Scratch

I was going to append this to my last post, but since someone else has already replied and quoted it, I'll put it in a new post.

If there is one thing that annoys me, it's people who think that the election can be decided by a single issue. Or to be more basic, people who think that based on one statistic they can get the complete story.

Here, you're citing one stat for the entire depression - debt. If you're going to judge the economy based on debt, why are people criticizing Obama for the unemployment? As you can see with jvvg's chart, unemployment was around 25% at the end of Hoover's presidency. Then there is a steady decrease,a slight worsening, then another decrease, all of which started before U.S. involvement in World War 2. Your chart doesn't even go up until U.S. involvement. (December 7th, 1941) There is no way you can say that the economy worsened under Roosevelt just because of the debt. He brought the unemployment down from ONE IN FOUR AMERICANS.

At the same time, I think it is irrational to chose the election based on just the economy. Regardless of the pros/cons of the Romney/Ryan plan, I'd gladly stay at the current state of the economy (even though it is clearly improving under Obama)  if it meant we were withdrawing troops from the Middle East and not going to war with Iran. THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN THE ECONOMY, PEOPLE. LIKE THE LIVES OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS.

16Skittles wrote:

I was going to append this to my last post, but since someone else has already replied and quoted it, I'll put it in a new post.

If there is one thing that annoys me, it's people who think that the election can be decided by a single issue. Or to be more basic, people who think that based on one statistic they can get the complete story.

Here, you're citing one stat for the entire depression - debt. If you're going to judge the economy based on debt, why are people criticizing Obama for the unemployment? As you can see with jvvg's chart, unemployment was around 25% at the end of Hoover's presidency. Then there is a steady decrease,a slight worsening, then another decrease, all of which started before U.S. involvement in World War 2. Your chart doesn't even go up until U.S. involvement. (December 7th, 1941) There is no way you can say that the economy worsened under Roosevelt just because of the debt. He brought the unemployment down from ONE IN FOUR AMERICANS.

At the same time, I think it is irrational to chose the election based on just the economy. Regardless of the pros/cons of the Romney/Ryan plan, I'd gladly stay at the current state of the economy (even though it is clearly improving under Obama)  if it meant we were withdrawing troops from the Middle East and not going to war with Iran. THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN THE ECONOMY, PEOPLE. LIKE THE LIVES OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS.

While I perfectly agree with you, we often talk about one issue at a time (like we were here) to make discussion easier to follow. That way, the discussion flows better.

Anyway, yes, I think that issue has pretty much been exhausted and we should move on to something else. So, anybody have anything to say about the Middle East (or any other issues besides the economy) right now?

16Skittles wrote:

Let's lower taxes for everyone. Sure, we can't afford to pay for teachers, police, firefighters, or making sure the poor don't go hungry, but if the rich people have even MORE money they'll create jobs, right? While we're at it why don't we start more trillion dollar wars that we can't pay for? That'll get the economy going and reduce the deficit. -- Romney/Ryan Plan

you must eat up whatever Obama tells you. I feel bad for you.

jvvg wrote:

obfuscate wrote:

personally I find that engaging politics distracts me from my larger goal of loving everyone and loving life

I don't have very many friends, so I don't really need to worry about that, and politics is at least a way to use my mind. think on my feet and sometimes to vent my anger for me.

I don't think loving everyone really dictates your friend amount.

I could say I love everyone but it doesn't mean I speak to them much or have ever talked to them. I just value them because they are a person, I suppose.

Laternenpfahl wrote:

can't we just get rid of this...

Yeah, that would be nice.

Like I said, an easier solution that could be implemented is just having the electors from each state vote for the national winner.

Alright, here's what I think.
Each candidate has his pro/cons. Everyone has heir own reason for choosing that candidate.

jvvg wrote:

backspace_ wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

Let's lower taxes for everyone. Sure, we can't afford to pay for teachers, police, firefighters, or making sure the poor don't go hungry, but if the rich people have even MORE money they'll create jobs, right? While we're at it why don't we start more trillion dollar wars that we can't pay for? That'll get the economy going and reduce the deficit. -- Romney/Ryan Plan

you must eat up whatever Obama tells you. I feel bad for you.

And you must eat up everything Romney tells you. I feel even worse for you. You have to eat up the "fact" that cutting taxes on everybody while increasing spending won't increase the deficit by a lot or cause massive tax hikes on the middle class, you have to believe that nothing in the Middle East has happened, even though the war in Iraq is over, and so on and so forth.

that's baseless. I suppose I like Romney a little, and I do not like Obama at all, but I'm more independent than anything else. I also notice you keep emphasizing the same points about Romney over and over because those seem to be your only topics of attack against Romney.

jukyter wrote:

I remember some quote like "voting for the third vote is throwing your vote away"
I guess I kinda agree

That might be true for people who live in states in which the race is close.  But as a Californian I get to vote for the candidate I really want. 

(Sorry if someone said this before; I just discovered this thread and don't think I can make it through 38 pages!)

jukyter wrote:

The majority of the world runs on the two party system

No, actually.  AFAIK only the US.  Apart from the one-party countries, everyplace else has half a dozen or so.

(Or was this one of the things you later said we weren't supposed to take you seriously about?)

illusionist wrote:

Every other debate topic is silly when you understand what it means.

You know, other people say that about global warming.  Still other people say it about population growth.  When I was a kid, some people said it about Communism ("better dead than red").  I myself have been known to say it about the class struggle.

So I hope you won't take it as an insult to your own favorite topic if I disagree that it's the only serious topic.

yousmiledatme wrote:

I live in the UK and despite the fact we currently have a Lib-Con coalition it's the first time the third party has been voted in since 1940

Yeah, good point.  I guess Europe is narrowing.

But, even if the Liberals don't win, everyone in the UK knows they exist, and they don't have trouble getting their views in the media.  Right?

Anyone seen the "Romnesia" speech?

16Skittles wrote:

>> Says I'm a sheep
>> I ask him to explain his reasoning
>> Ignored
>> This guy...

I think that a tax plan that will hurt the economy and a desire to start more middle eastern wars is a pretty good argument against a candidate, and that isn't even including topics like marriage equality and so on.

Edit: 4444th post 

That's a cool story there bro.
I was just to lazy to research on this, it was a little late :B
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending
Here's one that talks about spending according to the governer.
http://www.mittromney.com/JobsPlan?gcli … nAodEXsApw
Here's one that talks about tax cuts and job increase.


For me choosing a candidate, it really comes down to Democrats lie outside most of my moral beliefs, and also that Obama's HSS Mandate forces companies to fund abortion, even if it is against their moral values, essentially breaking the right to religious freedom.