• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who will you vote for in the 2012 presidential election...

Who will you vote for in the 2012 Presidential Election?

  • Total voters
    113
TurtleDude said:
when it comes to things like economics or crime control they tend to reject facts and empirical evidence and go for emotobabbling or "Fairness" in contradiction to what actually works
Click to expand...

Ehh, the vast majority of folks on both sides think they understand economics but they don't. Most ideologues only subscribe to particular talking points perpetrated by their respective sides.
 
Maybe it's a misunderstanding too, sometimes.

Free market advocates know markets are more efficient than the state can ever be at allocating resources and services, and they know markets are the way to go when you want to protect private property, so they believe statists don't understand economics.

While many statists understand that very well, just they don't believe that efficiency, economic performance and protection of private property are always the most desirable goals, because it often yields inhumane results and stands in the way of human welfare.
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
Maybe it's a misunderstanding too, sometimes.

Free market advocates know markets are more efficient than the state can ever be at allocating resources and services, and they know markets are the way to go when you want to protect private property, so they believe statists don't understand economics.

While many statists understand that very well, just they don't believe that efficiency, economic performance and protection of private property are always the most desirable goals, because it often yields inhumane results and stands in the way of human welfare.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i'd agree with that, there seems to be plenty of folks on all sides who generally talk past each other without understanding the other side.
 
Peta Lindsay and Yari Osorip from the party for Socialism and Liberation. I suppose I will have to write her in.
 
Ikari said:
I'm setting the level at PhD.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you think people must have a Phd to vote. Great. Now how about answering the second part of the question: How on earth does that mean they know jack **** about government any more than someone without a PhD?
 
Arbo said:
Ok, so you think people must have a Phd to vote. Great. Now how about answering the second part of the question: How on earth does that mean they know jack **** about government any more than someone without a PhD?
Click to expand...

Those with PhDs are more capable of understanding complex subjects and often are well more motivated to do so than general populace. Yup....PhD's only.
 
Ikari said:
Those with PhDs are more capable of understanding complex subjects and often are well more motivated to do so than general populace. Yup....PhD's only.
Click to expand...

Such a ****ing stupid sentiment, and such flawed logic, it's amazing. I suggest you be the first to not be allowed to vote based on this suggestion.
 
I don't think anyone is saying you need a PHD to vote but you should not just Vote for someone because you have the same skin color like Blacks did with Hussein Obama...Many knew nothing about the issues and they voted for a man who is totally incompetent...That is the scary part.........

PS: I gues Ikari is but you know he is not serious....
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I don't think anyone is saying you need a PHD to vote but you should not just Vote for someone because you have the same skin color like Blacks did with Hussein Obama...Many knew nothing about the issues and they voted for a man who is totally incompetent...That is the scary part.........

PS: I gues Ikari is but you know he is not serious....
Click to expand...

There were whites too who did NOT vote for Obama because of his skin color.
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't think anyone is saying you need a PHD to vote but you should not just Vote for someone because you have the same skin color like Blacks did with Hussein Obama...Many knew nothing about the issues and they voted for a man who is totally incompetent...That is the scary part.........

PS: I gues Ikari is but you know he is not serious....
Click to expand...

BS Navy.....where is your evidence of this? Compare the percentage of the black vote for Obama...with the % of the black vote for every other Democratic candidate. It is almost identical. The reality is....despite your racist views, Blacks vote for the party that represents their interests. It is absurd that you keep spouting this racist line.
 
Arbo said:
Such a ****ing stupid sentiment, and such flawed logic, it's amazing. I suggest you be the first to not be allowed to vote based on this suggestion.
Click to expand...

OK. Do you have a PhD? No? Well we can't listen to your suggestion then.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What an idiotic poll. There are more than 2 candidates.

Here's mine: Gary Johnson from the Libertarian party.
Click to expand...



Why don't you just vote for Mickey Mouse......He will get as many votes as Johnson........
 
I have to admit alot of surprise at the totals of this poll so far....I wouldve thought romney would out poll obama two to 1.....im seriously surprised
 
Meh, most elections are 50/50 + noise. I wouldn't expect either candidate to seriously outmatch the other.
 
Navy Pride said:
Why don't you just vote for Mickey Mouse......He will get as many votes as Johnson........
Click to expand...

At least I vote for the candidate that accurately represents my beliefs. 80+% of the Republican party don't even like Romney, but feel that they're ultimately stuck with him. Pathetic.
 
Navy Pride said:
Why don't you just vote for Mickey Mouse......He will get as many votes as Johnson........
Click to expand...

You vote for who represents your interests and your ideologies, not just on the chance of if they can win or not.
 
TurtleDude said:
purists may have use in academia or on debate boards but in the real world they are often worse than the opposition
Click to expand...

If you think that somehow a return to bush style conservatism is a good goal, then I am the opposition. I worked tirelessly to remove those types of republicans from having any influence in my local branch, and seek to do the same on the state and federal level. I will gladly take huge losses this fall, and the one four years form now if I can improve the makeup of one of the two viable political parties in this country.
 
Van Basten said:
You vote for who represents your interests and your ideologies, not just on the chance of if they can win or not.
Click to expand...

Only if you want the system to work properly.
 
Van Basten said:
You vote for who represents your interests and your ideologies, not just on the chance of if they can win or not.
Click to expand...

this is beyond common sense. In my entire life, my one vote has had zero affect on the ultimate outcome of the election. Never has the margin of victory been so close that my vote counts in any election at any level. I imagine the vast majority of you are in the same boat.

So taking the position that a vote for x is a vote for y is just idiotic. Anybody that brings this notion forward should be laughed out of the room.
 
ARealConservative said:
this is beyond common sense. In my entire life, my one vote has had zero affect on the ultimate outcome of the election. Never has the margin of victory been so close that my vote counts in any election at any level. I imagine the vast majority of you are in the same boat.
Click to expand...

Beyond common sense? How is it not common sense to vote for who you align with the most? Just because there isn't a large chance of them winning doesn't make voting for them a nonsensical choice. But you're free to think as you like.
 
Van Basten said:
Beyond common sense? How is it not common sense to vote for who you align with the most? Just because there isn't a large chance of them winning doesn't make voting for them a nonsensical choice. But you're free to think as you like.
Click to expand...

I was clearly not clear in my meaning.

by beyond common sense, I meant it is so obvious that you don't even need common sense to accept the premise.

in other words, we agree. sorry for the confusion
 
Van Basten said:
Beyond common sense? How is it not common sense to vote for who you align with the most?
Click to expand...

On some fronts is seems like we're in a sort of modern day Dark Ages and common sense doesn't much exist as people have mostly stopped thinking all together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom