Presidential Election: 2012

[Keef]

If Paul weren't in the race, I would vote for Romney before any of the others - Santorum the bigoted religious extremist, Gingrich the thieving scoundrel, Perry the punchline - and then I would go to a psychiatrist to get my head examined.

Romney dominates the 65+ crowd. Why? Because they're old, dependent, and resentful, with a strong sense of entitlement, wanting the rest of society to take care of them through involuntary taxes because they've nearly exhausted their usefulness to the rest of us. I do not like old people except when they bless me with a wise slogan that helps me through my day - then again, the next time I'm dealing with a different problem they present me with more wisdom that directly contradicts the first.

My Grandma says she's not voting for Ron Paul. I didn't bother arguing with her for the aforementioned reasons, plus the fact that she's nearly blind and deaf. She's in her 80s. There will be no changing her mind.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Hey, I didn't say he was any good, just better than Romney, Gingrich, and Perry.

They all want to invade or bomb Iran next, so I see no difference whatsoever in them. Just the face that you want to see lying to you for the next four years. I don't see any redeeming qualities in these goons that would elevate one to being any better than another.
Santorum has proved completely incapable of grasping the cause/effect relationship of our meddling in foreign affairs and misquotes historical events. He is not fit to lead a grade school school field trip, let alone the country.

 

[Keef]

I take it you were part of that Randslide a while back then?

 

[ChaosStar79]

I take it you were part of that Randslide a while back then?

I was! Very proudly too!

 

[Omnis]

Boom! Called it. Michelle "Foster Factory" Bachmann is out. Someone owes me ten bucks. I don't care who pays it. Adopt a kid and send me the first check from the state.

Why did Romney walk away with the +$100k vote and the +65 years-of-age vote? Two words: farm subsidies. Ron Paul is the middle class's best friend and won the -$50k and the under-40 votes by a landslide. Those rich old wrinkletits bastards don't want their largesse tap to run dry. They're making beaucoup bucks out there. They see me rollin'... my John Deere... patrollin'... tryna catch me plowin' dirt, see?

Speaking of plowing dirt, I still can't see how Santorum pulled it off. The only appeal seems to be the endless dribble of "santorum" jokes one can make with him still in the race.

 

[Keef]

I was! Very proudly too!

You and Foolkiller have something in common then. All hail the great Commonwealth of Kentucky, where people actually have some sense about them.

endless dribble of "santorum"

Sounds like a personal problem.

 

[ChaosStar79]

You and Foolkiller have something in common then. All hail the great Commonwealth of Kentucky, where people actually have some sense about them.

Yeah well, I don't know if I would go that far but I was one of 667 people in my county to vote for Ron Paul last time. Hopefully that number will be huge this time around. His son had support from just about everyone around here, I don't think I heard one person badmouth him at all about anything. I really do think people are awakening to the world at large, and not liking what they see. 👍

 

[Omnis]

Well now that Santorum has made a splash it's only a matter of time before he goes down on the next poll.

 

[Dennisch]

We just had a documentary about the republican candidates here in the Netherlands, but that Santorum is just medieval! If he would become your President bad things will happen to the world.

I say, Romney should run for office, he would have a good chance of kicking Obama out of the Oval office.

 

[Omnis]

Well, it'll be kind of scary if anyone but Paul makes it in there. I don't think congress realizes that since they passed this whole NDAA thing, the next president could arrest all 535 of them and hold them indefinitely.

 

[Dennisch]

Too bad Bachman is out, that would really be funny as hell.

 

[Keef]

Well now that Santorum has made a splash it's only a matter of time before he goes down on the next poll.

I wouldn't be so quick to denounce his big finish in Iowa. It'll be hard, but if he sticks it out this campaign might have a happy ending for him.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Well, it'll be kind of scary if anyone but Paul makes it in there. I don't think congress realizes that since they passed this whole NDAA thing, the next president could arrest all 535 of them and hold them indefinitely.

Agreed, and that would be a brilliant move on the part of any president. Let them rot.

I wouldn't be so quick to denounce his big finish in Iowa. It'll be hard, but if he sticks it out this campaign might have a happy ending for him.

I doubt that he makes it past New Hampshire. He's just not that bright. Not that that has stopped us before, but surely we have learned things since then.... I hope.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, just like the fall of Rome.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Yeah, just like the fall of Rome.

No empire is too big to fail. I see us heading the way of the Romans very soon if no drastic changes come.

 

[Danoff]

But what if she kind of wanted an abortion but wasn't quite sure yet? Obviously she doesn't necessarily want to carry it, but she also might not want an abortion. Or maybe she was on her way to the abortion clinic...but stopped at Kroger along the way to pick up a gallon of milk. Does that count as being on her way to the abortion clinic? What if it was an anonymous clinic and she didn't tell anybody of her intentions, and then gets killed in the parking lot at Kroger. How the hell are you supposed to prove that she was on her way to the clinic? Of course, the audience watching the movie know the truth, but the characters don't.

You don't, so you make the law simple and call it a double-murder. I think you made my point quite nicely, which is that the law is the way it is not because a fetus is a human being with rights, but because until it's aborted, the mother (who is the only one who gets to make the decision) should be assumed to intend to carry it to term and so it will be a person at some point.

This argument about abortion has been going on for so long because there is no clear answer that draws a sharp line making abortion okay.

But this whole argument in pointless anyway when it comes to Dr. Paul, as he has stated himself. It doesn't matter what he thinks - the Federal government should have no say in the matter to begin with. These issues should be decided by individuals in their communities, not by the Feds. So it's okay, Danoff, to vote for Ron Paul on this issue. All the other candidates think that the Feds should dictate whether or not abortion should be allowed for every woman across the country. Paul is the only one who realizes that most of the issues on the table should not be Federal issues to begin with.

That's just not the right answer, no matter which side you take. If you're pro-life you cannot allow states to legalize murder. If you're pro-choice you cannot allow states to violate the woman's rights to her own body. Either way it's a federal issue.

 

[Omnis]

danoff, how can you say the unborn is undeserving of rights because it cannot observe the rights of others? The unborn is purely and uniquely innocent. I completely understand your argument, and I would probably agree if there was some matter of choice involved by the embryo. But that's not the case. It's not the fetus's fault that it developed.

My thoughts are that the choice comes before conception. Conception is a consequence, and it carries with it the responsibility of protecting the innocent developing child.

I'm pro-life, but I've got no problem with other states that would allow abortion. As long as I am in no way part of that system, I'm gonna let the guy in the sky deal with it.

 

[Keef]

The Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to legislate whether or not abortion should be legal. That is a State matter.

 

[Danoff]

danoff, how can you say the unborn is undeserving of rights because it cannot observe the rights of others? The unborn is purely and uniquely innocent. I completely understand your argument, and I would probably agree if there was some matter of choice involved by the embryo. But that's not the case. It's not the fetus's fault that it developed.

Lots of living things exist without being at fault for their development. Living things like trees, grass, bacteria, roaches, etc. None of these things have rights merely as a result of being alive. Even things with brainwaves like snakes or pigs don't have rights.... things that can feel pain don't have rights. Human beings have rights because we are self-aware and can respect the rights of others. Fetuses don't fall into either criteria. I don't consider them significantly different than any other part of the mother.

My thoughts are that the choice comes before conception. Conception is a consequence, and it carries with it the responsibility of protecting the innocent developing child.

Only because you invented that responsibility. Why should a fetus require protecting any more than a gopher?

I'm pro-life, but I've got no problem with other states that would allow abortion. As long as I am in no way part of that system, I'm gonna let the guy in the sky deal with it.

Government exists to protect rights. If fetuses have rights, all governments are required to protect them - otherwise those governments are illegitimate. The same is true, by the way, of protecting the rights of the jews, or the blacks, or the japanese, or native Americans, or rich, or the poor....

The Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to legislate whether or not abortion should be legal. That is a State matter.

Bill of rights gives the federal government a directive to protect life of all individuals who have a right to it.... it is not a state matter any more than your right to life is.

 

[Keef]

Human beings have rights because we are self-aware and can respect the rights of others. Fetuses don't fall into either criteria. I don't consider them significantly different than any other part of the mother.

At what age do infants become self-aware? I honestly don't know, but it's not any time immediately after birth. They're definitely alive, and they're definitely human, but they don't know either of those things.

Does that mean they can be aborted, say, by the method which Dr. Paul witnessed as a medical resident?

Bill of rights gives the federal government a directive to protect life of all individuals who have a right to it.... it is not a state matter any more than your right to life is.

Abortion is not a Federal matter. When a State infringes a person's life, liberty, or property, it is the duty of the Federal government to take legal action against that. But the issue itself does not belong to the Feds - you can't go straight to the Feds with much of anything, which is the whole point of separation of powers. One of the reasons we're in such a mess is because everybody thinks the Feds should decide every issue for the entire country. Almost everything is supposed to be decided by State governments - when they screw it up, then it becomes a Federal issue.

 

[Bram Turismo]

My thoughts are that the choice comes before conception. Conception is a consequence, and it carries with it the responsibility of protecting the innocent developing child.

Not always.

When couples choose to have sex they don't necessarily choose to have a child at that particular time. Which is why they'd use precaution. But like I said in my previous post, precautions can fail. Not in all cases are women made pregnant by their own choice. In these cases the mothers are often left behind by the biological father, and sometimes mothers barely have enough money to properly feed and dress themselves, let alone taking care of a child all by themselves.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't quite understand the recent Santorum push. Almost seems as if it came out of nowhere. He initially talked of dropping out if support didn't improve almost immediately following the first debate.

Michelle Bachmann has dropped out.

She did? I haven't seen anything on that yet, source or link please.

For your main part, Santorum traveled alot around Iowa for a while now and got a huge uplift because of that. It seems that if you show states people how much you care about their vote they'll vote for you despite the lunacy you may spout. Also I think coverage of him on big cable news helped out even more. Cain (before leaving) and Newt as well as Bachman and Perry all had their time in the sun with the news outlets and the poll numbers always showed in their favor when the media was blowing smoke up their you know what. Once media starts talking up another canidate it's funny how far the one they talked about the week prior drops like a rock.

The only two that haven't really had their moment are Huntsman and Paul. Paul will never get his moment due to being Libertarian, Huntsman might. As for Romney, his biggest claim to fame is running in the last election cycle as well as being a politician and business man. This seems to be the talking heads poster boy for the GOP and all the other guys they talk up during a given week are just the challenger for Romney.

 

[Keef]

She did? I haven't seen anything on that yet, source or link please.

Omnis thinks he's something special, but I posted the link two pages ago.

EDIT: Bachmann dropped out.

The only two that haven't really had their moment are Huntsman and Paul. Paul will never get his moment due to being Libertarian, Huntsman might. As for Romney, his biggest claim to fame is running in the last election cycle as well as being a politician and business man. This seems to be the talking heads poster boy for the GOP and all the other guys they talk up during a given week are just the challenger for Romney.

Huntsman should just give up. It's hopeless. Paul's moment hasn't come yet because his following does nothing but get bigger. It doesn't get smaller. Once people jump aboard, they stay. That's not the case with any of the other candidates - Santorum's moment just happened to coincide with a primary vote, and of course the fact that many Iowans are religious fanatics like him who hate gays and Muslims just like he does.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Omnis thinks he's something special, but I posted the link two pages ago.




Huntsman should just give up. It's hopeless. Paul's moment hasn't come yet because his following does nothing but get bigger. It doesn't get smaller. Once people jump aboard, they stay. That's not the case with any of the other candidates - Santorum's moment just happened to coincide with a primary vote, and of course the fact that many Iowans are religious fanatics like him who hate gays and Muslims just like he does.

Thanks, well you and I both know how much the media (owned by big companies) hates a guy like Paul. I want Paul to win and this may be the first (and only) election I vote in if Paul is the canidate to go against Obama.

 

[Dapper]

At what age do infants become self-aware? I honestly don't know, but it's not any time immediately after birth. They're definitely alive, and they're definitely human, but they don't know either of those things.

Danoff's argument is that normal developing children up to around the age of 7, I'm guessing a little bit, have no rights and are therefore allowed to be killed and be considered moral, and the same goes for anyone of any age not mentally capable of observing rights. This is the same view the awesome person cited in his quote.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Danoff's argument is that normal developing children up to around the age of 7, I'm guessing a little bit, have no rights and are therefore allowed to be killed and be considered moral, and the same goes for anyone of any age not mentally capable of observing rights. This is the same view the awesome person cited in his quote.

Oh, for goodness sake! Have you nothing intelligent to say?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Danoff's argument is that normal developing children up to around the age of 7, I'm guessing a little bit, have no rights and are therefore allowed to be killed and be considered moral, and the same goes for anyone of any age not mentally capable of observing rights. This is the same view the awesome person cited in his quote.

This is the first time I've agreed with you I think...or one of few, but you do make a great point here. The idea of abortion is quite a slippery slope when you look at it from the way Danoff tries to explain. Which is a quite irrational and ignorant.

Oh, for goodness sake! Have you nothing intelligent to say?

It's true danoff didn't really make a good argument or explain it in a coherent way. What one could take from the argument of Danoff is that since a year old child isn't aware or has knowledge to respect others rights, that child is up for abortion or the killing of that one year old is fine because it didn't adhere to the rights of others knowingly.

Unless Danoff explains it better, what way do you expect people to take it? Since there are other stages of human growth that can't observe or respect the rights of other humans and not because they don't want to but because they're unable to just like a fetus.

EDIT:
Anyways off to work I'll debate this later.

 

[Dapper]

This is the first time I've agreed with you I think...

I know it's cold outside but I didn't think it was cold enough for hell to freeze over!

 

[Danoff]

At what age do infants become self-aware? I honestly don't know, but it's not any time immediately after birth. They're definitely alive, and they're definitely human, but they don't know either of those things.

Does that mean they can be aborted, say, by the method which Dr. Paul witnessed as a medical resident?

Danoff's argument is that normal developing children up to around the age of 7, I'm guessing a little bit, have no rights and are therefore allowed to be killed and be considered moral, and the same goes for anyone of any age not mentally capable of observing rights. This is the same view the awesome person cited in his quote.

This is the first time I've agreed with you I think...or one of few, but you do make a great point here. The idea of abortion is quite a slippery slope when you look at it from the way Danoff tries to explain. Which is a quite irrational and ignorant.



It's true danoff didn't really make a good argument or explain it in a coherent way. What one could take from the argument of Danoff is that since a year old child isn't aware or has knowledge to respect others rights, that child is up for abortion or the killing of that one year old is fine because it didn't adhere to the rights of others knowingly.

Unless Danoff explains it better, what way do you expect people to take it? Since there are other stages of human growth that can't observe or respect the rights of other humans and not because they don't want to but because they're unable to just like a fetus.

EDIT:
Anyways off to work I'll debate this later.

I've covered all of that at great length in the abortion thread, so there's not much point in repeating the argument here. The short answer to this is that you draw the line at a conservative/convenient point that doesn't trample someone else's rights. Birth being the obvious choice.

Abortion is not a Federal matter. When a State infringes a person's life, liberty, or property, it is the duty of the Federal government to take legal action against that. But the issue itself does not belong to the Feds - you can't go straight to the Feds with much of anything, which is the whole point of separation of powers. One of the reasons we're in such a mess is because everybody thinks the Feds should decide every issue for the entire country. Almost everything is supposed to be decided by State governments - when they screw it up, then it becomes a Federal issue.

This is a technicality. The state has no leeway in this issue, so it should not be considered a "state matter".

 

[Dapper]

The short answer to this is that you draw the line at a conservative/convenient point that doesn't trample someone else's rights. Birth being the obvious choice.

Hogwash. You said the ability to observe others rights is when one obtains their right to life. That is nowhere near birth.


I can't believe Romney won.