Jump to content
Chaos

Tell Me Who To Vote For

Recommended Posts

In the coming election.

 

Right now I'm thinking that Paul Ryan seems like a good candidate. If you convince me that I'm wrong, I won't vote for him.

 

I need to do more research, and I think that the collective knowledge of cross-x will help me to make a good decision.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the coming election.

 

Right now I'm thinking that Ryan Paul seems like a good candidate. If you convince me that I'm wrong, I won't vote for him.

 

I need to do more research, and I think that the collective knowledge of cross-x will help me to make a good decision.

He will not secure the Republican nomination and will thus not be an electable candidate. Feel free to vote for him in the primaries though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will not secure the Republican nomination and will thus not be an electable candidate. Feel free to vote for him in the primaries though.

What groups take issue with him? I can understand that senior citizens would, are there any other major demographics?

 

I could look this up myself but it'd take more time. Also I have to go to lunch soon.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Paul Ryan actually running? If not, that would probably be a good reason to vote for someone else...

Well, unless you're planning on voting for someone other than me. In that case I'd prefer that you do vote for Paul Ryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Paul Ryan actually running? If not, that would probably be a good reason to vote for someone else...

I just looked it up. There's an NPR story from 7 hours ago that says he's not running. But Paul Ryan was just a starting point, I was only vaguely thinking that he'd be good. The main reason that I started this thread was so I could hear ideological debates about the positions of the different candidates who are running... please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, unless you're planning on voting for someone other than me. In that case I'd prefer that you do vote for Paul Ryan.

9556612.jpg

 

 

I just looked it up. There's an NPR story from 7 hours ago that says he's not running. But Paul Ryan was just a starting point, I was only vaguely thinking that he'd be good. The main reason that I started this thread was so I could hear ideological debates about the positions of the different candidates who are running... please?

Well, Michelle Bachmann says she can lower gas prices to $2/gallon. I believe she can achieve that goal, but I see that as more of a threat than a promise.

 

I have real concerns about Rick Parry and Santorum because of their open willingness to make national policy decisions based on the edicts of their particular religious faiths. I have no problem with strongly religious people in office (and I couldn't care less that Romney and Huntsman are Mormons), but I think it is very much a problem when the tenets of a particular religion are enacted into law solely or primarily because of their religious character. That kind of policy-making is divisive, offensive, and contrary to the values of pluralism and religious neutrality that I think the US should embody and promote.

 

(Something about Ron Paul)

 

As for Mitt Romney, he seems like he's trying really hard to be president, you cannot fault him for lack of desire. But he reminds me a lot of John McCain in 2000 and 2008. I think that if you took McCain or Romney and put them in a room where they could govern as they pleased without any input from the outside world or having to worry about election/re-election, they would probably be amazing, moderate leaders (sure, a right-leaning moderate, but the kind of non-polarizing moderate that would usually get huge support from across the political spectrum). But because he is so moderate (hell, let's be honest and say "reasonable"), Romney thinks that he'd fail in the GOP primaries if he ran on his record as governor. So instead he's changed his mind on loads of issues (or, at the very least, refused to acknowledge some of his own past successes). This means that primary voters see Right Romney now on the campaign trail, but they have reason to be concerned that Reasonable Romney would be the one to move into the White House. As a result, I expect Romney (like McCain before him) will have to give primary voters some assurances that they would get Right Romney (promising certain policies, surrounding himself with certain people, etc.), but ultimately those same assurances will lose him general election support, perpetuate our horribly divisive politics, and Obama will end up beating McCain #2 anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9556612.jpg

 

 

 

Well, Michelle Bachmann says she can lower gas prices to $2/gallon. I believe she can achieve that goal, but I see that as more of a threat than a promise.

 

I have real concerns about Rick Parry and Santorum because of their open willingness to make national policy decisions based on the edicts of their particular religious faiths. I have no problem with strongly religious people in office (and I couldn't care less that Romney and Huntsman are Mormons), but I think it is very much a problem when the tenets of a particular religion are enacted into law solely or primarily because of their religious character. That kind of policy-making is divisive, offensive, and contrary to the values of pluralism and religious neutrality that I think the US should embody and promote.

 

(Something about Ron Paul)

 

As for Mitt Romney, he seems like he's trying really hard to be president, you cannot fault him for lack of desire. But he reminds me a lot of John McCain in 2000 and 2008. I think that if you took McCain or Romney and put them in a room where they could govern as they pleased without any input from the outside world or having to worry about election/re-election, they would probably be amazing, moderate leaders (sure, a right-leaning moderate, but the kind of non-polarizing moderate that would usually get huge support from across the political spectrum). But because he is so moderate (hell, let's be honest and say "reasonable"), Romney thinks that he'd fail in the GOP primaries if he ran on his record as governor. So instead he's changed his mind on loads of issues (or, at the very least, refused to acknowledge some of his own past successes). This means that primary voters see Right Romney now on the campaign trail, but they have reason to be concerned that Reasonable Romney would be the one to move into the White House. As a result, I expect Romney (like McCain before him) will have to give primary voters some assurances that they would get Right Romney (promising certain policies, surrounding himself with certain people, etc.), but ultimately those same assurances will lose him general election support, perpetuate our horribly divisive politics, and Obama will end up beating McCain #2 anyway.

 

If you want Barack Obama to win, vote for Obama.

 

If you want Obama to win and the Democrats regain congress, vote for Bachmann in the primaries.

 

If you want Obama win as well as the Democrats win coongress but actually have to debate/confront issues in the campaign, vote Paul.

 

If you want Obama to win but the Republicans keep both houses, vote for Perry or Romney.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problems with each candidate:

 

Romney - Romneycare will smoke him with the Tea Party

 

Perry - Bush comparisons

 

Bachman - "Controversial positions" (batshit crazy)

 

Paul - Too liberal on social issues

 

Source: Sabato's Crystal Ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problems with each candidate:

 

Romney - Romneycare will smoke him with the Tea Party

 

Perry - Bush comparisons

 

Bachman - "Controversial positions" (batshit crazy)

 

Paul - Too liberal on social issues

 

Source: Sabato's Crystal Ball

Also:

 

Romney - Magic Underwear

 

Perry - Graduated from a state school with a 2.2GPA.

 

Bachman - Has never sponsored a bill that later became law.

 

Paul - Does not understand evolution. Litmus test failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - Does not understand evolution. Litmus test failed.

Biology isn't relevant to the presidency, and it seems like Romney and most other R candidates wouldn't believe in evolution either.

 

Paul really seems like the best option.

 

I might just vote for him anyway, even though he'll lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biology isn't relevant to the presidency, and it seems like Romney and most other R candidates wouldn't believe in evolution either.

The point of a political litmus test is that it gives insight into the candidate's thought process, more than just their stance on that one issue. So biology may not be particularly relevant, but the blind rejection of widely-accepted science probably is relevant.

 

And nothing says you have to pick an R candidate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of a political litmus test is that it gives insight into the candidate's thought process, more than just their stance on that one issue. So biology may not be particularly relevant, but the blind rejection of widely-accepted science probably is relevant.

I don't think that believing in creationism is the equivalent of rejecting all science. I'm 99% sure that he believes that science is good, just like every other American who uses technology like computers and the automobile. It's probably more of a political move than anything else to go on record saying that you don't believe in evolution, and all other candidates are Christian too, which means they share a similar set of biases.

 

Even a non Christian candidate would still be human, and thus have biases. There's nothing to show that Paul's biases would be more extreme.

 

And nothing says you have to pick an R candidate...

If there's a Democrat who's serious about cutting spending, I'll definitely vote for them. I don't know of any, but that's what this thread is for. I thought that it was mostly Republicans who were talking about cutting spending, but now that I think about it, that seems like a convenient political strategy for most of them. If a Democrat said they'd cut spending (during the primaries), it wouldn't be politically strategic, which means that I'd trust them much more.

 

A Democrat who's willing to cut spending significantly actually sounds ideal. I just don't think there are any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there's a Democrat who's serious about cutting spending, I'll definitely vote for them. I don't know of any, but that's what this thread is for. I thought that it was mostly Republicans who were talking about cutting spending, but now that I think about it, that seems like a convenient political strategy for most of them. If a Democrat said they'd cut spending (during the primaries), it wouldn't be politically strategic, which means that I'd trust them much more.

 

A Democrat who's willing to cut spending significantly actually sounds ideal. I just don't think there are any.

 

Obama's capitulation to Republican demands on the debt ceiling seem to suggest he's the Democrat for you!

 

bush-obama.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that it was mostly Republicans who were talking about cutting spending, but now that I think about it, that seems like a convenient political strategy for most of them.

Yeah, Republicans do talk a lot about the debt and cutting spending. But they tend to suck at it once they get into the White House.

 

debt.jpg

 

Edit: Even the tea party's own short-sighted policies don't appear to be cutting spending (and may in fact increase spending substantially). So be wary of any GOP candidate that gets too cozy with the base.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How elitist of you.

How so? I would prefer to be governed by someone who was either smart enough or invested enough in the value of education to get better grades.

 

I don't think that believing in creationism is the equivalent of rejecting all science. I'm 99% sure that he believes that science is good, just like every other American who uses technology like computers and the automobile. It's probably more of a political move than anything else to go on record saying that you don't believe in evolution, and all other candidates are Christian too, which means they share a similar set of biases.

Many Christian candidates, such as Obama, accept the scientific method and support evidence based judgements. That a candidate does not accept evolution is not an indication that they "reject[] all science," but rather that they base their views of how the world functions in such a way that openly ignores evidence. There is a big difference in believing in the unprovable (e.g. religion) and disbelieving the proven. This is the thought process point that Ian brought up. You bring up a good point that it may only be a political move. This is hard to say. I would hope that Paul with his advanced training in science that he would know better than to actually believe what he articulates. I'd like to say that there's something worrying about a politician lying to the public, but to say one could base one's voting decision on that would be naive.

 

If there's a Democrat who's serious about cutting spending, I'll definitely vote for them. I don't know of any, but that's what this thread is for. I thought that it was mostly Republicans who were talking about cutting spending, but now that I think about it, that seems like a convenient political strategy for most of them. If a Democrat said they'd cut spending (during the primaries), it wouldn't be politically strategic, which means that I'd trust them much more.

A Democrat who's willing to cut spending significantly actually sounds ideal. I just don't think there are any.

This is true, but as Ian hints at, there probably aren't any other electable candidates willing to cut spending either. Cutting spending has some popularity in the abstract, but when you get to specific discussions of where the money should come from it becomes politically impossible, in the current social climate. To paraphrase John Steward, something is only an entitlement if it benefits somebody else. If you are benefiting then it is the hallmark of a civilized society.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutting spending has some popularity in the abstract, but when you get to specific discussions of where the money should come from it becomes politically impossible, in the current social climate. To paraphrase John Steward, something is only an entitlement if it benefits somebody else. If you are benefiting then it is the hallmark of a civilized society.

Plus, we're still in a shitty economy. Like it or not, but cutting government spending during a slow economy generally makes things much worse, not better (as explained by Keynesian economic theory). So cutting spending in the next presidential term will not only be unpopular, but may actually be the objectively wrong play.

 

The quicker we get into real recovery, the quicker we can make cuts easier, pay down debt, and/or do other long-term financial health moves.

 

 

There is a big difference in believing in the unprovable (e.g. religion) and disbelieving the proven.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that believing in creationism is the equivalent of rejecting all science. I'm 99% sure that he believes that science is good, just like every other American who uses technology like computers and the automobile. It's probably more of a political move than anything else to go on record saying that you don't believe in evolution, and all other candidates are Christian too, which means they share a similar set of biases.

1) You're conflating science with technology

2) They do have a problem with the scientific heuristic for understanding the world

 

 

Even a non Christian candidate would still be human, and thus have biases. There's nothing to show that Paul's biases would be more extreme.

Really? Not liking increased spending is radically different than not believing in evolution. One is an opinion, a normative description of what should happen-- evolution is a verifiable fact about material reality.

 

If there's a Democrat who's serious about cutting spending, I'll definitely vote for them. I don't know of any, but that's what this thread is for. I thought that it was mostly Republicans who were talking about cutting spending, but now that I think about it, that seems like a convenient political strategy for most of them. If a Democrat said they'd cut spending (during the primaries), it wouldn't be politically strategic, which means that I'd trust them much more.

 

A Democrat who's willing to cut spending significantly actually sounds ideal. I just don't think there are any.

Why do you care what they say? Obama has been Bush 2.0-- the spinelessness he showed in the debt ceiling debate was amazing. He will cave and cut more.

 

Vote obama?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? I would prefer to be governed by someone who was either smart enough or invested enough in the value of education to get better grades.

 

Kidding. On an unrelated note, if Palin were running in the primaries, I would register as a Republican just so I could help get her the nomination.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...