion

Mitt Romney is pro abortion in his actions as governor of Massachusetts in implementing both public funding for it and forcing the people of Massachusetts to pay for it. I'm aware that Mitt Romney is saying he'd eliminate planned parenthood, but before that he was saying he was the rational one on the women's rights issue. He'll say whatever he believes helps him for political expediency.

Quote
so certain he won't appoint pro-life judges if the Republican Party demands it of him?

Because he didn't do so in MA.

The Republican Party in MA is not the same as the Republican Party nationally. They are quite used to running pro-abortion candidates because they aren't used to winning.

Quote
Quote
Why are you so determined to lose?

I should ask of you the same question. Why are you so determined to win on technicalities, but lose on points? Nominating Romney, even in the event that he does win is an enormous loss. It does us no good to remove Obama if we are installing someone who believes in the exact same things.

I'm not trying to win on technicalities; you're the one who wants to do that. The only way to win on the issue is to overturn Roe v. Wade. The only way to do that is to have a Supreme Court willing to. The only way to get that is having a president who will appoint pro-life justices. That is not a technicality; it is the main point. Things like parental consent laws and vaginal ultrasounds are technicalities. When you try to achieve an objective, the correct way to approach it is to do whatever gives you the highest probability of achieving it. President Obama gives you zero chance. Any Republican will give you a better chance than him simply because a Republican will appoint other Republicans, some of whom are probably pro-life.

Quote
Quote
Obama and Romney are not equally pro-abortion. There isn't some magic line out there somewhere that everyone on one side of is pro-life and everyone on the other side of is pro-abortion.

Yes, there is.

President Obama voted against a law while in the Illinois State Legislature that forbid the killing of babies who survived botched abortions. Mitt Romney would never have supported that. They are different. If you take "pro-life" to mean banning abortion under all circumstances then nowhere near 50% of the US is pro-life. About half the country considers themselves pro-life because they interpret "pro-life" as wanting to give life a chance in some vague general sense. In real life, people don't always take positions for ideological consistency. There are people out there who believe just about every position imaginable.

Quote
Quote
There are nuances and varying degrees of both. President Obama is one of the most solidly pro-abortion politicians in the country and Mitt Romney is whatever people want him to be. Surely you can see the difference?

You are arguing I should vote for Mitt and see what I get? No thanks. I'll go get a hamburger from the Mickey D's. At least I know what I'll be getting.
[/quote]

That is a completely illogical statement. You are trying to make a decision based on emotion rather than doing what has the best chance of giving you the right result. By doing so, you will only guarantee the worst result possible. Get ready for four more years of President Obama forcing the Catholic Church to do whatever he wants it to do.
Logged

Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18866
United States


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2012, 07:52:21 pm »
Ignore

Come on TJ, most Catholic hospitals and universities were already providing full contraceptive coverage, and now Obama has made the insurance companies foot the bill.  If anything, Obama has helped the Church not have to pay for something against its doctrine.
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29662
United States
View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2012, 07:57:11 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, Ben, you're using the wrong test.  Not that you can't prefer one or the other, but you might want to remove it from the site listing since it messes with the charting averages and such.
Logged

n/c
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27981
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 10, 2012, 08:04:58 pm »
Ignore

Romney losing will benefit conservatives because we'll be rid of the Mittbot.

...and guarantee legal abortion for the next 20-30 years.

That's already guaranteed.  At most swinging the balance of court might be enough to get Roe v. Wade and their successors overturned and the issue of abortion sent back to the state legislatures to decide.  (Which I happen to agree with.  Abortion depends upon the definition of when a human life begins which is a a subjective decision, not an objective one.  As such it should have been left to the legislative power to decide, not the judicial, and to the state governments, not the federal government.)  Thing is once returned there, I expect there are at most one or two Plains states plus Utah that would completely ban abortion.  Most would keep it legal in at least the first trimester, or if they didn't would soon repeal the first trimester restrictions once new elections were held.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27981
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 10, 2012, 08:15:41 pm »
Ignore

Abortion is a question that America has answered.  It will never, ever be illegal in any state.  Thus, basing your vote on a candidate's position on abortion is absurd.

No. The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Utah could all conceivably ban abortion if they could, and there are fair number of states that would ban second trimester abortions.

Granted, the vast majority of abortions are first trimester, and for about 90% of Americans they wouldn't have to cross a state line to get one, but if the Supremes returned abortion to the state legislatures, abortion access would tighten up considerably in most states.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: April 10, 2012, 08:44:24 pm »
Ignore

Quote
The Republican Party in MA is not the same as the Republican Party nationally. They are quite used to running pro-abortion candidates because they aren't used to winning.

And the majority of us who are not Republican party from MA are very displeased with Romney as the nominee.

Quote
The only way to win on the issue is to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Yes, and Roe is bad law.

Quote
The only way to do that is to have a Supreme Court willing to.

Which means backing a candidate who is going to support and select pro life justices. That's why we've been backing Santorum all this time. We don't trust Romney to nominate solid prolife justices given his pitiful track record in MA.

Quote
the correct way to approach it is to do whatever gives you the highest probability of achieving it.

Absolutely. Mitt has a 6:1 odds of nominating a liberal over a conservative. Given the average number of supreme court selections in a term, that gives him net odds of exactly zero over Obama.

Ergo, even if Santorum has less a chance of winning the nomination, we are maximizing our chances of seeing a conservative justice nominated by supporting Santorum over Romney. It's a perfectly rational decision given all these premisses.

Quote
President Obama voted against a law while in the Illinois State Legislature that forbid the killing of babies who survived botched abortions. Mitt Romney would never have supported that.

Mitt Romney did support a bill requiring folks in Massachusetts to purchase health care coverage which includes abortion services. On the important issues of today he is pro abortion.

Quote
If you take "pro-life" to mean banning abortion under all circumstances then nowhere near 50% of the US is pro-life.

That's the first intelligent question you've asked. Prolife means that one believes that the unborn child is a person from conception onwards. That's it, no more or no less. Romney does not believe this, ergo he is pro abortion.

Quote
About half the country considers themselves pro-life because they interpret "pro-life" as wanting to give life a chance in some vague general sense.

And 50 percent of the country believes they are prochoice because they are aborting 'tissue'. Show them fetal ultrasound and that number drops.

Quote
That is a completely illogical statement.

As I outlined already, supporting someone who believes what I do is eminently rational. Supporting someone that 'may' believe what I do (who probably doesn't, otherwise I'd already support them), is completely irrational.

Your best argument for me supporting romney is that I don't really know what he believes, and neither do you. That to me is frankly, astonishing. All you are doing here is reinforcing my decision to go third party.

Quote
By doing so, you will only guarantee the worst result possible.

Nonsense, If everyone did as I did, we would see a prolife nominee to the presidency.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 08:46:05 pm by Ben Kenobi »Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9340
Ireland, Republic of
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2012, 08:46:18 pm »
Ignore

You should vote for Newt Gingrich.

- Has a transformational, profound vision.

- Catholic.

- Likes heterosexual marriage so much he's done it three times.

- Cheerful.
Logged

IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2012, 08:48:37 pm »
Ignore

Quote
That's already guaranteed.  At most swinging the balance of court might be enough to get Roe v. Wade and their successors overturned and the issue of abortion sent back to the state legislatures to decide.

This is actually unconstitutional due to the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause, which reserves this to the federal government.

Quote
Abortion depends upon the definition of when a human life begins which is a a subjective decision, not an objective one.

Completely false. It's an objective decision, and also one which can only be done on the federal level. Again, refer to the 14th Amendment as to why, when they struck down Dred Scott.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2012, 08:50:32 pm »
Ignore

Quote
You should vote for Newt Gingrich.

- Has a transformational, profound vision.

- Catholic.

- Likes heterosexual marriage so much he's done it three times.

- Cheerful.

Even more than adultery, which he's only done twice.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18866
United States


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: April 10, 2012, 09:08:56 pm »
Ignore

Abortion is a question that America has answered.  It will never, ever be illegal in any state.  Thus, basing your vote on a candidate's position on abortion is absurd.

No. The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Utah could all conceivably ban abortion if they could, and there are fair number of states that would ban second trimester abortions.

Granted, the vast majority of abortions are first trimester, and for about 90% of Americans they wouldn't have to cross a state line to get one, but if the Supremes returned abortion to the state legislatures, abortion access would tighten up considerably in most states.

NOW, NARAL, the entire Democratic Party and a lot of Republicans will NEVER allow enough justices on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Never.  It is politically impossible.
Logged
America First
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: April 10, 2012, 09:19:31 pm »
Ignore

Quote
I'm speaking specifically of drug trafficking. In many different communities it's one of the most productive economic activities in terms of actually earning money. This will persist after legalization because there will always be people without the permits and choosing to reject government intervention. Just like there are people who make and sell moonshine today.
OK now we're onto something.  You're comparing post-legalization drug traffickers to moonshine sellers.  How big of a market do underground moonshine salesmen get?  Answer that question, and that is the kind of market that you will see with underground drug salesmen.  Think of the analogy like this:
The Al Capone bootlegger era is to today's post-prohibition moonshiners as the Drug Prohibition era is to the future's post-legalization underground drug traffickers.

Quote
That's not what legalization is showing. Quite the opposite. Demand increases substantially with legalization. Selling it without a permit is a quick buck.
See: Moonshine example.  How many gangsters traffic moonshine?  Very few, cause it isn't a big enough market due to alcohol being legal.

Quote
Not so. Demand increases substantially with legalization.
Then why does the empirical evidence show the opposite?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 09:21:03 pm by America First »Logged

I have no problem with a two party system.  I'm just waiting for the second party.

Proud isolationist!  I prefer the United States of America, not United People's Republic of the World.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines