US Presidential Elections

[random n00b]

<...History...>

Thanks

 

Nice to put a bit of background in a lay man undertandable way to some of the names and preceeding events.

 

My pleasue. I kind of enjoyed writing that up. My job gets dreadfully dull sometimes.

VERY enlightening. You seem to know your stuff too. Props man.

[Arclam]

I shall be voting for either myself or the reanimated corpse of Barry Goldwater. No more lesser of two evils. Course if Barry Goldwater returned to life he might decide to re-unanimate himself after seeing the current state of the union and what has happened to the Republican Party.

 

Also, as a Wyoming born resident of Arizona, I must apologize for Cheney and especially for McCain, who has abandoned all dignity and common-sense he once had for a chance at the big chair before he dies.

[Killian Kalthorne]

And the democrats ARE socialists. Bill Clinton tried to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy in 1993. A hostile government take over of PRIVATE business. Obama wants the government to run the banking insutry (unfortunately so does McCain), Democratic Rep Maxine Waters flat out proposed that US oil companies be nationalized. Al Gore in his book came out against the private ownership of real estate. He said that land is a resource that belongs to all the people. Still think I'm being paranoid?

 

I think that some socialism is a good thing. Take police and fire departments. It would be hell if these two socialized services were privatized. Services that caters to the well being of our society as a whole, such as police and fire departments should be socialized. That also means expanding it to include healthcare and municipal utilities. I draw the line at non-essential services such as banking and real estate, but taking the full privatization route that you seem to propose would only make the US weaker.

[taks]

I think that some socialism is a good thing. Take police and fire departments.

you either a) can't read or b) don't understand socialism. neither of these is implemented as a socialist entity in the US. i've stated quite clearly why this is so yet you continue to repeat the same mantra. sigh...

 

but taking the full privatization route that you seem to propose would only make the US weaker.

this also indicates a clear misunderstanding of economics and the things that grow wealth for everyone.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Whatever, taks, live in your little neocon dream world. No sweat off my back.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Guard Dog]

And the democrats ARE socialists. Bill Clinton tried to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy in 1993. A hostile government take over of PRIVATE business. Obama wants the government to run the banking insutry (unfortunately so does McCain), Democratic Rep Maxine Waters flat out proposed that US oil companies be nationalized. Al Gore in his book came out against the private ownership of real estate. He said that land is a resource that belongs to all the people. Still think I'm being paranoid?

 

I think that some socialism is a good thing. Take police and fire departments. It would be hell if these two socialized services were privatized. Services that caters to the well being of our society as a whole, such as police and fire departments should be socialized. That also means expanding it to include health care and municipal utilities. I draw the line at non-essential services such as banking and real estate, but taking the full privatization route that you seem to propose would only make the US weaker.

 

Actually Kill, taks is right. Municipalities providing a service like police or fire or trash collection or dog catcher is not socialism. Especially since such services are not free, they are paid for by taxes on the members of the community. And there is a history of privatization of all of those things with mixed results. For example the Pinkerton Detective Agency was in fact a private police force with deputized powers that a or county or state or town could hire to practice law enforcement. And although the agents worked on behalf or a government entity they answered only to the company. They were effective but notoriously heavy handed. Trash collection has been a private company contracted by the city in every city I've ever lived in. And it works fine.

 

A traditional definition would be this. You are an employee at a car factory, the government owns the factory, it owns the companies that makes the components to the factories, it owns the foundries that smelt the steel that makes the components, it owns the mines the iron comes form and all of the logistics from start to the finished car rolling off the line. And no other company is allowed (or able) to make cars.

 

Health care in the US is an prime example of the Democrats new vision of American socialism. They dream of anyone walking into any clinic anywhere and getting whatever they need for free. Of course to accomplish this the clinics work for (and are Sly answerable to if not outright owned by) the federal government. And all clinics MUST be government owned or at least operated because a competitor might drive up costs by offering better or more efficient or higher quality service. And as for the cost, it will be borne by taxpayers, who must pay no matter if they get sick or not. I could go on pointing out the problems but you get the point. I could also trot out my comparisons of how minimally state regulated veterinary medical care is superior to and far less expensive than heavily state and federally regulated human health care in the US but you have all heard it before.

 

I would never argue for full privatization of everything. Police and Fire are essential public services that everyone must pay for because at some point, everyone may need their services. Health care is different however. If I never need to see a doctor (the last time I saw a doctor was my physical when I separated from the Marine Corps) I should not need to pay for doctors visits for someone else I don't even know by having the money I earn more heavily taxed.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Killian Kalthorne]

Police and Fire departments are paid by the taxpayers. Health care should be paid by the taxpayers.

 

Proper health care is a vital public service, just as police and fire departments.

 

Following your logic there, since I never needed the fire department for my entire life I should not have to pay for the fire department. I mean I have never been in a burning building or needed a cat out of a tree so why should my tax money pay for services I never used. Why should I pay for someone else's incompetence when it comes to controlling his or her backyard grill?

Edited September 24, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Meshugger]

Let's skip the "Healthcare = Socialism?"-discussion and reserve that for another thread. I am more interested in why McCain/Palin is better than Obama/Biden and vice versa and of course why there's little interest on third party candidates and fringe candidates from the democrats and republicans.

 

I mean, if everyone here at the 'way offtopic'-forum took the 'Political Compass'-test, they would quickly notice that almost everyone greatly differs from the candidates that they vote for. Why is that?

[Guard Dog]

I mean, if everyone here at the 'way offtopic'-forum took the 'Political Compass'-test, they would quickly notice that almost everyone greatly differs from the candidates that they vote for. Why is that?

 

Ha, so true. I'd say it's a mixed bag of lack of understanding of the candidates, a lack of understanding of how politics actually work, and a serious lack of choices.

 

Especially the middle one I think. For example, Obama has promised the end the Iraq mess once he is in office. I say that the Iraq occupation will not end one day sooner no matter who is elected. Why? Neither side wants the effort to end in failure. Obama is not stupid, far from it. If the the war ends in a failure he will be the one history blames no matter that it did not start on his watch. Quickly, think Nixon and Vietnam and what is the first thing that flashes in your mind? See?

 

As far as substantive differences Obama's foreign policy will be far less confrontational than McCains will be I think. Although McCains will certainly be far less than Bush has been. As far as foreign policy goes I really believe there will be far less difference between Obama and McCain than most people believe, never mind what they are saying on the campaign trail. In economic and social policy I think they will be very different. Obama is all about government control, government regulation, using taxes as a means of controlling economic behavior. Control, control, plan and control, is Obams's economic mantra. McCain is more from the Teddy Roosevelt mold, he won't be shy to use government regulation but I doubt he would be near so heavy handed about it either. I think he will cut taxes and allow market forces to work. I thought the same of Bush but although he did the former, he did not do the latter.

 

Here is the thing, and there is no getting around this. No matter who wins the Presidential election, Congress will be controlled by the democrats. If history has shown us anything, bad things happen in the US when one party controls everything. I don't care what Obama and McCain are about, I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House when the congress is Republican and a Republican when congress is in the hands of the Democrats. Heck I voted for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004 for that very reason. Well, lots of reasons but that was one of them. My post on the banking situation should demonstrate how much damage Congress can do while trying to do good. The need a counter weight to keep them in check.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Guard Dog

[random n00b]

I would never argue for full privatization of everything. Police and Fire are essential public services that everyone must pay for because at some point, everyone may need their services. Health care is different however. If I never need to see a doctor (the last time I saw a doctor was my physical when I separated from the Marine Corps) I should not need to pay for doctors visits for someone else I don't even know by having the money I earn more heavily taxed.

I really don't like state-operated healthcare, and I am fully aware that private run businesses of any sort always are more efficient than their state-run counterparts (since it's difficult to be less efficient). However, there's something I can't find a way around. Since privately run businesses are governed by the offer-demand pair (in a truly unregulated fashion at least), it stands to reason that this would apply to fully privatised healthcare. Now, under normal circumstances, the amount of healthcare available (as in numbers of active medical professionals, ambulances, hospitals et al) is determined by the demand raised by a relatively healthy population. But what happens with sudden demand peaks due to say, a national epidemy, or a local catastrophe? Wouldn't that cause a critical failure in the ability of privately-run healtcare to provide service, regardless of the ability to pay of its customers?

 

That is, moral connotations derived from different classes with different purchasing power notwithstanding.

 

 

Health care should be paid by the taxpayers.

 

Proper health care is a vital public service, just as police and fire departments.

Yes, so are education, housing, transportation, power, drinking water, and any number of services you can think of. Following that logic, the USSR had it right. Only... they didn't.

 

I think it's a matter of what is overburdening the state. Universal healthcare is just too heavy a weight. Police and Fire services aren't.

 

 

I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House when the congress is Republican and a Republican when congress is in the hands of the Democrats. Heck I voted for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004 for that very reason. Well, lots of reasons but that was one of them. My post on the banking situation should demonstrate how much damage Congress can do while trying to do good. The need a counter weight to keep them in check.

Heh. How many people you think share this view of a "useful" vote? Edited September 24, 2008 by random n00b

[Humodour]

I think it's a matter of what is overburdening the state. Universal healthcare is just too heavy a weight.

 

But only in America, right?

[random n00b]

But only in America, right?

You draw this conclusion from where?

 

The burden imposed on the state by public healthcare is directly related to the demographics of the country. Therefore blanket statements in the vein of "public healthcare 4TW" simply fail.

[Meshugger]

I mean, if everyone here at the 'way offtopic'-forum took the 'Political Compass'-test, they would quickly notice that almost everyone greatly differs from the candidates that they vote for. Why is that?

 

Ha, so true. I'd say it's a mixed bag of lack of understanding of the candidates, a lack of understanding of how politics actually work, and a serious lack of choices.

 

Especially the middle one I think. For example, Obama has promised the end the Iraq mess once he is in office. I say that the Iraq occupation will not end one day sooner no matter who is elected. Why? Neither side wants the effort to end in failure. Obama is not stupid, far from it. If the the war ends in a failure he will be the one history blames no matter that it did not start on his watch. Quickly, think Nixon and Vietnam and what is the first thing that flashes in your mind? See?

 

As far as substantive differences Obama's foreign policy will be far less confrontational than McCains will be I think. Although McCains will certainly be far less than Bush has been. As far as foreign policy goes I really believe there will be far less difference between Obama and McCain than most people believe, never mind what they are saying on the campaign trail. In economic and social policy I think they will be very different. Obama is all about government control, government regulation, using taxes as a means of controlling economic behavior. Control, control, plan and control, is Obams's economic mantra. McCain is more from the Teddy Roosevelt mold, he won't be shy to use government regulation but I doubt he would be near so heavy handed about it either. I think he will cut taxes and allow market forces to work. I thought the same of Bush but although he did the former, he did not do the latter.

 

Here is the thing, and there is no getting around this. No matter who wins the Presidential election, Congress will be controlled by the democrats. If history has shown us anything, bad things happen in the US when one party controls everything. I don't care what Obama and McCain are about, I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House when the congress is Republican and a Republican when congress is in the hands of the Democrats. Heck I voted for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004 for that very reason. Well, lots of reasons but that was one of them. My post on the banking situation should demonstrate how much damage Congress can do while trying to do good. The need a counter weight to keep them in check.

 

Damn, that almost sounds depressing. If i was an american voter i would be truly perplexed. I mean, sure Obama seems to have judgement and a strong sense of rightoussness that appeals to many, but i only liked him for his positions on the Iraqi-war, which he changed btw. Then we have McCain, who seems to be more of a "i let the experts deal with this"-mantra around him, with an attitude that, as you described it, as Teddy Roosevelt-like. However, there's something seriously disturbing in Palin's policies and the way she shows judgement and character. I couldn't seriously vote for a ticket with her involved. I highly suspect that he really didn't want her, but some experts convinced him that she vote excite the republican base more than anyone, which she sadly did.

 

Personally, i am 100% behind free press, freedom of expression and religion, seperation of religion and state, and the right to bear arms. But on the other hand, i am anti-PK, since i see as a form of supression of the individual mind. A social safety net should exist for those that are unfortunate, meritocracy when it comes to education (free, as long as you're smart enough pass the exam, where the bar should be high of course) and healthcare-insurance, not healthcare in general, payed by the state through taxes (and not by the employer, who ever came up with that silly idea).

 

Mind you, i would not like Brussels to mandate that, but rather by the local goverment in Helsinki. Brussels, or Washington in your case should be left as a 'Nightwatcher', only stepping in when the state interferes with my rights. If one state decides that everything is according to worldview of Ayn Rand, then so be it, but i wouldn't live there I am still though undecided on pollution, environment and economic regulatory policies. Now, where would i find my candidate? None of the candidates that were remotely similar to my worldviews failed to get to my local senate, btw.

 

And thanks for your insight on the current financial crisis, very enlighting

[Moatilliatta]

I can't for the life of me figure out what PK means.

 

Psychokinesis?

Penalty kick?

 

And thanks for your insight on the current financial crisis, very enlighting

I second this.

[Gorgon]

It's true that Nixon was elected on ending the war, but it's not Like Obama can just bomb Baghdad and declare victory. He will have to withdraw troops won't he.

[Killian Kalthorne]

For better or worse, McCain has just suspended his campaign. I hope Obama doesn't. The democratic process must continue forward!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/cam...wrap/index.html

[random n00b]

If the roles were reversed, would you be so keen on "the democratic process continuing forward"?

 

Not that I expect a forthcoming answer.

[Meshugger]

I can't for the life of me figure out what PK means.

 

Psychokinesis?

Penalty kick?

 

And thanks for your insight on the current financial crisis, very enlighting

I second this.

 

Sorry, of some reason i stroke the wrong button on the keyboard. It should be "PC", as in "Politically correct", which also means that one shouldn't say anything that can be interpreted, even in the most remote way, as offensive to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

[Killian Kalthorne]

If the roles were reversed, would you be so keen on "the democratic process continuing forward"?

 

Not that I expect a forthcoming answer.

You are going to get an answer anyway and a resounding YES!

 

It doesn't matter if you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Communist, Green, or even a Whig. It doesn't matter who is ahead in the polls. The democratic process must go on no matter what!

Edited September 24, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[random n00b]

Another mantra.

 

At any rate, I doubt this will have much impact, and it's looking like just another PR stunt. The ball's in Obama's court now, though.

Edited September 24, 2008 by random n00b

[Killian Kalthorne]

Well, we should get an official response soon enough but I have a feeling that Obama will agree with a suspension of the campaigns. I just hope that the election isn't suspended. That would mean a longer time with Bush and I most certainly do not want that. I may have to do the unthinkable... Hide in Volourn's basement.

 

Also I love my mantras. Ultima 4 all the way!

 

"Beh... Beh... Beh..."

Edited September 24, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Gorgon]

Never mind that McCain's suspension of campaigning, is campaigning. Lols.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Gorgon

[Hildegard]

Another mantra.

 

At any rate, I doubt this will have much impact, and it's looking like just another PR stunt. The ball's in Obama's court now, though.

 

[retarded talk]I think the elections should be postponed indefinitely and G.Bush remain president, best thing for US and the whole world because people just don't realize what a great leader he is [/retarded talk]

[Meshugger]

I just heard it on the news as well. Suspending the campaign? Suspend the debates? Didn't McCain say that he wants to leave these issues to experts? What? What? What?

[Gorgon]

It's like awesomely responsible, be suitably awed. This is no time for McCain to be butchered by a superior debtor, there is a crisis going on.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Gorgon