Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Second Presidential Debate

   
Quote:
Interestingly, I suspect most people on these forums voting for Romney are actually libertarian, but are bending to political reality. I know that's my story. *Shrugs*
I think I'd actually agree with this. Romney certainly wasn't my first choice.

I don't think Romney WILL support liberty anymore than Obama. However, I've never been a big fan of Obama's foreign or fiscal policy. I actually don't like Romney's (or the republican party's) social platform. Things like gay marriage and abortion. The reality is though, I still believe America is in a crisis fiscally, so the social values, in my book, have to take second place. If the economy were where I'd like it to be, I'd probably vote dem. Though they'd have to stop targeting my guns as public enemy #1.

I understand this may upset some of our "political regulars", but please don't argue this one with me simply because they are opinions, purely subjective.

But you know, you say Libertarian and I straight up think Ron Paul. I don't think there was any other strictly libertarian Republican candidates. And I mean, honestly, Ron Paul is vastly discredited, even among his own party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
I don't think Romney WILL support liberty anymore than Obama. However, I've never been a big fan of Obama's foreign or fiscal policy. I actually don't like Romney's (or the republican party's) social platform. Things like gay marriage and abortion. The reality is though, I still believe America is in a crisis fiscally, so the social values, in my book, have to take second place. If the economy were where I'd like it to be, I'd probably vote dem. Though they'd have to stop targeting my guns as public enemy #1.

I understand this may upset some of our "political regulars", but please don't argue this one with me simply because they are opinions, purely subjective.
I think I get where you're coming from but thing what I don't get is, Romney's top 10 contributors are the banks that made most of this mess possible, and on top of that, Romney made a ton of money by sending jobs overseas, the fact that the man has yet to reveal much of his policy plans at all, and plans on adding another 7 trillion to the deficit with a tax cut of 5 trillion and an increase in defense by 2 trillion, but hasn't explained how he's going to pay for it. Not trying to convince you that you should be voting Obama or anything, but I simply don't understand how Romney could do any good for the economy. As Earthbound pointed out, if anyone should have been in the general election, it was Ron Paul.

In comparison to Romney, Obama has actually been pretty pro gun rights, just sayin...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Deco...cond-Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
I don't think Romney WILL support liberty anymore than Obama. However, I've never been a big fan of Obama's foreign or fiscal policy. I actually don't like Romney's (or the republican party's) social platform. Things like gay marriage and abortion. The reality is though, I still believe America is in a crisis fiscally, so the social values, in my book, have to take second place. If the economy were where I'd like it to be, I'd probably vote dem. Though they'd have to stop targeting my guns as public enemy #1.
(keep in mind, this is not an argument, merely what I think on the same topics you mention)
Aww... that's too bad. I don't really think the economy is going to be very different no matter what candidate wins. Also, what makes guns so sacred? Can't you use a more basic weapon than an assault one for hunting/protection? Or fill out another security paper? I mean, I'm no expert being more or less a pacifist myself.

The argument that a Green or Libertarian party candidate is going to take votes away from a Democratic or Republican party candidate is not necessarily true. It's an argument based in trying to distract from the larger issue, which is that the candidates in question are on enough ballots to theoretically win an electoral college vote, and so should not be excluded from the debates.

The electoral process is full of candidates who run in order to get the issues they represent on the regional or national stage. Just because Ralph Nader and Ross Perot "took away" votes from the other two candidates (which isn't necessarily true, though I'll concede it for the purpose of the point I'm currently making) doesn't mean that future candidates will do the same. A Green Party candidate who is polling at 8% after national debates can then turn to the Democratic candidate and say, "I'll instruct my supporters to vote for you, but we want a few seats at the table." The same is true for any other candidate affiliated with a party other than the Democrats or Republicans.

~*~

For a different thought:

In the State of Oregon where I live, there is a party called the Oregon Working Families Party. They have a specific party platform but they rarely run their own candidate. In addition to working on bipartisan legislation in the state legislature, they affiliate with candidates in both the Democratic and Republican party when those candidates run. The State of Oregon appends the Oregon Working Families party affiliation to the candidate's name on the ballot, next to their Democratic or Republican affiliation. It's called 'fusion voting'.

In this manner, a formal party is able to recruit members, promote its platform, and work to elect candidates willing to champion its causes, all without disrupting the entrenchment of the two-party system. IMO, it's a fairly brilliant system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelkon View Post
Also, what makes guns so sacred? Can't you use a more basic weapon than an assault one for hunting/protection?
No, not as effectively. An 'assault weapon' is more useful for protection than hunting, but fully automatic rifles can help an incompetent shot still hit a deer.

We've had the gun conversation in numerous other threads. Let's not rehash it in this one.

I'm just on my phone here and about at where I need to be, so I'm going to hit the broad sweeping points:

Assault weapons != automatic weapons. Without ~$15,000, I cannot get an automatic weapon. There are annual licensing fees AND they can't be of post 1987 construction. Going hunting with a machine gun is a misconception. My M1A is considered an assault weapon. It is used as a designated marksman rifle in the military today.

Obama's party and objectives have always been anti-gun. If he goes after guns, it's acceptable. If Romney does, his party disowns him.

Romney was playing within the framework of US law to make the most money as possible for his businesses. Now, his business is to make the most money for the US.

Like I said, Romney was never my first choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
I'm just on my phone here and about at where I need to be, so I'm going to hit the broad sweeping points:

Assault weapons != automatic weapons. Without ~$15,000, I cannot get an automatic weapon. There are annual licensing fees AND they can't be of post 1987 construction. Going hunting with a machine gun is a misconception. My M1A is considered an assault weapon. It is used as a designated marksman rifle in the military today.

Obama's party and objectives have always been anti-gun. If he goes after guns, it's acceptable. If Romney does, his party disowns him.

Romney was playing within the framework of US law to make the most money as possible for his businesses. Now, his business is to make the most money for the US.

Like I said, Romney was never my first choice.
hence my link, the only legislation that had anything to do with gun regulation that Obama signed was pro-gun...




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status