Redwall: Warlords

Who do you think the president is going to be?

The only one who would give Obama any challenge would be Romney. The other two alienate the moderates. I bet there are a few people on these forums whom traditionally vote republican, but wont't bring themselves to vote for Gingrich or Santorum.

BO will win because the pubs can't pick a leader.

Far too divided.

Why is Ron Paul not on this list?

Edit: Also what Neo said, Obama looks likely to win because the Republicans are too busy tearing each other apart

Doesn't this always happen, though? The GOP likes their ridiculously publicized leadup to the actual election, but once a leader is chosen, is the vote ever that split?

I think there are a lot of people who will vote "not Obama" regardless of who ends up being not Obama.

Personally I'm still confused about America's whole election system thing :/

And to be honest, from what I can remember, obama has been all talk no action, he promised many things (Mostly a change, which is very vague) but he hasn't seemed to deliver much.

No, he hasn't. And he has switched sides or almost swiched sides on a number of issues.

In his defense, our stupid two party system guaranteeing that nothing ever gets done if one side holds a simple majority in either branch or the presidency has hampered him a lot.

Why are there only two parties? Iirc you can run as a third party?

You can, but you have literally no chance of getting any votes.

Surely that is the fault of the people and not the system though?

And I've heard of at least one third party winning, so it can't be quite impossible

Doesn't matter whose fault it is, it's the reality ^_^

If a third party won, it wasn't recently.

Quote from: Shadow on February 20, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
Doesn't matter whose fault it is, it's the reality ^_^

Hmmm, I suppose.

Quote from: Shadow on February 20, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
If a third party won, it wasn't recently.

The one I'd heard of was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura)

Although granted, that was a while back

Third party doesn't win the presidency, you can win as an independent, but you'd never have a big enough party to win the presidency.

Obama promised things he couldn't accomplish. Every politician does this, the only difference is that we actually believed Obama. That said, getting the health care system in is an historic accomplishment (flawed though it may be). He has accomplished a lot, and certainly accomplished more (in terms of progress) then George W.

But he still hasn't closed Guantanamo, he signed a bill allowing the US military to indefinitely detain US citizens w/o charge, and is still allowing the the banks to run the country. All of which is disappointing, but none of which would be dealt with by any republican (except maybe Ron Paul).

Quotean historic

I hate you

But what has Obama accomplished other than the widely hated and poorly implemented health bill?

Quote from: Peace Alliance on February 20, 2012, 12:26:14 PM
But he still hasn't closed Guantanamo, he signed a bill allowing the US military to indefinitely detain US citizens w/o charge, and is still allowing the the banks to run the country. All of which is disappointing, but none of which would be dealt with by any republican (except maybe Ron Paul).

Ron Paul definitely sounds like the most interesting Republican candidate to me, apparently he's got lots of delegates (or some such like) which are important for nomination.

I think it would be interesting if he won the race.

I prefer the phrase "scare terrify the moderates" Ollie.  

That's the reason John McCain tanked last election, he himself wasn't aweful but "his" (his campains') choice of Palin scared the heck out of the moderates.  If McCain, old as he is, had died in office...

Anyways.
I don't know why Newt is still running.  He's utterly unelectable.  He has been shown to be both moraly and ethically compromised.  How he has any support is beyond me.
Santorm is just icky.  I don't mind a religious candidate, I think thoughtout history the US has always elected someone with religious views.  But Santorum appears to be taking it to the next level.  No thanks.  
I like how well Ron Paul has faired this cycle, but he's not really electable.  Which is a shame imho.
Romney is a flip flopper extraordinair, but he def. has the best chance of not terrifying the moderates.  He just has to convince the GOP as a whole that he didn't really mean the Massachusets Health Care plan he passed (and helped write?) while govenor.  "Romney Care" as its being called forms the basis (iirc) of the Health Care law passed by Pres. Obama (and it included an individual mandate, that people had to buy healthcare or face a fine), which is pretty much universally reviled by the core of the GOP.  

Ollie...  'progress' as defined by what?  Obama made more 'progress' in his direction than George Bush, but Bush wasn't going in the same direction.  Both Republicans and Democrats share many of the same views (no, seriously), but in things like regulation and social programs 'progress' by one is a detriment to the other.

I mean progress as in any progress. Rather then a conservative government that tries to maintain the status quo or even move backward (example currently in Canada).

That statement assumes all "progress" is positive for everyone.
Santorum would love to see progress in outlawing homosexuality, abortions, etc.
This would be progress to him, but a detrimental move for just about everyone else.

Just as removing regulations from oil drilling would be progress towards making the US energy indepenant.

Define your values for the things that have no meaning.
That's the problem with Obama's Hope and Change.  He actually did have some goals and promises, but those were overshawdowed in his rhetoric of "Hope" and "Change" -- which people then defined for themselves.  Is it any wonder most people are unhappy with Pres. Obama?

No, outlawing homosexuality and abortions is regression.

There are right-leaning things that are progress. Like if you want to progressively lower taxes, shrink gov't, etc. I'm just talking about going forward vs going backward.

As for using "hope and change" to inspire people. That is not illegitimate. If only such values could work in the global capitalist system. Those words are more accurately attached to revolution.

Sharpie, in the american midwest there is a place called Minnesota.

Their opinions don't count and they are almost always marginalized and thought of as "that state giving wisconsin a hug" or in the context of "didn't that movie Fargo take place in Minnesota?"

The fact that they elect pro wrestlers (http://captainscast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/jesse-ventura.jpg), unfunny comedians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_franken), and religious crackpots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann) isn't really a surprise to anyone.

I apologize for their shortcomings, but please don't use them as an example in any serious discussion ever.

---

QuoteThere are right-leaning things that are progress. Like if you want to progressively lower taxes, shrink gov't, etc. I'm just talking about going forward vs going backward.

You talk about going forward and going backwards as if the idea of progress isn't completely subjective. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c)

If Ron Paul was as popular with the American public as he is with the internet, he'd win without a doubt...

Not much to say myself, though from what I've seen of him I have to say I'd probably like Obama to stay in. Health care was the right thing at the wrong time, I'm surprised he got it out in any form with how American politics seems to work.  It's not like you can exactly blame him for not doing anything,  because since he lost that majority thing to the republicans, he pretty much hasn't been able to do anything.

That said, I know about all the republican candidates, except Romney (apart from that he is Mormon iirc), who is supposedly the most rational. So I w ill not go indepth before I educate myself on him.

Quote from: Peace Alliance on February 20, 2012, 02:22:10 PM
There are right-leaning things that are progress. Like if you want to progressively lower taxes, shrink gov't, etc. I'm just talking about going forward vs going backward.

I disagree that those things are necessarily progress.

Quote from: Neobaron on February 20, 2012, 02:26:03 PM
I apologize for their shortcomings, but please don't use them as an example in any serious discussion ever.

I apoligise for the fact that I am only now learning there is a state called Minnesota :P

P.S. Why is Ron Paul still not on the list?

Because Ron Paul is too genuine and uncorrupted to gain the popular support (read: the right people with the right money).

Also because people don't understand what "libertarian" means.

They assume he is some kind of anarchist, and rather than learn about a thing, they do the america and vote on party lines.

Definitely Obama - the other guys are far too crazy imho. Agreed that they will most likely terrify the moderates. 

I think the issue with Obama is that people viewed him as more of a superhero than a politician.

edit: Ron Paul is popular on the internet because of his whole 'legalise drugs' stance. He also hangs out with white supremacists.

i agree but it seems everyone is either corrupt or not that good of a choice like i was gonna go with donald trump but he dropped out thats ok though i couldn't vote anyway i'm only 13

Quote from: Neobaron on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Because Ron Paul is too genuine and uncorrupted to gain the popular support (read: the right people with the right money).

Also because people don't understand what "libertarian" means.

They assume he is some kind of anarchist, and rather than learn about a thing, they do the america and vote on party lines.

Unfortunately I think all three points you make are fairly true :/

Quote from: Ashyra Nightwing on February 20, 2012, 03:34:09 PM
I think the issue with Obama is that people viewed him as more of a superhero than a politician.

He has himself to blame if that's true, he hyped himself up with all of this "hope" talk

don't forget change, change and hope

QuoteP.S. Why is Ron Paul still not on the list?

Because despite what you may have heard, Ron Paul is a fringe candidate at best. He hasn't come close to winning any state, well except Maine, because Maine is filled with crazy survivalists with an isolationist worldview. In short the sort of mouth-breathers who tend to support Ron Paul. I know, because I have relatives who live in the state. They are not Ron Paul supporters, because they are sane, sensible Indiana folk. (Hah) They are also Polish, and us Polish people have an issue with the US being non-interventionist, because the last time the US was, our home country got invaded by Nazis. Said Nazis then proceeded to kill 16% of our population. That, by the way, is the largest percentage of any population that died in the war. So we really, really, do not want to see the US become non-interventionist again, and that is part of Ron Paul's primary platform.

Anyway, it's also because Ron Paul is insane. He might wield some influence in the insane republican circles, but he is not going to get elected. All he might manage to do is get enough delegates to get some respect at the convention. Gingrich, Santorum, or Romney will be the one to get the nomination. I personally don't think it matters who gets the nomination though, Obama is going to win. None of the Republicans are attractive enough on their own merits to beat him, and just being the "not Obama" isn't going to be enough.

Volkov you just implied that Ron Paul would lead to nazi invasions.

No, I said that non-interventionism is bad, and an example would be non-interventionism leading to Nazi invasions. It wouldn't be Nazi's this time, it would be Russian ultra-nationalists. That is still a very bad thing for Poland.

The world now is very different to the world in the 1940's

I disagree with the whole non-interventionalist also.

Is it ok to debate this much in a polling topic? Or should something like this have it's home in the UMD?

Quote from: Gen. Volkov on February 20, 2012, 03:48:41 PM
Anyway, it's also because Ron Paul is insane. He might wield some influence in the insane republican circles, but he is not going to get elected.

He seems to be the most sane of the candidates to me, saying that I have only casually been following the race for nomination

Quote from: Neobaron on February 20, 2012, 03:50:38 PM
Volkov you just implied that Ron Paul would lead to nazi invasions.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

Ron Paul is the Nazi invasion, man :O

Quote from: SharptoohThe world now is very different to the world in the 1940's

Only because we have nukes now. LOL.

QuoteHe seems to be the most sane of the candidates to me, saying that I have only casually been following the race for nomination

He's not. Example: He wants people to be able to print their own money.

Quote from: Ashyra NightwingRon Paul is the Nazi invasion, man

OK, maybe Ron Paul would lead to a Nazi invasion. LOL.

I hope you're joking ashy. :3

Quote from: abartell on February 20, 2012, 03:38:57 PM
i agree but it seems everyone is either corrupt or not that good of a choice like i was gonna go with donald trump but he dropped out thats ok though i couldn't vote anyway i'm only 13

I didn't think that people who would have voted for Donald Trump actually existed. Are you sure you aren't a figment of Donald Trump's imagination?

Quote from: Gen. Volkov on February 20, 2012, 03:57:06 PM
He's not. Example: He wants people to be able to print their own money.

I haven't read that before, from my understanding he was opposed to the printing of money to control inflation (he wants to abolish the fed)

QuoteHe's not. Example: He wants people to be able to print their own money.

This sounds like the sort of thing that is lacking context.

It really isn't Shadow, that's the thing.

QuotePaul supports legalization of parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets and digital gold currencies. He would like gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies to compete on a level playing field with Federal Reserve Notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use sound money or to continue using fiat money. Paul believes this would restrain monetary and price inflation, limit government spending, and eventually eliminate the ability of the Federal Reserve to "tax" Americans through monetary inflation (i.e., by reducing the purchasing power of the currency they are holding), which he sees as "the most insidious of all taxes".

-Wikipedia, actually really well sourced too.

Parallel currencies= printing your own money.

Ron Paul = Bugnuts crazy

More Ron Paul crazy:

QuoteHe rejects the notion of "separation of Church and state"

QuotePaul sought in the 1980s and 1990s to eventually abolish all public schools

Quote
Paul asserts that access to "education is not a right." He opposes all federal government scholarships and government loans for higher education, but is supportive of the offering of financial aid by private organizations.

QuotePaul has long held that land owned by the government should be sold to private developers. In addition to closing the Department of the Interior, his "Restore America" budget plan proposes selling off at least $40 billion worth of public lands such as national parks, and other federal assets, between 2013 and 2016.

But yeah, Paul is "the most sane of the candidates". :eyeroll:

Not quite. It means printing your own money against something of value that is actually there, rather like the gold standard.

Not that it is a good system, but there is more to it than printing arbitrary amounts of money - there is collateral behind it.

Uh

I guess that is one way of looking at it.

I read it in the context of BitCoin.

---

This post was aimed at Volkov.

There are already parallel currencies here in Britain (unless I am misunderstanding the term) Bristol pound etc. granted these currencies are not gold backed.

What's so bad about gold backed notes printed by the public anyway? You make it seem like a dreadful idea but it would be in essence what currencies were until the 20th century, it's not like value is being conjured up from nowhere (from what I read this is what you are attempting to insinuate)

Shadow puts in a better way what I am trying to say with that last paragraph

Bitcoin was a pyramid-scheme type scam at heart, though, really - it's hardly a good example of why people should be allowed to create their own currencies.

I would disagree with that at length but I don't have time.

Would make a good UMD topic though.

Quote from: ShadowNot quite. It means printing your own money against something of value that is actually there, rather like the gold standard.

Not that it is a good system, but there is more to it than printing arbitrary amounts of money - there is collateral behind it.

It's a system we had very early on in the US, under the Articles of Confederation. It made interstate trade so difficult, it nearly tore apart the country. Parallel currencies= BAD IDEA.

Quote from: Sharptooh
What's so bad about gold backed notes printed by the public anyway? You make it seem like a dreadful idea but it would be in essence what currencies were until the 20th century, it's not like value is being conjured up from nowhere (from what I read this is what you are attempting to insinuate)

They don't have to be gold-backed Sharpy, that's the thing. It said "such as", it didn't say the only currencies that would be allowed would be gold backed.

Anyway, point is, Ron Paul is fundamentally crazy, and while many people like specific ideas of his, the overall insanity makes him a nonviable candidate. I dunno about you guys, but I think keeping Yellowstone National Park around is a good thing.

I think you're just looking at extremes V.

I wish I was just looking at extremes Neo. He wants to sell off our National Parks and eliminate the Department of the Interior as part of his plan to balance the budget.  It's literally part of his platform. These are not weird statements he has made that don't really apply to his main points, they are important planks in his platform. For the record, the Department of the Interior is 163 years old, and the idea for it was supported by almost all the founders of the country.

I guess you could say that it wasn't originally created as a ponzi scheme, but it was certainly used as such. Either way, he people who cashed out at the right time made a whole lot of money and the currency is now near-worthless.  :P

also ron paul named his kid after ayn rand

Quote from: Ashyra Nightwing on February 20, 2012, 04:42:15 PM
I guess you could say that it wasn't originally created as a ponzi scheme, but it was certainly used as such. Either way, he people who cashed out at the right time made a whole lot of money and the currency is now near-worthless.  :P

Thats a better way to put it. BitCoin was originally a beautiful idea for open source digital currency. It was manipulated by people. People being people.

It is now "worthless" as compared to what it was at the peak of speculation, but more importantly, it is stable meaning that it has maintained at least some of its value and still has promise for the future.

I would love to see it succeed.

---

Quote from: Gen. Volkov on February 20, 2012, 04:41:25 PM
I wish I was Neo. He wants to sell off our National Parks and eliminate the Department of the Interior as part of his plan to balance the budget.  It's literally part of his platform. These are not weird statements he has made that don't really apply to his main points, they are important planks in his platform. For the record, the Department of the Interior is 163 years old, and the idea for it was supported by almost all the founders of the country.

The age of a thing/person/noun/whatever does not validate it.

Generally speaking, the older an institution gets, the more broken and corrupt it becomes.

QuoteThe age of a thing/person/noun/whatever does not validate it.

My point was that it's been around for a long time, and has carried out it's mandate that whole time, so he better have a darn good reason for getting rid of it. Far as I can tell, he doesn't other than the fact that he doesn't like the government owning land.

QuoteGenerally speaking, the older an institution gets, the more broken and corrupt it becomes.

Only if that institution wields a lot of power. The Department of the Interior is not a major power-broker in Washington.

Another factor in who will be elected as persident will be the economy, and how well it recovers.  Obama has a chance based on how the recovery is going, as long as the economy gets better.

wow you guys are really starting to boor meand i made the topic thats sad.

Quote from: abartell on February 20, 2012, 08:45:57 PM
wow you guys are really starting to boor meand i made the topic thats sad.

... why would you make a topic about something you're not interested in?

no i mean its important and i am interested, its just that you guys are just getting waaaaay down deep into the really technical stuff.

The "way down deep technical stuff" otherwise known as the actual reasons why or why not to vote for someone are kind of important.

@abartell

It's the kind of stuff you'll need to know when you are older. By the time you start voting you should make sure that you are reading entire news articles every day (to some that sounds way too basic, but you'd be surprised how few get beyond the headlines unless the news has to do with a celeb)

Research is important too.

Helps you find things like this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61804-2005Apr17) which give you a glimpse into the reality of the candidates.

In the case of this article, reading about how rick santorum took a fetus home for his kids to interact/play with is pretty disgusting.

Not to mention the rest of the article.

i understand i need to know this when i'm 18 and older but i am not but i still feel the need to know i started this topic just sorta to see some of the reactions popping up and some of the opinions.

It helps to start learning before you are 18, that way you can go in with an informed opinion.

i know

I don't have any issue with Santorum taking his 20 week old child home for his children to see. They didn't "play" with him. It teaches the children a lot about life processes and helps the whole family heal with the loss.

Pretty sure there is no reason to do that other than to make a political statement about abortion. And a profoundly creepy one at that.

If there is one thing that I've noticed about Santorum is that he is quite sincere in his actions. Honestly, if I was unfortunate to lose a child early in it's development and already had children, I would want them to see him/her.  Especially when children know that their mother is expecting, it helps with avoiding too much of the "Mommy/Daddy where is my brother/sister?"

This is how the Santorum family chose to deal with their loss.  I think it is wrong of any media source to scrutinize the choice they made.

IT'S GROSS!

Briar, you realize it was a 20 week old fetus right?

It wasn't a 20 week old baby.

It was born prematurely.

I just want to make sure.

I don't really care that he showed his kid the fetus. Thats kinda his own business. The scarey thing is that he wants to take his own business and impose it on other people.

Ehh, I can understand that sentiment to a point.

Being a fan of RASSLIN (http://i.imgur.com/9674a.png) or bucking the political correctness trend out of spite are things I would agree with as being personal choices.

Taking a dead fetus home to your kids and singing songs to it is... weird. And the fact that he is willing to treat said fetus as a child and do that kind of gives a glimpse into the extremes of his conservatism. I guess if prompted, my response would be that he is free to traumatize and warp his children if he wants, but I would be concerned that it is an example of what he expects from every person.

So again, we're more or less saying the same thing, I'm just taken a bit more aback by the bizarreness of the situation.

Quote from: Neobaron on February 22, 2012, 08:14:28 AM
Taking a dead fetus home to your kids and singing songs to it is... weird. And the fact that he is willing to treat said fetus as a child and do that kind of gives a glimpse into the extremes of his conservatism. I guess if prompted, my response would be that he is free to traumatize and warp his children if he wants, but I would be concerned that it is an example of what he expects from every person. 

I don't exactly want to argue for the guy. But you have to recognize the vastly different ways that cultures treat the pregnancy and birthing process. What he did is weird to us, but it makes sense from the culture that he's in. The reason people aren't treating that culture sensitively (as you would when encountering an African culture, or any other distant culture that differs greatly from ours) is because socially conservative anti-abortionists have not been sensitive to anyone elses culture.

What he did with the fetus didn't hurt anyone. At 20 weeks a fetus does not look overly grotesque (it's just 2 weeks shy of the earliest you can give birth and have a chance of survival). And to the kids this was normalized, so they wouldn't be shocked and alienated. Talking about the dead is also healthy, studies show, because it allows people to openly mourn and to share the burden.

Ultimately it is the fact that he wants to take his culture and enforce it upon others that disturbs me (radical Islam anyone?). Considering how many people are mad at Obama for making catholic hospitals carry birth control, the same argument could be used for this.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I guess it would make more sense if Santorum wasn't a rich white guy. The fact that I know catholics who lost kids and didn't take them home coupled with his very strong stance on the abortion issue cause me to default to thinking he was making a statement rather than being genuine, but at the same time he seems to genuinely believe the poo he says.

Different strokes I guess.

But its still weird. :3

Ya, but Catholicism is not a culture. In fact of all the Christian denominations Catholicism probably includes the most diverse cultures because it's almost everywhere in the world. His culture would probably be one of the hard-right christian conservative American.

That said I don't think that Sanatorium is above petty political gestures, as the rest of the article outlines clearly.

I don't think many people like Obama because of the debt crisis. They also don't give him credit for Osama (he deserved at least something), taking out Ghandafi (I think I'm spelling it right), and having the dow hit 13,000. He doesn't deserve full credit for this, but some credit wouldn't be bad. I like Santorum, but Romney probably will beat him. So I voted Romney. And Catholics aren't what they used to be. Now protestants are more plentiful. Just saying.

Obama didn't take out Osama. The Navy Seals did.

Gave an order to look in Pakistan. Big gamble and proved fruitful. Had a bunch of advisers say yes and a few said no. He went with the majority and the Seals got him. Indirectly did it.

Quote from: Dark Claws on February 25, 2012, 08:12:16 AM
I don't think many people like Obama because of the debt crisis. They also don't give him credit for Osama (he deserved at least something), taking out Ghandafi (I think I'm spelling it right), and having the dow hit 13,000. He doesn't deserve full credit for this, but some credit wouldn't be bad. I like Santorum, but Romney probably will beat him. So I voted Romney. And Catholics aren't what they used to be. Now protestants are more plentiful. Just saying.

I find it a bit on that you are defending a leader based on his kills. That is almost as strange as picking someone based on how popular their religion is.

BTW, Mormon is /not/ a Christian denomination. I believe it was debated somewhere on these forums... But they don't study the Christian bible, so they can't really be Christians.

I'm saying that he did stuff. Killing Osama was a morale victory for the U.S. Say what you want, but it was. Anyway, I'm not saying he's good because of his kills, but he proved himself. And I know nothing about mormons. I think they are ranked with Jehova Witnesses, close to Christians but not really. Yeah, the UMD has some discussion on this.

Oops, just realised the topic was split.


So I'll post on topic. Do you guys really think that Romney could defeat Obama, or did you just vote for him because you want him to beat Obama?

I don't think Romney will win; he just seems to sleazy to me, if I was voting I doubt he'd get mine.

Saying that I don't really know too much about his policies, which could sway me.

It's hard to pin down his policies. His campaign remains vague on a lot of issues, and much of what he says is genuinely in direct contradiction to his (rather moderate) policy decisions in the past.

I did think it was odd that in the last debate he tried to call out Santorum for supporting 'Obamacare' (Santorum supported a guy who 4 years later supported obama... pretty big disconnect there!). Meanwhile 'Romneycare' seems even more progressive then 'Obamacare...'

Are all the candidates like that? Because I for one would definitely not one someone running my country, if they didn't outline what they planned to do beforehand.

They have to be vague and broad enough to ensure that they don't alienate certain voters. But to a certain extent this is just superficial, because the candidate does have particular goals, and when you look at their past you can observe how they attempt to achieve those goals.

For example, most politicians say they are going to improve education - but they don't always tell you how that will happen. When Bush got in he started No Child Left Behind, which was basically a system of standardized tests that would determine public funding (consequently it left lots of kids behind, but oh well). Obama also had the same goal, and he has followed suit with an equally horrible method.
Politicans often tell you what their goals are, but not how they will do it.

Furthermore, by avoiding specifics, a politician get avoid being pressed on unflattering details. If Obama had outlined his public health care plan during the campaign it would have been held to scrutiny.

It also avoids admitting that the president can't do anything they want. Politicians what you to believe they will make your dreams come true. They don't want you to know that the political system prevents them from accomplishing everything you want to do.

About Romneycare: The difference is that that was a STATE thing. Obamacare is a NATIONAL thing as in states have no choice in the matter.

Romney gets things done. He is given a task, he does it. He was told to make Mass. economy better, he did. That is one reason ppl can't really pin his policies. He has been given diverse tasks and had to solve them with diverse ways.

And yes, I do believe Romney can beat Obama.

I love how you misspelled both Romney and Barack.  ha.

I missed you so much Kyro. I was thinking about you on the bus this morning.

No lie.

I think people just don't like Obama. So they will vote for Romney. Don't have anything against either, I just think people blame Obama for us being in debt.

Who do they blame for the rest of the world being in debt?

Not them. Duh.

Quote from: Peace Alliance on March 02, 2012, 10:56:43 PM
Who do they blame for the rest of the world being in debt?

Kinda of a silly argument.
Are Greece's problems not their government's fault?
There are countries in the world not in debt.  Or atleast not nearly as bad.  There are also those worse off.

The bailouts that Bush started were continued to a massive extent under Obama.  Trillions and trillions added to the national debt in a couple years.  Not even Bush added to the debt that fast, and with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars he added quite a lot.
Democrats, Obama among them, really like social programs.  The Republicans really like the military.  Neither have the balls to cut their own programs enough or to raise enough taxes to cover them.  They instead demand the other cut their programs, allowing their pet projects to continue.  Both sides are to blame, iirc Obama had a democrat majority in both the House and Senate when he started.  Nothing of note got accomplished. 

Also Sharpy -

Quote from: Sharptooh on February 27, 2012, 02:38:27 PM
Are all the candidates like that? Because I for one would definitely not one someone running my country, if they didn't outline what they planned to do beforehand.

These are called Campaign Promises, and are broken fairly regularly.

lol, windy this is a global economic issue. I think there are many, many, (ok maybe like 147 (http://boingboing.net/2011/10/22/densely-linked-cluster-of-147-companies-control-40-of-worlds-total-wealth.html")) people at fault.

Quoteiirc Obama had a democrat majority in both the House and Senate when he started.  Nothing of note got accomplished.

Isn't that when he got the health care through?!?

The health care that went though wasn't the health care that would have made a difference. Instead, we just got an unconstitutional decree that forced us to buy insurance, which is itself a horrible legalized racket.

I agree that it wasn't a very good system, but it was a huge project, so I wouldn't say obama was idle in the 2 years before he lost the senate.

Relevent (http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html)

Erm that research is from a psychologist, therefore meaningless. :P

Either way, an interesting but not surprising read.

QuoteNagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."

^In particular seems to sum up the article and democracy in general, from what I have seen.

Just because I don't think they're scientists doesn't mean they don't have interesting things to say.

It just means I take their claims about facts and reality with a grain of salt.

I have learned to ignore misuse of 'scientist.'

I guess you could call the healthcare law something of note.
I guess.  Its a pretty bad law, I lost all faith in it when they started writing in exemptions.  
If they're going to do a law it needs to be global and all encompassing.  To me, this includes all the congress critters as well.  If they'd be unhappy under the plan then it should have never been passed.  As is, they kept their extraordinarily great taxpayer funded healthcare and gave us poo.
And due to an extreme phobia of calling anything related to it a tax, there's some strange maneuverings done to pay for it.  

Example of exemptions:  http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm  (first google result, there's others)
If the law as passed would cause McDonalds to drop all the healthcare benefits they currently offer, was it a good law?  
Good intentions, maybe.  But unlike bad birthday gifts, "its the thought that counts" isn't really applicable here.  If this thing bombs as bad as the republicans screaming about it say it will, it'll set back proper healthcare reform by quite a bit (and it really is badly needed).

Anyways.
No Ollie.  The US does not have a massive debt because of the current global recession.  
Its simply that the US continues to spend more than it takes in each year, and within the past few years by a rather large amount -- and the vast majority because of US decisions, not related to the world at large.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

/shrug
Its unsustainable, and neither Bush nor Obama have done good things relative to it.  The gross US National Debt is at 115% GDP as of Feb 2012.  It was 57% in 2000.
This is not good, and why its been a talking point politically.  

(also, Page Not Found for that 147 link)

lolNeo.
When an article has phrases like "because most people don't have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is"
It kinda makes you question it.  Its basically calling everyone who doesn't agree with the speaker an ignorant dummy.
Most things aren't quite as black / white, good idea / bad idea.
But yeah.  Armchair experts with just enough (usually poorly sourced) information are generally ill suited for discussion on a narrowly specific topic.  's what makes things like the UMD fun.

Quote from: Neobaron on March 05, 2012, 02:07:41 PM
Relevent (http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html)

This is why the label "liberal academic elite" is so persistent.

That being said, I don't have much faith in the decision making power of the average voter. But there just aren't any good alternatives. Lots of lovely theoretical ones that would fail horribly in application, like screening for education.

Why would that fail in application?

Can you imagine the hell that would result if anyone actually tried to push that through into law? You are effectively removing the votes of a pretty large cross-section of people, with emphasis on visible minorities and the poor. You would be called racist, sexist, -ist, etc.

Ah so it would fail because people would complain, not because it is an inherently bad idea.

Right. Theoretically it is very nice, like I said. Theoretically everyone has equal access to education and stopping your education early is a lifestyle choice. In reality, this is not so.

Just making sure.

The United States is not a democracy...it does not strive to be a democracy...the Founding Fathers did not want a disgusting democracy.

Thus, they created a constitutional republic. But will you learn about that in school?? NOOOOooooooo. So everyone goes around saying that we're defending democracy. Bull. How can we defend something that noone has really ever witnessed? Like Communism.

err...right.

de·moc·ra·cy
   [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

I don't know tons about the U.S system, but the public do decide which party gets elected...therefore, it is a democracy. Unless I have a really, really skewed perception of the word, and how U.S politics work. Also, how is democracy "disgusting?" I value my right to vote, even if I can't use it yet. :P

Quote from: Briar on March 05, 2012, 03:15:18 PM
The United States is not a democracy...it does not strive to be a democracy...the Founding Fathers did not want a disgusting democracy.

Thus, they created a constitutional republic. But will you learn about that in school?? NOOOOooooooo. So everyone goes around saying that we're defending democracy. Bull. How can we defend something that noone has really ever witnessed? Like Communism.

What you have is a specific flavour of democracy. That doesn't mean that the US is not a democratic country. When we (I?) say "democracy" in this thread we are referring to any system in which the leader is elected by the masses and everybody who pays taxes has a vote. Technically Canada is essetially a constitutional monarchy, but I would still refer to Canada as a democratic country.

@Neo - I didn't read the article, but the general gist is that people aren't smart enough to vote in the best leader, only the ones they want (right?)

If so then I would have to agree, unfortunately people vote for what they want, not for what is necessarily best for the country, or people in general; solving this problem is pretty much a UMD topic in itself (and I think it would make an interesting one)

The US debt is a beautiful example of this problem manifesting itself, Obama doesn't want to cut costs or rise taxes with any sense of urgency because it is an election year, the republican candidates (mostly) don't want to advocate it either, because it would make them hugely unpopular.

Unfortunately that debt needs tackling, sooner rather than later, I'm not sure what the structural deficit of the US is, but I'm guessing it's rather massive by now - growth alone isn't going to solve it I'm afraid.

Quote from: windhound on March 05, 2012, 02:27:48 PM
Its unsustainable, and neither Bush nor Obama have done good things relative to it.  The gross US National Debt is at 115% GDP as of Feb 2012.  It was 57% in 2000.
This is not good, and why its been a talking point politically. 

If it's 115% that's grossly unsustainable (even if you look at Japan) I remember reading that it was 100% a few months back, so if it's already 115% you guys must be running the mother of all deficits.

115% is also coincidentally the debt to GDP ratio that Italy hit (well, around about) before people started to seriously doubt it's ability to tackle it's own debt.

As far as I can see, the only thing the US has going for it debt wise, is the fact their their consumer debt is a lot lower than most other countries in a similar position atm.

A democracy where everyone has a direct say in everything is unproductive  (at least when dealing with a large amount of people). That is why it is disgusting.

I think most systems go a little too far in the other direction though. The US system has so many checks built in that things don't get done very well. Canada goes the other way, in that a majority government is quite literally a 4-year dictatorship. I think having the masses vote on particular issues is not a bad idea, as long as the issues to be voted on are defined carefully so as to not be overwhelming.

Making the government too central causes its own problems.

To be fair, i'd rather have a 4 year dictatorship that actually does a thing than 4 year lame duck stints that can't do anything because a majority is not enough in american politics.

People doing a thing is what caused this mess.

Chuang Tzu Story - The Turtle

Chuang Tzu with his bamboo pole
was fishing in the Pu river

The prince of Chu sent two vice-chancellors
with a formal document:
We hereby appoint you prime minister

Chuang Tzu held his bamboo pole still.
Watching the Pu river, he said:
"I am told there is a sacred tortoise offered
and canonized three thousand years ago,
venerated by the prince, wrapped in silk,
in a precious shrine on an altar
in the temple.
What do you think?
Is it better to give up one's life
and leave a sacred shell
as an object of cult
in a cloud of incense
for three thousand years,
or to live as a plain turtle
dragging its tail in the mud?"

"For the turtle", said the vice-chancellor,
"better to live and drag its tail in the mud!"

"Go home!", said Chuang Tzu.
"Leave me here
to drag my tail in the mud."

wat

The story means that doing a thing is the problem, not the opposite.

I read it as a general 'wise men stay out of politics' thing.

It could also be interpreted as 'live life for the present' or something to do with rewards after death being meaningless.

---

You should post an academic paper outlining why doing a thing is bad, interpreting poetry gets us nowhere. :3

QuoteYou should post an academic paper outlining why doing a thing is bad, interpreting poetry gets us nowhere. :3

I thought you might like that.

Quote from: Briar on March 05, 2012, 05:18:30 PM
A democracy where everyone has a direct say in everything is unproductive  (at least when dealing with a large amount of people). That is why it is disgusting.

I'd rather have an unproductive system then a system like China. plus I generally believe people should have a say in who runs their country, but the democracy you talk about doesn't even exist in 'Merika. All people can do is elect their candidates, and they often go back on promises. (British example, Nick Clegg)

Quote from: Neobaron on March 05, 2012, 05:51:45 PM
To be fair, i'd rather have a 4 year dictatorship that actually does a thing than 4 year lame duck stints that can't do anything because a majority is not enough in american politics.

In theory, I might go for a dictatorship that "does a thing," but in practice it never works out very well. Then again, I guess England isn't as bad off as America is in terms of majorities in several houses. (that is the reason Obama can't do anything iirc, he lost a house to the republicans?)

wow you guys really know your stuff about politics *some more than others* ;)