Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Vote for Obama

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 8:40:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
He has the economy under control now. Recently he helped create 171,000 jobs! Despite 171,000 also being lost, we still have a surplus of a whole 1,000 new jobs. I can't imagine anyone doing such a great job.
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 8:41:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 8:40:05 AM, Mirza wrote:
He has the economy under control now. Recently he helped create 171,000 jobs! Despite 171,000 also being lost, we still have a surplus of a whole 1,000 new jobs. I can't imagine anyone doing such a great job.

Romney did a fantastic job making his state's economy the third worst while he was governor, right?

He may be a competent businessman, but he is not a competent leader.

Neither Obama nor Romney are competent. Nobody should vote in this election.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:16:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Economist just endorsed Obama, and the article which went with it is an interesting read: http://www.economist.com... . They rip into both candidates and eventually conclude that it's better to stick with 'the devil we know' because Obama hasn't been that bad.

Personally, I think both candidates would be poor choices if we're looking at competent economic governance, but Obama aligns more closely with my positions on gay rights, climate change and foreign policy.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:18:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 8:41:29 AM, blameworthy wrote:
Romney did a fantastic job making his state's economy the third worst while he was governor, right?
It was 47th when he took office, 32nd when he left. It would have improved much more if people kept looking for jobs.

He may be a competent businessman, but he is not a competent leader.
His business skill would greatly affect his skills as president. Obama has no proper experience. Nothing compared to Romney. You'd think the 4 years in office would have taught him a lesson.

Neither Obama nor Romney are competent. Nobody should vote in this election.
Keep the nonsense somewhere else.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:19:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:16:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
The Economist just endorsed Obama, and the article which went with it is an interesting read: http://www.economist.com... . They rip into both candidates and eventually conclude that it's better to stick with 'the devil we know' because Obama hasn't been that bad.
Argument from authority.

Personally, I think both candidates would be poor choices if we're looking at competent economic governance, but Obama aligns more closely with my positions on gay rights, climate change and foreign policy.
None of those are as important as the economy. The president has low influence on social issues, and climate change/foreign policy would mostly be dealt in similar ways.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:21:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To even mention gay rights during an election where the economy is threatening every state and group of people, is completely ridiculous.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:28:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:21:35 AM, Mirza wrote:
To even mention gay rights during an election where the economy is threatening every state and group of people, is completely ridiculous.

Don't be a tool Mirza. The economy is kept in bad shape precisely so that people like you will react this way. And instead of changing things, you insist on keeping them the same as if that will change things.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:30:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know of a President that people haven't called economically incompetent. They called Hoover an inactive conservative, and simultaneously an overactive interventionist liberal. They said the war ended the depression, FDR prolonged it. Nixon supposedly couldn't do anything about the recession of '73 I think it was. Reagan doubled the deficit and put the country into a recession. I'm honestly starting to believe that that the connection, positive or negative, is superficial at best. The president is only 1 leader in 1 branch of government among three, along with varying bureaucratic institutions. It's just so much easier to consolidate blame in one individual when the issue is complex and has intractable origins.

For the record, I say this for presidents in general, not just Obama.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:31:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:18:02 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/2/2012 8:41:29 AM, blameworthy wrote:
Romney did a fantastic job making his state's economy the third worst while he was governor, right?
It was 47th when he took office, 32nd when he left.
False. The data indicates that it was 47th when he left.
It would have improved much more if people kept looking for jobs.

So when Romney fails, it is the fault of the people, but when Obama fails, it is his fault?
He may be a competent businessman, but he is not a competent leader.
His business skill would greatly affect his skills as president. Obama has no proper experience. Nothing compared to Romney. You'd think the 4 years in office would have taught him a lesson.

Obama was elected primarily on foreign policy. He is an excellent foreign policy president if you prefer to kill people as your foreign policy.
Neither Obama nor Romney are competent. Nobody should vote in this election.
Keep the nonsense somewhere else.
Why is this nonsense?
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:33:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:21:35 AM, Mirza wrote:
To even mention gay rights during an election where the economy is threatening every state and group of people, is completely ridiculous.

1. The president has little control over the economy.

2. Human rights transcend economic welfare. Gay rights should not have to be discussed because people should already have them. It is ridiculous to single-mindedly focus on one issue. Would it have been ridiculous for blacks and Muslims to demand rights during the Depression?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:34:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:30:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know of a President that people haven't called economically incompetent. They called Hoover an inactive conservative, and simultaneously an overactive interventionist liberal. They said the war ended the depression, FDR prolonged it. Nixon supposedly couldn't do anything about the recession of '73 I think it was. Reagan doubled the deficit and put the country into a recession. I'm honestly starting to believe that that the connection, positive or negative, is superficial at best. The president is only 1 leader in 1 branch of government among three, along with varying bureaucratic institutions. It's just so much easier to consolidate blame in one individual when the issue is complex and has intractable origins.

For the record, I say this for presidents in general, not just Obama.

It raises the question, what should a president do? ....and from there stems follow-up questions such as: Does he have the power to do it? Does everyone agree that this is what he should do? Hasn't this been done before and failed? etc.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:35:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:19:51 AM, Mirza wrote:
Argument from authority.

A. I was recommending the article, not saying 'you should vote for Obama because the Economist says so'

B. AFA is a bullsh!t fallacy anyway. It's obviously reasonable to take some authority's word for it in lots of situations.

None of those are as important as the economy. The president has low influence on social issues, and climate change/foreign policy would mostly be dealt in similar ways.

Climate change certainly is, I don't know how to quantify the president's influence on social issues but I'm sure it's somewhat significant. I think marriage equality should be a federal issue in the US anyway but looks like that isn't going to happen. I would prefer a democrat in charge of foreign policy because they're less likely to go to war (hard to imagine Al Gore invading Iraq) and also because it looks like Romney would try to start a trade war with China.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:36:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:22:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
Kinesis, Do you stand by everything that article says?

In broad strokes, yes. I don't know the facts about some of the particulars.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:39:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:21:35 AM, Mirza wrote:
To even mention gay rights during an election where the economy is threatening every state and group of people, is completely ridiculous.

I'm sure homophobes will always find an issue that they deem more important than equal rights, but they're just delaying the inevitable. The expansion of equal rights to more and more groups shows a steady historical progression that I hope won't stop anytime soon.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:40:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:35:23 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 11/2/2012 9:19:51 AM, Mirza wrote:
Argument from authority.

A. I was recommending the article, not saying 'you should vote for Obama because the Economist says so'

B. AFA is a bullsh!t fallacy anyway. It's obviously reasonable to take some authority's word for it in lots of situations.

What? no.

Number 1: There's no such thing as a BS fallacy. A fallacy is a logical disconnect where one attempts to derive conclusions from evidence that does not definitively permit them.

Number 2: AFA doesn't say you can't reference authorities. You can. It says you can't use them as the be all end all of the issue. Just because x says y doesn't mean y is correct....and if your only evidence that y is correct is that x said it, then your argument would fail.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:44:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Explain how mentioning gay rights detracts from working on the economy. Also explain how signing a paper that eliminates DOMA hinders economic recovery. If anything, it aids recovery because gays will spend more on weddings and stimulate the economy.

@Ike: The "war" nonsense is a smoke-and-mirrors trick Republicans use to pretend that government spending did not lift us out the Depression. If blowing up buildings and slaughtering civilians made us rich, Obama's drone strikes would have enriched the nation a great deal. The war lifted us out of the depression because it gave the state an excuse to mobilize massive amounts of funds to give factories money to produce goods. It made people work again and stimulated the economy. The average American is an idiot and will not realize this, which is why the Republicans repeat the story as often as possible.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:47:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:40:10 AM, 000ike wrote:
Number 1: There's no such thing as a BS fallacy. A fallacy is a logical disconnect where one attempts to derive conclusions from evidence that does not definitively permit them.

Then ALL INDUCTIVE REASONING is fallacious because no inductive argument definitively establishes its conclusion. If you want to build a non-fallacious worldview by that criterion you wouldn't get out of your own mind.

The wikipedia article on this doesn't even call it a fallacy, it calls it an inductive argument: "Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority usually is applied fallaciously, either the Authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both"

Calling it a fallacy obscures the fact that in a huge range of cases arguments from authority are powerful inductive arguments.

Number 2: AFA doesn't say you can't reference authorities. You can. It says you can't use them as the be all end all of the issue. Just because x says y doesn't mean y is correct....and if your only evidence that y is correct is that x said it, then your argument would fail.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:05:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:31:51 AM, blameworthy wrote:
False. The data indicates that it was 47th when he left.
No it doesn't. Stop using Obama's campaign lies as facts!

"The ad states that job creation in Massachusetts "fell" to 47th under Romney. That"s a bit misleading. Massachusetts" state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left." http://www.factcheck.org...

So when Romney fails, it is the fault of the people, but when Obama fails, it is his fault?
Romney didn't fail. Read what I write. He did well bringing the Massachusetts economy back on track, but it would have been even better had more people looked for jobs. With Obama, nothing gets better despite people looking for jobs, and despite his promise that his presidency would be a one term if the economy doesn't get back on track.

You should get on track too. With the fact-checking.

Obama was elected primarily on foreign policy. He is an excellent foreign policy president if you prefer to kill people as your foreign policy.
Source for that -- thanks

Why is this nonsense?
To say that one should vote for neither is ridiculous. If one can improve the situation remarkably, he should be elected. Obama can't.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:07:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:28:12 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Don't be a tool Mirza. The economy is kept in bad shape precisely so that people like you will react this way.
Stick to reality, not conspiracy theories.

And instead of changing things, you insist on keeping them the same as if that will change things.
The economy is what matters. Gay rights are NOT important in comparison to the economy. If "gay rights" referred to gay people having the right to basic needs, voting opportunities, etc., then surely I'd regard it as important. But gay rights now refer to marriage mostly, and in that case I think it's ridiculous to bring that into the election debate.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:10:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:33:05 AM, blameworthy wrote:
1. The president has little control over the economy.
Uh oh! And why do you think presidents with sound economic policies almost always do a better job than presidents with ridiculous economic policies? Is it a coincidence? The fact that Obama puts forward countless regulations to destroy small business - the major manufacturers of jobs - means that the president has no control over the economy? The fact that the president imposes Obamacare and adds more and more to the deficit means he has little control over the economy? Quit that bogus. He has far less control over other categories, but NOT the economy. That's where he should play the major role.

2. Human rights transcend economic welfare. Gay rights should not have to be discussed because people should already have them. It is ridiculous to single-mindedly focus on one issue. Would it have been ridiculous for blacks and Muslims to demand rights during the Depression?
Blacks lacked basic human rights, not the right to marriage between one another. If you don't know the difference, take all the time you need to uh, think.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:16:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:35:23 AM, Kinesis wrote:
A. I was recommending the article, not saying 'you should vote for Obama because the Economist says so'
It's an argument from authority if someone takes its word as truth merely due to its authority. Good thing you don't rely on that -- but what you said below is untrue.

B. AFA is a bullsh!t fallacy anyway. It's obviously reasonable to take some authority's word for it in lots of situations.
Yes, but not because of its authority. For example, to say, "Einstein is right about everything related to science because he was one of the best scientists" is a completely non-compelling argument from a logical point of view. You can say that one should consider his words with care because of the authority he was, but NOT that he was right simply because of his authority.

Climate change certainly is,
Nothing like the economy. If the economy is great, climate change will be easier to deal with.

I don't know how to quantify the president's influence on social issues but I'm sure it's somewhat significant. I think marriage equality should be a federal issue in the US anyway but looks like that isn't going to happen. I would prefer a democrat in charge of foreign policy because they're less likely to go to war (hard to imagine Al Gore invading Iraq) and also because it looks like Romney would try to start a trade war with China.
Al Gore would only ignore tough evidence for Saddam developing WMD's if he were an idiot. Not sure if that's true. China will out-compete the US if it's not cracked down. China does whatever its saints decide. Why shouldn't the US do the same? Hmm.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:19:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:39:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I'm sure homophobes will always find an issue that they deem more important than equal rights, but they're just delaying the inevitable. The expansion of equal rights to more and more groups shows a steady historical progression that I hope won't stop anytime soon.
So, you're a homophobe because you think gay rights -- among TONS of other issues -- are not as important as the economy? I think you're the homophobe. I'm not attempting to divide people into gay-lovers and haters. I just distinguish between important issues that need to be solved as fast as possible, in opposition to issues that actually make progress every single day. States influence gay rights for the most part. The federal government does not. Use some common sense.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:22:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 9:30:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
Reagan doubled the deficit and put the country into a recession.
On the other hand, he dealt with what were probably as hard times for the economy as now, and managed to create jobs and improved almost everything in that area. http://www.forbes.com...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:41:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 11:16:55 AM, Mirza wrote:
Yes, but not because of its authority. For example, to say, "Einstein is right about everything related to science because he was one of the best scientists" is a completely non-compelling argument from a logical point of view. You can say that one should consider his words with care because of the authority he was, but NOT that he was right simply because of his authority.

I don't care about this and I'm pretty sure we're eventually going to argue each other into about the same position so I'm just going to drop it.

Climate change certainly is,
Nothing like the economy. If the economy is great, climate change will be easier to deal with.

Some variant on a carbon tax is required to properly deal with carbon emissions before it's too late - there's very little hope of that happening under a Romney administration because Romney values the interests of business over the environment.

Al Gore would only ignore tough evidence for Saddam developing WMD's if he were an idiot. Not sure if that's true.

The Iraq war was a costly excursion with very few returns that plunged the US into much more debt, killed thousands of innocent civilians, and on top of that was based on lies and bad evidence that ended in an embarrassing complete lack of any WMDs. I don't think Bush or Blair were idiots, but I do think they made a huge mistake.

China will out-compete the US if it's not cracked down. China does whatever its saints decide. Why shouldn't the US do the same? Hmm.

China will overtake the US economically and become a far greater superpower than the US ever has been or ever will be. That much is inevitable. The US beginning a trade war with the next global superpower could have results down the line that are unpleasant to imagine.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:43:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 11:16:55 AM, Mirza wrote:
Al Gore would only ignore tough evidence for Saddam developing WMD's if he were an idiot. Not sure if that's true. China will out-compete the US if it's not cracked down. China does whatever its saints decide. Why shouldn't the US do the same? Hmm.

Also, Romney's proposal is to label China a currency manipulator, and its far from obvious that that's even true. China's currency has been appreciating at about the IMF's predictions for a while now. So he's just wrong about that anyway.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:55:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 11:19:11 AM, Mirza wrote:
So, you're a homophobe because you think gay rights -- among TONS of other issues -- are not as important as the economy?

I actually do think that it's more important. Discriminating against minorities is a horrible scandal just like the fact that a huge number of American's didn't have health insurance before the Affordable Care act. The economy is one issue, more important than usual right now, but that doesn't mean other issues aren't important too.

The reason I said homophobes is because I see everyone who traditionally discriminates against gays making this argument - they never have the guts to come out and say that they think homosexuality is immoral, they always talk about other issues are more important right now and we shouldn't focus on this while X Y or Z demands our attention.

I think you're the homophobe.

lol wtf.

I'm not attempting to divide people into gay-lovers and haters. I just distinguish between important issues that need to be solved as fast as possible, in opposition to issues that actually make progress every single day. States influence gay rights for the most part. The federal government does not. Use some common sense.

Having a president who supports it has a huge legitimising effect. I don't know what concrete effect will translate into actual policy, but considering Obama repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell already I don't think pro-gay legislation is unlikely.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 12:23:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 11:31:32 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Nah, write in Ron Paul.

In the words of Chris Matthews "this election is between 2 people, stop playing games."
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault