AH members: who are you voting for US president?

[CaliHwyPatrol]

I don't participate in political discussion because 99.9% of people fail at it. If you can't sell me the candidate you are voting without blanket statements, slander, or insults against the opponent, then either you don't know very much about your candidate, or there aren't enough good things about your candidate worth voting for.

Fallacious arguments are the #1 reason political discussions go South. Many people don't even know their basic fallacies, and many that do ignore them. Most people fail so hard at debating that using these fallacies is second nature, and then other people will fall into it and the discussion goes to hell.

I run a small gaming forum, and I have disallowed political discussions for the reason I've just mentioned. However, I recently created a thread to find out who was voting for who and why. There were some very particular rules though that I feel sets my thread apart, I'll list them as I did in the thread:

• I want to know who you are picking, and why you think they are the right choice. You may not, however, talk negatively about the other side. I want to know why you think your candidate is good, not why you think the other candidate is bad. There will be no Obama is to blame for this, McCain did that. Doing so will result in ejection from the thread.
• No blanket statements. Republicans this, democrats that, liberals... etc. Blanket statements are a sign of ignorance, so if you can't talk without using them, your opinion carries no merit and doesn't belong here.
• No insulting. If you can't talk in here without telling someone they are stupid for believing this, don't do it.
• No major fallacies. Fallacies are the #1 reason these threads get out of hand. If you don't know your basic fallacious arguments, read up on them before posting. This doesn't mean I'm going to nit pick every little thing, it is more of a reminder to keep your arguments sound. It looks better on you anyway.
• You will use proper English in this thread. This includes proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I want to have a civilized, informative discussion, and it is difficult when trying to decipher poorly written posts. Major violations will result in ejection from the thread.

Interestingly enough, the thread didn't turn into an infinite number of pages of people insulting each other. Also, you can pick out the weak arguments when someone starts going for the "Well the other side does this..." statements. One could argue that this doesn't make for a very good discussion, and it doesn't, but that wasn't what I wanted. I simply wanted to know what is so great about your candidate to win your vote. Since my forum is small, there were only a few people who could actually live up to the challenge, but it would be interesting to see how that set of rules would play out in a larger forum like this one. This thread is kind of on the same level as mine since you don't want any debate here, so maybe it would be beneficial to enforce a similar rule set that dictates only posting why you are voting for your candidate, not why you aren't voting for the opposing party.

And personally? I'm not voting. As per my own rules, I can't find enough good things about either candidate to win my vote and be able to back it up, so I don't talk about them.

 

[emorphien]

It's entirely reasonable to talk about the negatives of another candidate while discussing why you are choosing someone else, but if you choose to do so, do it reasonably and based in fact. Not campain/party talking points. That's where many people fail. There's been some of it in this thread, although it's been pretty well behaved so far

 

[MinusTheBear]

You have to make this like a real election and sway the polls.....there its done....

 

[mike c]

i don't even like political discussions ... i'm just plain curious who people would vote for.

 

[billy p]

I beg to differ?

I'd vote for Donald Duck.

A two party system truly sucks...

-pat

We have 5 official parties and they truly suck as well. In the case of politicians less is always better!

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

It's entirely reasonable to talk about the negatives of another candidate while discussing why you are choosing someone else, but if you choose to do so, do it reasonably and based in fact. Not campain/party talking points. That's where many people fail. There's been some of it in this thread, although it's been pretty well behaved so far

Right, what you're talking about would be the basis for an excellent discussion. My thread was aimed at 1 post per person saying why they liked their candidate, kinda like a corny support group.

The part I made bold in your quote is the part people have the most trouble with. It's hard for most people to do that without issuing some kind of BS, insult, or blanket statement. Unfortunately, this is also the same issue the candidates have, making it easier for the voters to fall into the same trap.

John McCain is a damn war hero. He deserves the utmost respect and I would be honored to shake his hand. The things he went through in the name of his country I can't even imagine having to bear. However, I can't see myself voting for him as a president. A good majority of his campaign has been focusing on attacking Barack Obama both personally, and politically. Whilst this has been the case with both candidates, I see it the most with Sen McCain in particular. Maybe it is because of the media outlets I frequent, maybe something else. It has just been my observation. The reason I would not cast a vote for this one issue is because I feel that things like this would extend into the actual presidency. If you are willing to aggressively attack other people in this manner now, what is to stop you from doing it to another person/people/country later?

I like Barack Obama because he is a good speaker and he seems like a very smart person. I saw him on one of the Tonight Shows when this whole race was first starting and he seemed like a well rounded, decent individual. However, I disagree with his stances of a number of issues, especially gun control. I feel that his approach on gun control hasn't been working and is a stepping stone for alienating us from our 2A rights. He's flip flopped on this issue, which I believe was done to not lose votes of gun activists, so I don't know his real stance, but if I had to guess I'd say he's anti gun. There are some other things but they are minor. I can't really see myself voting against what I believe in as a compromise.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts on why I haven't/won't be choosing a candidate.

 

[MidnightSensi]

I like Barack Obama because he is a good speaker and he seems like a very smart person. I saw him on one of the Tonight Shows when this whole race was first starting and he seemed like a well rounded, decent individual. However, I disagree with his stances of a number of issues, especially gun control. I feel that his approach on gun control hasn't been working and is a stepping stone for alienating us from our 2A rights. He's flip flopped on this issue, which I believe was done to not lose votes of gun activists, so I don't know his real stance, but if I had to guess I'd say he's anti gun. There are some other things but they are minor. I can't really see myself voting against what I believe in as a compromise.

I feel the same way. I feel strongly in the second amendment. He has seemed to flip flop now towards being less radical about gun control. The economic issues have kind of prevented him from having to speak much about it anyways though. I don't think he would be able to really take away our rights, though, any further than perhaps some proposals but I don't really know. I'd like to know more.

I don't even think the second amendment was mentioned in the debates, maybe we are just passed it and they are accepting that Americans won't give that up?

On his better side, I think he might be our first president who might allow for the decriminalization of marijuana or at least allow states to provide medical marijuana without federal intervention. It's really time to stop spending billions on that regardless of ones personal feelings on the drug.

Unfortunetly, I had to compromise this election and vote more on who I think would help us with the war and economy rather than some other important issues.

 

[pzaur]

We have 5 official parties and they truly suck as well. In the case of politicians less is always better!

Yes, there are more than 2 registered political parties...but...it's a de facto 2 party system. How come none of the other parties are invited to the debates?

More of a rhetorical question than anything. Not looking to take over the thread. No response needed (or actually wanted).

I will cast my vote on this thread when it gets closer...

-pat

 

[MidnightSensi]

Yes, there are more than 2 registered political parties...but...it's a de facto 2 party system. How come none of the other parties are invited to the debates?

More of a rhetorical question than anything. Not looking to take over the thread. No response needed (or actually wanted).

I will cast my vote on this thread when it gets closer...

-pat

There is another debate for them. I think this year they might have not even showed up, or only one party wanted to do it. Something like that.

 

[yettitheman]

You left off, Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich.

THAT was hilarous!

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Since the AH community seems to be pretty conservative , it is heartening to see a majority for Obama here.