Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:38 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase... 
Author Message
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 340
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Sean wrote:
Lanza's mother should have put that money to greater use, perhaps spending it on seeking treatment for her son instead of purchasing all of these weapons. A foolish decision that ultimately cost her her life.


Actually, I'm pretty sure the decision her son made to shoot her in the head is what cost her her life. Would you blame her for all the children killed as well? Or, would any treatment have guaranteed a different result? I'm fairly in-between on the weapons stuff for a variety of reasons, but this stance seems pretty misguided and implies a 1+1=2 order of events that simply isn't fair or accurate.


Wed Feb 20, 2013 7:31 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Shade2 wrote:
Sean wrote:
Lanza's mother should have put that money to greater use, perhaps spending it on seeking treatment for her son instead of purchasing all of these weapons. A foolish decision that ultimately cost her her life.


Actually, I'm pretty sure the decision her son made to shoot her in the head is what cost her her life. Would you blame her for all the children killed as well? Or, would any treatment have guaranteed a different result? I'm fairly in-between on the weapons stuff for a variety of reasons, but this stance seems pretty misguided and implies a 1+1=2 order of events that simply isn't fair or accurate.

She was responsible indirectly, seeing as Lanza was a mentally-ill individual who more than likely had no control over his actions. Mrs. Lanza's lack of foresight cost her her life, and I blame her most for the events that took place at Newtown. If she had simply locked away those weapons and instead spent the money on seeking medical treatment for her son, this entire affair might have had a different outcome.

Law-abiding citizens should not have to pay for the mistakes of a minority who have no concern for human life.
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Do you all think someone's opinion matters more, when that person survived a massacre? I don't know if it does or doesn't, but I certainly know that opinion shouldn't be lost in the drivel.

Columbine survivor's open letter to the President:

Mr. President,

As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:

Universal Background Checks

First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now ? but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

10-Round Limit for Magazines

Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I've heard you ask, "why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?"

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?

Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating "needs?" This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.

Selling to Criminals

Mr. President, these are your words: "And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this."
Why don't we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops ? because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn't now ? so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market. Criminals and murderers will always find a way.

Critical Examination

Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy ? but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.

Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening ? and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?

You said, "If we can save just one person it is worth it." Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:

First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.

Second, press Congress to repeal the "Gun Free Zone Act." Don't allow America's teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.

This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.

Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.

Respectfully,
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd

I agree. Why do so many individuals support a government that wants to implement gun-control initiatives, while it continues to deal weapons illegally and murder innocent civilians using drone strikes? It simply does not add up.

Furthermore, why are so many so-called liberals supportive of Obama's foreign policy, when they opposed such measures under Bush. I have a great disdain for both presidents, but I am shocked by the number of people who are not calling out Obama for his wanton killings. Perhaps it may have to do with fear of being dubbed a racist, but I simply find this greatly disturbing. Seeing as this is a political thread and not just a gun control one, I thought that I would bring this up.

To further my point, here is a link to a study which found that liberals were more likely to support targeted killings upon learning that they were conducted by Obama: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/targete ... a_does_it/.


Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:15 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2011
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Sean wrote:
I agree. Why do so many individuals support a government that wants to implement gun-control initiatives, while it continues to deal weapons illegally and murder innocent civilians using drone strikes? It simply does not add up.
Disliking our leaders' foreign policy and disliking the thought of our neighbors having a house full of loaded, unlocked, military-grade weapons are not mutually exclusive.

Sean wrote:
Furthermore, why are so many so-called liberals supportive of Obama's foreign policy, when they opposed such measures under Bush. I have a great disdain for both presidents, but I am shocked by the number of people who are not calling out Obama for his wanton killings. Perhaps it may have to do with fear of being dubbed a racist, but I simply find this greatly disturbing. Seeing as this is a political thread and not just a gun control one, I thought that I would bring this up.
I wonder this myself. I don't know how well-understood drone warfare is among the general public. I see it get reported on often enough, but the specifics of it--what a drone strike is, how it gets carried out, where the chain of authority goes, etc.--I don't think those get discussed nearly as much. It's something that people are dimly aware of in the back of their minds when they watch the news, which somewhat undershoots just how pressing it is in terms of human rights.

Obama went from not wanting to touch drone strikes with a 10 foot pole to embracing them more than Bush ever did, which, to me, demonstrates that whatever genuine credibility he had in his first year had evaporated well before his reelection.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:28 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Ken wrote:
Sean wrote:
I agree. Why do so many individuals support a government that wants to implement gun-control initiatives, while it continues to deal weapons illegally and murder innocent civilians using drone strikes? It simply does not add up.
Disliking our leaders' foreign policy and disliking the thought of our neighbors having a house full of loaded, unlocked, military-grade weapons are not mutually exclusive.

Sean wrote:
Furthermore, why are so many so-called liberals supportive of Obama's foreign policy, when they opposed such measures under Bush. I have a great disdain for both presidents, but I am shocked by the number of people who are not calling out Obama for his wanton killings. Perhaps it may have to do with fear of being dubbed a racist, but I simply find this greatly disturbing. Seeing as this is a political thread and not just a gun control one, I thought that I would bring this up.
I wonder this myself. I don't know how well-understood drone warfare is among the general public. I see it get reported on often enough, but the specifics of it--what a drone strike is, how it gets carried out, where the chain of authority goes, etc.--I don't think those get discussed nearly as much. It's something that people are dimly aware of in the back of their minds when they watch the news, which somewhat undershoots just how pressing it is in terms of human rights.

Obama went from not wanting to touch drone strikes with a 10 foot pole to embracing them more than Bush ever did, which, to me, demonstrates that whatever genuine credibility he had in his first year had evaporated well before his reelection.


Some excellent points were made here, although I hardly believe that drone warfare is hardly reported on by the media. Most of the time, the victims of such attacks are treated as mere statistics in news broadcasts, while extensive coverage is usually given to the killings of American citizens instead. This idea, that one life is more valuable than another, is why so many individuals today have such a malleable moral compass.

I still hold to my beliefs concerning gun control. If I could make every single gun on the face of the planet disappear, I would. However, enforcing legislation to accomplish this goal is never a good thing, seeing as politicians never let a tragedy go to waste. Perhaps it is because of my status as a pacifist that I hold this opinion, but I believe that the military should not possess any weapon that is unavailable to the general citizenry. This includes nuclear weapons, tanks, drones, and everything else in between. I believe that the defense budget needs to be cut by at least 43%, and I also support shutting down all of the United States' overseas military bases.

Once again, just providing a basis for my political views. Looking through some of the posts here, it would seem that gun control is the overarching topic of discussion, which is fine. However, seeing as this is a general political forum, I thought that I would offer some other opinions, as well.


Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:28 pm
Profile
Online
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2934
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Ken wrote:
Sean wrote:
I agree. Why do so many individuals support a government that wants to implement gun-control initiatives, while it continues to deal weapons illegally and murder innocent civilians using drone strikes? It simply does not add up.
Disliking our leaders' foreign policy and disliking the thought of our neighbors having a house full of loaded, unlocked, military-grade weapons are not mutually exclusive.

Sean wrote:
Furthermore, why are so many so-called liberals supportive of Obama's foreign policy, when they opposed such measures under Bush. I have a great disdain for both presidents, but I am shocked by the number of people who are not calling out Obama for his wanton killings. Perhaps it may have to do with fear of being dubbed a racist, but I simply find this greatly disturbing. Seeing as this is a political thread and not just a gun control one, I thought that I would bring this up.
I wonder this myself. I don't know how well-understood drone warfare is among the general public. I see it get reported on often enough, but the specifics of it--what a drone strike is, how it gets carried out, where the chain of authority goes, etc.--I don't think those get discussed nearly as much. It's something that people are dimly aware of in the back of their minds when they watch the news, which somewhat undershoots just how pressing it is in terms of human rights.

Obama went from not wanting to touch drone strikes with a 10 foot pole to embracing them more than Bush ever did, which, to me, demonstrates that whatever genuine credibility he had in his first year had evaporated well before his reelection.
You may not like the idea of drone strikes, but the reality is that the alternatives are even worse: http://www.ydr.com/opinion/ci_22629778/drones-save-civilians-bombs-more-deadly
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/07/drones-strikes-john-brennan-hearing/1900635/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/18/opinion/la-ed-drones-court-targeted-assassinations-20130218
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/has-obama-gone-too-far-with-his-drone-policies/the-alternatives-to-drone-strikes-are-worse

As for me, i'm neutral on the position of drones, I believe they do have they're uses but can get abused as well.

BTW, another Libertarian I really like is Penn Jilette, I started watching "Bullshit!" last year and 95% of the time I found myself agreeing with Penn(the show did an episode on gun control if anyone's interested), the only thing I really disagreed with him on is the death penalty(I support it, he dosen't).


Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:21 am
Profile
Online
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2934
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Sean wrote:
Ken wrote:
Sean wrote:
I agree. Why do so many individuals support a government that wants to implement gun-control initiatives, while it continues to deal weapons illegally and murder innocent civilians using drone strikes? It simply does not add up.
Disliking our leaders' foreign policy and disliking the thought of our neighbors having a house full of loaded, unlocked, military-grade weapons are not mutually exclusive.

Sean wrote:
Furthermore, why are so many so-called liberals supportive of Obama's foreign policy, when they opposed such measures under Bush. I have a great disdain for both presidents, but I am shocked by the number of people who are not calling out Obama for his wanton killings. Perhaps it may have to do with fear of being dubbed a racist, but I simply find this greatly disturbing. Seeing as this is a political thread and not just a gun control one, I thought that I would bring this up.
I wonder this myself. I don't know how well-understood drone warfare is among the general public. I see it get reported on often enough, but the specifics of it--what a drone strike is, how it gets carried out, where the chain of authority goes, etc.--I don't think those get discussed nearly as much. It's something that people are dimly aware of in the back of their minds when they watch the news, which somewhat undershoots just how pressing it is in terms of human rights.

Obama went from not wanting to touch drone strikes with a 10 foot pole to embracing them more than Bush ever did, which, to me, demonstrates that whatever genuine credibility he had in his first year had evaporated well before his reelection.


Some excellent points were made here, although I hardly believe that drone warfare is hardly reported on by the media. Most of the time, the victims of such attacks are treated as mere statistics in news broadcasts, while extensive coverage is usually given to the killings of American citizens instead. This idea, that one life is more valuable than another, is why so many individuals today have such a malleable moral compass.

I still hold to my beliefs concerning gun control. If I could make every single gun on the face of the planet disappear, I would. However, enforcing legislation to accomplish this goal is never a good thing, seeing as politicians never let a tragedy go to waste. Perhaps it is because of my status as a pacifist that I hold this opinion, but I believe that the military should not possess any weapon that is unavailable to the general citizenry. This includes nuclear weapons, tanks, drones, and everything else in between. I believe that the defense budget needs to be cut by at least 43%, and I also support shutting down all of the United States' overseas military bases.

Once again, just providing a basis for my political views. Looking through some of the posts here, it would seem that gun control is the overarching topic of discussion, which is fine. However, seeing as this is a general political forum, I thought that I would offer some other opinions, as well.

It's not necessarily that our lives are more valueable then others, it's that the media outlets think that killings by drones overseas don't directly affect us the way massacres like Sandy Hook do, therefore the news channels don't believe it's necessary to go into detail about them, not saying I agree with it, that's just how they see it. It's not just drone strikes that barely get reported, you also rarely ever hear much about minorities getting killed in poor neighborhoods, with those deaths usually regulated to the obituairies.


Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:30 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2011
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...

Drones are being abused.

Armed drone strikes are not even close to the precise surgical instruments that the CIA holds them up to be. The military both routinely neglects and actively covers up records of civilian casualties, which are racked up indiscriminately along with the names on the Obama Administration's kill list. It's difficult to estimate the number of those casualties, because the CIA denies that they've happened--any of them at all. This, despite investigative journalists uncovering evidence of hundreds of civilian deaths and numerous American officials coming forward anonymously. The authorities responsible for these drone attacks remain completely unaccountable.

The fact that there are worse alternatives is no justification for any of this. For a nation to pursue this course of action in the name of the moral high ground is unacceptable, full stop.

Sure, drones have legitimate uses--when they're unarmed. And even then, it's sketchy.

But at least they begat this XKCD comic.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:47 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Vexer wrote:
Ken wrote:
Sean wrote:
I agree. Why do so many individuals support a government that wants to implement gun-control initiatives, while it continues to deal weapons illegally and murder innocent civilians using drone strikes? It simply does not add up.
Disliking our leaders' foreign policy and disliking the thought of our neighbors having a house full of loaded, unlocked, military-grade weapons are not mutually exclusive.

Sean wrote:
Furthermore, why are so many so-called liberals supportive of Obama's foreign policy, when they opposed such measures under Bush. I have a great disdain for both presidents, but I am shocked by the number of people who are not calling out Obama for his wanton killings. Perhaps it may have to do with fear of being dubbed a racist, but I simply find this greatly disturbing. Seeing as this is a political thread and not just a gun control one, I thought that I would bring this up.
I wonder this myself. I don't know how well-understood drone warfare is among the general public. I see it get reported on often enough, but the specifics of it--what a drone strike is, how it gets carried out, where the chain of authority goes, etc.--I don't think those get discussed nearly as much. It's something that people are dimly aware of in the back of their minds when they watch the news, which somewhat undershoots just how pressing it is in terms of human rights.

Obama went from not wanting to touch drone strikes with a 10 foot pole to embracing them more than Bush ever did, which, to me, demonstrates that whatever genuine credibility he had in his first year had evaporated well before his reelection.
You may not like the idea of drone strikes, but the reality is that the alternatives are even worse: http://www.ydr.com/opinion/ci_22629778/drones-save-civilians-bombs-more-deadly
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/07/drones-strikes-john-brennan-hearing/1900635/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/18/opinion/la-ed-drones-court-targeted-assassinations-20130218
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/has-obama-gone-too-far-with-his-drone-policies/the-alternatives-to-drone-strikes-are-worse

As for me, i'm neutral on the position of drones, I believe they do have they're uses but can get abused as well.

BTW, another Libertarian I really like is Penn Jilette, I started watching "Bullshit!" last year and 95% of the time I found myself agreeing with Penn(the show did an episode on gun control if anyone's interested), the only thing I really disagreed with him on is the death penalty(I support it, he dosen't).

Really, Vexer? Defending drone strikes? I'm happy to see that you too are also a Jillette fan, but it is worth noting that he is perhaps one of the few celebrities out there holding Obama's feet to the fire. Most of Hollywood seems to worship him, yet a handful of voices, including his, have been instrumental in exposing the offenses that have been committed under his administration. Another famous actor who has criticized the Obama administration: John Cusack. He made a large donation to the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

How can you possibility defend drone use, when they resulted in the deaths of so many innocent civilians. 50 civilians are killed for every "terrorist" who is assassinated using drones. Furthermore, how can you trust mainstream media outlets that routinely bend the truth and ignore the drone question? I remember commenting on the drone issue on Twitter. when one of the moderators brought it up during a presidential debate yesteryear. Both candidates agreed on authorizing their usage. For about one whole minute, even single Obama-supporting Hollywood celebrity whom I followed had nothing to say. No one questioned his support of drones. No one objected to his support of drones. No one even commented on his support of the drones. However, when Mitt Romney made an asinine comment about PBS, everyone had something to say about it. Very saddening indeed.

Do you still believe that drone strikes are the best alternative, when it was Obama utilized them in killing Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, a 16-year-old American citizen in Pakistan? How can you possibly acknowledge the viability of a weapon that is slowly being used to murder U.S. citizens without even providing them with a fair trial beforehand?


Attachments:
PENN JILLETTE ON DRONE STRIKES.jpg
PENN JILLETTE ON DRONE STRIKES.jpg [ 15.9 KiB | Viewed 857 times ]
Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:05 pm
Profile
Online
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2934
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
I'm not "defending" drone strikes per se, i'm saying I can understand why people want to rely on them so much, the way the government sees it, more drones means that less ground troops have to risk they're lives.


Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:40 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Vexer wrote:
I'm not "defending" drone strikes per se, i'm saying I can understand why people want to rely on them so much, the way the government sees it, more drones means that less ground troops have to risk they're lives.

Since when does the government care about risking the lives of troops?


Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:44 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1542
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Sean wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I'm not "defending" drone strikes per se, i'm saying I can understand why people want to rely on them so much, the way the government sees it, more drones means that less ground troops have to risk they're lives.

Since when does the government care about risking the lives of troops?


Never. At least not in the last 50 years.

The use of drones is inexcusable. Drone strikes have killed hundreds of civilians, and in my opinion even one civilian death is too many. Civilian casualties, intentional or not, tarnish our country's reputation abroad. After George W. Bush did so much to wreck America's image on a worldwide scale, I was hoping Obama would take steps to rebuild it. Unfortunately, he has done a very poor job in this area.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:33 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
Sean wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I'm not "defending" drone strikes per se, i'm saying I can understand why people want to rely on them so much, the way the government sees it, more drones means that less ground troops have to risk they're lives.

Since when does the government care about risking the lives of troops?


Never. At least not in the last 50 years.

The use of drones is inexcusable. Drone strikes have killed hundreds of civilians, and in my opinion even one civilian death is too many. Civilian casualties, intentional or not, tarnish our country's reputation abroad. After George W. Bush did so much to wreck America's image on a worldwide scale, I was hoping Obama would take steps to rebuild it. Unfortunately, he has done a very poor job in this area.

To me, Bush and Obama are ultimately the same. Obama might come across as well-educated and genuine, yet he is simply just another pawn of the military industrial complex and large banking institutions.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone else vote third party last year? I am not attempting to pry; if you feel like sharing, please do so. If not, then don't.


Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:14 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Sean wrote:
Just out of curiosity, did anyone else vote third party last year? I am not attempting to pry; if you feel like sharing, please do so. If not, then don't.


I did not. Voting 3rd party, especially at the national level, is a wasted vote. Until one of the 2 major parties implodes and causes a mass exodus, no 3rd party candidate will have a shot at the white house. You may slip in a House of Rep success here or there, but not enough of them to make that much of a difference in that chamber.

From my perspective (conservative), I may be most closely aligned with the Libertarians of the 3rd parties. But in something like the Presidential race, even if you were to peel away a certain percentage of GOP supporters to vote for Gary Johnson, you would NEVER peel away an amount of DEM supporters to get that candidate elected. See Ross Perot. He peeled away enough G.H.W. Bush supporters to deny Bush a second term, but not enough DEM supporters to get himself in. Most of the "Perot voters" lost twice; Perot didn't get in and Clinton (for most of them their 3rd choice) did.

I'm not telling anyone how to vote; if you want to vote 3rd party go nuts. If it makes you feel good that you're not part of perpetuating the problem, good for you. Just don't get frustrated when at the end of the day your vote continues to go for naught election cycle after election cycle.


Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:35 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Johnny Larue wrote:
Sean wrote:
Just out of curiosity, did anyone else vote third party last year? I am not attempting to pry; if you feel like sharing, please do so. If not, then don't.


I did not. Voting 3rd party, especially at the national level, is a wasted vote. Until one of the 2 major parties implodes and causes a mass exodus, no 3rd party candidate will have a shot at the white house. You may slip in a House of Rep success here or there, but not enough of them to make that much of a difference in that chamber.

From my perspective (conservative), I may be most closely aligned with the Libertarians of the 3rd parties. But in something like the Presidential race, even if you were to peel away a certain percentage of GOP supporters to vote for Gary Johnson, you would NEVER peel away an amount of DEM supporters to get that candidate elected. See Ross Perot. He peeled away enough G.H.W. Bush supporters to deny Bush a second term, but not enough DEM supporters to get himself in. Most of the "Perot voters" lost twice; Perot didn't get in and Clinton (for most of them their 3rd choice) did.

I'm not telling anyone how to vote; if you want to vote 3rd party go nuts. If it makes you feel good that you're not part of perpetuating the problem, good for you. Just don't get frustrated when at the end of the day your vote continues to go for naught election cycle after election cycle.

There is no such thing as a wasted vote. Individuals should not vote for who they think will win, but rather who they think has the most well-aligned moral compass.


Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:50 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Sean wrote:
There is no such thing as a wasted vote. Individuals should not vote for who they think will win, but rather who they think has the most well-aligned moral compass.


That's quite noble, but at the end of the day, quite at odds with reality. You are also making the assumption that the electorate in general takes their vote seriously and researches their candidates rather than blindly following party lines or voting based on the latest sound bite, commercial, or "gotcha" moment. Again, a noble sentiment, but still quite at odds with reality.

As long as we value turnout of voters over turnout of informed voters, you're going to be spitting into the wind on this one.


Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:09 pm
Profile
Online
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2934
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Johnny Larue wrote:
Sean wrote:
There is no such thing as a wasted vote. Individuals should not vote for who they think will win, but rather who they think has the most well-aligned moral compass.


That's quite noble, but at the end of the day, quite at odds with reality. You are also making the assumption that the electorate in general takes their vote seriously and researches their candidates rather than blindly following party lines or voting based on the latest sound bite, commercial, or "gotcha" moment. Again, a noble sentiment, but still quite at odds with reality.

As long as we value turnout of voters over turnout of informed voters, you're going to be spitting into the wind on this one.

I considered voting third party since I live in Obama's state(which he would of course win no matter what), but after researching Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, I found myself agreeing with Obama's views moreso then theirs.


Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:36 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Vexer wrote:
Johnny Larue wrote:
Sean wrote:
There is no such thing as a wasted vote. Individuals should not vote for who they think will win, but rather who they think has the most well-aligned moral compass.


That's quite noble, but at the end of the day, quite at odds with reality. You are also making the assumption that the electorate in general takes their vote seriously and researches their candidates rather than blindly following party lines or voting based on the latest sound bite, commercial, or "gotcha" moment. Again, a noble sentiment, but still quite at odds with reality.

As long as we value turnout of voters over turnout of informed voters, you're going to be spitting into the wind on this one.

I considered voting third party since I live in Obama's state(which he would of course win no matter what), but after researching Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, I found myself agreeing with Obama's views moreso then theirs.


How so? Obama's four years in office have served as nothing more than a case study in hypocrisy. At least Johnson and Stein both oppose excessive corporate influence, the War on Drugs, continuing the War on Terror, and the Federal Reserve.


Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:31 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2011
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
The votes that spit into the wind are the only ones that aren't wasted.

If you restrict yourself to whichever top two guys who can win, here's three words: margin of error. Your vote does not, never has, and never will have the power to let you personally spin the election one way or another. I think this is the delusion people cling to when they sweep their misgivings under the rug and pick a guy they don't really want, but who has better odds (i.e. better corporate sponsorship) than the candidate who lines up more with what they believe in. If you make it purely about picking a winner, your one vote will get steamrolled every time, and that's even if your guy does end up winning.

The best that a single vote can accomplish is give that citizen an opportunity to express what he or she personally values, and to raise a small middle finger to the leaders who take it for granted that they have the power to do whatever they want in the name of their country. It's a small middle finger, but put it up next to a lot of other small middle fingers and it'll be noticed.

Never mind the fact that the two party system is a self-fulfilling pathology that relies on the assumption that nobody's going to vote what they truly feel if they don't think their candidate has a realistic shot.

Remember, the only time these people are ever going to listen to you--even if your voice is small--is when their jobs are in danger.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:39 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Ken wrote:
The votes that spit into the wind are the only ones that aren't wasted.

If you restrict yourself to whichever top two guys who can win, here's three words: margin of error. Your vote does not, never has, and never will have the power to let you personally spin the election one way or another. I think this is the delusion people cling to when they sweep their misgivings under the rug and pick a guy they don't really want, but who has better odds (i.e. better corporate sponsorship) than the candidate who lines up more with what they believe in. If you make it purely about picking a winner, your one vote will get steamrolled every time, and that's even if your guy does end up winning.

The best that a single vote can accomplish is give that citizen an opportunity to express what he or she personally values, and to raise a small middle finger to the leaders who take it for granted that they have the power to do whatever they want in the name of their country. It's a small middle finger, but put it up next to a lot of other small middle fingers and it'll be noticed.

Never mind the fact that the two party system is a self-fulfilling pathology that relies on the assumption that nobody's going to vote what they truly feel if they don't think their candidate has a realistic shot.

Remember, the only time these people are ever going to listen to you--even if your voice is small--is when their jobs are in danger.


Again, more noble sentiments. But reality, and history, are on my side on this one. Personally, if I was determined to vote 3rd party, then I would probably just stay home and save myself the drive and wait in line. The results will be the same regardless my course of action: my guy or gal will lose. By bowing to reality, I at least get the satisfaction of casting my vote for the least offensive weasel running and seeing that weasel beat the more offensive weasel. It may be a tiny victory to be sure, but it beats certain defeat every time. (Again...just my personal 2 cents after 25 years of going to the voting both. At the end of the day, it's your vote to do, or not do, what you will.)


Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:19 pm
Profile
Online
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2934
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Politics: Gun Control, Obamacare, tax increase...
Johnny Larue wrote:
Ken wrote:
The votes that spit into the wind are the only ones that aren't wasted.

If you restrict yourself to whichever top two guys who can win, here's three words: margin of error. Your vote does not, never has, and never will have the power to let you personally spin the election one way or another. I think this is the delusion people cling to when they sweep their misgivings under the rug and pick a guy they don't really want, but who has better odds (i.e. better corporate sponsorship) than the candidate who lines up more with what they believe in. If you make it purely about picking a winner, your one vote will get steamrolled every time, and that's even if your guy does end up winning.

The best that a single vote can accomplish is give that citizen an opportunity to express what he or she personally values, and to raise a small middle finger to the leaders who take it for granted that they have the power to do whatever they want in the name of their country. It's a small middle finger, but put it up next to a lot of other small middle fingers and it'll be noticed.

Never mind the fact that the two party system is a self-fulfilling pathology that relies on the assumption that nobody's going to vote what they truly feel if they don't think their candidate has a realistic shot.

Remember, the only time these people are ever going to listen to you--even if your voice is small--is when their jobs are in danger.


Again, more noble sentiments. But reality, and history, are on my side on this one. Personally, if I was determined to vote 3rd party, then I would probably just stay home and save myself the drive and wait in line. The results will be the same regardless my course of action: my guy or gal will lose. By bowing to reality, I at least get the satisfaction of casting my vote for the least offensive weasel running and seeing that weasel beat the more offensive weasel. It may be a tiny victory to be sure, but it beats certain defeat every time. (Again...just my personal 2 cents after 25 years of going to the voting both. At the end of the day, it's your vote to do, or not do, what you will.)
Same here, even if I did agree with Johnson and Stein on everything, at the end of the day I don't know if I would've felt satisfied voting for either of them when I knew it wouldn't make much of a difference.


Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:38 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr