|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I see your point about thinking universally, but at the same time I don't totally agree with it.
The fact is, there is no candidate that has the interest of the entire society running in the 2012 election. So what choice do I have?
I'll use my vote to choose the candidate that will benefit my family (taxing wisely, ed policy, health care, etc...) and America (get us out of two wars, spend wisely, ed policy, health care, etc...). It seems like a win win. Why can't I choose someone who does what's good for me and does the greatest good for America too? Let's face it, there is no candidate who has the intrest of the entire US society in mind. I'm not even sure that's possible.
Gay rights are important, I'm not going to deny that. You say we should choose people based on universal reasons. Well, I want a president who prioritizes his agenda according to what effects all American's universally. I'm sorry, but gays getting married doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect the morons who think two dudes getting married in New York somehow degrades the value of their marriage in Texas either. I do want a president who would allow gay couples to get married. But I'm not going to turn away from someone who I agree with on almost everything else on except for that.
If there were two candidates, one I agree with on everything and the other I agree with on everything but his stance on gay marriage I'd choose the first guy. But there is no candidate I identify with 100%, so I'm choosing the guy who represents my views on what I think is most important.
I think one of the reasons democracies are so effective is that by having everyone vote their own mind, the system almost takes care of itself in that it reflects the desires and concerns of the entire country in the candidates that are chosen to create and administer policy. The problem here is that special interest groups basically run our country. So the people who are voting basically come second to small groups that have our country wrapped around their finger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| I don't understand how you can possibly think the way I approach voting is wrong. |
Because it's not conducive to bringing about an ideal society. |
It seems to me like jrwhite82 has realised that no perfect party exist and is picking the lesser evil, how is that wrong, and how would picking another party bring us any closer to an ideal society?
I am not American, but (largely based on this video) voting for Ron Paul seems like a good option for bringing the US one step further away from a one party state, which is more important for bringing about an ideal society than gay rights or gun restriction policies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| The fact is, there is no candidate that has the interest of the entire society running in the 2012 election. So what choice do I have? |
Have you considered voting third party? Some might consider that ineffective because it likely won't lead to that party's election, but throwing support behind a fanatic like Ron Paul is also ineffective for the same reason, and unlike Ron Paul (who will be retiring after he fails to become President and his congressional term ends), those parties will stay around and at least have the potential to become real contenders some day.
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| Well, I want a president who prioritizes his agenda according to what effects all American's universally. I'm sorry, but gays getting married doesn't affect me. |
Yes it does. Even if it does not affect you by paining your conscience or affecting a loved one, institutionalized discrimination is a reinforcer of a dysfunctional culture -- a culture which you must live in every day. Further, that culture of hate produces individuals who are very easy to politically manipulate using that hatred. Anti-gay, anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic, and anti-Black sentiment have all proven to be vulnerabilities which those who do not have our country's best interests at heart can and have used to achieve office and remain there.
And this is just gay marriage, which is the easiest issue for the critic to trivialize. When we branch into women's rights, worker's rights, trade policy, environmental regulation, and so forth, the idea that these things don't seriously affect us all becomes absolutely indefensible.
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| I think one of the reasons democracies are so effective is that by having everyone vote their own mind, the system almost takes care of itself in that it reflects the desires and concerns of the entire country in the candidates that are chosen to create and administer policy. The problem here is that special interest groups basically run our country. So the people who are voting basically come second to small groups that have our country wrapped around their finger. |
Oh no, you're not going to get away with blaming special interests for the sorry state of American politics. The dominance of special interests is a symptom of the problem in American politics, not the malady itself. The malady is the voting base, and the voting base is dysfunctional in no small part due to the philosophy I'm condemning in this thread. Sure, there are people who vote straight Republican or straight Democrat, but even those people generally vote in that fashion because the issues that 'matter to them' happen to be party-line issues. And much as people like to pretend otherwise, being an independent isn't intrinsically superior to being a party-line voter. It can be, but only if you're independent for the right reasons, something most independents are obviously not. The voting philosophy you're describing is not at all uncommon, and it's reached its logical conclusion in modern American politics. I see nothing to recommend it; the three-or-four-issues voter is just as easy for special interests to work around as the one-issue voter is. Only a systematic approach to society can stand up to special interests.
| UknowsI wrote: |
| I am not American, but (largely based on this video) voting for Ron Paul seems like a good option for bringing the US one step further away from a one party state, which is more important for bringing about an ideal society than gay rights or gun restriction policies. |
America is not a one party state. Perhaps you meant a two party state (in which case you'd still be wrong; Ron Paul's ultra-extreme philosophy may distance him somewhat from other Republicans, but he's still ultimately a Republican, and still votes with his party the majority of the time) and just misspoke, or perhaps you're playing the simply untrue, "There's no difference between the parties!" card. If one's real goal is to get a third party involved in the process, voting Republican Ron Paul is not the way to go about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| America is not a one party state. Perhaps you meant a two party state (in which case you'd still be wrong; Ron Paul's ultra-extreme philosophy may distance him somewhat from other Republicans, but he's still ultimately a Republican, and still votes with his party the majority of the time) and just misspoke, or perhaps you're playing the simply untrue, "There's no difference between the parties!" card. If one's real goal is to get a third party involved in the process, voting Republican Ron Paul is not the way to go about that. |
There are only two ways to vote, so saying he usually votes with Reps conceals the fact that on the most important issues he almost always votes against them: wars and ending the Fed.
Ron Paul is a Republican in name only. He began as a Libertarian, the party for whom he was the presidential candidate in 1988, and only switched to Reps to take advantage of their organization to have a better chance in national politics. There is no question that if he were elected it would represent a sea change in our polity.
My God, what have we come to when abiding by the Constitution is considered "ultra extreme"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UknowsI wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| I don't understand how you can possibly think the way I approach voting is wrong. |
Because it's not conducive to bringing about an ideal society. |
It seems to me like jrwhite82 has realised that no perfect party exist and is picking the lesser evil, how is that wrong, and how would picking another party bring us any closer to an ideal society?
I am not American, but (largely based on this video) voting for Ron Paul seems like a good option for bringing the US one step further away from a two party state, which is more important for bringing about an ideal society than gay rights or gun restriction policies. |
Bold is my fix. The PRC is a one party state. The US is a two party state.
I understand Fox's point. Many people vote out of naked self-interest rather than for the benefit of society as a whole. But I don't know if this is something jrwhite82 actually does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The US is a one-party state with two wings, with little difference of significance between them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| The US is a one-party state with two wings, with little difference of significance between them. |
So what you mean is that it is a two-party state that represents its people poorly. Oh, no, right. You're a conspiracy theorist. You think everything is controlled by evil puppetmasters. So you can honestly sit here and call the US a one-party state.
The rest of us in the reality-based community? We can't call it that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| You're a conspiracy theorist. You think everything is controlled by evil puppetmasters. So you can honestly sit here and call the US a one-party state. |
And after watching the clip in the OP, you don't think so??? 
| Quote: |
| The rest of us in the reality-challenged community? We can't call it that. |
Fixed it for ya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| You're a conspiracy theorist. You think everything is controlled by evil puppetmasters. So you can honestly sit here and call the US a one-party state. |
And after watching the clip in the OP, you don't think so???
|
What you have there is gross, gross media establishment bias. You don't need to engineer a conspiracy to produce status quo bias. People exhibit this all the time. But even so, I will grant that some conspiracies exist. For example, its perfectly plausible to me that Fox News and Murdoch's holdings are deliberately sidelining Ron Paul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
And the evil puppetmasters have nothing whatsoever to do with the major media outlets, right?  Defense contractor General Electric doesn't own NBC, right?
Why am I telling you all this when you know it already? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've voted for Ralph Nader before and looking back on it, I feel torn between thinking it was a wasted vote and knowing that my effort to use my vote as a message to tell Gore and Bush (D/R that I didn't like either one too much at the time) was a noble effort.
About the gay marriage issue, I'm not disagreeing with you on the issue. But it's just not that important to me. If there was a chance for me to vote directly on the issue (like California had on their last ballot), I'd vote in favor of allowing gay marriage. (But now we are talking direct democracy and that has it's pitfalls as well) If the candidate I'm backing also wants to allow gay marriage that will make me back him more (that sounded weird...). But it is only a small issue I use in weighing my choice.
I think it's foolish to weigh all issues equally. There is no way to have it all ways unless you vote for yourself. You always have to make a choice when you vote. No candidate represents your stance on every issue 100%.
I don't see how you can't blame special interest groups for controlling the dialogue during elections, lining politician's pockets, writing legislation, funding campaigns, etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
And the evil puppetmasters have nothing whatsoever to do with the major media outlets, right? Defense contractor General Electric doesn't own NBC, right?
Why am I telling you all this when you know it already? |
Yeah, I agree. Special interests are protecting their interests. I don't see how that makes it a one-party state, though. They still have to lobby, cajole, and there's a risk that they might yet fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Problem being that what is "right" or "right for society" means different things to different people. |
This. An "objectively correct" society sounds nice in theory but attempts to create it are usually ruinous.
How do we agree on what makes the best society? And then how do we establish objectively correct answers for achieving it? Any "science of human flourishing" as some would put it is a fantasy at this point.
Of course we should strive for social justice for all. Of course. But an objectively correct value system for doing so is, in my opinion, not in the cards anytime soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| The US is a one-party state with two wings, with little difference of significance between them. |
So what you mean is that it is a two-party state that represents its people poorly. Oh, no, right. You're a conspiracy theorist. You think everything is controlled by evil puppetmasters. So you can honestly sit here and call the US a one-party state.
The rest of us in the reality-based community? We can't call it that. |
The Council on Foreign Relations is not a conspiracy theory. Nor is the Trilateral Commission. Nor is the Bilderberg Group. Nor is the fact that all of the most powerful members of both parties are members of these same groups.
Both parties are indeed run by the exact same interests. It is a conspiracy fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| Ron Paul is a Republican in name only. |
Let's not play the No True Scotsman game.
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| My God, what have we come to when abiding by the Constitution is considered "ultra extreme"? |
Plenty of the things Ron Paul opposes are constitutional, so let's not pretend this is merely a matter of, "Oh, Ron Paul just wants us to abide by the Constitution." It's not. Ron Paul takes his extreme political world view and projects it onto the Constitution.
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| I don't see how you can't blame special interest groups for controlling the dialogue during elections, lining politician's pockets, writing legislation, funding campaigns, etc... |
I do blame them for that, but only in a petty, proximate sense. If they didn't take advantage of these vulnerabilities, some other group would. I'm not trying to excuse their behavior necessarily -- they obviously aren't participating in society in a good faith fashion in many cases -- but if one wishes things to be better, one must look to the real root cause, and the real root cause of the state of American politics is the American voter. Wish away every single special interest lobbyist and political action committee in America, and by next year they'll have bloomed again anew if the American voter has no changed in character in the interim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
