General discussion

Locked

Should Barack Obama be reelected?

By maxwell edison ·
Tags: Off Topic
Yes or no, and why?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

247 total posts (Page 3 of 25)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Nah,

by CharlieSpencer In reply to The Electors

that was just pulling your chain.

Last week was the 30th birthday of the emoticon.

Collapse -

State vs Fed

by CharlieSpencer In reply to The Electors

I don't see the question of federal vs. state government as an 'either / or' one. It depends on the individual issue in question. I think states would better manage those issues that fall entirely within their borders, but those are becoming fewer. Should Missouri be allowed to dump raw sewage in the Mississippi River just upstream from their border with Arkansas? if not, do you expect the states would work that out for themselves without federal intervention?

States aren't choosing each others' representatives, or telling them how to run their elections below the federal level. 3/4 of state legislatures agreed to change the method of selecting senators; they willing ceded that power to the electorate. The Senate is still made up of two people from each state, preserving the balance of equal representation. Does being chosen directly by the people make senators less responsive to their states' needs than being chosen by the home legislatures?

You asked if a federal government should be stronger than state governments. Should state government be stronger than its citizens?

Collapse -

Palmetto - State versus Feds

by maxwell edison In reply to The Electors

Come on, Palmetto. You know good and well what I'm talking about. And quite frankly, I really don't want to get into discussions in which you're probably just playing devil's advocate.

Fair enough?

Collapse -

Guilty on one charge, but not on the other

by CharlieSpencer In reply to The Electors

I freely confess to playing Devil's advocate, and I understand if that's not what you're interested in. Fair enough.

However, I don't 'know good and well' what you're talking about. If my example doesn't demonstrate there are cases when the federal government should be stronger than the state, then I'm completely misunderstanding the basis for the entire question. I don't mind that, but I dislike it when others assume what I 'know good and well'. Fair enough?

Collapse -

I thought I knew "good and well" that . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to The Electors

..... over the course of many years and hundreds of discussions in which you and I both participated, that you might have at least gotten a sense of how I view the respective roles of state and federal government. I suppose I was mistaken.

Not having the time or desire to explain fully, suffice it to say that I lean more towards the Federalist system as originally designed by Madison, Jefferson, et al, rather than the command and control system we have today.

One short example: Let the states handle their own public education systems, and get the federal government pretty much out of it. I don't think it a coincidence that education costs have increased, while student performance has decreased, since the creation of the Department of Education. One of many reasons, to be sure, but one of the biggest.

Collapse -

The states are supposed to elect the president

by RFink In reply to The Electors

If the 26 states that sued to block Obamacare were serious, they'd appoint their presidential electors to Romney.

Collapse -

Please do pardon

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Depends.

my mangling of my thoughts.

Collapse -

No "pardon" necessary

by maxwell edison In reply to Please do pardon

It's all good.

Collapse -

Viable? No there's not.

by maxwell edison In reply to There's a viable third ch ...

Viable, in this context, implies there's a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gary Johnson is not a viable candidate. In fact, it's a 100 percent certainty that he will lose. There's a 100 percent certainty that he will not win a single state, not even his home state of New Mexico. It's a 100 percent certainty that he will not receive a single electoral vote.

Viable? I don't think so.

There IS a 100 percent certainty, however, that a vote for Gary Johnson will help Barack Obama get reelected.

I love sticking to one's principle, something I try to do in all my arguments. But mixed with healthy dose of reality is the only way to ultimately advance such underlying principle - AND fend off an opposing principle from being advanced further.

..... AND fend off an opposing principle from being advanced further.

..... AND fend off an opposing principle from being advanced further.

Not only do libertarian-thinking people want to maintain a good offense, but if we don't even field a defensive team, we're doomed. And this is the time to put our best defensive team on the field.

Otherwise, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face comes to mind.

It's time to play defense, boxy, even if for just the one second it will take to cast a vote for the ONLY viable candidate against Barack Hussein Obama, and that's Mitt Romney. ONE SECOND, that's all. And then put your offense back on the field!

Collapse -

In this context

by NickNielsen In reply to Viable? No there's not.

Any candidate on enough state ballots to potentially earn enough electoral votes to take the Presidency should be considered viable.

The objective, Max, is to shake the complacency of the major parties enough that they stop listening so much to the money and start listening more to the people. If enough Americans disillusioned with the defective and deficient options being presented to them by the two major parties know there's an alternative, it's entirely possible that enough will not consider the top two lines, vote responsibly, and make that alternative viable.

Back to After Hours Forum
247 total posts (Page 3 of 25)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums