Eviora

I've gotta give it to Ted Cruz - he made Hillary look like a stickler for the truth in that debate.

I don't think "conform or leave our country" is a particularly good argument. My family, most of my friends, etc all live in the U.S. In a lot of ways, leaving would turn my life upside down. I'm afraid no country is justified in presenting its citizens with potentially life-destroying ultimatums just because they were born in the nation. You act like the will of the government is above question, but how did they come to "own" this land? If I recall, they did a lot of horrible, inhumane things to the people they found here. The basis of the government's rule is appalling use of force, but might does not make right. The U.S. prides itself in being "the land of the free", but I can't think of much less like freedom than being forced to fight in some war that's not of my making. (And, no, I'm not responsible for the things politicians do when the only ones who can win offices are those with access to enough money to advertise themselves, and none of those represent my opinion particularly well.) If the country is truly worth saving, there should be ample people willing to defend it in a crisis without being coerced. The need to resort to threats in itself would reduce this country to a sham, an entity that backs out of everything it claims to stand for just because things are getting tough.

I'm against the draft in general, so there's no point in arguing about whether women should be included in my response. Most of the rest of his post consisted of explaining his opinion on the political system in general (which I also disagree with), historical facts about the draft, etc - again, not something I need to answer. I only quoted the parts of the post immediately relevant to my response. My points above (the latter of which applies to you as well) stand. Whether or not I decide to fight in our theoretical would-be conquerors or not should be *my* decision alone, and a country that tries to blackmail me into it is denying me a freedom even more fundamental than freedom of speech. Sorry, but nations don't own the lives of their citizens.

Or maybe we just have different opinions than you. I can't help but be amused by labeling a situation where you're forced to risk your life or be imprisoned as "freedom."

A government that forces its citizens to fight its wars is more than deserving of being overthrown. I'll join the "NO to all drafts" crowd.

What amuses me about this topic is when people get super bent out of shape because they expressed their honest opinion about something and now a bunch of other people are expressing the honest belief that the former opinion is despicable. It goes both ways. These days people are growing increasingly intolerant of unjustified intolerance, and I don't think that's a bad thing!

Well, I think it's abundantly clear that we're not going to come to any agreement on this issue, so instead of pressing the matter and making myself even more upset (something I have a knack for) I'll just go do something else. There are still 49 primaries to go - I'm sure this topic can host plenty of more interesting discussions than another pointless debate between the two of us.

Well, the obvious difference with regards to taxing really rich people is that having a few people hoard so much wealth does hurt others. But, anyway, I can't say I care much for "playing politics". Trying to put a spin on your less pleasant opinions to gain votes... it's effective, of course, but no wonder people think so poorly of politicians. You make it sound like they're supposed to be deceptive. Fortunately, not all of them are. Another point in Mr. Sanders' favor. =p

Religious beliefs have no place influencing laws everyone has to follow. That's the whole point of separation of church and state - no one is compelled to follow any religion. While I'm aware that voting with those beliefs in mind doesn't render the result unconstitutional, it is inherently opposed to the clear intent of the document - to establish a nation where you worship (or not) as you see fit, and others don't interfere just because your beliefs may be different. If you believe gay marriage is immoral, you probably shouldn't have one, and if you don't, there's no reason a bunch of other people's opinions about god should prevent you from having one. The existing system has already dealt with this issue as of last June, so ardor to defend that system is misplaced here. Cruz and the others are just trying to effectively flip the table to get the outcome they want. I read through your entire response and have to ask myself, "What's the point?" Are you that unhappy to have the word 'hatred' applied to the platforms of candidates you might vote for? Because the word is just that - a label. You can try to justify whatever by proposing subtleties, offering definitions, or delving into intricacies, but this issue is very, very simple. Some people want to live their lives in a way that makes them happiest and doesn't particularly seem to hurt anyone else. Do we live and let live, or do we just HAVE to thrust our beliefs into the affairs of nearby strangers, for "their own good" or otherwise? As far as I'm concerned, the latter is a sort of hatred - the type born of having so little respect for someone that you feel compelled to rob them of their autonomy.

The thing is, it's not merely a matter of political correctness. We still have our First Amendment, after all - none of the politicians are talking about doing away with that. The platforms in question are not merely about saying what comes to people's minds, but discriminating based on those ideas... oppressing the few to soothe the fears of the masses. *** Hunter, I'd like to distinguish between a presidential candidate promoting hatred as part of his or her platform and the use of negativity to try to crumble the support for one's opponents. The latter is certainly valid, unsightly though it may be. Each of the candidates ought to be taken to task for ill-advised or outright malicious things they've done. Fortunately (for me =p ) Bernie doesn't have a whole lot of dirt to deal with. Yes, his platform is extreme relative to the status quo, but it's hardly unheard of, and more importantly, the man comes of as exceedingly honest and quite honorable, sometimes to a fault. Cruz and Trump share the former "weakness" without benefiting from the latter advantage. Rubio, I think, could give Bernie a run for his money, since he doesn't seem to want to rock the boat too much and doesn't have an especially lot of metaphorical blood on his hands (that I'm aware of). I wouldn't underestimate the influence raw likability has on voters. =p All that said, to state the obvious, all the opinions in this thread including my own are pretty much entirely speculative. xD

Maybe so! But I think most voters will prefer naivety to hatred, and both Cruz and Trump have proven themselves to be the sorts to promote the latter.

Both Cruz and Trump come off as ego-maniacal lunatics. It would be so easy for whoever to paint a starkly malignant picture of Cruz if he actually becomes the nominee. Most Americans don't want religion in their politics, and he's the candidate to bring it. As for Trump... well, if we elect someone like that I think we deserve whatever horrors befall us. Contrast those two with Hillary, who comes off as the usual dishonest, and Bernie, who comes off as earnest but a bit too optimistic. Maybe I'm a fool, but I still have enough faith left in the human race that I can't imagine the country at large favoring those particular brands of crazy. I don't know how those polls are run, but it's entirely possible that the demographics of this election will differ from recent ones.

The good thing about the likes of Trump and Cruz is I don't think either Clinton or Sanders can realistically lose to either of them~

I actually laughed when I heard about the coin flip thing. Politics can be so silly.

I've yet to hear any convincing reason to bar sex-same marriage that doesn't boil down to religion and/or homophobia. The fact is, those who don't intend to partake in such a marriage are all but entirely unaffected by it. Therefore, I really have no clue what interests you're talk about. Trying to stop others from doing something you deem sinful is most certainly enforcing that belief on them, even if you mean it in the best way possible. You would be open to referendums on interracial marriage? Inter-religion marriage? Marriage between two people with different eye colors? If not, what's the difference, and if so, what harm is being done to you by the offending practices?

Jericho, I'm sure the logistics of all the things Bernie would like to have happen would be quite trying. However, you can be sure that even as president he wouldn't get everything he wants all at once. The process would certainly be gradual, and we'd be able to reflect on what it's costing us as we go along. I don't think it's his intention to hyper-tax everyone - just the very rich. Loopholes can be closed and shady pseduo-tax-evasion strategies banned. Hunter, I'm no Constitutional scholar. I'm sure you know what Justice Kennedy and his peers' reasoning for the decision back in June was, so I won't bother trying to one up them. However - and I imagine this will irritate you to no end - for the purposes of this discussion, I just don't care whether the Constitution currently protects it or not. I care about what's fair to all members of society. If the document is inadequate, we should amend it. You talk about protecting "religious freedom" and life, but the former case literally boils down to "stop discriminating against my right to discriminate against people" in the context you probably mean it, and in the latter case you seem to care little about the quality of the life you're so adamant on preserving. I'm quite familiar with the "conservative angle" and all that, but at the end of the day I care more about the results - discriminatory laws and gross income inequality - than the ideology that informs them. I don't just want my hypothetical children to be as prosperous as possible, but for the average level of possible prosperity to rise. That's why it appalls me a bit that some people can so nonchalantly discard the needs of dissimilar people and why I could never support a candidate who in effect seeks to give certain states the right to impose the religion of the majority upon everyone else, even though my own home state (Massachusetts) isn't at all likely to do such a thing. Aren't us feely types frustrating to talk to? =p

Hunter, you think too much in terms of systems and too little the people they're supposed to help. As John Maynard Keynes said, in the long run we are dead. It's not acceptable to elect people who will try to mess up others' lives just because "if they go too far the system will correct it later". Discriminating against gay people because the people of your state will it is no better than doing the same to black people, or Muslims, or anyone else. That's part of the point of the Constitution - to protect individuals from the tyranny of the masses. And, incidentally, Cruz is all smoke and mirrors. He may do well in a debate, but that's just because formal debates are more about manipulating the rules to avoid having to answer the tough questions than about getting to the bottom of the issue. In an all out discussion he would get eviscerated. Mde2001, I definitely see your point when it comes to wanting to elect a "safe" candidate to avoid ending up with someone like Cruz. The thing is, if we always vote that way, we just perpetuate the status quo and all the problems it entails. If we want to rise above that, then eventually we're bound to have to take a risk - and I find Bernie sufficiently superior to Clinton to warrant it, but that's just my opinion, I suppose.

No one, including Bernie, is talking about making America a purely socialist society. Sure, educated people - and I am one of them - should get some returns on their time investment. But a lot of CEOs and the like get returns so disproportionately huge that they make a farce even of a doctor's salary. That's where we can make some cuts. We don't have to sacrifice the "American Dream", whatever that is, just the dream of becoming morbidly wealthy and lording it over the peons. No candidate represents everyone, but one who takes a sizable cut from the very rich and uses it to help everyone else is doing more of us a service. Besides, it's silly to suggest we shouldn't vote for our own benefit. The whole point of voting is that everyone gets a say, so when you give yours, why wouldn't you make it about you? As for Cruz... he's a man who spoke at a conference (or something) held by a pastor who thinks gay people should be put to death. He views marriage equality as a "moral crisis". Regardless of how he frames it, ultimately his cause is a matter of "you live according to my holy book." A vote for Cruz is a vote to ruin the lives of those who would be most affected by his rules. That alone disqualifies him in my books. Sanders' message, extreme though it may be, is one of equality. That's why I think he's so appealing to so many people. If, by saying "Hillary is the smarter pick", you mean "Hillary is more likely to end up president in January than Bernie," then you may or may not be right. But I think Bernie is the smarter pick because I think, if he does win, we'll be better off in 20 years than we would be if Hillary wins. My guess is moderates will be glad to have voted for him if he wins and manages to get anything through the Senate.

I think you might be surprised by how much appeal Bernie has to some moderates. Members of the middle class who are willing to vote for themselves rather than serve an ideology stand to gain if he is elected. In a way, Cruz vs Sanders, horrifying though it certainly would be, represents a battle for America's soul. Are we a country that's willing to take a risk to build a society that treats everyone fairly, or do we keep the poor poor, deny rights to those who have long been deprived of them, all in the name of fear and doctrine? Are we going to find ways to offer everyone a fair chance to prosper, or will we find excuses to exclude the people we don't like?

I don't agree that Clinton is the smart choice for Democrats. Justified or not, she has a reputation of being dishonest and pandering to corporations. A Clinton nomination would result in some Democrats staying home out of disgust and some Republicans being drawn out of the woodwork just to spite her come November. Based on what I've seen, Sanders is more likely to have the opposite effect; people who don't usually involve themselves in politics are enthusiastic about him and even those who disagree with him ideologically may be willing to let it slide in the hopes of reaping the benefits of the systems he wants to put in place. But that's just my opinion, I suppose.

Happy birthday, Edge!

You are right

Oh dear! 1. No 2. I don't know enough about such forum politics to be able to answer. 3. Naddict's Mario Maker stream 4. I'm liberal. (The answer to your question is technically 'no.') 5. RPG 6. Horror 7. Chase, because I have very strong liberal views and he seems extremely conservative. 8.No 9. INFJ 10. Lugia 11. I currently have 3 dogs, and I used to have 4 others. 12. No 13. Neither 14. Nothing especially comes to mind, but I haven't read them in a while. 15. I'm not familiar enough with such things to have a strong opinion. 16. Purple 17. Uh... whichever? 18.Sometimes they're funny, sometimes obnoxious. 19. No. 20. No. Aren't I boring? 21. I love it! 22. No. 23. I like guys. 24. Ummm.... Japan might be fun! 25. Cake. Don't tell me that's not a meal. 26. I mostly look for people who are accepting and who share interests with me. 27.Honesty, intelligence, and decency. 28. No. 29.No. 30. No. 31. Cookies. 32. I'm currently in MA, and, for the moment, happy with that. 33. I'd like to write fiction for a living! 34. I don't play Pokemon competitively. 35. Mega Shedinja. (Actually, I dislike Mega Evolution.) 36. I don't play League, so I have no clue. 37. Cookies. 38. Which of these questions is your favorite? 39. My intelligence. 40. Psychic 41. Ame 42. Ummmm.... sorry, I have no clue. xD 43. Mega-anything 44. ^.^ 45. Horrible things can happen when you follow irrational beliefs to their logical conclusion. = /

Hmmm.... that's quite tough, but barring boring wishes such as wishing for more wishes, I'll indulge a childish fantasy and say I'd like to be the kawaii heroine of a fun, anime-esque adventure that has a happy ending. =p And thanks for the cake... though it looks much like a hamburger with frosting on it!

I first heard of Reborn through Shofu's channel back in Fall 2013 - I watched his Let's Play of it, and I thought it sounded really cool, so I came here to chat and give it a try myself! I have't taken any "official" breaks from Reborn, but I do tend to be a bit fickle about my forum attendance in general. =p My favorite "genre" of music is, er... anime music. >.> My favorite Pokemon is Lugia. I'm okay today! How 'bout you? I love cake, especially confetti cake!