Vice Presidential Debate

[JJYanks121]

I'm going to assume you're saying this as a straight male, as opposed to a homosexual or a female.

Yes. I am a straight male. One who knows that social issues have been and should be less of a concern for a politician. Like I said, despite all these "evil" republicans that hate women, we still uphold Roe v. Wade.

And just so you know, I'm pro choice and pro gay marriage. I just know that these issues aren't as important to a presidential election in comparison to economic and foreign policy.

 

[Slyfox696]

Gay marriage, abortion, and any other social issue are meaningless in an election. We are in economic crisis and the best democrats can do to cover up for having a candidate who has made the economy even worse is "well he's not talking bad about abortion!"

Civil rights are never meaningless.

No president should even be THINKING about social issues and they haven't. No president has done shit about social issues in a long time and they shouldn't. In the grand scheme of things, those issues are not important.

This is false. Obama has done quite a bit for civil rights.

However, you missed my point. The point is that my friends that are Democrats seem to just knock the Republican candidates and talk about how their party supports abortion. That shouldn't be a priority and I stand by that. What I haven't seen much of is a Democrats ability to defend Obama's crazy spending and why we should believe that's going to change in act 2.

Because Obama HASN'T spent crazily. That's just a myth. The growth of federal spending under Obama is the second smallest increase since Nixon, with the only person to have done better is Clinton.

Yes. I am a straight male. One who knows that social issues have been and should be less of a concern for a politician. Like I said, despite all these "evil" republicans that hate women, we still uphold Roe v. Wade.

Mitt Romney doesn't believe in it.

But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

 

[klunderbunker]

If you're going to sit there and tell me that any politician is going to do ANYTHING to change the status quo with abortion when there is an economic crisis going on, then I don't think I'm the idiot.

Keep in mind the Democrats are still running on the "um well, we don't like Bush and all Reubs are like him" ticket, and Bush didn't touch abortion even though he's apparently evil and hates women too.

My point is that nobody is touching women's rights and to think otherwise is pretty stupid.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...mpts-to-close-its-lone-abortion-clinic/244069

This would be politicians trying to prevent abortions in Mississippi, which would be against Roe v. Wade, which says a woman has that right.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2012/gop-presidential-candidates/mitt-romney.html

This would be Mitt Romney saying that Roe v. Wade is wrong, but all he would have is the power to appoint people that could change that decision.

But I'm just an idiot that pays attention to the news.

 

[Slyfox696]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...mpts-to-close-its-lone-abortion-clinic/244069

This would be politicians trying to prevent abortions in Mississippi, which would be against Roe v. Wade, which says a woman has that right.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2012/gop-presidential-candidates/mitt-romney.html

This would be Mitt Romney saying that Roe v. Wade is wrong, but all he would have is the power to appoint people that could change that decision.

But I'm just an idiot that pays attention to the news.

You could have just done as I did, and pull a quote directly from Romney's own campaign website which shows he supports overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

[klunderbunker]

You could have just done as I did, and pull a quote directly from Romney's own campaign website which shows he supports overturning Roe v. Wade.

Me? Trust Mitt Romney? Dude go to sleep. You're working too hard.

 

[Slyfox696]

Me? Trust Mitt Romney? Dude go to sleep. You're working too hard.

You don't have to trust Romney to defeat JJYanks argument.

 

[JJYanks121]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...mpts-to-close-its-lone-abortion-clinic/244069

This would be politicians trying to prevent abortions in Mississippi, which would be against Roe v. Wade, which says a woman has that right.

But I'm just an idiot that pays attention to the news.

And has it happened? It has not.

Listen, I could fight you all night on actual policy but I won't. My point is that these issues aren't touched. Again, when the economy sucks and has gotten worse in 4 years (not a myth Slyfox), somehow I don't think if Romney's elected he'll go "ok, I've just been elected President of the United States. We have crazy debt, tons of foreign issues, lack of jobs, etc. What I should do though is say fuck all that, lets make abortion illegal first!"

If you honestly believe that's going to happen, nobody can help you.

And again, I'm all for abortion and gay rights. It's not that I'm not. I just know which issues are more important.

Just a little aside to this though, when I went to UF, the first friend I made (who I'm still friends with today) turned out to be bisexual. He also was the one who tried to get me to join the college republicans with him (I declined, I don't affiliate with a political party). We then became friends with a girl at Hillel who had an abortion as a junior in high school. She too joined the college republicans.

Look, both parties suck ass. It's just that you are tied up in one and can't see that the other isn't actually evil. I haven't believed that in years and it bothers me to see these myths flying around. Both parties inherently want to make this country better, they just have different ideas on how to do that.

 

[klunderbunker]

And has it happened? It has not.

Listen, I could fight you all night on actual policy but I won't. My point is that these issues aren't touched. Again, when the economy sucks and has gotten worse in 4 years (not a myth Slyfox), somehow I don't think if Romney's elected he'll go "ok, I've just been elected President of the United States. We have crazy debt, tons of foreign issues, lack of jobs, etc. What I should do though is say fuck all that, lets make abortion illegal first!"

If you honestly believe that's going to happen, nobody can help you.

And again, I'm all for abortion and gay rights. It's not that I'm not. I just know which issues are more important.

Just a little aside to this though, when I went to UF, the first friend I made (who I'm still friends with today) turned out to be bisexual. He also was the one who tried to get me to join the college republicans with him (I declined, I don't affiliate with a political party). We then became friends with a girl at Hillel who had an abortion as a junior in high school. She too joined the college republicans.

Look, both parties suck ass. It's just that you are tied up in one and can't see that the other isn't actually evil. I haven't believed that in years and it bothers me to see these myths flying around. Both parties inherently want to make this country better, they just have different ideas on how to do that.

So let me get this straight:

Just because someone TRIES to do something but it doesn't work, that doesn't make it wrong? Did you REALLY just say that?

 

[JJYanks121]

So let me get this straight:

Just because someone TRIES to do something but it doesn't work, that doesn't make it wrong? Did you REALLY just say that?

No, see you are a good democrat in trying to twist words though. It's a bit crazy and I don't agree with it, but it hasn't happened in a largely republican state. Even if it did, if people wanted abortions, they'd just, you know, leave the state.

Again though, it's not like I'm pro life and I support that argument. I just don't believe it to be a priority for a PRESIDENT. Post all the Romney crap about how he'd repeal Roe V. Wade but I'd be willing to wager that if elected, he woudln't do it. Not a priority and with at least one part of congress Democrat, it won't pass. That's why I'm not worried about it. All you have though is what someone MIGHT do. You didn't answer to why Bush with a republican congress didn't repeal it when he was "evil". It's because it won't happen regardless of whether it was said once.

 

[klunderbunker]

No, see you are a good democrat in trying to twist words though. It's a bit crazy and I don't agree with it, but it hasn't happened in a largely republican state. Even if it did, if people wanted abortions, they'd just, you know, leave the state.

Again though, it's not like I'm pro life and I support that argument. I just don't believe it to be a priority for a PRESIDENT. Post all the Romney crap about how he'd repeal Roe V. Wade but I'd be willing to wager that if elected, he woudln't do it. Not a priority and with at least one part of congress Democrat, it won't pass. That's why I'm not worried about it. All you have though is what someone MIGHT do. You didn't answer to why Bush with a republican congress didn't repeal it when he was "evil". It's because it won't happen regardless of whether it was said once.

The reason it hasn't happened yet is because it's illegal to ban them. The highest court in the land says that it's legal for women to receive abortions. States don't have the right to ban them.

So by you, it's ok to make it so that a woman has to leave the state to have a legal medical procedure on their own body due to a crime being committed to them.

You kind of people terrify me. You truly do. Partially because you don't get how government works. The Supreme Court says something is Constitutional. If the Congress passed it, the case would be argued to the Supreme Court and it would be voted on or not. The Congress has no authority on whether it's legal or not. Romney wouldn't overturn it. The Court would. That's why Bush didn't repeal it: it would have died in the Supreme Court.

 

[Slyfox696]

Again, when the economy sucks and has gotten worse in 4 years (not a myth Slyfox)

I'm curious how you feel about the following situations.

Situation 1 (Q4 of 2008): 510,000 jobs lost
Situation 2 (Today): 80,000 jobs gained

Situation 1 (Q4 of 2008): Dow Jones Industrial Average of 8451
Situation 2 (Today): Dow Jones Industrial Average of 13,326

Situation 1 (Q4 of 2008): Real GDP loss of -6.2%
Situation 2 (Today): Real GDP gain of 1.3%


Explain to me again how the economy is worse now than it was before Obama took over?

somehow I don't think if Romney's elected he'll go "ok, I've just been elected President of the United States. We have crazy debt, tons of foreign issues, lack of jobs, etc. What I should do though is say fuck all that, lets make abortion illegal first!"

Does it matter if it's first or in year 3?

Look, both parties suck ass. It's just that you are tied up in one and can't see that the other isn't actually evil.

It's not a matter of good vs. evil, it's a matter of whose version of reality makes more sense. In the last 4 years, our economy has gotten better, our foreign relations are much stronger, and civil rights have been advanced.

You can either choose to continue those policies, or you can vote for policies which were in place when our economy crashed, when our relations with other countries were in the crapper and civil rights were largely ignored in favor of a religious agenda.

I haven't believed that in years and it bothers me to see these myths flying around. Both parties inherently want to make this country better, they just have different ideas on how to do that.

I don't do myths, I do facts. And the fact is our country is better now than it was 4 years ago.

 

[Slyfox696]

Post all the Romney crap about how he'd repeal Roe V. Wade

You mean the "crap" which directly contradicted your statement about how Republicans uphold Roe v. Wade?

but I'd be willing to wager that if elected, he woudln't do it.

Wouldn't, or couldn't? Because that's a very important distinction.

You didn't answer to why Bush with a republican congress didn't repeal it when he was "evil". It's because it won't happen regardless of whether it was said once.

You can't "repeal" a Supreme Court decision. However, with anywhere from 1-3 Supreme Court justices up for nomination in the next Presidential term, Romney COULD put in a couple of justices which would overturn Roe v. Wade. Which would be why he could theoretically do something Bush couldn't.

 

[JJYanks121]

The reason it hasn't happened yet is because it's illegal to ban them. The highest court in the land says that it's legal for women to receive abortions. States don't have the right to ban them.

So by you, it's ok to make it so that a woman has to leave the state to have a legal medical procedure on their own body due to a crime being committed to them.

You kind of people terrify me. You truly do. Partially because you don't get how government works. The Supreme Court says something is Constitutional. If the Congress passed it, the case would be argued to the Supreme Court and it would be voted on or not. The Congress has no authority on whether it's legal or not. Romney wouldn't overturn it. The Court would. That's why Bush didn't repeal it: it would have died in the Supreme Court.

Really? You are accusing me of not understand how the government works? So the courts can just do what they want without the other branches apparently?

What you aren't understanding and probably never will, is that I'm NOT saying it would be good for a woman to have to go wherever to get an abortion. Hell, I don't smoke pot but I believe in legalizing it because of the idea that it would be regulated and safer if legal. Same with abortions. If they are illegal ever again (they won't be), you'd have plenty of people doing it illegally which would lead to dangerous practices that could kill people. I'm very pro choice and would never want to see Roe V. Wade overturned. The fact that you can't notice that because you want to nitpick something else I said is said.

All I've said is that regardless of what might be said in a campaign, the thing isn't getting overturned and my understanding of our system tells me that. And don't think I'm just attacking the democratic party. I had a fight with a hardcore republican today as well. It's when you get so caught up in party beliefs that you cease to see things from a realistic standpoint. I get really peeved though when this "republicans hate women" idea comes up because it simply isn't true. It's an exaggerated claim at best and while some in that party follow this idea that Christianity says that abortions shouldn't be allowed, it's not everyone.

So we're clear. I'm a Jew from New York. My religion's view on abortion is that until the head is crowning, the baby's life is considered a half-life. Once crowning, it becomes a full life. The reason this definition exists is to define when abortion is ok religiously. Essentially, if a woman's life is threatened as a result of a pregnancy, she can abort the child as it is a half life while the mother is a full life. While not perfect, this religious idea is a lot better than the Christian one. Still, it's not a complete idea and doesn't shape the way I believe about this topic. I did want to present it though as it shows that not all religions are as stupid as Catholicism.

 

[klunderbunker]

Really? You are accusing me of not understand how the government works? So the courts can just do what they want without the other branches apparently?

What you aren't understanding and probably never will, is that I'm NOT saying it would be good for a woman to have to go wherever to get an abortion. Hell, I don't smoke pot but I believe in legalizing it because of the idea that it would be regulated and safer if legal. Same with abortions. If they are illegal ever again (they won't be), you'd have plenty of people doing it illegally which would lead to dangerous practices that could kill people. I'm very pro choice and would never want to see Roe V. Wade overturned. The fact that you can't notice that because you want to nitpick something else I said is said.

All I've said is that regardless of what might be said in a campaign, the thing isn't getting overturned and my understanding of our system tells me that. And don't think I'm just attacking the democratic party. I had a fight with a hardcore republican today as well. It's when you get so caught up in party beliefs that you cease to see things from a realistic standpoint. I get really peeved though when this "republicans hate women" idea comes up because it simply isn't true. It's an exaggerated claim at best and while some in that party follow this idea that Christianity says that abortions shouldn't be allowed, it's not everyone.

So we're clear. I'm a Jew from New York. My religion's view on abortion is that until the head is crowning, the baby's life is considered a half-life. Once crowning, it becomes a full life. The reason this definition exists is to define when abortion is ok religiously. Essentially, if a woman's life is threatened as a result of a pregnancy, she can abort the child as it is a half life while the mother is a full life. While not perfect, this religious idea is a lot better than the Christian one. Still, it's not a complete idea and doesn't shape the way I believe about this topic. I did want to present it though as it shows that not all religions are as stupid as Catholicism.

Yep. You're an idiot and there's no real point in arguing this with you anymore.

 

[JJYanks121]

Yep. You're an idiot and there's no real point in arguing this with you anymore.

Good retort! The "you're an idiot" claim. Wow, because you are KB, you must be right! Dude, we're been friends for a while now. We actually agree on this issue and you still say something like this to try and come off like you are some all knowing being that "doesn't have time to answer to people". We are both pro choice and both socially liberal. Deal with it.

 

[klunderbunker]

Good retort! The "you're an idiot" claim. Wow, because you are KB, you must be right! Dude, we're been friends for a while now. We actually agree on this issue and you still say something like this to try and come off like you are some all knowing being that "doesn't have time to answer to people". We are both pro choice and both socially liberal. Deal with it.

The fact that you seem to think women's rights and civil rights aren't important would pretty clearly say we're not that much alike.

 

[JJYanks121]

The fact that you seem to think women's rights and civil rights aren't important would pretty clearly say we're not that much alike.

They are important to me as an individual. To politicians, I don't think they are high on the priority list. You haven't made the distinction between my personal views and what I'm suggesting the views of politicians are.

Dude, I'm a Jew. There aren't a lot of us running around. When I was in college, I dealt with a group on campus called "Nakba 48", which was a group of Palestinian students and those that supported them, that believed the biggest travesty in world history was the creation of a Jewish state and that it needed to be gone. They booked the middle of campus to spout their rhetoric about how the Jews should pay for their transgressions of living in Israel and were rumored to speak about how people should unite to militantly remove Jews from Israel. We Jews on campus held a sit in and I must tell you, it was one of the scariest days of my life because world early on was that it could get violent. I've been called a ton of names and heard just utterly hateful things about my people. I am a minority and I'm proud of it and have never hid from being one. With that said, being a minority myself, I have never distinguished between the rights of my minority (and yes, I know Jews have good jobs and whanot but this fact does make us face discrimination) and any other minority. That's why I've always been pro gay marriage as it pertains to that issue. If I can get married, why not them? They aren't any different than me as people. As for women's rights, I've always stood behind them. I'm pro contraception, pro abortion, do what you gotta do. If you don't like abortion, don't have an abortion. It's that simple. We are more alike than you think is these regards. You are still caught up in this being a political discuss to see it yet.

 

[klunderbunker]

They are important to me as an individual. To politicians, I don't think they are high on the priority list. You haven't made the distinction between my personal views and what I'm suggesting the views of politicians are.

Dude, I'm a Jew. There aren't a lot of us running around. When I was in college, I dealt with a group on campus called "Nakba 48", which was a group of Palestinian students and those that supported them, that believed the biggest travesty in world history was the creation of a Jewish state and that it needed to be gone. They booked the middle of campus to spout their rhetoric about how the Jews should pay for their transgressions of living in Israel and were rumored to speak about how people should unite to militantly remove Jews from Israel. We Jews on campus held a sit in and I must tell you, it was one of the scariest days of my life because world early on was that it could get violent. I've been called a ton of names and heard just utterly hateful things about my people. I am a minority and I'm proud of it and have never hid from being one. With that said, being a minority myself, I have never distinguished between the rights of my minority (and yes, I know Jews have good jobs and whanot but this fact does make us face discrimination) and any other minority. That's why I've always been pro gay marriage as it pertains to that issue. If I can get married, why not them? They aren't any different than me as people. As for women's rights, I've always stood behind them. I'm pro contraception, pro abortion, do what you gotta do. If you don't like abortion, don't have an abortion. It's that simple. We are more alike than you think is these regards. You are still caught up in this being a political discuss to see it yet.

1. Women are a majority in the country, not a minority.

2. I know I'm totally biased. What's your point?

 

[JJYanks121]

1. Women are a majority in the country, not a minority.

2. I know I'm totally biased. What's your point?

1. I distinguished between minority rights and women's rights because women aren't a minority.

2. I just want you to see that we're not so far apart on social issues. I'm with you on them. All I was saying from the beginning is that in the grand scheme of things, I didn't see politicians prioritizing them. For me though, I obviously value human rights in all regards. That's a result of good parenting. I wish there were more of that throughout the country.

 

[Alastor]

http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/03/blue-truth-red-truth/

-More politically informed people tend to show more bias

-The studies show that facts that contradict our biases actually have the effect of reinforcing them.

You guys aren't going to convince each other so it is pointless...

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm still waiting on clarification how our economy is worse today than it was 4 years ago.

 

[Shocky]

I hope people aren't seriously insinuating that the Anti-Abortion campaign is the crusade of the single white male. There are for more anti-abortion women out there than what the Liberal media would like people to believe.

I'm still waiting on clarification how our economy is worse today than it was 4 years ago.

You know how this goes. It's politics. Everyone debunks everything. It all depends on who you talk to. There are a good amount of economist out there that say both. Just depends on who you read. The best way to judge, are you better off now personally then you were four years ago. If you are, vote for Obama, if you aren't, you might want to look at the other guy. Too many ********s with agendas on both sides to get a real answer.

 

[Барбоса]

The best way to judge, are you better off now personally then you were four years ago. If you are, vote for Obama, if you aren't, you might want to look at the other guy. Too many ********s with agendas on both sides to get a real answer.

That is a terrible way to judge in a two party system.

"Obama has not fixed the mess he inherited in 4 years so we need to replace him with the party who not only made the mess in the first place but have spent the last 4 years trying every way possible to prevent the President from fixing their mess."

 

[Shocky]

That is a terrible way to judge in a two party system.

"Obama has not fixed the mess he inherited in 4 years so we need to replace him with the party who not only made the mess in the first place but have spent the last 4 years trying every way possible to prevent the President from fixing their mess."

The deflection of blame really needs to stop. I know it's the go to argument for most Democrats, but it's been four years. What's going to happen in 2016 when a Democrat runs, presuming Obama wins? Are Democrats still going to blame Bush? It's real tiring when Obama and Biden continuously go to the Blame Bush card. It's old, and it's played out.
I already know that the Republicans, if Romney wins, are going to blame Obamacare in four years. It's just politics.

Neither of the parties has my best interest in mind, so yes, I'm voting based on how I personally fair in the world today. I am not my brother's keeper. I have no obligation to make sure the poor are fed for. Does that make me a terrible human being in your eyes, you be the judge of that. At the end of the day, I'm taking my time to vote for whomever makes it easier to put a roof over my families head, and food on our table. All the other shit, it's just posturing and grandstanding.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I hope people aren't seriously insinuating that the Anti-Abortion campaign is the crusade of the single white male. There are for more anti-abortion women out there than what the Liberal media would like people to believe.



You know how this goes. It's politics. Everyone debunks everything. It all depends on who you talk to. There are a good amount of economist out there that say both. Just depends on who you read. The best way to judge, are you better off now personally then you were four years ago. If you are, vote for Obama, if you aren't, you might want to look at the other guy. Too many ********s with agendas on both sides to get a real answer.

Or you could not be short sided and selfish by voting for the man that you think is better for the future of our country and planet.

Even if that person is Romney.