1. Changelog 1.161

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.161 will take place on Wed, Sept 18, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Presidential Election?

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Cincinnatus, Aug 3, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic and refrain from gracing such garbage with a proper argument.
     
  2. Catastr0phic

    Catastr0phic Guest

    Before I comment on these.. I'm not sure but I think there was someone around 1933 who got put into power who thought just like this.

    I think your referring to the guy's who get 50 girls pregnant and have 80 kids?

    I listen to some rap but I agree people should be slapped for confusing Rhyme and Rhythm with art.

    Oh didn't you hear? They are saying his kid did it now. He is already in prison why not lock up his demon seed too?

    You forgot about fanny packs

    Now you've gone too far.. I have 13 tattoos and like every one of em. Just because you're scared of needles, faint at the sight of blood or can't sit through one for hours its not my problem..

    Why not be more intelligent about it and say that people with their own name can't vote.

    How about 2 more rules?

    11. People who believe in religion or that there is an invisible man watching over them can't vote.

    12. People who believe praying will solve problems can't vote.
     
  3. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    It does raise an interesting question though. If my understanding is correct, the electoral college used to be a method for ensuring only the "capable" participated in voting. The masses would appoint an intelligentsia to vote on their behalf, choosing someone(s) who would act in the state's best interests. (Ooh, sounds like communism hehe.) Now modern day convention dictates electors vote proxy to the majority vote of the state, is it not reasonable some other means is implemented to exclude those lacking the education to make an informed vote? If not, why?
     
  4. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    That's a rather interesting point that I never fully considered. For a democracy to work, people need to be informed before they vote. Seeing as how that is not the case (insert Churchill's quote about democracy), perhaps a select group of people who devote their time to politics and issues could serve as designated voters on behalf of the population.

    Of course, since the size of that group would be rather small, it could easily become corrupt. I suppose that'd be a con.
     
  5. I've given this a great deal of thought over the years and have yet to come up with a satisfactory solution. It would be nice if only sufficiently educated people could vote, but if you start making conditions, where do you draw the line? I think this is one case in which the slippery slope argument is valid. You could require a certain amount of education, but high school isn't enough, not everyone can afford college, and education doesn't necessarily cure stupidity, so the problem persists. So then you might want to make it so stupid people can't vote, but how do you define stupid and who has the right to do so? It would be too easy to say whoever you disagree with is stupid, and now we've got straight up oppression.

    Democracy is deeply flawed but I'm not sure there's a better system, so it may be a necessary evil.
     
  6. Catastr0phic

    Catastr0phic Guest

    Thing is there is now way a few individuals should be in charge of who is in control of the the country. That's how dictatorships and genocide start. Its bad enough in this country we don't need to make it worse.

    I dropped out of school because I was bored. I did however get my GED because I know people at least need that. In now times you need a college education for everything. Oh and if you do graduate college good luck finding a job.

    There is a difference between education and intellect. I just couldn't stand going to school seeing 80% of the people walking around with pants around their thighs instead of waists.

    I do believe that people should go through some kind of testing to be able to get a voter's card.
     
  7. Dictatorships have a single person in charge, and are not inherently worse than any other system of government. Representative democracy tends to be an oligarchy, I think.

    I'm fairly certain what we wear and how we wear it is not an indication of intelligence. What kind of testing would you propose? Intelligence is incredibly difficult to measure.

    Furthermore, if political power is proportional to intelligence (for some definition of intelligence), you'd still have a few individuals in charge.
     
  8. Dark Lotus

    Dark Lotus Guest

    How would you measure it? Well the same way you measure a written driving test before you allow a person to drive. How about a voter ID card that is not good for life? What if it was good for 3 years? The fourth year you could be tested on the 2 candidates, and if you pass then you get your card and vote. Nothing tricky or complex, just enough to show you have some clue on what you are doing. If you are voting for president Obama because he is black, or against him because he is black. Well what is best for the country is not really your thing. Maybe it is best if they abstain their vote. You should at least know about the 2 people and their politics.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2012
  9. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    So what's the difference between the Electoral College of old and every other authoritarian regime? I presume any sort of voter exclusion, such as the current age limit, would be far less exclusive than the traditional system. What would make it fail this time, degrade down an alleged slippery slope?
     
  10. That makes sense, though you'd have to be really careful about writing the test.


    ...I already explained that, in the very post you quoted.
     
  11. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    You explained it using a logical fallacy, the slippery slope, which is clearly ungrounded. If it was inevitable any such voting limitations would lead to a collapse of true democracy, the Electoral College would not have evolved into what it is, an expensive (and occasionally controversial) symbol like the monarch is to England.
     
  12. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    We were not meant to be a democracy in its literal form....why do you think when the electoral college voted Bush in, even though the popular vote didn't? Because the electoral college trumps popular. We are NOT a true democracy. Why? Because on this scale, true democracies fail.
     
  13. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    I am not double posting....it has been a week :p

    I have been having a private debate with someone who got me thinking.
    A little feedback for you....I have been saving money for years, and spending it putting my mom through college, and my daughter through college. I don't believe in welfare, and so I have also been supporting my granddaughter. I know I have said this before, but I have chosen to shack up at my mothers in her dining room so as I can focus on school full time without taking out a student loan...or rather a second one (this is my second round of college), and still make my obligations.

    That said. I made the comment it burns me up to have to suffer this (by choice, granted) to get ahead, when so many others are satisfied living outside their means and expecting a hand out to cover the net loss.
    Soooo taking all of that....I have finally made my decision. It has come down to more than the economy in truth. That is my biggest issue. I have waffled because I really don't like Romney. I like Ryan. I don't hate Obama, I dislike the Democratic platform. I have decided that neither side is going to ever actually get around to hard truths and tough choices about how to pick up the economy.

    BUT, If I wanted to work my ass off, and sacrifice so much to get ahead, there is no way in hell, I am willing to take a higher tax bracket simply because I did what I had to do to get to that level, simply so that someone who is perfectly fine with "OK" and "just enough" can take a bit of my money.

    Ergo, I don't like Romney, but I will vote straight ticket as normal. I find I dislike Democrats more.

    And there you have it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2012
  14. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    There is no way in hell I am willing to take a higher tax bracket, but it's easier to stick to my prejudices than make the tough call, so... Romney it is. :rolleyes: Bring on the elimination of tax from dividends and capital gains for the rich cats, whilst taxes are raised for the rest. Platform, shplatform: Obama's plan is aimed at the undertaxed top 5% to make up the budget shortfall, Romney+Ryan imbalances the tax system even further with no guarantee to cut spending; that is his platform, not whatever stereotypes he tries to shove down your throat.

    Jeez, no wonder peeps think some modifications to the system are in order.
     
  15. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    It isn't a tough call. They can bring the deficit under control without penalizing those who suffer to succeed. I don't disagree with changing the tax laws...I disagree with NOT changing them and just taxing those in higher tax brackets to be a quick fix, when all they will do is spend more of it. Both sides are guilty of this, but as I told you before, I really dislike the democratic platform. I dislike affirmative Action, I dislike the insurance bill they passed, and so taking all of that into account, I don't see them as any better than the republicans. Secondly, It is well known that the New Deal did not save America, it was war and national pride. So they will just keep sinking us into a bigger hole. Ergo, I will remain a Republican this ticket....simple logic.
     
  16. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Expert economists have examined what Romney presented. It will indeed increase taxes for the middle and low income (in some cases by over $2000 a year) whilst further decreasing taxes for the wealthy (those making over $250,000). In addition, his tax proposals will further increase the deficit. It is only through the cutting of programs (such as Ryan's proposed Medicare cuts) that there will be a reduction in deficit (in short, his tax proposals do not reduce the deficit. Instead, it's the packaging that gives the impression such is the case). Obama's presentation does the opposite, reducing taxes for the middle and low income whilst "returning" the tax status of the wealthy to their original state prior to Bush' tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama's tax proposals actually do reduce the deficit all on their own.

    Let's be clear. Bush Jr. posed a "temporary" tax cut for the wealthy, but the Republicans have essentially forced that tax cut to be extended and now they want to make it permanent. And while Obama has posed a cut in welfare expenses, it is not as is being portrayed by the propagandists. The application has been shifted to reduce exploitation of such services (welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc), not the services themselves. In contrast, Ryan's plans to cut welfare are simply cuts, reducing benefits and privatizing many services (which has repeatedly been demonstrated to degrade such services, as contract bidding results in quantity vs quality).

    So, unless anyone wants to present facts that contradict my statements above, it's really rather obvious who to vote for.
     
  17. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    For me it is the big picture. I have agreed that certain tax breaks need to be looked at. I am all for taxing higher for dividends, for bonuses etc etc. I am not for raising taxes on small business who make more than 200,000 a year. I find the idea of taxing Corporations assanine. I am more interested in Long term. I don't agree with what is being said about Ryan's plan. It isn't for those at 55. I have looked into it, and find it overall ok, not perfect, but definitely preferable.

    The overall factor for me ended up being two things for me:
    A) Since 2008 the government has become more active in the business industry. Before that, we were mainly a decentralized economic price system.....Now the government has a large stake in many industries, something I think the government needs to stay out of.
    B) I am a very centered voter when it comes to issues of social importance. I happen to agree many things need to be done, I simply disagree on how to do them. I am very conservative when it comes to economic issues.

    It truly came down to, I dislike the Democratic platform. I have stated, I dislike the Healthcare reform, not in what it is, but in how it is done. I dislike the loss of the American dream. I dislike that the Democrats want to penalize those of us who have struggled to achieve, only to say but if you don't want to risk, no worries...we got your back. I happen to agree with privatizing many services. I believe as with anything competition can improve the product, and I think that also is true with benefits.

    I dislike the fact that our debt keeps growing, I dislike the fact that the democrats have refused to pass a budget. I dislike the wizzing contest they are crying about. They had no issue bucking the bull on the healthcare bill, but to say now they don't want to is redundant. They don't want to because they are afraid to face the tough choices, and I have no interest in a party not wanting to put for anything in fear that they might tick off their base (and future votes)...it shows no true interest in our future.

    I think that about covers it. So, anyone with half a mind looks to the future and thus knows that there is really only one person to vote for....the very person who built his success, the same person who has run a successful company (or two) the same person who isn't afraid to at least try......

    Edit: don't get me wrong, I don't like Romney as a person...but I am not interested in the "person", I am more concerned with policy, and I waffled for a long time on this until I realized that fact.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2012
  18. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Taxing corporations is quite reasonable and committed by many nations. As it is, corporate tax is graduated based on the income they generate. For instance, the first $50,000 a corporate makes has only a 15% tax rate (not including all the different tax credits available). This rate increases at higher earnings (with more tax credits available, commensurate ---> click here).

    However, it needs to be pointed out that the Bush Jr. tax breaks have nothing to do with corporate tax. These are individual income tax credits & cuts and capital gain reduction.

    It is exactly because the government was being pushed to "stay out of" the business industry that we had the exploitation of consumers by the banking industry (credit card interest rate fiasco), the housing industry collapse, the corporate shenanigans such as Madoff and Lay, the automobile industry's safety reductions, insurance premium explosion, etc and so on.

    No, the U.S. government's role is to protect the citizenry of the United States. It can't very well do that if it allows profit-motivated entities to call the shots.

    Would you like to take a gander at the Republican platform's proposed healthcare reform?

    What dream? The dream of corporations being allowed to exploit the U.S. citizenry without consideration of the impact such actions has on the nation's economy? Well, yeah, I guess that dream might be lost.

    Achieve what? The United States is still, by far, a nation that encourages capitalism. It is when capitalistic ventures endangers the economy of the nation as a whole that the Democratic "platform" takes issue.

    Then you need to research this further, as there is ample evidence demonstrating that privatizing social services is not beneficial and is actually more costly, not less. Indeed, the mere process of bidding for services has repeatedly demonstrated that quality is compromised over competitive savings. After all, privatized industries have to satisfy their investors. The government merely has to satisfy its customers (the ones receiving the services). The focus of privatization is on profit, whilst the focus on government services is on service. The costs are dictated by the government, in either case, so there is no cost savings for the government and, in the case of privatization, there results a greater cost for those being served due to substandard care, a reduction in prevention, etc.

    Seriously, the evidence is quite substantial. Just review privatization of social services for a wide-eyed awakening into problems such ventures have resulted.

    Two points --- the budget is being blocked by the Republicans, not the Democrats. The next part is, the debt was stabilized by Clinton. It was Bush Jr and the Republican controlled Congress that blew it out of the water. The debt skyrocketed as a direct result of their actions. Despite the constant propagandist sell, it was not due to Obama's administration.

    And that, my dear, is mere propaganda, as you stated nothing. You are claiming the Democratic Party is unwilling to act because they don't want to tick off their base, but in fact the last four years have resulted in a multitude of beneficial changes (credit card protections, healthcare provisions, bankruptcy relief, etc and so on), over 200 beneficial changes. Indeed, the majority of non-beneficial continuances (not changes, but continuation of policies created during the Bush Jr. administration) have been the direct result of the Republican party's actions (inclusive of record breaking filibusters).

    Corporate success does not translate to government success. Ample records exist to show that Romney did a piss poor job of governing Massachusetts for the short stint in which he held office. As well, Romney's corporate success was as a raider, a person who capitalized on the hardships of other companies, even going so far as to force their hardships (watch Richard Gere's character in the movie Pretty Woman to get an idea of what Romney was doing). And let's not forget his participation in the outsourcing overseas, which I'm sure you'll agree is contra to the nation's interest.

    Corporate success is profit agenda-ed, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the impact it has on other businesses or on the nation in which its headquarters are housed. And while we can go, "oh he succeeded where others failed," would you want Donald Trump as President? You see, it doesn't matter how successful you may be in business, the position of U.S. Presidency requires something different entirely.

    That's most unfortunate, because it is the "person" that is most important in the role of U.S. Presidency.


    And on that note, yay for the Republican National Convention:

    [​IMG]

    hooboy...
     
    Diggo11 likes this.
  19. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    I respectfully disagree with you Hellstromm :D
    Good thing my vote is MY vote.
    I do want to make one point...where is the Senates budget?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Still looking
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Still looking........

    oh yes and as far as this:
    [​IMG]
    Be NICE to the OKIES
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2012
  20. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    In other words, you got nuthin' :laugh:
     

Top
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.