If Santorum wins the nomination...

[zsdersw]

We do agree on many things, one of which we disagree on is that you saying everyone who votes for a republican is a shill, but not all those who vote for a democrat is a shill shows your bias. You claim it does not, others say it does.

Some people who've selected Obama in the poll expressed a reason that suggests they don't like or support Obama as much as they hate Santorum.

No one who picked Santorum (other than Atreus) expressed a reason that suggested they don't like Santorum and simply are voting against Obama.

You, in another thread, said you're voting against Obama specifically and incumbents in general. Yet, there are many ways to vote against Obama and incumbents without voting for Santorum. Many of our fellow conservatives selected those options. Why would you not avail yourself of those options, too... unless you're someone who always votes GOP.

You also tend to pretend I do not criticize both parties as it is the only way you can continue to pretend I am a shill (while amazingly your bias proves you are not one...).

You don't. You haven't been critical of any of the GOP candidates, nor have you started any threads that are critical of any Republican.

 

[Ausm]

What's his best interest? Is it what's your best interest?

Best interest is subjective.

Not when your a blue collar worker voting for an "R" that is a travesty.

 

[cybrsage]

My original statement was: Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama..

There are partisan shills all over this forum. The lopsided results in favor of Obama suggests that, as I originally said, many are partisan shills. The only reason we'd have to conclude they're not a shill is their reason for picking Obama that they expressed in a post in this thread.

Yet ALL who would vote for Santorum are shills. You do not even allow for the option that some of them are not.

But you are not biased nor a shill at all...nope, even handed the entire way...

 

[dank69]

His statement, which he refuses to correct (which means he wants it as it is) is quite heavily biased towards the DNC point of view. ALL supporters of the republican are obvious shills...but only some of the democrat supporters are potentially shills.

You do not see how horribly biased that is? ALL who vote republican are shills but only SOME who vote democrat are shills. This alone does not make him a DNC shill...it is him claiming there is no bias in the statement which seals the deal.

He is like a Ron Paul supporter in this case. No matter how many times you tell a RP supporter their position is obviously biased, they will deny it.

He did not say that (bolded above). Republican != Santorum. Santorum is a Republican. Not all Republicans are Santorum. Don't think I didn't notice how you changed 'the republican' to simply 'republican' in your second version.

 

[zsdersw]

I will ask cybrsage another question, though.

If, as you say, you're voting against incumbents... will there be any Democrats you're voting for (to remove incumbent Republicans) in any down-ticket races?

 

[Ausm]

I will ask cybrsage another question, though.

If, as you say, you're voting against incumbents... will there be any Democrats you're voting for (to remove incumbent Republicans) in any down-ticket races?

/popcorn

/lawnchair

 

[cybrsage]

Some people who've selected Obama in the poll expressed a reason that suggests they don't like or support Obama as much as they hate Santorum.

No one who picked Santorum (other than Atreus) expressed a reason that suggested they don't like Santorum and simply are voting against Obama.

You do not even allow for that option...you only give it to the democrats. You very explicitly said:

The people who pick Santorum in this poll are Republican shills

This means anyone who picks Santorum is a Republican shill. ALL of them. No chance they cannot be. This is unbiased ,right?

You, in another thread, said you're voting against Obama specifically and incumbents in general. Yet, there are many ways to vote against Obama and incumbents without voting for Santorum. Many of our fellow conservatives selected those options. Why would you not avail yourself of those options, too... unless you're someone who always votes GOP.

To vote against the incumbant, you have to vote FOR someone who has a chance of winning against the incumbant. You are smart enough to understand this. Santorum would be the person with the best chance of beating Obama if he was the GOPs candidate.

You don't. You haven't been critical of any of the GOP candidates, nor have you started any threads that are critical of any Republican.

You only say this because you ignore when I have been. Heck, I was critical of Republicans in the first thread you created...the one where you wanted a zillion threads created, each individually mentioning one thing one poster does not like about their party.

But that does not count because it would remove your ability to pretend I never said anything, right?

 

[cybrsage]

I will ask cybrsage another question, though.

If, as you say, you're voting against incumbents... will there be any Democrats you're voting for (to remove incumbent Republicans) in any down-ticket races?

Sigh....


When talking about the Presidential Incumbant, I thought it was obvious I was talking about the Presidential Incumbant. The last several times you "forgot" I said this, I told you the reason why each time. Now that you "forgot" again, I will say it again:

I tend to vote against the presidential incumbant because I fear what such a powerful person will do when they cannot be elected again. They no longer have to care at all about what the public wants. The main check and balance against their actions is removed.

Please try to not "forget" again, it is starting to be a bit annoying having to remind you of this every few days.

 

[cybrsage]

He did not say that (bolded above). Republican != Santorum. Santorum is a Republican. Not all Republicans are Santorum. Don't think I didn't notice how you changed 'the republican' to simply 'republican' in your second version.

His premise is the presidential election. There will be only one republican to vote for. In that instance (the one he set up himself), republican does equal santorum.

 

[zsdersw]

You do not even allow for that option...you only give it to the democrats. You very explicitly said:

This means anyone who picks Santorum is a Republican shill. ALL of them. No chance they cannot be. This is unbiased ,right?

Given the fact that almost all of the people who picked the 3rd and 4th options in the poll are conservative, yes... those who pick Santorum in the poll are Republican shills.

To vote against the incumbant, you have to vote FOR someone who has a chance of winning against the incumbant. You are smart enough to understand this. Santorum would be the person with the best chance of beating Obama if he was the GOPs candidate.

Upon what basis are you making that claim? Do you really think his populism and extreme cultural issue views are palatable with the independents and swing voters that decide presidential elections? If so, you're more delusional than I thought.

I also point, again, to the fact that many of our fellow conservatives selected either third-party/write-in or no-vote. Why would they do that? Because they are turned off by Santorum... probably for two main reasons: he's a nutcase and he can't beat Obama.

You only say this because you ignore when I have been. Heck, I was critical of Republicans in the first thread you created...the one where you wanted a zillion threads created, each individually mentioning one thing one poster does not like about their party.

You were critical of a minor process-related issue; something along the lines of "they should've repealed something that was struck down by the courts". That's hardly a serious (or current) criticism.

But that does not count because it would remove your ability to pretend I never said anything, right?

You've never been critical of any specific Republican or said anything seriously critical of any decision/action the party has made.

 

[Mursilis]

Subjugating one's rights effectively removes them.

That's too broad. To me at least, there's a profound difference between, for example, the U.S. gov't preventing the publication of a story under the national security exception to the First Amendment, vs. a foreign gov't preventing the publication of the same story simply as an exercise of general gov't power. The first action at least acknowledges a greater right, whereas the second does not. I generally support the rights of adults to do with their bodies as they wish - want to smoke pot, engage in sex work, even harvest your own organs for profit? Go right ahead, I have no grounds to prevent you.

I break out abortion simply because while parents are allowed to voluntarily give up a child, a pregnant woman does not have that choice; only she can support that baby until birth.

And I break out abortion because a baby is clearly a separate life which can be protected. The fetus has a different genetic code, different blood type, etc. Biologically, it's clearly a different human organism. The fact that it requires support from the mother's body (or a surrogate) is just a function of biology - none us designed it that way. The fetus has utterly no say in its own creation, whereas the mother (except in cases of rape) has some say in becoming pregnant. That, plus the fact that a life interest generally trumps a property interest in my moral calculus, results, to me, in the conclusion both that abortion is wrong, and that the state can prohibit it. Even if the property interest the mother has in her own body trumps the fetus's right to life, then isn't the proper recourse evict, not termination? Shouldn't her right be limited to removing the fetus, not killing it?

 

[zsdersw]

Sigh....


When talking about the Presidential Incumbant, I thought it was obvious I was talking about the Presidential Incumbant. The last several times you "forgot" I said this, I told you the reason why each time. Now that you "forgot" again, I will say it again:

I tend to vote against the presidential incumbant because I fear what such a powerful person will do when they cannot be elected again. They no longer have to care at all about what the public wants. The main check and balance against their actions is removed.

Please try to not "forget" again, it is starting to be a bit annoying having to remind you of this every few days.

So, there's no Democrat running in any race this November whom you'll be voting for?

 

[Skunkwourk]

For everyone saying they'll sit this one out because there's no decent republican option, why not vote for Obama if you feel hes the lesser of two evils?

I guess im just wondering what would happen if Obama won by such a landslide. Would it force the Republican party to "pick" candidates less out of touch with their demographic? Wouldnt they change their approach in response to such a loss in voters?

 

[cybrsage]

Given the fact that almost all of the people who picked the 3rd and 4th options in the poll are conservative, yes... those who pick Santorum in the poll are Republican shills.

There you go, proving you are a DNC shill. Those who vote for a dem may have a good reason for doing it, but those who vote for a rep are all shills.



You just love showing you are not the unbiased, middle of the road person you keep claiming you are.

Upon what basis are you making that claim? Do you really think his populism and extreme cultural issue views are palatable with the independents and swing voters that decide presidential elections? If so, you're more delusional than I thought.

I am basing it on the number of non-major party presidents elected in the history of the US. He would have the backing of the GOP and all its money. That is not anything to scoff at. Would he win? Probably not, but he still would have a FAR better chance of winning than Robert Burck, Danny Woodring, or Charlie Crist. Almost no one has heard of them, other than Crist...but he really has no chance either.

I also point, again, to the fact that many of our fellow conservatives selected either third-party/write-in or no-vote. Why would they do that? Because they are turned off by Santorum... probably for two main reasons: he's a nutcase and he can't beat Obama.

Others throwing their vote away, which helps Obama win the election, is something they will have to decide is good or bad. I am not going to be a lemming and throw away my vote and help Obama get elected when I do not want Obama elected.

You really have trouble following along.

You were critical of a minor process-related issue; something along the lines of "they should've repealed something that was struck down by the courts". That's hardly a serious (or current) criticism.

So you say I criticized them, just not vitriolic enough for you so it does not count? You ARE a democrat shill!

I come out against a major constitutional violation and you say it does not count. WOW!

You've never been critical of any specific Republican or said anything seriously critical of any decision/action the party has made.

When you pretend being against a violation of the Constitution is nothing serious, what else is there?

 

[cybrsage]

So, there's no Democrat running in any race this November whom you'll be voting for?

No democrat Presidential Nominee other than Obama will be on the ballot this November. Why do you think there will be a second democrat presidential nominee on the ballot?

EDIT: Is that even legal, to put up two people on the ballot for president from one party?

 

[zsdersw]

Others throwing their vote away, which helps Obama win the election, is something they will have to decide is good or bad. I am not going to be a lemming and throw away my vote and help Obama get elected when I do not want Obama elected.

How, exactly, are they throwing their vote away? A vote that doesn't go to Obama is a vote that doesn't go to Obama.

So you say I criticized them, just not vitriolic enough for you so it does not count? You ARE a democrat shill!

I come out against a major constitutional violation and you say it does not count. WOW!

When you pretend being against a violation of the Constitution is nothing serious, what else is there?

There are lots of laws on the books that could be ruled violations of the Constitution, but that are never brought up because the laws are never enforced.

Is that the only criticism of the GOP that you have?

 

[zsdersw]

No democrat Presidential Nominee other than Obama will be on the ballot this November. Why do you think there will be a second democrat presidential nominee on the ballot?

EDIT: Is that even legal, to put up two people on the ballot for president from one party?

I wasn't talking about the presidential race in that question.

 

[werepossum]

That's too broad. To me at least, there's a profound difference between, for example, the U.S. gov't preventing the publication of a story under the national security exception to the First Amendment, vs. a foreign gov't preventing the publication of the same story simply as an exercise of general gov't power. The first action at least acknowledges a greater right, whereas the second does not. I generally support the rights of adults to do with their bodies as they wish - want to smoke pot, engage in sex work, even harvest your own organs for profit? Go right ahead, I have no grounds to prevent you.



And I break out abortion because a baby is clearly a separate life which can be protected. The fetus has a different genetic code, different blood type, etc. Biologically, it's clearly a different human organism. The fact that it requires support from the mother's body (or a surrogate) is just a function of biology - none us designed it that way. The fetus has utterly no say in its own creation, whereas the mother (except in cases of rape) has some say in becoming pregnant. That, plus the fact that a life interest generally trumps a property interest in my moral calculus, results, to me, in the conclusion both that abortion is wrong, and that the state can prohibit it. Even if the property interest the mother has in her own body trumps the fetus's right to life, then isn't the proper recourse evict, not termination? Shouldn't her right be limited to removing the fetus, not killing it?

Those are all good points. And where the baby is old enough to reasonably survive eviction, I support banning abortions in favor of forced labor (if eviction is desired by the mother.) Currently I believe that's about five months' gestation or roughly one pound.

Ultimately I have no problem with people on either side of this thorny debate as long as they realize that there are serious competing interests, not merely right and wrong. My own analysis of relative values puts me against banning abortion until the baby is viable outside the womb, but I can certainly understand your honestly coming to the opposite conclusion. Innocent life certainly is a compelling interest even weighed against personal liberty.

 

[Ketchup]

Here is how I always look at voting:
Lets say a vote has a max power of 2.
Not voting at all has a power of 0.
Voting against the person you don't want by voting for a third party has a power of 1.
Voting against the person you don't want by voting for the other major party candidate has a power of 2.

Voting against someone will always take a vote away from them, but voting for the other major party is the most powerful way to go about it. Of course, many people will say they need to vote their conscience and vote for someone with no chance of winning.

 

[zsdersw]

I come out against a major constitutional violation and you say it does not count. WOW!

When you pretend being against a violation of the Constitution is nothing serious, what else is there?

By the way, if this specific constitutional violation is as significant and important as you're making it out to be, why didn't you create a thread about it.. instead of just one post in a totally unrelated thread?

 

[Fern]

Here is how I always look at voting:
Lets say a vote has a max power of 2.
Not voting at all has a power of 0.
Voting against the person you don't want by voting for a third party has a power of 1.
Voting against the person you don't want by voting for the other major party candidate has a power of 2.

Voting against someone will always take a vote away from them, but voting for the other major party is the most powerful way to go about it. Of course, many people will say they need to vote their conscience and vote for someone with no chance of winning.

:thumbsup:

Well said.

Fern

 

[Skunkwourk]

Here is how I always look at voting:
Lets say a vote has a max power of 2.
Not voting at all has a power of 0.
Voting against the person you don't want by voting for a third party has a power of 1.
Voting against the person you don't want by voting for the other major party candidate has a power of 2.

Voting against someone will always take a vote away from them, but voting for the other major party is the most powerful way to go about it. Of course, many people will say they need to vote their conscience and vote for someone with no chance of winning.

That's along the lines of what I was thinking in my earlier post, but I'm not even sure strategic voting like that would work.

 

[Acanthus]

That's not what you said, though. You said the non-Santorum candidates had "no problem with abortion", suggesting that they think it's fine in any and all circumstances and should not be restricted in any way.

The fact of the matter is, no republican would actually do anything about abortion anyway.

They wouldn't have it to run on anymore.

Neither side will ever do anything truly consequential when it comes to guns, abortion, religion, etc.

 

[ky54]

The problem I have when voting for the lesser of two evils is this always what happens - the lesser of two evils wins then declares to all the world there was a mandate from the god and the people to push whatever agenda they have when the reality is both of them sucked donkey-dick just one was less sloppy when they do it. That message never seems to get through.

 

[pcgeek11]

No, but I see you did. Anyone but Obama for you I'd bet.

I'm not a Santorum fan. That being said I would vote for the dude that picks up our garbage before I would Obama.