U.s. Presidential Race

[heyrabbit]

Christian, yes. Socialist, no. And if he's got some more liberal policies in him, I'll speak in his defense. Do you know what came out of socialistic thinking? 40 hour work weeks, workman's compensation, the end to child labour, cleanliness in the meat packing industry, etc. Would you have us go back to 1880?

 

By the by, why should being Christian disqualify Obama from the race? What president hasn't been a Christian or at least a Deist?

 

Oh wait, you're an Ayn Rand fan. Pardon me.

Uh, okay, first of all, those aren't points in favor of socialism. Secondly, those things occurred in the most Capitalist country in the world. If you want to want to know what came out of socialist thinking, ask yourself what you think of socialist countries. Naziism and Stalin were products of two of the most socialist civilizations in recent history.

 

Now, it is not much to say that Obama is a socialist, because anyone who will get elected president will take charge of a mixed economy that is partly socialist already; therefore,the only thing required to earn him the title of socialist is to do nothing much radical, but obviously he is not radical at all by today's standards - nobody who gets elected is - and he will only add to the slide of America into statism. Taxation is socialism in action and he has no intent on eliminating it, he doesn't disapprove of it, he only intends on providing minimal tax cuts. This leads me to believe that he does not understand the injustice of taxation, nor does he understand its effect on the economy.

 

I do not think that a person's religion should disqualify them legally from running for president, but any healthy society would naturally refuse to vote for a Christian. Political philosophy requires at least a basic understanding of metaphysics. Christianity is literally a primitive philosophy with a ridiculously false metaphysical view of the world. And so what should that say to voters? Since politics is a branch of philosophy, what woulud it mean to run for president while having no good ideas about philosophy and, at the same time, claiming to be a Christian? it is analogous to the doctor who intends on performing surgery on you, all the while admitting to not really having any good ideas about medicine. To say that least, it is not a trivial problem...

 

To paraphrase Sam Harris: if you apply for a job as a doctor and have all sorts of ideas about medicine, but can't adduce reasons for them, you are literally laughed out of the room. That's a good thing because lives depend on that being the case...

 

If a pesron wants to be a political philosopher, and they openly admit devoting their life to a false god from hte bronze age of human history, they should be laughed out of the room just as the witch doctor from the 16th century would be, who applies for the job of chief surgeon of a hospital. Admitting you are a Christian is like admitting you talk to aliens, or that you're an astrologer; it is the admission of a psychological weak point and should be a red flag in the eyes of everyone; it is an indication that that person is incapable of basic critical thinking. And so we might want to worry that the type of person who is admits to conceiving of evil ideas, the person who admits to devoting their life to them, that their stupid and evil ideas might influence on their decision making. No, it is more like, we would be bloody naive to think otherwise. it should be no surprise, then, that his political views mirror his religious ones. They are based on the same stupid premises and the same moral code - altruism.

 

Who is Ayn Rand?

Edited April 5, 2008 by heyrabbit

[marx marvelous]

I'm not sure which is crazier--not recognizing the name of the woman quoted in your signature, blaming Naziism on socialist economic policy, or the suggestion that the very concept of taxation is unjust.

 

The modern American economic system is socialized capitalism. Government contracts are awarded to undeserving corporations with ties to the officials in charge of the jobs. Think Halliburton for the highest profile example. Fish in a barrel. I wouldn't mind a little bit of European socialism--I'd much rather pay for socialized medicine or improvements in the education system than for the transfer of wealth to government contractors.

 

I suggest that you set your philosophy books aside for a moment and examine some real-life situations. Such pure ideals have a place in discussion, but the world we live in is never so black and white. Consider practical applications. Consider the possibility that Senator Obama does not champion "evil ideas", but turns to a belief in a higher power for the faith to tackle incredible odds. Consider the possibility that Senator Obama only sought church membership because it is usually the only path to winning elections in the United States.

 

And really--in a country whose moral heroes include racists, adulterers, and alcoholics, is prayer the red flag we should be looking for?

 

Again, please consider reality.

[heyrabbit]

I'm not sure which is crazier--not recognizing the name of the woman quoted in your signature, blaming Naziism on socialist economic policy, or the suggestion that the very concept of taxation is unjust.

 

The modern American economic system is socialized capitalism.  Government contracts are awarded to undeserving corporations with ties to the officials in charge of the jobs.  Think Halliburton for the highest profile example.  Fish in a barrel.  I wouldn't mind a little bit of European socialism--I'd much rather pay for socialized medicine or improvements in the education system than for the transfer of wealth to government contractors.

 

I suggest that you set your philosophy books aside for a moment and examine some real-life situations.  Such pure ideals have a place in discussion, but the world we live in is never so black and white.  Consider practical applications.  Consider the possibility that Senator Obama does not champion "evil ideas", but turns to a belief in a higher power for the faith to tackle incredible odds.  Consider the possibility that Senator Obama only sought church membership because it is usually the only path to winning elections in the United States.

 

And really--in a country whose moral heroes include racists, adulterers, and alcoholics, is prayer the red flag we should be looking for?

 

Again, please consider reality.

I do not mean offense, but I'm obviously going to take exception to being told to consider reality when your opinion was formed in the act of evading it.

 

"Socialist capitalism" is a contraction in terms. The two systems are antithetical and socialism is actually the negation of capitalism, which means that it isn't really a mixing of systems. You can say that a country's political/economic system is moral to the extent to which it is capitalist. Or that a country is socialist insofar as a lack of capitalism exists. etc So when a country turns to socialism or capitalism, it is not some sort of new system that is created, it is the strengthening or weakening of the free market and of capitalism.

 

Government subsidies to corporations is caused be socialism. And I don't see how you can think that it is all right to redistribute wealth for education or medicine, and not to corporations. The problem with taxation isn't what the government is doing with the money, but that it has money at all.

 

 

In reality, there is a reason why socialism positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship. In order to sustain "order" in a socialist country, in order to prevent black-market trade from occurring, what is required is that the population be deathly frightened for their lives. How does the government achieve this? Well, they need to have a secret police that watching the population at all times. Everyone is a potential spy and you dare not trade freely, let alone speak against the state. As the rulers of communist states, dictators must be perpetually frightened for their position and their lives. They must be paranoid about everyone around them. The position they took by force requires force to sustain, because there is resentment breeding everywhere and there is always someone who wants to take their place. The rulers of these states, therefore, must be cunning, manipulative, and willing to kill, not only in order to protect "the interests of the state", but more importantly, to protect their position and their life. Being an evil, murderous brute isn't a quality that's well thought of in a free society, but those are the traits that are most successful in a socialist system. So why was Stalin a jerk? What's wrong with Hitler, Castro, Jintao, Ahmadinejad, Hussein? It is not a matter of the socialist system being effective, and it's just a coincidence(!) that they always yield evil assholes. Those men were products of the system and they rose to the top through socialist natural selection (the selection of the worst)

 

 

 

Such pure ideals have a place in discussion, but the world we live in is never so black and white.  Consider practical applications

 

If, by "black and white", you mean "good and bad", or "true and untrue", then th world is black and white. And practical applications are necessary, but what is applied is theory and philosophy, something Obama is lacking. A man of integrity would never permit himself to pretend to be a Christian to gain office, if he understood the evils of religion. But, obviously his spirituality isn't some sort of ploy. he's not a fanatic, he just mystical to one degree or another like most Americans. The point is that people who are known alcoholics or racists don't gain office, but christians do. They are symptoms of the same problem

Edited April 5, 2008 by heyrabbit

[Moonlight_Graham]

And heyrabbit somehow turns the U.S. pres. race into an pro-capitalism/anti-socialism, if-u-believe-in-god-u-r-stupid argument. ;)

 

An ideology can be defined as political theories that were originally made to accommodate the social & economic conditions created by the Industrial Revolution. So which one has been most successful in practice since then? Not socialism or communism, (see: Nazi Germany, China, Russia/USSR etc.). Not hardcore capitalism (see: western economic shit-kicking of the great depression, and poor working conditons/rights leading up to then).

 

From social & economic standpoints i think western liberal democracies using capitalism with a solid dose of socialist elements has worked best ie: the U.S., Canada, and most of Europe are the most successful up to this point since the Indust. Rev.

 

Obama (and all the current candidates left) being Christian doesn't bother me. Heck, if Bush & co. followed their supposed Christian beliefs more closely (the "big" stuff at least), the U.S. wouldn't be in half the shit they are in now.

[heyrabbit]

How do you debate a philosophical standpoint without philosophizing? "i like Hilary." and "i think obama " isn't an argument.

 

 

What ideology lead to the industrial revolution?

 

"Hardcore capitalism" didn't cause the depression. In fact, there was a significant increase in statism directly preceding the depression.

 

If Bush followed his beliefs more strictly, half of San Fransisco would be stoned to death, before or after the elimination of a third of the population during the Sabbath. And we'd also be allowed to beat slaves.

[decomposinglight]

heyrabbit ruins everything. That about sums it up.

[marx marvelous]

If Bush followed his beliefs more strictly, half of San Fransisco would be stoned to death, before or after the elimination of a third of the population during the Sabbath. And we'd also be allowed to beat slaves.

"Arguments" like this only emphasize your unhealthy interest in pseudo-intellectual masturbation as opposed to, you know, a real discussion of current events.

[heyrabbit]

That was a bit of an off-the-cuff remark, but it's still entirely reasonable. And I think that is part of the reason why it's something that should be discussed more. it's as relevant to a political discussion as anything else. I don't know what part of my writing made you think I'm pseudo-intellectual, because you haven't relaly responded to anything. I'd be the first to admit that I'm not an intellectual. I would think that would be obvious. That doesn't mean I don't think I'm intelligent - I do. But if any such distinction is to be made, it would be purely a comparative one. ;)

Edited April 10, 2008 by heyrabbit

[decomposinglight]

But if any such distinction is to be made, it would be purely a comparative one.  :angry:

Well you sure think highly of yourself. :angry:

 

Now use that intellect to talk about the race (12 days until Pennsylvania!!), your race predictions, the candidates' policies, etc. - not the so-called idiocy of religious people (see http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/08/rol...rtin/index.html - "In other words, ignore the churchgoing folks and you don't stand a prayer of winning") or the inconsistencies in "capitalist" societies today.

 

Such is ;) Let's get back on the on-topic train. KTHNX to all.

Edited April 10, 2008 by decomposinglight

[heyrabbit]

You're not too humble ;)

 

 

I don't think we ever went off topic. Differences in platforms means a difference of philosophy. The economy is the first victim of bad philosophy, from which all other victims are made. I don't want to talk about it if I'm not allowed to be reasonable. That would mean posting information about the candidates without making sense of it...

[Moonlight_Graham]

You might think Obama's philosphies are flawed, but like decomposinglight refered there isn't much point in talking about it when any major candidate for the presidency is going to be Christian because that is the religious beliefs of the majority of Americans.

 

What i find odd is how most pundits say Hillary wouldn't want to be Vice-President (no matter if it were really Obama the winner or another person). Is she that power hungry? She is in this race for the power, not for the greatest opportunity to serve her country? Just seems odd/hypocritical.

 

Somewhat similar to that 3rd-place Democrat whats-his-face smiley perfect haircut boy whose name i can't recall right now - John Edwards thats it! "Oh VP i been there done that, no thanks". Wtf??

[marx marvelous]

I really hope Edwards reconsiders that position. I can understand why he'd be jaded about it--when he was John Kerry's vice presidential nominee and Kerry was being swiftboated, Edwards insisted on going on the offensive, but Kerry demanded that his campaign ignore the attack, the idea being that addressing the ad would only legitimize it. We all know how that went! I think Edwards is one of the few politicians who really cares more about his cause than the office he holds (or could hold), sometimes to a fault. But I hope he realizes the difference he could make as Obama's VP or Attorney General.

 

My brother and a group of about 70 other volunteers organized by the Obama campaign went door-to-door today in my very small town. It's the only time that's happened in my lifetime here, not even local politicians have organization like that. Very exciting stuff.

[heyrabbit]

Anyone who says there's no point in concerning themselves with the philosophy of any candidate likely to win the presidency, is essentially deciding to not concern themselves with the voting process altogether, because all the candidates are similar in their philosophies. All the candidates are socialists to some degree, religious to some degree or another. They are all economic and religious "moderates". So, then, what's the point in talking about it? Well, there are lots of points. How about, they are going to be elected and what they do will affect everyone's lives. That's one point. Remember also that there is no dichotomy between philosophy and policy. Philosophy isn't some side issue that has no real bearing on the actions of those candidates, it is the foundation, the fundamentally accepted premises which determine every preference and every action taken.

 

What's implied in all of this is the phenomenon of majority rule, voting by consensus. It doesn't matter what policies a candidate adopts, so long as most people agree with it, because the criterion of what is good is not what is not what is rational and right, but what is chosen by most others. Since there is no yard stick by which to measure what's good and bad, what's good is simply whatever the herd decides is good or bad.

[marx marvelous]

Anyone else catch the Compassion Forum tonight? I think Obama made some gains. Hillary's performance seemed a bit overkill--recounting the story of Esther and generally trying to act like a Biblical scholar. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of Barack's responses, he never reduces the conversation to talking points. Take tonight for example: in front of a crowd of religious leaders and collegiate spectators, he made sure to explain that while he is personally a man of faith, he doesn't believe that religion always has to be at odds with science. He went on to explain that he can have his PERSONAL beliefs without infringing upon the separation of church and state. His critics will say he's vague and "all talk", but I'm glad he thinks highly enough of the American voters not to dumb down his message.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Ok i'll rephrase what i said. Yes, examining the philosophies of the candidates is important, obviously. However, getting into the detail of Obama's religious philosophies - specifically debating whether a person who believes in a God and in Christiany is fit to be the leader of the world - is getting a bit off-topic for this particular thread IMO. It is however something that would be interesting to debate in another thread (well maybe not for me since i've already debated this at length with you, rabbit).

 

I did watch a little bit of a forum on CNN tonight where Clinton & Obama were asked questions about their faith and how it guides their politics. Obviously religion is a huge part of any US presidential race. (edit: heh funny i wrote this before reading Marx' last post).

Edited April 14, 2008 by Moonlight_Graham

[decomposinglight]

I don't see how I was being humble or not humble, rabbit.

 

In reference to your continuing posts that are just really amounting to a burden, there is a difference between discussing philosophy in broad terms and in discussing the specifics of the race for the U.S. presidency. Again, this thread is not about whether religion is evil, capitalism is too socialist, or the like. Making everything into a broad argument is something that is wearing down this thread. People don't want to talk about that. This is the most intense section of the Bored, and yet still nobody comes here to debate philosophy. You're wrong, OK? Get over it.

 

To those actually willing to discuss the current events of the race, I didn't see that forum, unfortunately. What do you guys thing of Hillary's Bosnia comments or Barack's comments about bitter working-class Americans? Will either hurt their campaign?

[marx marvelous]

I think Obama's bit will be less damaging now, but McCain will probably try to use it in the general. The Clinton gaffe is another story--since hers was an outright fabrication rather than a poor choice of words (she repeated the sniper story on 4 or 5 separate occasions), I think that story has more staying power. Especially considering that untrustworthiness tends to be her #1 perceived weakness among voters.

[decomposinglight]

I hope you're right, but it seems like the news media are really exploiting the "bitter" comments.

 

Did you also find Hillary's recent comments about "feeling God's presence" to be fabricated?

[heyrabbit]

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't see political ideology as involving abstractions too broad for anyone here to comprehend. There's really no way to discuss the race without talking about those characteristics that are essential to the candidates and their policies; oherwise, there is no debate taking place, instead just a succession of opinions that end before they've been begun, ideas that never get quantified. That's how lots of the other threads in this forum operate. i.e. To the question:"What's your favorite food", people might respond with "PIZZZXCA", "SPAGHETTI", "CHICKEN". That's fine in the open discussion forum. Comments and opinions here that are narrow in scope are more of a burden for me to read than anything else, because I don't really care how anyone feels about the race. I want to know what people think about the race. "Thinking" implies a cognitive process of observing and weighing evidence. So when someone say "I think...", what's implied is that they thought something. And maybe I'm over-ambitious, but I actually want to know what everyone thinks, if they think anything. When I want specifics on a campaign, I can just read a newspaper or websites like anyone else. If everyone's going to get annoyed with me for making anything other than little perfunctory remarks,which,incidentally, is what has happened in some other threads, then maybe I'll just stop posting here. I don't want to "shit" up threads. Later on I'll pick some specifics about the campaign and talk about it, if I'm allowed.

 

P.S. Why am I wrong?

Edited April 16, 2008 by heyrabbit

[Moonlight_Graham]

you aren't shitting up threads rabbit. What you are saying does have something to do with the race, its not completely off-topic.

 

I don't find it reassuring that people don't seem to think this should disqualify him from becoming president.

 

I'll respond to what you said about Christians not being qualified to run for President. Philosphically, its a valid arguement, and one u talked about in the past (not regarding US presidency though i dont think). I just think the argument is such a enormously broad issue, that in this case its a bit moot. Most US voters are Christian, so its understandable that they would likely prefer a Christian president who has similar moral/spiritual beliefs they have. Why would they disqualify a person for President who has similar beliefs as themselves?

 

On what the others were saying, i really don't give a crap about the "bitter" remarks & the Bosnia thing. There are so much bigger issues at stake than a slip of the tongue or a silly lie. In the 10 years i've seriously been into politcs, the #1 thing i've learned is that talk is cheap and actions mean everything. I try not to take too much heed in what politicians say or promise, i look at what they've done in the past in order to predict what they will do when they are in office. And Obama, IMO, is no different. I got caught up in his amazing speeches a few months back, but now reality kinda sets in. He is likely like all the rest until he proves otherwise. He's a lot of talk right now. A VERY smooth politican who says all the right things, but will he (or can he) actually implement them when in office?

 

All the candidates are saying the exact same things Gore & Bush did in 2000. In any poltical race its a lot of promises, but few that are implemented. I hope a guy like Obama is different. He gives me hope, i want to believe in him so very much. But i can't until he PROVES it.

 

I think voters should be paying a bit less attention to speeches and rhetoric, and a lot more to who is financing these people's campaigns, and what their past voting records have been. But of course that takes some independent research, and most people would prefer to just sit on their couch and watch Anderson Cooper babble about some speech on youtube.

[decomposinglight]

I've said it how many times now, rabbit? I'm not going to say it again. I'm tired of arguing with you. Do what you feel is best, and don't whine (making subtle jabs about how you'll post if you're "allowed" doesn't help you, either - you just sound snide). Maybe if you didn't try to turn every thread into a philosophical argument, people wouldn't complain about you. Case in point: in "What's the Last Thing You've Eaten?" Posted on: Apr 6 2008, 12:36 AM "come one. we can discuss anything. why are we listing the last thing we put in our mouths? I hate this thread and everything it stands for. sandwich..." It's funny because not only did you conform to write "sandwich," but here in this thread, you state that you have no problem with such things - "That's how lots of the other threads in this forum operate. i.e. To the question:"What's your favorite food", people might respond with "PIZZZXCA", "SPAGHETTI", "CHICKEN". That's fine in the open discussion forum." Change of heart? Now, I guess I can be just as guilty as you for responding to your antics (no one did in the "What's the Last Thing You've Eaten?" thread, not to my surprise - that thread is mindless), but seriously, you've got some nerve with the things you write. Unfortunately, half of the time, you're right on the money (ex: your "Smart people shouldn't be fat" argument). My suggestion: Just be a little more tactful. Absolutism in claims doesn't broaden your audience, it diminishes it.

 

In response to other things, the fact that they candidates are saying the same things Gore and Bush did reminds me of the "Testify" RATM video (

), which compiles quotes from both parties... saying exactly the same thing. While I think that there are some distinctions to be made, especially between Gore and Bush in 2000, and RATM exaggerates things heavily, they have a point about the lack of choice when it comes to politicians. I'm assuming part of this is because during the campaign, they just talk about change and hope and experience and all of these buzzwords, which don't really mean anything. I totally agree that you've got to look at the voting record, but speeches and other things do give a nice added accent to round off the votes that make the man/woman. They at least let you know what he or she is willing to promise, not just what they're willing to put their name on. It's not a huge indicator, but like Moonlight said, it can be inspiring.

 

Talking the talk is all around us, though. Example: The two-faced-ness of candidates when discussing NAFTA. Both Clinton and Obama want to renegotiate, but would not stop the agreement all together. Despite what the people are calling for (jobs wah wah jobs, and even Clinton and Obama are whining with false loss statistics), the candidates know they're not going to fuck with it. Better to omit than to lie or create a bad image, no? Especially since people who don't want NAFTA are amiss when it comes to economics. Unfortunately, having to explain fiscal policy to your neighbour is a lost cause.

 

I guess we'll see what happens for all of the promises when someone is elected, as usual.

 

It's hard to find information about campaign finance. All I got from a quick search is the usual "Obama gets cash from young people online, uses small meetings in addition to galas, grassroots campaign trumps Hillary's fundraising tactics, and won't accept from lobbyists" and "Hilary holds huge gala to get cash." Care to enlighten us on anything interesting you've found, Moonlight?

 

Lastly, Anderson Cooper doesn't bring anything to the table from my experience. He was kind of cute in "Planet in Peril" (he fell slightly down a fissure in ice in Greenland and screamed "FUCK!"), but honestly, I don't find him to be that intelligent. He just paraphrases; he doesn't make insightful comments. Stephen Colbert makes a more striking analysis on the Colbert Report.

[heyrabbit]

D'lite,

I don't view argument as inherently hostile nor do I view an attack on my ideas as an attack against me. If someone wants to argues with me, I am not "offended". Sounds like you do get offended. So if it annoys you, then it's probably not a healthy thing for you to do. But, at the same time, it's also not healthy not to be unable to argue. You're alright because you won't shut-up, even though you say you want to. ;) I'm anything but a diplomat. So what? That doesn't mean I'm not civil, and I almost never resort to personal attacks, even though others usually do with me. I really do not care if the whole world doesn't want to debate with me. If I want people to tolerate me, that doesn't mean I'm going to change my ideas. Those who are intimidated by debate shouldn't be arguing anyway, so perhapbs my way of speaking weeds those people out. Most people don't talk to me on here, but some do, and I like debating with those who understand the importance of a benevolent exchange of ideas. I am well aware that I could broaden my audience if I talked in a certain way, but I also know that more people read what I say than those who respond.

 

Absolutes are not only necessary in argument, but in anything you say or think. If there's no use for absolutes, then there's no point in saying or thinking anything... What does that say when people will only argue with me if there's nothing to argue about, when I pretend that absolutes don't exist, that nothing is right or wrong or good and bad? Everyone will listen only to me when I don't say anything . Well, I do not care to appeal to the cult of moral grayness. I'd rather say something and have a few listen.

Edited April 26, 2008 by heyrabbit

[decomposinglight]

I'm not offended in the slightest. Rather, I'm exhausted in many ways. You are akin to a moral fag due to the fact that you admittedly sit there idly when people beat you down, but opposite to him in your views. It is quite frustrating to be at the opposing end of your big stick.

 

I didn't say there was no use for absolutes (I think there is, or I wouldn't be debating with you); I said that maybe you should employ less absolutism if you want a larger and less hostile viewership. But it seems you recognize what you're doing, so well done and well said. Keep it coming. I trust you to come up with something interesting.

[decomposinglight]

So Obama is the only one opposing the temporary elimination of the gas tax (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywQKYga6uMY). McCain and Hillary both want it. Aside from that, every candidate wants to open the U.S. oil reserves, which are about 97% full. This could alter price 5 to 25 cents for every gallon, but I'm wary about this, too. I'm not against using the reserve for different reasons (it's technically meant for times when the supply of oil is low, not when production costs or other factors have raised prices too high), but it just doesn't seem worth it, especially if it's only for the summer. It won't deal with the problem at hand: OPEC (and U.S. big business) is whoring the American people without a care.

 

Thoughts?

[Moonlight_Graham]

Well what actually might be a smart idea is for the U.S. to expand its oil reserves even further and stock up for cheap during the winter, and then release the same oil in the next spring/summer to keep the prices from going too crazy. Then repeat the process annually.