Who do you support for president?

[dayfall]

He is treated as a Moses by his fanatics.

Also, this is almost a tautology.

Of course fanatics worship him, and they are the loudest.  But he has plenty of fans and even just supporters who aren't nutjobs.

I agree.  Actually, one of my friends supported R.P. until I pointed out the faith stuff.  For me, it was that he supported don't ask don't tell.  Even when I did support R.P., his followers were unnerving.  And I meant the Moses thing because he is treated like he will lead us into the promised land (Promised Land = no Fed) and has some sort of connection to the laws from God (ark = the constitution). 

Obama was sort of a Jesus.  Doesn't' really follow the old laws (constitution) but performs miracles by feeding the 5000 ("Give me my Obama Check") and the poor love him.

Most seriously, does anyone worry what will happen if the FED is gone?  It sounds radical, but I don't know the implications.  Does it serve any important functions?

[notme]

He is treated as a Moses by his fanatics.

Also, this is almost a tautology.

Of course fanatics worship him, and they are the loudest.  But he has plenty of fans and even just supporters who aren't nutjobs.

I agree.  Actually, one of my friends supported R.P. until I pointed out the faith stuff.  For me, it was that he supported don't ask don't tell.  Even when I did support R.P., his followers were unnerving.  And I meant the Moses thing because he is treated like he will lead us into the promised land (Promised Land = no Fed) and has some sort of connection to the laws from God (ark = the constitution). 

Obama was sort of a Jesus.  Doesn't' really follow the old laws (constitution) but performs miracles by feeding the 5000 ("Give me my Obama Check") and the poor love him.

Most seriously, does anyone worry what will happen if the FED is gone?  It sounds radical, but I don't know the implications.  Does it serve any important functions?

It's primary function is market manipulation for the advantage of the powerful and debasing the savings of those struggling to save in the first place.

[Explodicle]

Should states be allowed to legalize slavery: Obviously not. That kind of hypothetical application of policy is simply stupid. Especially since slavery is forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment.

This is probably where I'm confused, so bear with me. If states should be allowed to define personhood like you say, then wouldn't some states just define group Y as not people? This group would be treated like property.

[notme]

Should states be allowed to legalize slavery: Obviously not. That kind of hypothetical application of policy is simply stupid. Especially since slavery is forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment.

This is probably where I'm confused, so bear with me. If states should be allowed to define personhood like you say, then wouldn't some states just define group Y as not people? This group would be treated like property.

Because a constitutional amendment forbids that.  The constitution trumps all.

[AndDuffy]

Should states be allowed to legalize slavery: Obviously not. That kind of hypothetical application of policy is simply stupid. Especially since slavery is forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment.

This is probably where I'm confused, so bear with me. If states should be allowed to define personhood like you say, then wouldn't some states just define group Y as not people? This group would be treated like property.

This issue was settled over a hundred years ago. There are constitutional amendments strictly forbidding slavery and discrimination. Besides, this is 2012. Nobody thinks like that anymore.

[Hawker]

Should states be allowed to legalize slavery: Obviously not. That kind of hypothetical application of policy is simply stupid. Especially since slavery is forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment.

This is probably where I'm confused, so bear with me. If states should be allowed to define personhood like you say, then wouldn't some states just define group Y as not people? This group would be treated like property.

This issue was settled over a hundred years ago. There are constitutional amendments strictly forbidding slavery and discrimination. Besides, this is 2012. Nobody thinks like that anymore.

But that's the point.  Thinking changes.  Morality evolves.  1000 years ago, 100% of people would have said owning slaves was perfectly fine and abortion was a heinous offense.  You could trawl medieval literature and never find a soul who disputed either of these ideas.  Now, 100% of people agree slavery is a hideous offense.  The moral status of abortion is changing as well.

Explodicle - you asked me to say what I think on the issue. Thinking about at what point a clump of cells is to be called human has to be arbitrary.  My view is that if it is capable of living outside the mother's body, it deserves legal protection.  There are abortion clinics where the clump of cells is removed and if it doesn't stop crying real fast, it gets killed.  To me, that is wrong.

The big point here is that none of this gets to be decided by the President; as Explodicle said, all he can do is play political games.  This decision is taken by the supreme Court.  If abortion is your most important issue, then you don't have a democratic way to act on it.  Even if a President is elected that shares your views, and appoints a Supreme Court judge to remove abortion, it still may not happen.  Look at what happened with Bush Senior and David Souter...a once in a generation chance to remove Roe vs. Wade was thrown away.

[ineededausername]

Who are the other trolls who chose Rick Santorum like I did?

[chmod755]

None of the above.

+1

[AndDuffy]

Should states be allowed to legalize slavery: Obviously not. That kind of hypothetical application of policy is simply stupid. Especially since slavery is forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment.

This is probably where I'm confused, so bear with me. If states should be allowed to define personhood like you say, then wouldn't some states just define group Y as not people? This group would be treated like property.

This issue was settled over a hundred years ago. There are constitutional amendments strictly forbidding slavery and discrimination. Besides, this is 2012. Nobody thinks like that anymore.

But that's the point.  Thinking changes.  Morality evolves.  1000 years ago, 100% of people would have said owning slaves was perfectly fine and abortion was a heinous offense.  You could trawl medieval literature and never find a soul who disputed either of these ideas.  Now, 100% of people agree slavery is a hideous offense.  The moral status of abortion is changing as well.

Explodicle - you asked me to say what I think on the issue. Thinking about at what point a clump of cells is to be called human has to be arbitrary.  My view is that if it is capable of living outside the mother's body, it deserves legal protection.  There are abortion clinics where the clump of cells is removed and if it doesn't stop crying real fast, it gets killed.  To me, that is wrong.

The big point here is that none of this gets to be decided by the President; as Explodicle said, all he can do is play political games.  This decision is taken by the supreme Court.  If abortion is your most important issue, then you don't have a democratic way to act on it.  Even if a President is elected that shares your views, and appoints a Supreme Court judge to remove abortion, it still may not happen.  Look at what happened with Bush Senior and David Souter...a once in a generation chance to remove Roe vs. Wade was thrown away.

Exactly. This is why the Constitution is a beautiful and sublime document; it was designed for evolution. Once a law is made, that does not and should not mean that it can't be changed or revised. If in a hundred years the state of California decides that you can marry a plant, I don't see why that shouldn't be their decision to make.

Also, slavery has been generally unpopular since forever. It was extremely unpopular in America among the general population. That's not the point though.

[westkybitcoins]

I think all presidential candidates should be required to take 3 normed IQ tests and have their average score publicly released.

While I don't think IQ truly reflects 'intelligence,' it's still a good indicator of how many variables --  and interrelationships among these variables -- a person can hold in their mind.

We need people who can truly parch a situation in office.  Implementing nice sounding policies and laws does no good if you aren't sure how those policies and laws will affect everything else.  It's like a gigantic rubix cube on steroids.

I think this would be a bad way to go about it.

Putting intelligence above morality is, IMHO, only going to have disastrous results.

You'd actually choose candidate A, who is morally weak but brilliant, over candidate B, who is merely of average intelligence but has rock-solid, no-compromise good morals (that you agree with?)

Then don't be too surprised when new, brilliantly creative forms of corruption are used to continue stealing public funds, oppressing political dissidents, and generally contributing to the breakdown of the system.

[Explodicle]

Should states be allowed to legalize slavery: Obviously not. That kind of hypothetical application of policy is simply stupid. Especially since slavery is forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment.

This is probably where I'm confused, so bear with me. If states should be allowed to define personhood like you say, then wouldn't some states just define group Y as not people? This group would be treated like property.

This issue was settled over a hundred years ago. There are constitutional amendments strictly forbidding slavery and discrimination.

Forbidding the enslavement of people. I can "enslave" and kill a plant if I so choose, or any group declared not persons, like fetuses. All of the rights described by the federal constitution fly out the window when the federal government refuses to decide to whom they apply. Why not let states decide which rights to protect entirely on their own, if they can pick who gets rights anyways?

Besides, this is 2012. Nobody thinks like that anymore.

Not about grown human slaves, I agree. But pro-lifers would say that abortionists think that way, and bioconservatives would think that way towards non-human intelligences.

[bb113]

Abortion is a distraction issue, people here really vote on that? Instead of rationally choosing the best option you are buying into the emotional appeals. Personally I think this is on purpose, neither major party really has a coherent platform. They both want big government and little government interference at the same time (depending on the issue). The idea that "liberals" want a "socialist utopia" is hypocritical when what "conservatives" want is "strong military". The military will just grow to fill the void created by cutting social programs. As an example, eventually everyone serves in the military so they get VA-offered socialized medicine. Then what?

My point is I think these irrational platforms are maintained on purpose. They may have arisen as the result of various historical factors and politicking, but today they serve to push out any rational voters and make elections a game of emotional appeals and "us vs them." Please don't vote based on abortion. Vote based on the role you think government should play in our society. Should it interfere alot, or little? History has shown that tools given to the government based on these wedge issues just get used later in perverse ways. The same amendment that "freed" the slaves was used to justify corporate personhood.

[bb113]

The military will just grow to fill the void created by cutting social programs. As an example, eventually everyone serves in the military so they get VA-offered socialized medicine. Then what?

I would love to hear mark levin's opinion on this. Someone who gets to listen live should call.

[Wekkel]

The fun part: still 22 people that voted someone else than Ron Paul.

O my, the USA is screwed 

[AndDuffy]

Oh what EVER. Jeez. Electoral college, plurality vote, supreme court... It's not perfect, but your vote DOES count!

In the US ?
No, it doesn't.

Instead of mindlessly spouting off useless quips from your unesteemed opinion, try forming a coherent statement backed by verifiable facts. It'll make you look like less of a pretentious prick.

[Hawker]

Oh what EVER. Jeez. Electoral college, plurality vote, supreme court... It's not perfect, but your vote DOES count!

In the US ?
No, it doesn't.

Instead of mindlessly spouting off useless quips from your unesteemed opinion, try forming a coherent statement backed by verifiable facts. It'll make you look like less of a pretentious prick.

Well said.  Nothing worse than people that say "if voting could change anything it would be illegal" and acting as if that made them clever.

[Hawker]

It doesn’t really look like this group is a representative sample of the voting public.

If you're here, you can at least:
    . read
    . use a computer.

You are therefore not a representative sample of the US public.

Are you saying the majority in your state is illiterate?  Where do you live?

[Rassah]

Who are the other trolls who chose Rick Santorum like I did?

Thank god! I was really worried there until I read your post 

[FlipPro]

President Obama.

He did a stellar job given the sickly obstacles that were put into place.

I want to see the "real" Obama on his second term...

[compro01]

Ron Paul will not remove any laws that "protect citizen's rights."

Of course not.  He simply proposes removing court scrutiny from such laws passed by states.

         The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

        (1) shall not adjudicate--

            (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

            (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

            (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

        (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

Whoops, there goes;

Katz v. United States
Lawrence v. Texas
Roe v. Wade
Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
probably several more I'm forgetting about

and anything that relies on the precedents from those cases.