Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

(Page 1 of 2)

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Is it immoral to vote with your heart?

Pages 1 2 Next

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 1 to 30 of 37


I'm pro-abortion. Go figure.
Climate change IS true. But did you not understand the IPCC's statement on this? Such predictions as exist are based on ensemble projections from multiple computer models, which span the gamut from extremely beneficial to catastrophic outcomes. And within that range, no one can do more than guess what the outcome would be.
Furthermore, the climate system has decades--many centuries--of inertia, meaning if all human-produced CO2 ended TODAY, it would take 75-100 years before any effects were measurable.
It wasn't the anti-vaxxers that brought measels back. Public health officials stopped pushing the vaccines as much. And lo! The vaccine does harm and kill many people every year. There were 397 deaths associated with MMR vaccinations between 1990 and 2016 or about 15 per year. Deaths from measles are less than 1 per year, even as late as 2015 (the last year for which data have been collated).
Thus, we are killing an average of 15 people each year to save 1 every couple of years. This is a bad trade-off.
On the other hand, when measles was killing 300-500 people per year in the 1960s, it was a very GOOD trade off.


And the goal posts move once again ... :-)


But I'm not charged with murder, and Trump is not under indictment.
And if I'm charged with murder, and DON'T have a tape that proves I didn't do, does that mean I'm guilty?
Yours seem bizarre arguments, seemingly "because Trump."


George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, James K. Polk, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, George Bush and Donald Trump have had active businesses during their administrations. Anything else I can google for you?


That is not moving the goal posts.   It is just another reason why he is being sued.   
His policies help Trump inc., and harm other Americans.


Let's just look at the last few.   What businesses did Bush 1 and Bush 2 run while they were in office?


Their oil company and multiple professional sports franchises. This is the last time I'm googling something for you.


Just a quick look at Bush Jr. shows he sold his stock in the oil company in 1990 and the Texas Rangers in 1998.   He was not operating a business while president from 2001-2009.


DKIM is an anti-spam measure, it is not actually very accurate and almost trivial to spoof.  Unlike Breitbart would like you to believe, DKIM verification means little or nothing.
The timing of the hacks, the timing of the dumps, and the selection of material in those dumps is itself a form of propaganda when done right (which it was).  Also a lot of the propaganda in the last election was not via wikileaks or dcleaks, it was from the hordes of professional trolls pushing public opinion on facebook, twitter, and other public forums that made it look like "everyone was saying" whatever it was that the propaganda line wanted people to think.
The case against the Russians is about as solid as an intelligence matter can get (especially when it is a cyberwarfare one).  There really is not a case against Trump as yet on that particular front, who the Russians may have been working with in the US was what the FBI investigation Trump derailed was all about.
The other "case" against Trump is the fact that he is obviously Putin's choice for president, and that implies that either Putin thinks he will be easily manipulated (which he is, poke him with the right insults and he is quite predictable in what he does), or that he is such an incompetent president that he will seriously damage the country and give Russia a free hand in world affairs (which he also seems to be).


"Did you kill your wife?"
"I plead the fifth because my answer could be used to incriminate me."
I guess he's innocent.


Congress as a whole,  like the EC, is designed to be disproportionate by the inclusion of the Senate.  The House is the one part of the Federal government that is explicitly designed to be proportionate, and you can't claim to respect the Constitution and also claim that a House that does not fairly represent votes cast is fine.
To be clear, there are two ways that could happen once but only one way it can happen consistently over time - it is not a coincidence that whichever party draws district boundaries does better in the next election.  This is not Right vs. Left or Mob vs. Republic, this is about being aware of and opposed to corruption vs. cheering for corruption when your team benefits.


I agree. Focusing on the Presidential race is unlikely to bring an outside party to power, because our electoral college system protects against it. They must rise through the lower political offices, if they ever mean to mount a meaningful challenge.


Stock holdings are not the only type of business relationship; otherwise presidents could be involved with private companies without any concern. George Bush continued to serve on the Harken board of directors during his Presidency. So you're flatly wrong.


Also, stop moving the goal posts and just admit you're wrong and were spewing garbage before. You claimed that every president used a blind trust! That's hilarious.


figure out what you want with your heart. Figure out how to get what you want with your head.
I wouldn't say its immoral to vote emotionally but I would say that is stupid to do so if it compromises your values by its results. More often then not it is self defeating.


I voted from the heart and the direction of the country.  It saddens me in this era where we are in, with all kinds of problems. ISIS, the fighting amongst ourselves, seeing people on what they are instead of just seeing them as human and the list goes on.


it's the smart way to vote, anyway.
hearts aren't very intelligent.


the party that dominates in population centers is the party that will get more votes- assuming they have the sense to focus their campaigns there.


ah yes, failure. such an objective concept- nothing to do with "the heart" at all.


Libertarian, hm?
no bias there.


no doubt. they were the ones who decided a black person counted as only 3/5ths of a person, because the real-world ratio of 1 person : 1 vote would have reduced their hoped-for White Republic to a nation of human beings.


If you feel that way, get out of the country.


You're correct!


This is undoubtedly a great place. I am simply telling you there are other great places I am acquainted with and would be completely at home there. I will not deny that people want to come here. I am telling you that from my perspective the planet is full of places where one would be contented to be. My neighbor and his wife just moved to Thailand so I presume they made a their choice of where to be. My sister retired to Spain to Join my mother. They both moved from Canada. Your view of the world does not predominate. To many of us many other countries are familiar places as well.


The lack of civic knowledge amongst Democrats is so depressing.

Andy would label that hasty generalization


My view of the world actually DOES predominate.


Nope, he would not. That is a well-reasoned conclusion based upon extensive observation, experience and empirical evidence.


Where do these stupid democrats live?




I do not doubt that. Mediocrity is the common fare

Posts: 1 to 30 of 37

Pages 1 2 Next

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Is it immoral to vote with your heart?

Similar topics in this forum