|
I've been having this discussion with my fiance for a while now, and I want DnD's take on this. We were talking about who we would vote for in the coming presidential election, and I said that I was planning on voting 3rd party (Green, socialist, whatever.) She was surprised, giving the standard reasoning that I would be throwing my vote away/might as well vote Republican then. We live in Missouri, which is usually a pretty close election, so she does have a point there. I explained that I see the Democratic party continually tracking right to gain more conservative voters under the assumption that as long as they stay slightly to the left of the GOP, they won't lose their leftist base. If I vote for a third party to the left of the Democrats, it won't get a candidate elected, but it will be a signal to the Democrats that they will lose voters as they move right. Besides, I said, the election is most likely going to be between Romney and Obama anyway, and those two are both center-right. If Obama loses and Romney wins, I can't see things changing, considering how lovely of a president Obama is anyway. She acknowledged the reasoning, but wasn't entirely convinced. She still thinks that Obama really is liberal, but he can't get anything done with a Republican Congress/is really politically inexperienced. I think that Obama is deliberately moving right, and all this talk of his incompetency is merely excuses meant to cover his rear end, but I didn't have any examples on hand to prove my point. Could you make a summary of truly terrible things Obama has done that could show he's not just incompetent but actively conservative? (Or, alternatively, prove me wrong and show that he is really trying.)
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Might not help that much, but as many as 1 in 3 women in the military are raped. Ask them if everyone should have to be raped to advance economically. Might shock them a little. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3444927
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:And you'll have libertarians and neoliberals claiming that's exactly the problem - the markets aren't free enouugh. That's okay to begin with. Then you can lead them on a tour of how distorting very large corporations can be to the free market, due to market power. Then you can propose a solution: have the government carefully regulate them and prevent firms from gaining too much market power. Government interference, done correctly, actually would make markets more "free." Then you can ask what exactly makes a market "free" to begin with. Bam, you've turned a neoliberal talking point on its head.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
Sometimes you have to conserve your energy. I tend to get in useless fights, too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
The easiest talking point, actually, is "Too Big to Fail." If any entity is so essential to society that it literally cannot be allowed to fail, then it obviously is too important to be under private control. You can point to things like national defense, a transportation network, or utilities as examples of other TBTF entities that we entrust only to the government (or, in the case of utilities, to a government regulated monopoly). Of course, if they respond that the government can't do anything right or is incompetent, then you can point right back to those examples. Simply put, when it comes to The Important Stuff(tm), we put the government in charge, and if the banks are really that powerful/important, then we can't leave them in the hands of private industry. Or, at the very least, the banks need to be as regulated as the utility companies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2011 05:51
|
|