Who ya voting for?

[Storm]

Great quote here by Seth Grym.  It's not likely to change the minds of any of the readers of this site - you're already past the point of no return, but it might give you something to think about if you let it:

"Whether or not you believe in the system or believe that either candidate will actually do what they say, its still important to vote Obama. If for no other reason than to say to the rest of the world: "I am an American who supports women's rights, universal health care, and gay marriage. I am a progressive and intelligent individual." Putting another rich white conservative in office sends a message to the world about who we are as a nation- its a symbolic giant step backwards. Don't allow the conservatives to win due to apathy. You do the country and its people a disservice."

[Xan]

"Women's rights" - as leftists define them.  Universal health care - a terrible idea, and actually everyone should vote against Obama just for this one.  Gay marriage - that's a tough one, but it's hard to make the case that everybody who's against it is a bigot, which is the assumption here.

"I am a progressive and intelligent individual" - provided I believe exactly what "Seth Grym" believes.  "Intelligence" is at least usually a good thing; "progressive" I'm not so sure about.

A giant step backwards to elect a "rich, white, conservative".  Having established that it's bad to be a conservative, why is it necessary to throw rich and white into it?  Is it better to vote for the rich black guy?  Basically, you're admitting that you're voting for a guy because of his race.  Isn't this raaaaacism, exactly what lefties are supposedly so revved up against all the time?

[Pointedstick]

[Pointedstick]

In all seriousness, that reads a lot like "If you don't agree with me, you're stupid and retrograde!" I don't think it's particularly helpful to your happiness to believe that people who think differently from you are stupid.

[D1984]

Gay marriage - that's a tough one, but it's hard to make the case that everybody who's against it is a bigot, which is the assumption here.

What exactly would you call them, then? "Bigot" may seem a little harsh, but if they don't want two (mutually consenting) adults to get married (when said marriage has nothing to do with the person in question) based on their own personal prejudices (whether those prejudices are for religious reasons or because they think it's yucky or whatever) then what are they if not bigots?

Universal health care - a terrible idea, and actually everyone should vote against Obama just for this one.

Care to elaborate? As implemented by PPACA, yeah, it was bad plan (forced to buy a private industry's product) and it might be vulnerable to the same sort of abuse Romneycare was...but I'm sure many of the 45 million uninsured (or those of us who are but a job loss away from being among their ranks) don't think universal health care per se is such a bad idea.

If one is an anarchist (of any flavor) I can respect their opposition to universal health care on grounds of principle but (unless I'm wrong) you aren't one so I presume you oppose it on grounds of utilitarianism and pragmatism (i.e. you think it would be too costly and would not work as intended)?

[MediumTex]

I understand that people with similar investing views can have dissimilar political views, but one of my primary desires with this forum is that it not be a place that raises your blood pressure.  There are plenty of places on the internet that do that.  It's harder to find courteous and thoughtful discussion with genuine curiosity about opposing points of view (even if you consider them wrong throughout the discussion).

I'm glad we just do the presidential election once every four years.  I feel like in some of these threads it has disrupted the relative serenity of our happy site here, needlessly chewing up rapport that I think most of really enjoy.

We all believe that we are correct in our beliefs.  Please be respectful of one another.

[melveyr]

I understand that people with similar investing views can have dissimilar political views, but one of my primary desires with this forum is that it not be a place that raises your blood pressure.  There are plenty of places on the internet that do that.  It's harder to find courteous and thoughtful discussion with genuine curiosity about opposing points of view (even if you consider them wrong throughout the discussion).

I'm glad we just do the presidential election once every four years.  I feel like in some of these threads it has disrupted the relative serenity of our happy site here, needlessly chewing up rapport that I think most of really enjoy.

We all believe that we are correct in our beliefs.  Please be respectful of one another.

I use to not like that Bogleheads had a strict policy on politics, but it is starting to make more sense to me. It can get ugly fast.

You have a really good point about avoiding raising blood pressures; the PP is about serenity and balance. Ray Dalio (who uses almost the exact same philosophy as the PP) pays his employees to practice transcendental mediation!

[MachineGhost]

I understand that people with similar investing views can have dissimilar political views, but one of my primary desires with this forum is that it not be a place that raises your blood pressure.  There are plenty of places on the internet that do that.  It's harder to find courteous and thoughtful discussion with genuine curiosity about opposing points of view (even if you consider them wrong throughout the discussion).

But who wants to go to places that are specifically designed to combatively raise your blood pressure or to incestously confirm your own biases?  At least here we have a wide diversity of opinions because politics are not of the primary importance.  Reasonable, rational people have better things to do than be drawn into cults.

[MachineGhost]

since the topic came up i would like to respectfully give my view on gay marriage, i hope nobody takes it as a insult to their views or considers it discourteous or blood pressure raising,
since as far as i know no politician or political party shares my views it wont likely be seen as trying to promote either side...

there are three parts to marriage listed in no particular order each being of equal importance

marriage is a contract between two party's
any two individuals should be able to enter into contracts with each other regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion etc, every marriage whether between a man and a women or two people of the same sex should be considered a civil union and all civil unions should be equally recognized by the states. i tend to favor having states rights and the legal system handle contract law.

marriage is a religious ceremony
the ceremonial joining of two souls (or what ever definition your religion gives) in the eyes of god, is protected by religious freedom and is none of my business and no business of the governments, if gay's can find a church willing to join two people in this manor, it is between them and their god

marriage is a word that has a certain meaning
there is a very longstanding cultural and historic meaning and expectations associated with "marriage" including (for now) it being between a man and a woman, you cannot demand that the words meaning be changed or legislate a change of meaning. if gays want their civil unions and religious ceremony's to be recognized as "marriage", they must live up to the meaning and expectations of the word for a long enough period of time to become a part of that cultural and historic meaning, just because the meaning of the word marriage has tens of thousands of years behind it doesn't mean it cant shift in a relatively short period of time in the modern world. they also can not expect meaning and expectations to shift to include the questionable behaviors that are commonly associated with the gay lifestyle and that are contrary to the expectations and purpose of marriage.

Marraige was up until the 20th century for all purposes and intents a mechanism for property (the father's daughter) to be given away to another man that would shelter and take care of her.  The down payment to perform the contract was the engagement ring (dowry).  Marraige was not about romance.  That is a recent invention (probably due to DeBeers) and even now independent women are increasingly finding the whole concept of marriage to be irrelevant.

Marraige licenses were instituted after the Civil War to legalize interracial marraiges, i.e. black women given away to white men (the reverse was too unthinkable).  How is this any different in concept than legalizing gay marraiges?

Nowadays, marraige licenses are a grant of power to the state to give them control over your children and disposition of your property.

I think if one half of the population did not use the issue as an activist platform to force change upon the other half of the population, that other half of the population wouldn't be so resistant.  There are ways to accomplish social change without kicking a hornet's nest.

[MachineGhost]

The next election may determine where America is headed -- to a restoration of its greatness, or to a retreat into the obsolescence of history.  Before one casts a vote, an example stands before us of a country that made the wrong choice, warning us what to avoid.

The country is Argentina, chiefly unknown to most Americans, apart from its creation of the tango. This ignorance on our part is inexcusable, since Argentina resembles an America that went awry.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/ ... untry.html

[flyingpylon]

I'm glad we just do the presidential election once every four years.  I feel like in some of these threads it has disrupted the relative serenity of our happy site here, needlessly chewing up rapport that I think most of really enjoy.

I totally agree... there has been a marked change around here in the last several weeks.  I look forward to putting the election behind us and hope that it doesn't cause any lingering damage to the spirit of the forum.

[Pointedstick]

I think if one half of the population did not use the issue as an activist platform to force change upon the other half of the population, that other half of the population wouldn't be so resistant.  There are ways to accomplish social change without kicking a hornet's nest.

This is so true. I almost entirely agree with liberals on the social issues, but I find their usual methods of advancing their cause to be unnecessarily confrontational and inflammatory, usually deliberately so. They want society to change right now, seemingly unaware that in pushing so hard, they often entrench the opposition to what is really quite a rational change.

Social change requires that society feel comfortable with it. That means not going through the legislature or the courts as a first resort.  Those steps come later once people are generally on your side, which requires outreach, understanding of peoples' hesitancy, and being a living reminder that the change is positive.

The whole, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!" thing is so far beyond counterproductive. I contrast this with my former boss who was gay but in a quiet, confident way, and showed people that he was just a normal and pretty awesome dude, who just happened to be attracted to men rather then women. He probably converted 10,000 times more mild homophobes than any gay pride parade ever did.

[Storm]

What I find offensive, as a progressive, is this notion that every viewpoint should have equal media time and has equal value.  To me, this is the equivalent of during the 1960s in the civil rights movement, saying that a group of klansmen shouting "n-lover" have an equally valid viewpoint to common sense rationals of all races speaking for equality.

And, here's the thing, most civilized nations in the world agree with us (the progressives).  The conservative American ideology continues to travel farther and farther towards the extreme right wing of the party.

When only Pakistan wants to elect your candidate, perhaps you might want to rethink how you vote affects America's standing in the world:



P.S. I too will be glad when this election is behind us.

[Pointedstick]

Storm, it's clear that you think you're right. I actually think you're right too, about quite a lot of things such as gay marriage, equal rights, bigotry and insensitivity being bad, and so on and so forth. But can you at least understand why others not like us may feel differently? I don't think it helps your (our) cause to proclaim those people to be stupid, racist, backwards, and worthy of living in a 3rd world country. Rhetoric like that doesn't actually help to change them, it just makes you feel good about yourself.

Those people are good people, moral people, honorable people, just like you and me. They may fear gays, but progressives fear firearms. You may be surprised to hear that in their internet circles, they point to people like you and other progressives and laugh over how silly it is to be frightened of inanimate objects. The language they use is incredibly similar to the language used on the other side to ridicule conservatives who fear normal people who happen to be gay.

I've personally seen conservatives lose their fear of homosexuality by being exposed to normal, average gay people who they come to trust. My wife's grandfather was a racist old codger but after his daughter married a black man, he came to recant his bigotry and eventually he became the best of friends with his son-in-law. Similarly, I have taken many progressive types shooting and they always have a blast. The fear evaporates once they're actually exposed to the object of their fear and can see that there's really nothing to be afraid of.

What breeds intolerance is fear and isolation. Combating it involves presenting positive examples of the feared thing that make it obvious that there's no cause for alarm. But simply making fun of other people for being frightened of something they have no familiarity with and honestly may kind of look weird and scary from the outside is likely to only further entrench them in their irrational position.

Fight fear with compassion and outreach, not ridicule.

[Benko]

Storm,

I personally want a president who puts the interests of the US before interests of other countries, so that data makes my point for me--any candidate who is strongly favored by lots of other countries is suspect and Obama is a great example.

[moda0306]

MG,

This is going to sound a bit snarkier than I mean it to... I hope you know I mean that... however...

For a guy who constantly laments against the ravenous, coercive, illegitimate, paternalistic, incompetant reign of any and all acts of government, isn't it a bit much to ask gay people: "Just calm down a bit, would ya?  Society isn't ready to change as fast as you want it to!"

Well society isn't ready to give up social security and medicare.  Neither is it ready to quit helping poor kids get an education, food, shelter, etc via government safety nets.  Nor is society ready to completely deregulate every industry, allow anyone to own any type of offensive weaponry.  However, I still value (begrudgingly, sometimes ) people like yourself that won't "just shut the hell up or calm down" about your cause, even if I disagree with it sometimes or think "society isn't ready" at times.

Proponents of gay marriage are no more ridiculous about their cause than anyone on the economic liberty side is.  People like Peter Schiff and others who lament about the deficit, hyperinflation, how their taxes and regulations are significantly hampering their chances of success, how government sucks at everything it does and causes every problem we have, etc, are no more flamboyant or ridiculous than the shirtless guy with pasties on walking down the street during the Gay Pride parade... they just hide it a bit better.

Ok, slight exaggeration, but the guys dressed up like Thomas Jefferson at Tea Party protests are about one triple snap away from being as flamboyant as our fabulous friends.

[Pointedstick]

That's exactly my point, moda! People on all sides of these issues are leery about letting their political opponents have everything they want immediately, whether we're talking about gay marriage or social security. That's why I think any major political change really needs to be prefaced with a cultural shift that will support that political change.

FWIW, I think Peter Schiff is a bit of a loon.

[hoost]

I realize back on the OP that Gary Johnson is at least a candidate that is running for Libertarians. I also realize voting third party right now doesn't always do anything but you vote your conscious. If that's the case, if you were once a Ron Paul fan but he dropped out, do you vote for Paul which is totally wasting the vote or for Johnson and only "semi" throw your vote away? Just wondering what your thoughts are forum people.

Greg,
I was in your shoes and wound up voting for Johnson.  I think given that the Libertarian Party was able to get Johnson on the ballot in all 50 states, showing support for the party may help them to gain a bit more publicity and continue to raise awareness of the Libertarian perspective.  To me, a vote for Rombama is a vote for the status quo, with which I'm not particularly satisfied.  I'd rather send the message that I want something to change; in that sense I do not feel that my vote was wasted.

[Greg]

I realize back on the OP that Gary Johnson is at least a candidate that is running for Libertarians. I also realize voting third party right now doesn't always do anything but you vote your conscious. If that's the case, if you were once a Ron Paul fan but he dropped out, do you vote for Paul which is totally wasting the vote or for Johnson and only "semi" throw your vote away? Just wondering what your thoughts are forum people.

Greg,
I was in your shoes and wound up voting for Johnson.  I think given that the Libertarian Party was able to get Johnson on the ballot in all 50 states, showing support for the party may help them to gain a bit more publicity and continue to raise awareness of the Libertarian perspective.  To me, a vote for Rombama is a vote for the status quo, with which I'm not particularly satisfied.  I'd rather send the message that I want something to change; in that sense I do not feel that my vote was wasted.

I'll probably vote for Johnson. And I agree with those on here about the societal movement to really affect change. I also really believe in trying to keep an open mind (even though it might naturally try to be closed in some areas) and get exposed to a lot to help with the open mindedness.

[MachineGhost]

[align=center][/align]

[Storm]

The chart is telling - Wall Street definitely likes 0 capital gains tax in Romney's plan.  But, what I'd like to see, and is not available, is what companies and organizations the outside money is coming from - you know, the Citizens United billion dollar slush funds that are doing things like buying billboards in Ohio telling people it's a felony to commit voter fraud (conveniently located in minority neighborhoods more likely to vote D) and sending letters purporting to be from the election commissioner in Florida saying they are ineligible to vote and will be arrested to people in minority Cuban neighborhoods in Florida (more likely to vote R).

[Xan]

Why are public institutions like the US government and the University of California backing a particular candidate...?

[Pointedstick]

I would imagine they're hoping for some federal bailout money. the UC system has been pinched for cash, raising tuition many times. They probably think a Democrat is more likely to throw them some money, and also will probably be friendlier to the teachers' unions.

[hoost]

Why are public institutions like the US government and the University of California backing a particular candidate...?

I believe it's not the institution itself that is contributing money to the candidates.  When you contribute to a candidate, you are required by law to provide certain information, including your profession and employer.  I think they're aggregating the contribution data from individuals and organizing by what company those individuals are employed with.

[Xan]

Oh, thanks fellas.  I misread the graph.  So we're talking about people who work at the listed institutions.  That makes it a little disingenuous to say that "The US Government" is the top supporter of Obama or that "Goldman Sachs" is the top supporter of Romney.