Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Gary Johnson - Libertarian for President - 2012
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:27 pm    Post subject: Re: TheAtlantic endorses . . . Gary Johnson Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Leon wrote:
[I agree with all of this. The frustrating thing is that the only other viable candidate is calling Obama weak in all these areas and saying that he would do all of this, except more so.

And where does it stop? How bad do the Republican and Democrat "viable" candidates have to be before significant groups of Americans start voting for someone else?


The other candidate are all bad in their own ways. If I say that I don't like Romney or Obama, someone will say hey vote for Gary Johnson. What if I also don't like Gary Johnson, but for completely different reasons. I love Johnson's stance on the drug war, and I'm not entirely sure about his views on foreign policy but I suspect they are closer to mine than the other two, but I think libertarian economic policies are bad. My biggest issue is not going to war in the Middle East, or anywhere really, again. Since I'm a resident in North Carolina, a swing state, I have to consider which of the two viable candidates is least likely to take us to war. Both have the potential, but one is much less so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:35 pm    Post subject: Re: TheAtlantic endorses . . . Gary Johnson Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
comm wrote:
Leon wrote:
[I agree with all of this. The frustrating thing is that the only other viable candidate is calling Obama weak in all these areas and saying that he would do all of this, except more so.

And where does it stop? How bad do the Republican and Democrat "viable" candidates have to be before significant groups of Americans start voting for someone else?


The other candidate are all bad in their own ways. If I say that I don't like Romney or Obama, someone will say hey vote for Gary Johnson. What if I also don't like Gary Johnson, but for completely different reasons. I love Johnson's stance on the drug war, and I'm not entirely sure about his views on foreign policy but I suspect they are closer to mine than the other two, but I think libertarian economic policies are bad. My biggest issue is not going to war in the Middle East, or anywhere really, again. Since I'm a resident in North Carolina, a swing state, I have to consider which of the two viable candidates is least likely to take us to war. Both have the potential, but one is much less so.


Yeah, if I lived in a swing state, I'd vote for Obama because he is the lesser of two evils and there ARE big differences between the two. Maybe not in the way they'd treat corporate America nor in some other key ways, but enough to compel me to vote for Obama.

Alas I currently live in a place where over 90% of the vote in pretty much every Presidential election is for the Democratic candidate, so I will vote for Johnson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:48 pm    Post subject: Re: TheAtlantic endorses . . . Gary Johnson Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
The other candidate are all bad in their own ways. If I say that I don't like Romney or Obama, someone will say hey vote for Gary Johnson. What if I also don't like Gary Johnson, but for completely different reasons.

Then I'm sure you could find a political group that does align with your opinions which you could then joyously promote over the two warmongering corporatists on the bigger party tickets. Taking sides in the Obama/Romney false dichotomy only promotes covering up the down sides that they both share. And if liberals don't give Obama flak for extra-judicial killings, oppressive Federal drug enforcement and global military empire, then why would the Democrat party even consider changing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:58 am    Post subject: Re: TheAtlantic endorses . . . Gary Johnson Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Leon wrote:
The other candidate are all bad in their own ways. If I say that I don't like Romney or Obama, someone will say hey vote for Gary Johnson. What if I also don't like Gary Johnson, but for completely different reasons.

Then I'm sure you could find a political group that does align with your opinions which you could then joyously promote over the two warmongering corporatists on the bigger party tickets. Taking sides in the Obama/Romney false dichotomy only promotes covering up the down sides that they both share. And if liberals don't give Obama flak for extra-judicial killings, oppressive Federal drug enforcement and global military empire, then why would the Democrat party even consider changing?


No, no political group aligns with my beliefs, at least in America. What the democratic party says the stand for comes the closest, but I don't really like what they are currently doing. Voting is a zero-sum game, at least in a swing state. As I previously said my number 1 issue is not going to war again. It is clear who I will have to reluctantly support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you do not like Obama or Romney, by all means, you don't have to vote for either one. You are free to make that choice.

But, what I dislike is the people who say they are the same or a false dichotomy. If you cannot see the differences or understand how better/worse this country will be with one of the two "major" candidates, then I cannot help you.

I think there are two historical/social trends that we have to consider:

1. The United States, for good or for bad, it is not my place to say, has moved significantly to the right, as in right-wing. That is the political reality that any leader has to navigate.

That is the political reality that the U.S. President, Obama, has to face. Again, for good or for bad, Obama has tried to position himself in the center, as a President for all Americans, irregardless of political point of view. Personally, I think Obama tries to be principled rather than ideological, and in the process sometimes upsets people on the left and on the right.

If you want to see a different range of federal policies, you need to change the political tenor of the country first. If there were a center-ward movement in the American political landscape, I suspect both Republicans (though I am somewhat dubious because the Republicans seem much more ideologically driven in my point of view than the Democrats) and Democrats would have a more center-ish policies.

In terms of Obama, you saw a right-ward shift in his policies after the midterm elections. And, now, that the electorate mood has shiftward center-left-ward, Obama has moved in that direction as well. I suspect we will see a new Obama, at least for the next two years, if he is re-elected.

2. I believe this is the traditional perspective on the two-party system and while I realize it is not without its troubles, I think there is enough accurate interpretation to justify mentioning it here: The two party system has provided stability and a certain protection from tyrrany of the minority to the American democractic-republican system.

If we had a party for every person's point of view in the country, we would have 300 million parties. Party politics, democracy itself, requires that we have to compromise on some of our beliefs. It would be nice on one level to be a dictator and re-make the world in our view, but on the other hand it would be terribly wrong because of its impact on personal freedom. In a democracy, we can have some of our interests and values representatives but not all.

Good luck finding a leader who is so wise and charasimatic that he or she can be everything to everyone.

So, we have a two-party system, which mixes democratic choice among political-administrative experts (at least people with more experience). We can participate in this process to the extent of our interests and abilities, and the outcomes, from our subjective experience, reflects our personal participation and our ability to participate. In other words, if you don't like the leaders we are producing, particpate in the process more.

Our two major political parties have produced a candidate each, through a long drawn out democratic process, where the people have had some direct say in the outcome. These candidates have addressed their ideas on the problems facing the country, how each one would solve them, and the philosophies by which they would lead the country. Now, it is time for the American people to choose which direction they want the country to head.

The system may not be perfect and our leaders may be far from perfect but their lack of perfection only reflects the lack of perfection in humanity, including in each and everyone else here.

I understand that some would like to tear-down the sytstem and start from scratch but I would ask: at least tell us what the plan is - don't just tell us that things are bad and we have to start over - tell us what would be better.

In the meantime, I would say, that as Obama is the incumbent, any vote not for Obama, is a vote for Romney. And, if you want to wake-up after the election with Romney in the whitehouse, that is your choice. But, also remember, that is a realistic possibility. And, a Romney presidency would be very different than an Obama presidency, for both good and bad, I don't know, but it would be different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
caniff



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A vote for whomever you think will hasten the collapse is probably the best option. It's coming anyway, so let's get it over with so we can pick up the pieces and (hopefully) move on to something better.

At this point Obama looks like the man. Rmoney would probably drag it out somewhat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
If you do not like Obama or Romney, by all means, you don't have to vote for either one. You are free to make that choice.

But, what I dislike is the people who say they are the same or a false dichotomy. If you cannot see the differences or understand how better/worse this country will be with one of the two "major" candidates, then I cannot help you.


The criticisms of Obama and Romney as being far too similar in far too many essential aspects have been very specific. Your defense of them as being somehow different has been very vague.

What specifically do you think Obama would do differently and better (and why would that be an important and relevant difference)?

Quote:
any vote not for Obama, is a vote for Romney


Only if the person would otherwise have voted for Obama.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
Unposter wrote:
If you do not like Obama or Romney, by all means, you don't have to vote for either one. You are free to make that choice.

But, what I dislike is the people who say they are the same or a false dichotomy. If you cannot see the differences or understand how better/worse this country will be with one of the two "major" candidates, then I cannot help you.


The criticisms of Obama and Romney as being far too similar in far too many essential aspects have been very specific. Your defense of them as being somehow different has been very vague.

What specifically do you think Obama would do differently and better (and why would that be an important and relevant difference)?

Quote:
any vote not for Obama, is a vote for Romney


Only if the person would otherwise have voted for Obama.


I think in terms of foreign policy there is a difference. I think that while they both have the potential to start another war, I think the possiblity is less under Obama than Romney. It's hard to tell what is just rhetoric, but from the way that Romney talks and presents his ideas about foreign policy, I think it's a real difference. Obama's foreign policy is far from ideal, but Romney seems pretty gungho about throwing our weight around and too blase about potential conflicts. Another area is social issues, if you're gay, or have friends who are, or just don't like unequal treatment, Obama is very clearly a better candidate. This is just two obvious differences. Yes there are meaningful, and important, differences between the two parties. They both share many of the same flaws, but to ignore all the differences isn't feasible, because while third parties are good, one of the two will be president.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, I am not trying to advocate any candidate. I am merely trying to say there are differences between the Republican and Democratic candidates. And, I also don't think that some similarities are all that bad either; it would be nice to have some concensus.

Anyway, this is not an exhaustive list but here are some examples of differences:

1. The type of judges they would appoint.

2. One would try to keep "Obamacare" and the other would try to dismantle it.

3. One would support social security and medicare and the other would limit or eliminate benefits for those who are currently under 55.

4. One would most likely reform the tax code to benefit the wealthiest and the other wouldn't.

5. One would support financial aid to educational institutions and the other would most likely try to dismantle them.

6. One would be more likely to support unemployment benefits and retraining credits and the other would try to cut funding.

7. One would support cuts in military spending and the other would like to increase military spending.

8. Both would like to cut domestic spending but one would cut it much deeper and much quicker than the other.

9. One would support abortion rights, access to contraceptives and has at least said that he is personally in favor of gay marriage and the other would try to limit or end abortion rights and is decidedly against gay marriage.

10. One might have to go along with their party in re-writing rape laws and access to contraceptives (though I doubt he agrees with it) and the other wouldn't.

11. One would have to go along with their party to cut benefits to injured and disabled veterans and the other wouldn't.

12. One might have a foreign policy with a focus that the U.S. was the lone superpower and should be able to do whatever it wants and the other would focus on working with allies, though both would persue American interests within those frameworks.

13. One might work for peace in the middle east while the other might persue a middle east policy with the interests of Israel as the sole defining issue.

14. One would work hard to eliminate government unions and worker protections and the other would probably ignore the issue all together.

15. I think one candidate is much more ideologically driven and will be forced to work with the more ideologically driven party and the other is more pragmatic. Personally, I don't think either is good or bad but just merely that they would be two different styles.

16. I think one candidate will be much more mainstreet focused, though not as much as I would personally like, and the other will be much more Wall Street focused. Again, this is a style difference.

Anyway, I am not a mouthpiece of either of the two major candidates for President. This is just my perception of the issues.

The debates are upon us. We will hear the two major candidates speak about specific issues. If you still cannot see the differences, you should be able to do it then.

I understand that some want "revolutionary" changes. I would not expect that to happen with either candidate. To become a presidential candidate of either major party, you need somewhat normative values, and that is exactly what we have, though the rhetoric would have you believe that both candidates are anything but that, which to me, only shows how important having normative values are to being President and to being an effective President. So, yes, there are similarities. Gary Johnson told Jon Stewart that he is a Republican on economic issues and a Democrat on social issues, which are the best of both parties. So, yes, even Gary Johnson would have some similarities to an Obama or a Romney Whitehouse. But, there would also be real differences and this is the point. To a certain extent, saying there would be no differences between an Obama presidency and a Romney presidency, is just political mumbo-jumbo to put forth a particular political agenda, and is not a way to analyze the good or bad qualities that either of the major political candidates bring to the office. I would also say that there is a reason (as mentioned in my previous post) why the American political system works this way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
geldedgoat wrote:
Unposter wrote:
If you do not like Obama or Romney, by all means, you don't have to vote for either one. You are free to make that choice.

But, what I dislike is the people who say they are the same or a false dichotomy. If you cannot see the differences or understand how better/worse this country will be with one of the two "major" candidates, then I cannot help you.


The criticisms of Obama and Romney as being far too similar in far too many essential aspects have been very specific. Your defense of them as being somehow different has been very vague.

What specifically do you think Obama would do differently and better (and why would that be an important and relevant difference)?

Quote:
any vote not for Obama, is a vote for Romney


Only if the person would otherwise have voted for Obama.


I think in terms of foreign policy there is a difference. I think that while they both have the potential to start another war, I think the possiblity is less under Obama than Romney. It's hard to tell what is just rhetoric, but from the way that Romney talks and presents his ideas about foreign policy, I think it's a real difference. Obama's foreign policy is far from ideal, but Romney seems pretty gungho about throwing our weight around and too blase about potential conflicts. Another area is social issues, if you're gay, or have friends who are, or just don't like unequal treatment, Obama is very clearly a better candidate. This is just two obvious differences. Yes there are meaningful, and important, differences between the two parties. They both share many of the same flaws, but to ignore all the differences isn't feasible, because while third parties are good, one of the two will be president.


A potential Supreme Court appointment in the next presidential term is also a place the two would no doubt differ, something surely non-trivial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
caniff



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Either way it's a crap sandwich. It would behoove all Americans to wake up and understand this fact and stop pretending that the system itself isn't rotten to the core.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of finding candidates who we agree with, I just found this today, and I must admit, I have a bit of a soft spot for such quizzes. My results put me 75% in agreement with Jill Stein (Green), 72% (!) with Gary Johnson, 39% with Rocky Anderson (Justice Party), 34% with Barack Obama, 21% with Virgil Goode (Constitution Party), and a paltry 7% with Mitt Romney. You can also see a specific breakdown of the fields you agree or disagree with each candidate on (for example, gun control & state-selected minimum wages are my tiny patch of common ground with Romney).

If you take the test, do not just say yes/no. Chech the other options, which allow for a lot more nuance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Speaking of finding candidates who we agree with, I just found this today, and I must admit, I have a bit of a soft spot for such quizzes. My results put me 75% in agreement with Jill Stein (Green), 72% (!) with Gary Johnson, 39% with Rocky Anderson (Justice Party), 34% with Barack Obama, 21% with Virgil Goode (Constitution Party), and a paltry 7% with Mitt Romney. You can also see a specific breakdown of the fields you agree or disagree with each candidate on (for example, gun control & state-selected minimum wages are my tiny patch of common ground with Romney).

If you take the test, do not just say yes/no. Chech the other options, which allow for a lot more nuance.


84% with Green Party candidate Jill Stein, 79% Obama, 74% Gary Johnson, 10% Mitt Romney, and 61% with American voters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also took the test.

Be aware that at the bottom of each issue are additional questions, should you desire to answer them. You can see the difference when you compare Fox's answers on foreign policy issues with mine. You'll notice he missed the hidden questions.

Also, and I missed this the first time and so I retook it, pay attention to the "choose another stance" option. I even wrote in my own stance for a few questions (notably economics questions).

Jill Stein would be a better candidate if she had served at some higher office than merely Town Legislator for Lexington, Massachusetts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did not notice the extra questions. When I add them in, I shoot up to 83% agreement with Gary Johnson, and down to 63% with Jill Stein. Rocky Anderson and Obama also go up to over 50%. Mitt Romney stays at 7%. Perhaps he ought to violate his deep-ingrained principles and flip on a few issues if he wants the elusive Fox vote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Page 15 of 17

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International