873,000 Jobs in September

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Darvince
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:59 am UTC
Location: Some weird alternate reality

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Darvince » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:16 am UTC

This massive amount doesn't seem to be legitimate, or even possible. Maybe an average between the two could be possible, but it's definitely towards the retainment level of new jobs.
If it's Good enough for Randall, it's Good enough for Me

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:39 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:Eh, there's still ideological consistency in not wanting to pay payroll taxes but still accepting the benefits of those taxes later. You are right, of course, that hypocrisy runs deep.


I don't consider it hypocrisy. A person could reasonably believe that he could get better gains than social security if he invested the money himself. Such a person might or might not be correct...but refusing social security benefits would be a worse gain than either option. So, if he's objecting to social security on practical, not moral grounds, there's no hypocrisy.

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Impeach » Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:58 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
Impeach wrote:This answer comes from a complete lack of understanding of any side of the argument but your own. Whether or not the 'single payer' system will help unemployment really doesn't matter to me. I do not think that the federal government should have the power to mandate that I purchase anything and on that note I disagree with the law. That is the main objection to the law: it sets the precedent that the government can spend your money for you as part of their plan for the greater good. Oh and it's not a word that people are afraid of. They just use the word (which word do you even mean?) to refer to what they are afraid of because it's easier than saying "you know, that thing we were talking about before which was bad and scary."


A: "government can spend your money for you as part of their plan for the greater good" is a decent working definition of any government that runs on taxes. It's also what happens when the government requires a business owner to spend money to adhere to regulations, or when the government requires you to buy auto insurance when you drive, or when the government requires you to buy and wear clothing if you're going to leave your house, or when the government requires you to pay property taxes toward education if you own property, or...

B: The entire problem with using "socialism" as a shorthand for "that thing which was bad and scary" is the shorthand part. It precludes the speaker and the listener from explaining or understanding why something is bad and scary. This leaves an opening for an unscrupulous speaker to say "X is socialism" in order to signal that X is bad and scary, when X is not bad and scary and would not be considered as such by the listener if you explained what X actually was.


I would have to disagree with A. A government is not supposed to be there to push their own agenda onto us. Since the tax money is actually OURS then it should be used to fund OUR plan, not the plan of the people who take it from us. If we as taxpayers don't start insisting that the agenda being funded with our money must be ours, then an absurdly high military budget, the war on drugs, the TSA, and the presidential dictatorial kill list are not going away. Sounds crazy but I really think that directing where our own money gets spent will help make sure that bullshit like that doesn't get paid for unless we agree. Sounds extremist but I think that is fair.

For B, do you mean people should define their terms? I agree with that.

Impeach wrote:
Malice wrote: An absolute failure of the most basic ideas that this country was founded on? Have you read the Constitution lately? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Tell me how Obama's policies would violate our founding ideas. Please.

Bush fucked with the right to trial much worse than Obama, who at least got a significant number of Gitmo detainees into court. Obama droned that one guy, true, and he's not great on civil liberties in this area. But very few people on the right are criticizing him for that, particularly because the Republican party barely seems to care. It's certainly not part of Romney's platform (and since he's all things to all people, that's saying something).

"But since Obama removed that right, it's all good?" Most liberals have issues with Obama; he's not a perfect President or a perfect candidate. But he's the only sane choice. Ask most liberals and they'll tell you they wish there was a real opposition party that wasn't based in fiction and lies so we could have a real conversation about these issues.


Yes the indefinite detention of American citizens without the right to a trial, the actuall murder of american citizens via drone strike, the seeking of UN approval over congressional approval for war and other various acts of treason are a pretty clear failure or our constitution. Have YOU read the constitution lately? If so, you wouldn't need me to point out how Obama has violated it. If you are really asking me, not just rhetorically, I can certainly show you which part(s) of the constitution he has violated.

As for Bush, who the hell cares? Why does it matter what Bush did? We are talking about Obama and whether or not his policies are constitutional or not. Who cares who 'on the right' is criticizing him? What does any of that have to do with whether or not you are personally OK with a presidential kill list? It IS the kill list and other policies you care about, not the candidate, right? I mean, if Romney ran on a "rape you twice a week" campaign where as Obama had a more palatable "Rape you once a week" campaign, you still wouldn't vote for him, would you?


I am personally pretty okay with the President's kill list (although part of that is because I trust Obama not to abuse that power). Pretend I weren't, though: what are my options? I can speak out about it, I can write my Congressman, I can yell at Obama and protest in front of his house, but at the end of the day I can't vote for the other guy because I would rather get raped once a week than twice. (Note: I think the gulf between those two candidates is significantly wider than that; whatever moral qualms I may have over Obama killing a handful of individuals, they don't amount to hill of beans compared to a guy who will restrict civil rights, start a war [which will kill way more people than Obama's drones], and tank the economy.)

The larger point is that because Romney is the shittiest candidate I've seen nominated in my lifetime, I do not have the ability to use my most potent weapon against the Obama policies I dislike--ie., vote for somebody else. If Romney was a better candidate in a better party, I might still vote for Obama (I'm to the President's left on most issues), but I would very much like to have that choice and that weapon. Party democracies cannot function without sane opposition. Until we have a credible group of people who can argue that Obama shouldn't be droning people and that they themselves wouldn't drone people (or worse), I can't do a fucking thing to stop the droning. But talking about the droning will end up depressing Democrats and lowering voter turnout and handing the keys to the country to those other chucklefucks who want a land war in Iran. So harping on this shit is actively harmful.


I don't understand what you mean by trusting Obama not to abuse that power. The presidential kill list is an abuse of power in and of itself. Obama has already ordered the killing of more than one american citizen without a trial. Legally, that's murder. Their rights were protected by the same constitution that yours are, but now they aren't. How are you OK with that? Do you also trust him with the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial? Is it fair for him to have that power just because he is 'liberal'? And did you ACTUALLY just argue that people should stop calling Obama out for his unconstitutional ways because people might get upset and not vote for him? That stuff MUST be talked about and the president MUST be held to task EVERY TIME NO MATTER WHAT. I hate Romney just as much as you do (Actually I probably hate him 10 times more) but how shitty a candidate he is will not have an affect on how shitty a voter I am. I am not going to compromise on the right to not be kidnapped and murdered because 'the' other guy is worse. I will never vote for these things because it subsidizes insanity and as you said, we need a sane opposition. People really have to start thinking outside this one dimensional democratic/republican nominee spectrum because both ends are obviously covered in shit. The system has been organized like this for so long that the the two parties have become big brand names that people just automatically trust to be the best. Anyone from anywhere else must automatically not be a real candidate so everyone just makes the same stupid mistake every 4 years. You vote for people instead of their policies.

And of course Obama compares to "a guy who will restrict civil rights, start a war [which will kill way more people than Obama's drones], and tank the economy." I mean, you aren't saying that they CONTRAST there, are you?

Impeach wrote:
Can you explain how the <8% numbers are bullshit?


Yes: more than 8% of the people in this country do not have a job.


That's not bullshit; that's varying standards of measurement. For better or for worse, the numbers the country uses consistently ignore people who aren't part of the workforce, including those who have given up looking for a job. "Real" unemployment numbers come with their own set of assumptions that must be explained--"Unemployment is X% but Y% of that are retired people and children, Z% of that is standard...".

The important thing, in the context of this thread and political/economic discussions in general, is that whatever measurement you use, it is lower now than it used to be. That's information we can act on.


Act away. The economy IS going to tank. Happy times from the Federal Reserve ahead :)

Employment reports are taken so that voters and the government should be informed. The AIDS virus that is the current Republican ideology has unfortunately spread to attack even nonpartisan government records-keeping systems.


Dude.... Those people are the real thing. Those are REAL people. Their concerns and hopes and dreams matter just as much to them as yours do to you. You CANNOT compare an entire school of thought to the AIDS virus just because you don't have any empathy with those people. Their motivations are just as human as yours and their wishes can't just be dismissed as not important because you disagree with them. How egocentric can you get? You've heard that dehumanization is the first step of genocide but have you ever realized that it is actually true?


I compared the ideology to the AIDS virus because like the virus the ideology attacks the very systems that are trying to correct it. The GOP ideology harms education out of ignorance, discredits objective sources of credibility (the CBO, the BSL), warps our language, biases our media by claiming bias, etc. In a very real way they have reacted to losing conversations by destroying the means of communication and the reliability of information--that's horrific and dangerous in a way that typical ideologies are not.


I totally agree with that. The most harmful part of their ideology, I think, is that they treat changing their minds as somehow losing a battle. When you present them with different information or different conclusions, instead of opening their minds and truly trying to see what they agree with and what they don't, they feel that information or ideas contrary to their own are somehow an attack on THEM, so they shut down and refuse to have a good look at the scene from your angle to see if they can spot what you are talking about. Obama supporters are the champions at this, though. They even make reasons for themselves why people who don't like Obama are cooks before they even say anything cooky.

I understand their motivations and I don't think they aren't people; but I think they are often ignorant, hypocritical, or malicious people whose actions are seriously harming the ability of this country to function and solve problems. They anger, sadden, and sometimes bewilder me. I don't want them to be genocided; I want them to stop. I want them to lose elections. I want them to be dragged, kicking and screaming in all probability, toward progress. In four years the rallying cry will be "keep your government hands off my O bamacare" and as a nation we'll be better off.


You and me both, brother. Except they The Affordable Care Act part. Keep your hands of of my rights and my wallet. O bamacare isn't actually mine because it was paid for by stolen money.

P.S. I can't say R on Paul, I can't say O bamacare. What gives, douches?
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:35 pm UTC

the Ronpaul thing is just a silly forum joke. The O-bamacare thing I don't understand at all. I got chided for including that in a thread title, since The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act seemed a little long, despite the fact that Obama himself has invited the use of that term. Maybe the mods here don't want Obama's name associated with it.

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Impeach » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:16 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:the Ronpaul thing is just a silly forum joke. The O-bamacare thing I don't understand at all. I got chided for including that in a thread title, since The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act seemed a little long, despite the fact that Obama himself has invited the use of that term. Maybe the mods here don't want Obama's name associated with it.


But for what pointless and petty reason?
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Azrael » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:20 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:P.S. I can't say R on Paul...

This was explained to you when last you asked.

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Impeach » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Impeach wrote:P.S. I can't say R on Paul...

This was explained to you when last you asked.


Well, you told me what "the Ronpaul" is a reference to but that doesn't explain to me why we have been forbidden from mentioning the libertarian candidate by name without telling jokes. Can I respectfully ask you to change this?
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:57 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:Well, you told me what "the Ronpaul" is a reference to but that doesn't explain to me why we have been forbidden from mentioning the libertarian candidate by name without telling jokes. Can I respectfully ask you to change this?
His name cannot be spoken. Merely to speak it would invoke His attention; and, by consequence, our destruction.

The filter is not a joke. It is a ward. In your desire to satisfy your innocent curiosity, do not test its protective power.

We dare not awaken the Ronpaul from His eternal slumber.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:05 pm UTC

That's just an urban legend. It's not like if you say Rοn Paul Rοn Paul Rοn Paul into a mirror he'll appear and ta

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:27 pm UTC

You have to write it in all caps. Otherwise, it's not legally binding.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:27 pm UTC

He's also not the libertarian candidate.

Derek
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Derek » Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:45 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:That's just an urban legend. It's not like if you say Rοn Paul Rοn Paul Rοn Paul into a mirror he'll appear and ta

the Ronpaul is nothing like Candlejack. For starters, the Ronpaul is a libertarians, while Candlejack's policies are based on a philo

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6565
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:59 pm UTC

Impeach, all this talk of libertarianism is great and all, but where were you during the republican primaries? What about the primaries for 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, and 2002? You don't get to hide for 10 years and then come out and diss the democratic candidate because he wants to be strong in foreign policy. Why are you complaining now when your vote matters the least? Why are you challenging a presidential race and not say state or congressional members? A third party challenge is best during primaries, where there are less voters and candidates are receptive to small groups.
You want a perfect candidate? Then fuck ronpaul, he's a racist piece of shit who takes money from white power groups. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/ ... l-has-said

We know Obama is a mediocre president, but he's a mediocre president that shares more of our positions than the other candidate. You can have fun being so principled that you get to watch, but not touch anything important. Look, libertarianism is an interesting concept, but I don't agree with any of their reasoning, just some shared goals. Like I would want the drug war ended, or to retreat from Afghanistan, but I'm just using them to get their votes for something I want. What's a libertarian gonna do if I want to end the war on drugs, but then I add later that we're gonna punish casual drug users with forced labor? What are you gonna do? Vote against it? How important is keeping all your principles? It's just one rape a month, I'm sure that's worth ending the war on drugs.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:10 pm UTC

As a Libertarian, I want to chime in with, I will never vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate until our party manages to elect at least one Congressman.

Also, the Ronpaul legitimately believes in conspiracy theories, in addition to his many other problems.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:06 am UTC

If it's a legitimate belief, the human mind has ways of shutting down conspiracy theories.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:16 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:As a Libertarian, I want to chime in with, I will never vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate until our party manages to elect at least one Congressman.

Also, the Ronpaul legitimately believes in conspiracy theories, in addition to his many other problems.


I will vote for the Libertarian candidate because my vote doesn't matter anyway (NY is going to Obama), I can't find enough to like about either candidate, but I don't want to not vote. Not voting is the worst that you can do, because then you truly don't matter. You aren't saying "I don't like the candidates, make them better", you are saying "don't bother appealing to me, because I'm too lazy* to get off my ass and vote". But vote for a third party, and you are saying "hey assholes, I'm a voter and you could've had this vote, maybe next time if you support the policies that I actually like, you could get my vote".

*Or you have people working 2 jobs and can't take the time off to vote. Granted that there's absentee ballots, but seriously, election day should be a federal holiday. It's far more 'patriotic' and 'American' than Labor Day, Veteran's Day, or Memorial Day.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Malice » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:19 am UTC

Impeach wrote:I would have to disagree with A. A government is not supposed to be there to push their own agenda onto us. Since the tax money is actually OURS then it should be used to fund OUR plan, not the plan of the people who take it from us. If we as taxpayers don't start insisting that the agenda being funded with our money must be ours, then an absurdly high military budget, the war on drugs, the TSA, and the presidential dictatorial kill list are not going away. Sounds crazy but I really think that directing where our own money gets spent will help make sure that bullshit like that doesn't get paid for unless we agree. Sounds extremist but I think that is fair.


This paragraph is nonsensical. It only makes sense if "The Government" were an alien entity that came to Earth every two years and fucked with your stuff according to its weird and alien agenda.

In reality, the government is made up of elected representatives, which means anything it does is our plan, we own it. You can argue that it's a bad plan and it should be changed; but it is our plan in every meaningful sense. Nobody is going to agree in total with everything the government does. The democratic process is about compromising with other people to create the best and most widely representative plan going forward. Enough people believe The Affordable Care Act should be enacted that, yes, it is our plan that our taxes be used for those things. Your task is to take up this argument with those people, not with "The Government".

Impeach wrote:I don't understand what you mean by trusting Obama not to abuse that power. The presidential kill list is an abuse of power in and of itself. Obama has already ordered the killing of more than one american citizen without a trial. Legally, that's murder. Their rights were protected by the same constitution that yours are, but now they aren't. How are you OK with that? Do you also trust him with the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial? Is it fair for him to have that power just because he is 'liberal'? And did you ACTUALLY just argue that people should stop calling Obama out for his unconstitutional ways because people might get upset and not vote for him? That stuff MUST be talked about and the president MUST be held to task EVERY TIME NO MATTER WHAT. I hate Romney just as much as you do (Actually I probably hate him 10 times more) but how shitty a candidate he is will not have an affect on how shitty a voter I am. I am not going to compromise on the right to not be kidnapped and murdered because 'the' other guy is worse. I will never vote for these things because it subsidizes insanity and as you said, we need a sane opposition. People really have to start thinking outside this one dimensional democratic/republican nominee spectrum because both ends are obviously covered in shit. The system has been organized like this for so long that the the two parties have become big brand names that people just automatically trust to be the best. Anyone from anywhere else must automatically not be a real candidate so everyone just makes the same stupid mistake every 4 years. You vote for people instead of their policies.


Well, for example: Obama ordered the killing that American citizen without a trial. That American citizen aided terrorists and lived in a country where we couldn't stop him from aiding terrorists other than with physical force. Drone strikes are the most cost-effective method we have for solving problems like that. I have yet to find a better solution, other than maybe using the Special Forces as black ops kidnappers (which is going to end up killing people anyway, including our own soldiers, and is equally damaging to the victim nation's sovereignty), and the only alternative is to not solve those problems and let our enemies continue to hurt us with impunity. I don't like this situation but drones seem to me to be the least bad option here. Do you have an argument that isn't just "but it's bad!"? Do you have other solutions to this problem, or a convincing argument as to why we can't afford to solve the problem? I'm open to changing my mind.

Yeah yeah yeah the system is broken both parties are bad blah blah blah wishing things were better is not going to change anything and in the meantime voting against Obama is, I believe, morally unconscionable.

Impeach wrote:You and me both, brother. Except they The Affordable Care Act part. Keep your hands of of my rights and my wallet. O bamacare isn't actually mine because it was paid for by stolen money.


What stolen money? Is all taxation theft? Or just taxation for programs you personally don't agree with? Do you have a better solution for the health care market?
Image

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:27 am UTC

Malice wrote:
Impeach wrote:You and me both, brother. Except they The Affordable Care Act part. Keep your hands of of my rights and my wallet. O bamacare isn't actually mine because it was paid for by stolen money.


What stolen money? Is all taxation theft? Or just taxation for programs you personally don't agree with? Do you have a better solution for the health care market?
New rule: Saying any variant of 'Taxation is theft!' immediately disqualifies you from participating in any sane discussion concerning government, taxation, or civilization in general. People who say things like this are not libertarians. They are 'internet libertarians'. IE, morons. You know how I can tell?

Because they say things like 'Taxation is theft!'.

Seriously, I want to treat people who say things like that as if they were grade-schoolers. Give them a lollipop, pet them on the head, and tell them "good luck passing 3rd grade next year, kiddo!".

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:36 am UTC

I once had a facepalm moment on these forums this afternoon when someone tried to argue that the US military is a mega-corporation.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6565
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby sardia » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:25 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I once had a facepalm moment on these forums this afternoon when someone tried to argue that the US military is a mega-corporation.

Hey, I take offense to that. I was responding to some guy who stated that the government spent the majority of the healthcare dollars like it was a dirty secret.
Edit: Oh, it was you.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:50 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:the Ronpaul thing is just a silly forum joke. The O-bamacare thing I don't understand at all. I got chided for including that in a thread title, since The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act seemed a little long, despite the fact that Obama himself has invited the use of that term. Maybe the mods here don't want Obama's name associated with it.


Yeah, I don't get it. It's not much of a pejorative term(well, I suppose it can be, depending on your side, but it certainly isn't always used like that). It made discussing the debates awkward occasionally.

Iulus Cofield wrote:As a Libertarian, I want to chime in with, I will never vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate until our party manages to elect at least one Congressman.

Also, the Ronpaul legitimately believes in conspiracy theories, in addition to his many other problems.


Meh. You don't vote for a lib presidential candidate because you expect them to win. That's not going to happen this time around. It's probably not going to happen next time around either. You do it because it garners publicity and shows what you want. Realistically, what will happen is, instead of the libertarian party suddenly dominating, one of the main two parties will shift closer to it to win those precious votes back.

That's still valuable though. I'm going to vote purely as a signal of "what I want". My state is going dem regardless, but I can still have a little effect.

That said, the ronpaul is not a candidate this time around, so I still wouldn't recommend voting for him now. That usually gets written off as "dumb voters" instead of taken seriously.

Malice wrote:This paragraph is nonsensical. It only makes sense if "The Government" were an alien entity that came to Earth every two years and fucked with your stuff according to its weird and alien agenda.

In reality, the government is made up of elected representatives, which means anything it does is our plan, we own it. You can argue that it's a bad plan and it should be changed; but it is our plan in every meaningful sense.


Meh, the alien entity theory sounds more reasonable. The idea that the elected representatives plan is our plan is...sketchy. For one thing, not everyone has equal influence on our representatives.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Well, for example: Obama ordered the killing that American citizen without a trial. That American citizen allegedly aided terrorists and lived in a country where we couldn't stop him from aiding terrorists other than with physical force. Drone strikes are the most cost-effective method we have for solving problems like that. I have yet to find a better solution, other than maybe using the Special Forces as black ops kidnappers (which is going to end up killing people anyway, including our own soldiers, and is equally damaging to the victim nation's sovereignty), and the only alternative is to not solve those problems and let our enemies continue to hurt us post mean videos to Youtube with impunity. I don't like this situation but drones seem to me to be the least bad option here. Do you have an argument that isn't just "but it's bad!"? Do you have other solutions to this problem, or a convincing argument as to why we can't afford to solve the problem? I'm open to changing my mind.
It violates the right to due process we've preserved for the most egregious of murderers and terrorists in the past. Sure, America could have bombed the hell out of Al Capone's house the moment we thought he was a shady character. Or the Unabomber's hut. Doing so may have even saved lives, but we didn't, because the right to due process for all Americans is more important.

It's dangerous for the brave men and women who volunteer to track down these assholes and bring them to justice. It's dangerous for the American people to have terrorists and murderers roam the streets while we gather evidence for a trial. But it's more dangerous to ignore the fundamental right to due process that all people share.
Malice wrote:Yeah yeah yeah the system is broken both parties are bad blah blah blah wishing things were better is not going to change anything and in the meantime voting against Obama is, I believe, morally unconscionable.
Voting to continue a broken two-party system is not going to change anything, and actually impedes those of us trying to effect change. Also voting for anyone who does not represent your views is, I believe, morally unconscionable.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5099
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Xeio » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:26 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Voting to continue a broken two-party system is not going to change anything, and actually impedes those of us trying to effect change. Also voting for anyone who does not represent your views is, I believe, morally unconscionable.
It would be impossible to morally vote then, since there's essentially a zero probability that you agree with a candidate on every position they have. It's always a compromise on some values.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:35 pm UTC

That depends on how many issues you're passionate about. If you're unwavering on 1000 different issues, then yes, you'll probably struggle to find someone who represents your view and be stuck voting for yourself. If, like most people, you have 3 or 4 or 5 things you really care about, then everyone can be represented well by a few dozen people.

What I think is ridiculous is the idea that everyone in America will answer 1000 political questions with all yeses or all nos.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby omgryebread » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:57 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:That depends on how many issues you're passionate about. If you're unwavering on 1000 different issues, then yes, you'll probably struggle to find someone who represents your view and be stuck voting for yourself. If, like most people, you have 3 or 4 or 5 things you really care about, then everyone can be represented well by a few dozen people.

What I think is ridiculous is the idea that everyone in America will answer 1000 political questions with all yeses or all nos.
But you can extend this. Romney and Obama agree, at least by necessity, on a lot of important issues, sure. Drug policy, it's likely Romney will be the same or perhaps worse, given his party, on things like drones, etc.

That being said, there's huge important issues they disagree on. I find it exceedingly unlikely that someone holds strong views about the issues they do agree on, while not being passionate about any they disagree on.


I think its important to talk about some of those issues as well, and why third party candidates can hold them, but major party candidates never do. I would suggest that this is sort of a shield provided by their obscurity. They don't have to take bland middle-of-the-road positions: those positions are designed to win over the bland, vapid, middle-of-the-road undecideds. Those who will see an ad that says "my opponents wants to let criminals out of jail!" and think "Oh gosh, soft on crime" when the opponent really wants to lessen penalties for drug crime. They're the ones who see a drone attack and say "Dead Terrorists! Fuck Yeah America!" They're a few percentage points. Points that Romney and Obama can't risk losing. But they're also points that Stein, Johnson, Goode, and Anderson can't lose, because those people don't even know who they are.

Those candidates also know they'll never have to sit down with their opponents and compromise. Johnson knows that he will never have to whip support that he won't get for shutting down Gitmo. Stein knows she won't have to sit down with representatives from the corporations she rails against and work out reasonable corporate regulatory policy. Goode knows full well that if he somehow were elected president, he'd never have the support to institute the theocracy he basically wants, but he knows he'll never have to try.

So imagine if those third parties were just within grasp of power. You don't think Johnson would sacrifice one of his planks if he thought it would win the election? That he wouldn't delay one of his policies for political reasons? (After all, look at his record on drug legislation as governor: talk about it, do nothing about it.)

Hell, the Liberal Democrats in the UK basically dropped 90% of their platform to join the Tories in government.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:11 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:But you can extend this. Romney and Obama agree, at least by necessity, on a lot of important issues, sure. Drug policy, it's likely Romney will be the same or perhaps worse, given his party, on things like drones, etc.

That being said, there's huge important issues they disagree on. I find it exceedingly unlikely that someone holds strong views about the issues they do agree on, while not being passionate about any they disagree on.


It's quite possible. I would LOVE to hear a candidate promise to axe TSA. That would probably guarantee my vote right there. I would love for one of the candidates to actually be knowledgeable on firearm issues. We've established in this last debate that neither of them are. I'd love for someone to actually clean up our drug laws and, yknow, come up with a rational system that doesn't focus efforts on pot dealers and the like.

These are all sufficiently important to me that if even one of them were strongly and smartly enunciated by either side, I would almost surely vote for that candidate. Things like the bickering over who can appear tougher on Iran...meh. Nobody want Iran to have nukes. We all know this. Whatever.

I think its important to talk about some of those issues as well, and why third party candidates can hold them, but major party candidates never do. I would suggest that this is sort of a shield provided by their obscurity. They don't have to take bland middle-of-the-road positions: those positions are designed to win over the bland, vapid, middle-of-the-road undecideds. Those who will see an ad that says "my opponents wants to let criminals out of jail!" and think "Oh gosh, soft on crime" when the opponent really wants to lessen penalties for drug crime. They're the ones who see a drone attack and say "Dead Terrorists! Fuck Yeah America!" They're a few percentage points. Points that Romney and Obama can't risk losing. But they're also points that Stein, Johnson, Goode, and Anderson can't lose, because those people don't even know who they are.


This sounds suspiciously like catering to the dumbest among us. I don't disagree that it happens...I just think it's what's killing us politically in more ways than just third party appeal.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby omgryebread » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This sounds suspiciously like catering to the dumbest among us. I don't disagree that it happens...I just think it's what's killing us politically in more ways than just third party appeal.
No argument here. I'm just saying voting for third parties isn't going to change it, and third parties would do it if it mattered.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:23 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This sounds suspiciously like catering to the dumbest among us. I don't disagree that it happens...I just think it's what's killing us politically in more ways than just third party appeal.
No argument here. I'm just saying voting for third parties isn't going to change it, and third parties would do it if it mattered.


I suspect that if a third party somehow got in, you'd have a small window of change before politics as usual kicked in. Let's take libertarians. They win, and Gary Johnson, after getting over his heart attack, gleefully pursues all the things he promised. Lots get blocked. Eventually, as compromise and stuff happens, the party will end up behaving like the big ones...but in the meantime, we might get some idealistic changes from that platform.

It's my hope that among those changes might be a fix to the voting system to ditch fptp. That's probably the best long term result to hope for.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby lutzj » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
omgryebread wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This sounds suspiciously like catering to the dumbest among us. I don't disagree that it happens...I just think it's what's killing us politically in more ways than just third party appeal.
No argument here. I'm just saying voting for third parties isn't going to change it, and third parties would do it if it mattered.


I suspect that if a third party somehow got in, you'd have a small window of change before politics as usual kicked in. Let's take libertarians. They win, and Gary Johnson, after getting over his heart attack, gleefully pursues all the things he promised. Lots get blocked. Eventually, as compromise and stuff happens, the party will end up behaving like the big ones...but in the meantime, we might get some idealistic changes from that platform.

It's my hope that among those changes might be a fix to the voting system to ditch fptp. That's probably the best long term result to hope for.


The cool thing about many of Johnson's positions is that they can be implemented on day one by the President. Federal drug enforcement, immigration, intelligence operations, the military... there are a lot of "bad things" the government does that must be willfully continued by the executive.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:25 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:But you can extend this. Romney and Obama agree, at least by necessity, on a lot of important issues, sure. Drug policy, it's likely Romney will be the same or perhaps worse, given his party, on things like drones, etc.

That being said, there's huge important issues they disagree on. I find it exceedingly unlikely that someone holds strong views about the issues they do agree on, while not being passionate about any they disagree on.

**raises hand**

You just mentioned two of my most important issues! Drugs and the War on Brown People! So you can understand why I can't in good conscience vote for anyone who wants to keep jailing potheads and bombing Pakistan. I don't really care about the finer details of tax policy that are being argued about right now.

As far as whether or not third party candidates have the integrity to follow through on their platforms, I'd say first we'll never know until we elect one, and second that it's far more likely that a person with integrity will succeed in securing the candidacy of a minor party over a major one.

Integrity is something that can't be determined prior to election, as evidenced by Obama, who despite my dearest hopes and expectations, immediately turned his back on many of his campaign promises after being elected.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Malice » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:25 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Malice wrote:Yeah yeah yeah the system is broken both parties are bad blah blah blah wishing things were better is not going to change anything and in the meantime voting against Obama is, I believe, morally unconscionable.
Voting to continue a broken two-party system is not going to change anything, and actually impedes those of us trying to effect change. Also voting for anyone who does not represent your views is, I believe, morally unconscionable.


Why? I'm honestly curious here--why do you think there exists a moral obligation to take meaningless stands?

I mean, we're a few weeks away from the election here. The 3rd party candidates are indisputably not positioned to win a single electoral vote, or even enough of the popular vote to change anything. In 1968 George Wallace won 10 million votes and 45 electoral votes. 4 years later the third party candidate, John Schmitz, ran under the same party as Wallace and received 1 million votes and no electoral votes. In '92 Ross Perot got 18% of the popular vote (and no electoral votes); 4 years later he ran again and got half that. The notion that a good showing in the Presidential race for a third party leads to later gains is demonstrably bullshit. Back in July one poll put even tentative support for any one third party candidate at 3% or less. (So low that both major parties have essentially ignored them, taking on none of the 3rd party's views--Obama, for instance, refuses to lighten up on marijuana, and Romney has swung from far-right to center-right and back without ever really engaging with Libertarians.) So what makes you think that 3% is going to do anything to help the state of third party candidates in the future?
Image

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

I don't. I simply believe in representative government, and that in order to have representative government, people need to vote for people who represent them. So that's what I'll be doing this election day.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:39 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I don't. I simply believe in representative government, and that in order to have representative government, people need to vote for people who represent them. So that's what I'll be doing this election day.
Okay. But you said that voting for someone who does not represent your views is morally unconscionable. In a sense, the only person who can represent your views is yourself; so we can take this to mean the only moral thing is to write ourselves in as a candidate.

You obviously don't mean that, so we can determine that you're willing to compromise between your views and the views of your representative. So what do you mean by this? 'Whatever I think of as too much compromise is morally unconscionable'?

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:52 pm UTC

Generally, I'm concerned with which issues are important to me and which issues the office-holder will have power over.

So I want a President who represents me in military policy, law enforcement policy, and foreign policy. For my local city councilman, I'm much more concerned about his opinions on the homeless population, and could really care less that we disagree on the Iraq War.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:59 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Generally, I'm concerned with which issues are important to me and which issues the office-holder will have power over.

So I want a President who represents me in military policy, law enforcement policy, and foreign policy. For my local city councilman, I'm much more concerned about his opinions on the homeless population, and could really care less that we disagree on the Iraq War.
That's perfectly fair, and perfectly reasonable, and pretty much what I think most sensible voters do.

What troubles me is that part of your moral stance here seems to call upon me to be an idealistic voter rather than a practical one. If candidate A and B are pretty terrible, and C's the only good choice--but C has, statistically, no significant chance of winning--it's not morally unconscionable for me to support the better of A or B anymore than it's unconscionable for me to throw all my support into C despite knowing C won't get elected.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:08 pm UTC

Why does C have no chance of winning? Because pragmatists (and the few people who are actually represented by A & B) tell all of us that C has no chance of winning and that voting your conscience is "throwing your vote away."

Statistically, your single vote is meaningless and will not affect the outcome of the election no matter who you vote for. So collectively, we can all vote honestly for a representative government, or we can all be oh-so-clever and vote for the lesser of two evils and continue Hurting America.
Last edited by Heisenberg on Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:18 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:11 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Why does C have no chance of winning? Because pragmatists (and the few people who are actually represented by A & B) tell all of us that C has no chance of winning and that voting your conscience is "throwing your vote away."

Statistically, your single vote is meaningless and will not affect the outcome of the election no matter who you vote for. So collectively, we can all vote honestly for a representative government, or we can all be oh-so-clever and vote for the lesser of two evils and continue Hurting America.
Yes, that's one way you can describe it. Another way you can describe it is: "As someone who's actually going to be living in this country for the next four years, I have an interest in using my vote--and my support--in such a way to ensure that the next four years is the best possible."

I understand that me using my vote for C--supporting C--represents putting long-term goals ahead of short-term goals (such as breaking the back of a two-party candidate system that consistently gives us a set of terrible choices). I also think choosing C is an excellent choice, and one I might make myself! But I don't think people who choose otherwise are 'morally unconscionable'.

I think they just have different values than my own, and they're expressing those values with their vote.

EDIT: To put it another way, what I'm saying is that I think you've created some sort of sinister voting hobgoblin who is a terrible person because they vote against their values. But practicality is a value too. What you're really complaining about is people voting against their best interests, and not realizing that this is the case. Which, yeah, I agree that's a problem, but voting against your best interest is not morally terrible; it's just a type of mistake.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6565
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby sardia » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:18 pm UTC

A far more effective strategy is to demand and push for 3rd party position stuff during the primaries. A candidate may not care for your views when he needs to compete for millions of other voters, but when he's in a townhall he'll sing a different tune. He may be deceptive, but he probably won't lie to you about his position. If anything, a decent primary challenge will make him sweat and think twice about not addressing 3rd party positions.

As to your desire to vote on the executive branch based on their use of executive positions, you have far more options than the president. Take for example the tea party judges and sheriffs in Arizona. They are actively fighting the administration on immigration and border patrol. You could easily imagine in a more libertarian state where judges and sheriffs actively ignore or block attempts to enforce drugs laws. If the president sends in the feds, then you can start a fight, and get the press over it, even start a lawsuit with supreme court challenge. All of these sheriffs and judges are all elected by small populations, often unopposed or in landslides. This is where primaries come into play. During the primaries, you could swamp an unprepared incumbent by either surprising him with a new candidate, or threatening the old candidate with a challenger unless he changes his position.
Basically, I'm advocating a tea party style insurrection, but for libertarians.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:24 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I also think choosing C is an excellent choice, and one I might make myself! But I don't think people who choose otherwise are 'morally unconscionable'.

I think they just have different values than my own, and they're expressing those values with their vote.

I was more expressing my own preferences in response to Malice's position that despite the fact that both parties are bad for America, not voting for them would be morally unconscionable, which I obviously disagree with.

I was trying to represent the other side of the "lesser of two evils" argument. I'm not condemning anyone who follows it, just trying to convey why my conscience won't let me follow that logic.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:25 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I was more expressing my own preferences in response to Malice's position that despite the fact that both parties are bad for America, not voting for them would be morally unconscionable, which I obviously disagree with.

I was trying to represent the other side of the "lesser of two evils" argument. I'm not condemning anyone who follows it, just trying to convey why my conscience won't let me follow that logic.
Fair enough, and pardon for taking it otherwise!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests