|
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-11 13:33:39
I don't want to buy insurance, but I don't want to pay a tax for not having insurance either.
Before 2010, that was completely possible. Now, not so.
But tell us why, in order to solve the problem of rising healthcare costs, the democrats/liberals thought it was a good idea to force insurance onto people?
And yes, they are forcing it on us. It is a law, and the punishment of not complying with the law is a tax. So, it is forcing people to purchase a product they may not want or need. And yet you can still choose not to buy insurance.
The law is almost 6 years old now. The 'why' should be familiar. I would have to pay a penalty if I don't buy insurance. Why isn't this getting into your skull? Are you being obtuse on purpose, or is this a natural trait for you?
[+]
By Ramyrez 2016-03-11 13:36:08
I kinda feel like you're deluding yourself if you say that some people who otherwise wouldn't have voted for Obama didn't go out and vote for him because he's black.
Yes, he's the party/candidate they'd have preferred regardless.
But they got out there and voted because it was something new and different and exciting. Just like Hillary has some people who get out there and vote because she's a woman.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuutttttt.
Here's the caveat there.
There are also people who wouldn't have voted otherwise going out and voting against them for the same reasons.
So while it may not 100% balance out, I suspect it's a lot closer than some would have you believe.
I do, in fact, know people first-hand who voted against Obama just because he's black. By admission.
Rural Pennsylvania can be every bit as racist as anywhere you'll find in the country, and it's revolting.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-11 13:45:12
There are also people who wouldn't have voted otherwise going out and voting against them for the same reasons.
So while it may not 100% balance out, I suspect it's a lot closer than some would have you believe. I highly doubt that many people voted against Obama because he was black.
I didn't vote for Obama either election because he is an idiot who did drive this country down the tubes, both as a global standpoint and on domestic issues. This was one time I wish I wasn't proven right.
Too many people voted for Obama because he was black. Way too many. Race should not be a reason to vote for or against somebody.
[+]
 Cerberus.Pleebo
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2016-03-11 13:49:40
Too many people voted for Obama because he was black. And you know this how?
Administrator
サーバ: Hyperion
Game: FFXIV
Posts: 701
By Drama Torama 2016-03-11 13:50:00
If he did such a terrible job, he wouldn't have been re-elected.
Incumbents have an incredible advantage, at basically every level of politics. Just getting to avoid the primary process (usually) is a giant leg up, as you avoid the internecine bloodletting that always happens.
You can get re-elected pretty easily despite doing a poor job, either because your opponent isn't great that cycle, or they're too beat up from internal fighting in the primary cycle.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-11 14:07:04
Too many people voted for Obama because he was black. And you know this how? , or you are just trolling.
I understand that, but I highly doubt he would have been re-elected if he put America in such a terrible shape on his first term with his policies. People exaggerate. You don't understand US politics. Which is understandable because you are Canadian.
[+]
By Ramyrez 2016-03-11 14:08:23
Bush was equally reviled going into his second term and was still re-elected.
"Status quo" is the desired state for many, many people. Normalcy is preferred over anything else.
That, at least, is understandable, if not an entirely laudable mindset.
By Ramyrez 2016-03-11 14:10:11
There are also people who wouldn't have voted otherwise going out and voting against them for the same reasons.
So while it may not 100% balance out, I suspect it's a lot closer than some would have you believe. I highly doubt that many people voted against Obama because he was black.
I didn't vote for Obama either election because he is an idiot who did drive this country down the tubes, both as a global standpoint and on domestic issues. This was one time I wish I wasn't proven right.
Too many people voted for Obama because he was black. Way too many. Race should not be a reason to vote for or against somebody.
You can say and speculate how you like. I can't give specific numbers either.
But I can tell you of people I know who voted specifically due to his race -- only a handful, admittedly -- more voted against than for.
But that's still more than you can verify, it seems. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just saying that it was a factor both for and against him that really has to be acknowledged.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-11 14:14:02
There are also people who wouldn't have voted otherwise going out and voting against them for the same reasons.
So while it may not 100% balance out, I suspect it's a lot closer than some would have you believe. I highly doubt that many people voted against Obama because he was black.
I didn't vote for Obama either election because he is an idiot who did drive this country down the tubes, both as a global standpoint and on domestic issues. This was one time I wish I wasn't proven right.
Too many people voted for Obama because he was black. Way too many. Race should not be a reason to vote for or against somebody.
You can say and speculate how you like. I can't give specific numbers either.
But I can tell you of people I know who voted specifically due to his race -- only a handful, admittedly -- more voted against than for.
But that's still more than you can verify, it seems. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just saying that it was a factor both for and against him that really has to be acknowledged. Sure, there wasn't an exit poll out there that said "Did you vote for Obama because he was black?" but you can draw conclusions based on the information given. Such as the unusually high turnout for black voters during the 2 elections Obama was on there, along with the dissonance shown in this current cycle, along with the lack of showing during off-cycle elections (2010 and 2014, respectfully).
Considering that the vast majority of black votes went towards Obama, and the high turnout, it's easy to say that he was elected because of the color of his skin. To even deny any of this is just showing some people with their head in the sand (or up their *** in the case of a certain few posters here).
[+]
 Valefor.Sehachan
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2016-03-11 14:15:19
Didn't Obama inherit the US in 2008? Good luck to literally anyone with that.
Libya is everyone involved's fault. But Sarkozy was the imbecile with the easy trigger.
IS goes back much much more than Obama's presidency.
I can't say anything about the healthcare policy though because I never looked into it.
[+]
By Ramyrez 2016-03-11 14:18:40
Sure, there wasn't an exit poll out there that said "Did you vote for Obama because he was black?" but you can draw conclusions based on the information given. Such as the unusually high turnout for black voters during the 2 elections Obama was on there, along with the dissonance shown in this current cycle, along with the lack of showing during off-cycle elections (2010 and 2014, respectfully).
Considering that the vast majority of black votes went towards Obama, and the high turnout, it's easy to say that he was elected because of the color of his skin. To even deny any of this is just showing some people with their head in the sand (or up their *** in the case of a certain few posters here).
I think you're stretching it a little beyond reason at the moment, but I already defended your statement regarding Obama getting votes for due to being black. That's as far as I'm extending that particular olive branch on this one.
Cerberus.Pleebo
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2016-03-11 14:18:51
You can't be that obtuse, or you are just trolling. So you're making an assumption based on turnout. I'll then assume a high proportion of white votes for Romney meant they only voted for him based on his lack of pigmentation.
[+]
By Ramyrez 2016-03-11 14:20:43
Didn't Obama inherit the US in 2008? Good luck to literally anyone with that.
It's just going to go back and forth, Seha. Bush inherited Clinton's blunders that kept the good times rolling during his years but caused problems for Bush, and just when Bush was getting things where they had to be, wouldn't you know, America wrongly blamed him and gave the election to some black socialist Muslim.
Who will, in turn, leave everything a flaming pile of ***for whoever is next and that person's party -- whatever it is -- will blame the last couple of guys and so on and so forth.
"Garbage in, garbage out. This is the best we can do, folks."
--George Carlin.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2016-03-11 14:25:32
If he did such a terrible job, he wouldn't have been re-elected. Incumbents have an incredible advantage, at basically every level of politics. Just getting to avoid the primary process (usually) is a giant leg up, as you avoid the internecine bloodletting that always happens.
You can get re-elected pretty easily despite doing a poor job, either because your opponent isn't great that cycle, or they're too beat up from internal fighting in the primary cycle. I understand that, but I highly doubt he would have been re-elected if he put America in such a terrible shape on his first term with his policies. People exaggerate.
Would you say the same thing about George W. Bush?
[+]
By Ramyrez 2016-03-11 14:28:03
Would you say the same thing about George W. Bush?
I already covered this!
Edit: Admittedly it was in a "they all suck, *** it Dude, let's go bowling" way, but still.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2016-03-11 14:30:50
You can't be that obtuse, or you are just trolling. So you're making an assumption based on turnout. I'll then assume a high proportion of white votes for Romney meant they only voted for him based on his lack of pigmentation.
Well, anyone who would have actually admitted out loud that they voted for Romney because he's white would have been publicly shamed and ostracized. Voting for Obama because he's black was socially acceptable. Ask Samuel L. Jackson.
Valefor.Sehachan
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2016-03-11 14:36:04
Gore!
I think.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-11 14:37:27
Gore in 2000 (think Florida's hanging chad) and Kerry in 2004.
Cerberus.Pleebo
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2016-03-11 14:38:13
You can't be that obtuse, or you are just trolling. So you're making an assumption based on turnout. I'll then assume a high proportion of white votes for Romney meant they only voted for him based on his lack of pigmentation.
Well, anyone who would have actually admitted out loud that they voted for Romney because he's white would have been publicly shamed and ostracized. Voting for Obama because he's black was socially acceptable. Ask Samuel L. Jackson. And if one person did publicly admit that, I wouldn't generalize it to everyone else like you have with Sam Jackson.
By Ramyrez 2016-03-11 14:54:16
You can't be that obtuse, or you are just trolling. So you're making an assumption based on turnout. I'll then assume a high proportion of white votes for Romney meant they only voted for him based on his lack of pigmentation.
Well, anyone who would have actually admitted out loud that they voted for Romney because he's white would have been publicly shamed and ostracized. Voting for Obama because he's black was socially acceptable. Ask Samuel L. Jackson.
Well. (Un)fortunately, in my old neck of the woods, you don't get so much shamed and ostracized for admitting such, you just get people around you letting you show yourself off as ignorant while they're sharing knowing glances and sighing at the lack of the 20th century managing to find its way to all the dark corners of Pennsyltucky yet.
So yes. I can tell you, with confidence, there are at least three unrelated people of whom I'm aware who felt Obama was unfit to run the country by virtue of his skin pigmentation alone.
Inversely, I know a single person who wouldn't have bothered to vote at all. He leans left anyhow, but he felt he should do his best to see history got made. Also not the most praiseworthy of mindsets, but it's at least a little more positive than the other.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2016-03-11 14:59:16
You can't be that obtuse, or you are just trolling. So you're making an assumption based on turnout. I'll then assume a high proportion of white votes for Romney meant they only voted for him based on his lack of pigmentation. Well, anyone who would have actually admitted out loud that they voted for Romney because he's white would have been publicly shamed and ostracized. Voting for Obama because he's black was socially acceptable. Ask Samuel L. Jackson. And if one person did publicly admit that, I wouldn't generalize it to everyone else like you have with Sam Jackson.
It was the most well-known example. He's definitely not the only one. If you really think Obama's skin color didn't play a key part in his election, then you're just willfully blind. A record number of blacks didn't get out to vote for his policies alone, I assure you.
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11338
By Garuda.Chanti 2016-03-11 18:42:23
Would you say the same thing about George W. Bush? I'd say he gave America what they wanted, vengeance at any cost. I wasn't much into politics back then and even less into American politics. I can't even say against who he was running for his first and second term. Look up project for a new American century and neoconservative.
Forum Moderator
サーバ: Excalibur
Game: FFXIV
Posts: 25992
By Anna Ruthven 2016-03-11 19:21:39
Watching the news and there's a protest at a Trump rally in Chicago. I'm pretty sure I just saw a sign that said "Trump puts ketchup on his hot dogs."
[+]
 Cerberus.Eugene
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2016-03-11 20:18:17
Watching the news and there's a protest at a Trump rally in Chicago. I'm pretty sure I just saw a sign that said "Trump puts ketchup on his hot dogs." 
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-11 20:40:48
How insulting! Only mustard is allowed on hot dogs!
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|
