11 votes

Isidewith.com suggests two-man race between Obama and Johnson

The website http://www.isidewith.com/ features a political quiz where users can see which 2012 presidential candidate best fits their stances on the issues. The site includes Democratic Party nominee President Obama, Republican Party nominee Mitt Romney, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode, and Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson. The results by state, as of September 17, 2012, are:

Alabama: Johnson 50%, Obama 47%, Romney 46%, Goode 34%, Stein 34%, Anderson 24%

Continue:
http://www.examiner.com/article/isidewith-com-suggests-two-m...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I have not been convinced of ANYTHING

See its that Holier than thou attitude you have, in which you believe YOU know what other people are thinking and why, That is very arrogant of you, and its all you seem to do.

So can I not question him if I dont trust him, without being labeled a Romney troll or some other BS like that?

Btw, its called playing devil's advocate, because for quite a while now, to me, and many others here (or no longer here because of it), it sure seemed like Gary Johnson was being PUSHED onto us. The trolling was obvious and unavoidable. So, many have taken the stance of questioning everything Gary Johnson, which to me is Great, because everyone and everything should be questioned and viewed with healthy skeptiscm. Its how this site works.

Deal with it!

"Whether it's precautionary or not, it's still sabotaging potential."

Potential of what? Because the why I see it is, it has the potential to go the way you believe. . but equally, it has the potential for the movement to be split/divided and conquered because half decided to follow the man, and not the issues, Ie they compromise for Gary Johnson?

Can you not see 1 negative thing that could happen by supporting Gary Johnson?

1. "Im yet to be convinced

1. "Im yet to be convinced that GJ simply isnt another in the pockets of the likes of Goldman Sachs..." implies that you consider him to possibly be corrupt. Us both knowing that you wouldn't vote for someone possibly corrupt, it's safe to say that you'd take that precaution and vote the same way you would have if he were.

2. If I'm wrong, simply correct me, you don't need to continue trying to exaggerate assertiveness into arrogance.

3. What is "trolling" to you? Something tells me that you don't really understand what it means.

"Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack (fallacy), suggesting (assuming) a negative motivation." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

4. There's a difference between "questioning everything Gary Johnson" and "questioning, not listening to the answers, and continuing on with the same questions as though you were never answered". There are more people here that do the second action compared to the first. If a person chooses to be ignorant to something, then their "questioning" shows to be just them repeating their biased objections of the guy in order to maintain their self-deceit RATHER THAN getting on the same page with others about what the facts are.

5. Potential for the liberty movement and the country if we were to unify as much as possible as a strategy, dropping the whole mysticism about how magical our votes our in determining how pure in principle we are, and using it strictly as a tool.

Would you rather do the equivalent of writing Paul on a piece of paper and eating and patting yourself on the back... or would you rather drop the fallacy "I don't endorse 'evil'" and look at the much larger picture outlined here: http://www.dailypaul.com/254092/poll-what-is-the-1-reason-yo...

6. "it has the potential for the movement to be split/divided and conquered because half decided to follow the man, and not the issues, Ie they compromise for Gary Johnson"

So you're saying we should stay unified in writing-in Paul so our votes won't be counted, the GOP can pass us all off as a fluke who would rather protest than play smart and objectively, and make it easier for the 2 party duopoly to continue?

Pretty sure it's better if we move the entire movement in a more productive direction as mentioned in the list in the last link. But there WILL be a division. Romney in that secret video was semi-right... there is a certain percentage of liberals/democrats who are going to vote for Obama NO MATTER WHAT. The same goes for Romney. AND The Same goes for Paul and his Write-Ins.

And no one that votes for Johnson is "compromising" their principles or their stances on the issues. We're choosing to make a larger and more positive change. We know what our principles are, so we're going to look for that change to be towards those principles. A write-in vote that makes it easier for Obama or Romney to win might as well be a vote for both of them... which would mean enabling people that are even farther away from my principles.

I don't need to vote for a person that matches my principles exactly to a T to know what they are when I know that what I'm doing is promoting the most positive change available through the choices I have.

7. I see enabling Obama and Romney to win easier and all of the things I KNOW that guarantees as much worse than anything Johnson might slip up on. If Johnson were to win and he did bad things, feel free to blame me for them... but know... that if a lot of good comes from it too... blame me for that as well. While you're at it... realize that the amount of difference in destructive things that would have happened if Obamney won instead would have been on your hands for enabling it with your write-in.

When is a write-in for Paul wrong?
When it makes it easier for the worst 2 evils to win.

This is where you tell me off for using the word "wrong" when it's already obviously OPINION.

Do I really need to put "I think" in front of statement I make to clarify what's my opinion and what's fact?

To me though... my opinion IS fact... at least until someone proves it wrong.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

No, putting words into my mouth again.

"So you're saying we should stay unified in writing-in Paul so our votes won't be counted"

No, Im saying vote how you like. If you do not like Gary Johnson and dont trust him, do not support him.

Im saying they dont have to vote for Gary Johnson, we as you seem to be saying they do.

Im not advocating everything besides your freedom to make your own mind up. You seem to be trying to do that for people.

1. I asked you a question. I

1. I asked you a question. I didn't put words into your mouth.

2. That "worry" about us being divided implies that you want us to stay unified.

3. I'm saying that if people want the liberty movement to reach its full potential, to get a huge upper hand with the GOP in 2016, and have millions of Americans wake up to the similarities of Obama/Romney and both major parties while taking a an interest in "libertarianism" for themselves... yes... that is what they would have to do. Cause and effect.

Writing in Paul, voting Goode, or not at all... all sabotage that potential.

4. "You seem" being the keywords. What I'm doing is trying to point out the potential so they can see the ends in order to realize that their principles can apply to these means... but people... once they turn their write-in into a badge of honor and make that part of who they are... they will fight to hold onto it... even if it means ignoring a possible better way... such as the things I listed and more.

That is what happens when the majority of the liberty movement... just like the rest of the human race... are unreflective simplistic emotional thinkers that think more instinctively than critically.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

"but people... once they turn

"but people... once they turn their write-in into a badge of honor and make that part of who they are... they will fight to hold onto it... even if it means ignoring a possible better way... such as the things I listed and more."

Your collectivising Ron Paul supporters and assuming alot.

I'm collectivizing the human

I'm collectivizing the human race and basing these claims on evidence. We have just as much BS issues in the world (percentage wise) as we did hundreds of years ago. The reason things don't get better is because we don't learn from our mistakes/history and the majority of people are willfully ignorant and get in the way of our collective potential.

Aka... why world peace is pretty much impossible.

""The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." -- Cicero, 55 BC

Cicero ended up going to write propaganda for Ceaser. So, not only did people ignore what he said, but he ended up becoming part of the machine that ran Rome into the ground... just like our own politicians. A 2000 year difference... and absolutely no better.

I'm taking that characteristic that that majority of people in the world don't get out of, regardless of how "successful", "educated", or "intellectual" they are... and applying that to Paul supporters who act the very same way. Being libertarian doesn't make you immune to willful ignorance. Those in the liberty movement like this CAME IN like that.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Yeah

because people blindly follow like sheep because they have no principles to stand on.

People blindly follow like

People blindly follow like sheep to whatever makes them feel good when they don't use critical thinking on a daily basis. If contrary evidence were to make itself evident, they would use fallacies to completely disregard it.

The willfully ignorant have naturally LEARNED via example and teaching themselves how to think this way. It usually starts with childhood.

"The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. That is where the unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.

But the reality is that some people in denial prefer the lethal consequences of their denial as long as they don't have to question their own motivations, beliefs, and ideologies.

Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are practically untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view.

All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, hysterical or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact. As discussed in Part II, there are countless strategies --rhetorical ploys and logical fallacies--that can be used to keep the truth at bay.

Unless there is a serious crisis in the person's life, there is little or no incentive for a person to emerge from the comforting cocoon of denial and rationalization--particularly when the consequences of doing so are more threatening to the sense of self than remaining ignorant or oblivious to one's true motivations."

------Board-Certified Psychiatrist with over 35 years of clinical experience in psychiatry, Dr. Sanity

The reasons people are afraid of being wrong about their choices here and elsewhere is because 1. They've made the choice mean more than it does. They've made it an affirmation of their character and identity and will fight to keep that decision to protect their now artificially inflated ego 2. They can't handle being that sure of something and then finding out they were wrong. Imagine a person that decided to be a priest their entire life in their old age having someone hand them proof that God didn't exist that even trumped his faith. It would force the person to requestion everything they were that sure of. 3. These type of people rely on the comforting feeling of thinking they understand the world. This affords them the artificial feeling of control (when their emotions have been in more control than they actually have the whole time) which again is something they fight to hold onto.

EVERYONE has principle, and many are different and of different priorities than the next person, BUT principles are pointless if you can't see reality for what it is to accurately decide the best course of action based on what you believe morally.

For the 3rd time... this is what causes the "hell to road is paved with good intentions".

Good intentions are a person's principles and the road to hell is what they did that was the wrong course of action due to their lack of judgement. It's like a blind man being in a new area and having a bad judgement of the world in front of him because he doesn't have one at all.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Yes

Unified in the Pursuit of True Liberty, not unified as a means to an end.

The end never justifies the means in my opinion.

You're a deontologist and I'm

You're a deontologist and I'm a consequentialist.

You making feeling good about yourself via convincing yourself you're sticking to your principles right here and now with whatever simple justification you can find to take the easist route that allows you to sleep well at night while I look at the big picture and take everything into consideration... even getting my hands possibly dirty if need be.

Deontologists are egocentrics.

Consequentialists are realists.

If killing one person would save a thousand... would you do it?

You being given the power to make a difference means it's your responsibility whether you like it or not. You end up choosing to have one death on your hands or a thousand... even if you just stand there refusing to make a choice.

In the end you would have to justify it as a random part of life that you were forced into, and then ask yourself... did you do the right thing? The one person you might of had to kill to save the thousand is excused because your only other choice... to do nothing... was much worse.

We're not going to get "true liberty" unless we unify to actually get it. True liberty is the reason and goal, means to an end is how you get there.

A person who thinks making their principled decisions is easy in complicated situations... isn't living in reality... they're living in a world where they can choose to see things in a way which makes their choices easier... and sadly that usually means taking an easy route that also happens to be the moral low road. As long as they don't see it that way... they're perfectly fine... hence the point of willful ignorance. Pathological denial/self-deceit that allows the least resistance to what a person wants while being able to tell themselves they're a "good person".

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I used to think like you.

You will learn one day. Without principles, You are no where!

When the majourity of the world lives by principles born out of an understanding of liberty, the world will know (relative) peace.

Consequentialists have

Consequentialists have principles... we simply look at the whole picture, including the consequences of our actions, to see what actively adheres to sticking to our principles the most. We do more thinking than simply finding the easiest answer.

If you had the choice to save a a thousand people by killing one... and you were against killing... which choice shows you're against killing more.

Not killing one person or preventing the killing of 1000?

This is the same thing regarding a person that is against lying, but lies for the sake of a greater cause like protecting someone from wrongful persecution.

It's a conflict of principles that many people ignore they face by coming up with excuses as to how one principle is irrelevant to the situation.

So which is it? Don't kill one person or prevent the killing of 1000?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

By your logic of killing someone...

...to prevent the killing of many others, why wouldn't you just go for the source and kill the candidates with whom it would be a given that there would be many deaths as a result of their election?*

*disclaimer- Not advocating assassinating the candidates. The question was for illustration purposes only.

This is you creating a 3rd

This is you creating a 3rd option again when the situation used as an example is clear cut exactly as stated.

Don't kill one person or save the lives of a thousand?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I pose your question to you...

If you had the choice to save a a thousand people by killing one... and you were against killing... which choice shows you're against killing more?

I've already asked people

I've already asked people this same very question to make my point lol

If you look at the consequence of your action being the difference between one outcome or the other... you have the power to make the difference.

If forced into a situation where it's guaranteed that it would prevent the death of a thousand... and it was guaranteed that if I didn't the thousand would die... I would. If it was a choice of who it was... I'd do myself in. If it could be anyone and I had time, I would find someone that wanted it to be them. There are many circumstances to take into account. If it was a loved one... I don't know what I would do. That would be conflict of interest and principles... cognitive dissonance.

The difference between this example and what they are doing with collateral damage via drone strikes is that with their choices... nothing is guaranteed. Innocent people are dying on what may be a fluke. Let alone the fact that these individuals, regardless of the risk, should be apprehended and tried in court rather than assassinated.

If it isn't worth the risk... then how is it worth millions of dollars and the lives of innocent people?

"With power comes responsibility."

Not just responsibility to telling yourself you stuck to your principles... but making sure that the consequences of your actions showed so.

Only worrying about believing your motives are right or good allows you to too easily go down the road to hell paved with good intentions.

If a woman is in a store and she's against killing, but she has a chance to stop a madman attempting to kill multiple people... she's justified because it's the defense of human life from aggression... right?

Then aside from using tax payer money... what difference is there with Johnson committing our forces to stop a genocide?

Let's say there was a "Fight for What's Right" fund and organization that was made up of mercenaries who went out to do these missions... like green peace but for the sake of defending innocent life from aggressors... would you have a problem with that?

Now you answer the question. If you know for a fact 1000 people will die if you don't kill one person... would you do it or would you tell yourself the bloods not on your hands and watch the 1000 die?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

You did a lot of squirming there, George. ;)

"There are many circumstances to take into account."

Poll: In the "circumstance" where the election of three certain candidates would result in many deaths of innocent victims, which choice would save more innocent lives?

Option 1: Kill the three candidates whose election would result in the deaths of many innocent lives.*

Option 2: Vote for the candidate whose election would result in the deaths of many innocent lives, but less deaths than the other two candidates.

Which choice shows you're against killing more?

*disclaimer- Again, not advocating this. For debating purposes only.

Do they all cause the same

Do they all cause the same number of deaths?

How much of a difference is there between the 3 candidates?

And would the policies of the "least killed" candidate make the nation have higher standards for the next election due to a different set of policies?

Is not voting a choice and does it make it easier for the 2 "more killed" candidates to win?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

oops, double post

.

Squirm, squirm

Silly goose, your arguments you are irrelevant.

Anyone could use your question of higher policies in their argument to YOU with the questions/polls YOU have put forth.

And as for your last question and with your logic to others of killing someone to save the lives of many, if you kill the candidates, problem solved.

So instead of hammering others here to settle for GJ's least amount of deaths, why aren't you just calling for assassination of the candidates whose election would result in the deaths of many?

I'm not advocating it, but with the logic you are trying to guilt others with, you should be. So if you're not going to with your justifications as to why not, mebbe acknowledge that others have their own justifications for voting the way they will be, or not voting at all. ;)

This isn't squirming. It's thinking before acting.

You're giving me a situation that isn't "guaranteed" like the situation I gave you and already explained. If all 3 viable candidates were dealt with... they would replaced with someone all the same, it would be found out why, that I was a Paul supporter, it would hurt the movement, reinforcing the idea of needing more of a police state and trampling of that nation's rights, and in the end... guaranteeing even more death down the road from other police state presidents and their administrations. My actions would be used as justification by government for more fear-mongering and making things worse overall for us and the rest of the world.

My guaranteed situation works because it's guaranteed and is simple for the sake of questioning a deontologist that is only concerned with their pure untainted principles... feeling good about themselves regardless of what happens. You're asking a different question of a consequentialist.

You're attempting to make it a much simpler situation in order to invalidate my argument... and it doesn't work. Sorry.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I actually asked this

question of a friend about 10 years ago, He was adamant that he would not kill them! The question I posed was actually do you kill an innocent child, to save millions more?

He said No, he would not. At the time, I thought that is CRAZY! and I had a big conversation with him, rather like this one.
I agreed wholeheartedly with you, I thought I KNEW better, I now know I dont! and neither do you. Its not your choice to make, to end the life of one innocent to save others.

Plus, you can not predict the future, who is to say, after you kill the child, the others die anyway! You put across the idea that you know what will happen in the future, when you dont.

You will learn one day, hopefully.

You're developing the

You're developing the situation more than I gave it. The decision is based on the fact that you KNOW that it would save them.

The same way you can say it's not my right to end a life, I can say it's not right for you to let 1000 people die.

In reality, we're forced to make hard decisions that we don't want to be in in the first place.

As I've already explained... people make up excuses to ignore certain principles so they have no conflict in the first place. They like easy decisions that make them feel good.

What your friend convinced you of was a way to be able to make an easier decision without guilt on your conscience.

You followed that way of thinking based on the way it let you feel.

Your bolding and inclusion of the word "innocent" doesn't make your argument any more credible btw.

The whole "you don't know!" argument is an excuse to say what does end up happening doesn't matter as long as you don't take any negative responsibility for it.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Ill ask again

then shall I.

Can you not see 1 negative thing that could happen by supporting Gary Johnson?

If that support got him the

If that support got him the presidency, I would be wary of the Fair Tax and how they implemented it. I doubt he would get it done though, but would probably fall back to Paul's plan of 0% income tax once enough spending cuts were made. The planning and work that would go into replacing the whole thing and getting people setup for "prebates" would tax longer than his term just to get it passed and planned.

What about you... aside from the worry of yours I already addressed... what else bad or worse than the other candidates do you see him doing?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

What worry

of mine did you already address?

"If" Gary Johnson is just another shill, then why would he not do everything the wrong way, and then we, his supporters, cop all the blame? Why would the controlled media, not create a narrative that could kill this movement?

Why could that not happen?

"it has the potential for the

"it has the potential for the movement to be split/divided and conquered because half decided to follow the man, and not the issues, Ie they compromise for Gary Johnson"

If he was just another shill, why would he have run 8 successful years as governor of New Mexico on EXACTLY the platform he campaigned on and then continued to do the same into his second term?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Heh, 90% Johnson. Good

Heh, 90% Johnson. Good questions. Some of them are trick when they include the word "require" in them.

Southern Agrarian

Thanks

Thanks for a bump.
Everyone should take that quiz.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Not sure why you got down votes?

.