Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Delfos on August 27, 2007, 12:26:57 AM
-
Oh well, another topic about presidential elections. I don't know much about key points and all that, but have been listening to some of the debates, maybe the largest key points are Iraq and Iran. I would like Americans to give their view about any point for this presidential elections.
I started to say my support would go to Obama, but i don't know. Listened to Gravel's debate and i really liked to hear a non-arrogant senator speaking of USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA
What should US do with Iraq?
What should US do with Iran?
questions you might want to answer to form a debate.
-
All the canidates suck in my opinion. If Ron Paul runs, I'm rooting for him. I hate Hillary with a passion, Obama is against gun rights, Guliani only has 9/11 to run on and is against stem cell research, etc...
But about Iraq:
We never should have gone to Iraq. We should have focused our resources on catching Bin Laden, not some dictator who had nothing to do with 9/11. But, that being said, I don't think we can just pull out. Iraq would fall deeper into civil war, and we can't let civilians be killed needlessly.
About Iran:
Bush could never pull off an Iranian war. If he did and didn't cause enormous protests, I just might have to say he's actually intelligent (But that wouldn't mean he's good). What I'm saying is, I'm not worried about a war with Iran.
-
I guess right now my support would go to Obama, but only because I think Hillary would be a bad president from what I've seen in debates and the only other candidate I really know anything else about is Rudy. And all I know about him is that he was mayor of NYC on 9/11...
Obama does have good points though.
I'm for eliminating the embargo of Cuba. It just seems pointless now that the Cold War is over. Obama has already said he was for lessening some of the restrictions regarding Cuba.
Also I think we need to get off of our high horses and talk to people. We need to stop acting like snobs and bullies and actually talk with our enemies before demanding things out of them. Obama said he would hold talks with leaders of some of our enemies like the president of Iran.
Other things on my mind not involving Obama (well not entirely)...
Iraq. We shouldn't have invaded them. BUT now that we're there, I feel we have to ATLEAST take care of Al Qaeda in Iraq before withdrawing. The government is weak, our withdrawal would allow the real Al Qaeda to set up a bigger presence there (or to establish one if they aren't already there). Al Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for the majority of the suicide bombings. Eliminate them, you should eliminate a good portion of the sectarian violence plaging Iraq because there would be fewer revenge killings (but I'm no expert on the topic, this is just based on my observations from reading the news). Like Obama said, we shouldn't be fighting a war to prevent a genocide, or else we should invade Sudan. But when the genocide is inadvertedly caused by us, I think we have a moral justification to stay and sort things out.
Iran. Ahmedinejad or whatever the hell his name is just needs to die. He keeps focusing on his military and killing our soldiers in Iraq, and now his people are suffering from a piss poor economy. All that oil Iran has, and yet he has to enforce an oil ration? Geez... We should enforce a passive regime change. Public opinion is turning against him, so we leave him alone to dig his own grave. However, there's the nuclear problem. An anti-west, pro-Islamist, anti-Israel country in possession of nuclear technology is a bad thing. I think we have to keep monitoring that, and if it looks like they have the bomb, attack the nuclear facilities. But that still may not be a good idea since their nuclear facilities are located close to large population centers and the current ones have the ability to relocate to other places if needed.
Afghanistan. We really need to be focusing more soldiers and resources on this war. I believe this war may be more important than the Iraq war, and we need to start taking care of things before our so called "allies" withdraw. With more men on the ground in Afghanistan, hopefully we wouldn't have to rely on airstrikes as much which would lower civilian casualties and friendly fire instances like what happened just a couple days ago when an American jet dropped a bomb on and killing three British soldiers. Instances like that can't be tolerated or accepted, and we have to do something to fix the problem.
Other over seas bases. We need to get rid of many of our over seas bases. Bases in all of these countries is pointless. Create maybe one single base in Europe that is jointly ran by all Nato members. That one base would respond to anything in Europe. Use those soldiers to replace National Guardsmen in Iraq and Afghanistan, then use those Guardsmen to guard the Mexican border against illegals.
Other. Outlaw abortion except under certain circumstances, outlaw stem cell research completely, and by God, get that damn border fence built.
-
I support anyone who advocates peace, equality and the ending of imperialism. Wait, those things are Unamerican.
-
Osafume, if what you described is the concept of Obama's points, then he's quite a battle horse. Yes bases in other countries are waste of military and money...but US Gov. Seems to like to waste money on the military. Among the other things, what you defend seems fantastic.
Myro, i liked your comments but you focused on the past, i want to know what solutions you have, or what candidate has the best solutions. Staying in Iraq isn't a solution in my opinion, stay forever? is that what you mean?
Bush is history here i guess. So whatever he has done or will do with Iran will become an issue to whoever is elected.
Afghanistan wasn't that bad...they shouldn't have invaded Iraq and maybe the Afghanistan 'war' wouldn't last so long, like Myro said. Afghanistan should be already free from foreign military. Same goes to Iraq in my opinion, if you fail, you cannot continue staying/failing. Just pull out...
I agreed that Hillary wouldn't make a good president, i would be glad that USA would have it's 1st female president, but she doesn't fit there in my opinion. I would guess that even Bill is against some of the points, or is he not?
-
Now that I looked at the YouTube clip, Gravel actually seems fairly decent.
-
Most people here see Mike Gravel as a joke. He tends to come off as just angry in the debates so far, and he only has an outside chance as it is. Too bad things like style and appearance seem to matter so much, but they do.
-
meh election after this one my friend joker is running for office. he totally has my vote.
-
Well, there really is no purpose in me personally voting. As if Massachusetts would ever cast its Electoral College votes against the Democrat. Short of course of the National Popular Vote Bill miraculously coming into affect before the election.
-
that's surely a shit bucket!
About Mike Gravel, i heard about him in that video link of Myroria, Jib Jab? anyway, found out that You Tube video and i can see how Jib Jab and some Americans see Gravel as a joke. He stands for what he believes, not what everyone wants to believe.
Really, what are you afraid of?
Why haven't you disarmed those nuclear weapons yet?
What the hell are you still doing in Iraq?
Doesn't Gravel have some big points, and don't you believe he would change US prospective?
My guess is that people don't like the change, specially when he doesn't care how he looks on TV. We had a foreign minister like that, shame he had an health problem, that criticized the actions of USA in Iraq (at the beginning) while everyone was supporting them. In Europe there's quite a load of Gravels, and we're happy, jokers or not, they do their job well, they have balls!
Afraid of a political revolution?
Anyway...Obama still looks one of the best option after Gravel, but i don't see Gravel winning..poor guy. At least make him foreign minister! lol
And about getting angry on debates? i don't think so, you can see Gravel joking quite allot when he speaks, it's a kind of propaganda, i guess...the way of being seen a joker, and nothing for real is counter-part propaganda, look at the dumb face Hillary makes smiling at the public...every teeth she shows is a hundred more voters, why don't you vote by the teeth instead?
what's the most reasonable candidate for you? the one you would vote if there would be nothing better to vote for?
-
About stem-cell research: It should be illegal to find a cure for cancer because some book of stories says it's wrong? If life began at conception, we wouldn't celebrate birthdays as the day we came out of the womb.
-
Ron Paul, supporter of the Constitution! What a novel idea to do. Abolishment of wasteful government, lower taxes, more state's rights, foreign military withdrawal, etc.,
I especially like his support of states voting on issues rather than making federal law.
-
So, is he running?
-
So, is he running?
Yes, you dumbass.
-
George W. Bush will win this year's elections.
-
I thought he hadn't announced yet?
Never mind, he has. Go Ron Paul '08.
-
that's surely a shit bucket!
Why haven't you disarmed those nuclear weapons yet?
What the hell are you still doing in Iraq?
We haven't disarmed because the majority of the people in the US are convinced that if we disarm, China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, or X Nation will proceed to blow us back to the Stone Age. Now, I ultimately believe that EVERYONE should disarm; accepting the futility of that, I'd rather not be the first to disarm. Now, I know that is the reasoning behind most countries resisting disarmament; the question is, "How do you get around that?".
I honestly cannot understand why the US hasn't gone to a Popular Vote system yet, especially after the debacle that was the 2000 elections. The idea of Democracy is simple; the people vote. Who/Whatever gets the most votes wins. That's how it works in all the other US elections, but NOOOOO, we have to keep this archaic concept afloat. Some say that smaller states will be disadvantaged if we move to a popular vote. HA! A candidate can currently win the presidency (through the electoral college) by winning all of eleven states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, and New Jersey. This would give them the necessary 271 electoral votes. So much for the smaller states.
Obama doesn't want gun rights, huh? GOOD. Canada and the UK seem just fine with stricter gun laws.
Really, what are you afraid of?
Doesn't Gravel have some big points, and don't you believe he would change US prospective?
Afraid of a political revolution?
Exactly. You nailed the feelings of most of the people in the US.
-
About stem-cell research: It should be illegal to find a cure for cancer because some book of stories says it's wrong? If life began at conception, we wouldn't celebrate birthdays as the day we came out of the womb.
yet again something i agree with you on Garth. hence why i support John Edwards and have since he tried to run in 2004.
-
Ryaz, if you think the Constitution is a libertarian document, think again, or perhaps read it some time. The Constitution as written was intended to set up big government, not to eliminate or dispose of government.
-
I'm not a huge Constitutionalist. It's vague, like trying to figure out what the Bible's saying. It's hard to get one meaning out of it.
-
Ryaz, if you think the Constitution is a libertarian document, think again, or perhaps read it some time. The Constitution as written was intended to set up big government, not to eliminate or dispose of government.
Obviously a document that was written to form a government does not intend to eliminate or dispose of itself, that is paradoxical to the idea of government. I believe the system of government that was set up before the War Between the States is the right and proper one of America. Of course, my opinions change little, so I can only HOPE to support someone who at the very least shares much of the same ideals I do and plans to follow the law instead of lobbies.
-
Osafume, if what you described is the concept of Obama's points, then he's quite a battle horse. Yes bases in other countries are waste of military and money...but US Gov. Seems to like to waste money on the military. Among the other things, what you defend seems fantastic.
Myro, i liked your comments but you focused on the past, i want to know what solutions you have, or what candidate has the best solutions. Staying in Iraq isn't a solution in my opinion, stay forever? is that what you mean?
Bush is history here i guess. So whatever he has done or will do with Iran will become an issue to whoever is elected.
Afghanistan wasn't that bad...they shouldn't have invaded Iraq and maybe the Afghanistan 'war' wouldn't last so long, like Myro said. Afghanistan should be already free from foreign military. Same goes to Iraq in my opinion, if you fail, you cannot continue staying/failing. Just pull out...
Osafume?
Anyway, I think Bush had been taking a few wrong approaches in Iraq. If it was handled differently, I think we could win. For one thing, put more pressure on Maliki to put into place the oil reforms and allowing Sunnis to have more power in the Gov't. Only recently has the strategy of "taking and holding" positions has been implemented. Previously, troops had only been conducting raids on militants and retreating, now we're actually holding the ground we take, and cities this has been done in has seen a big drop in violence. Violence in Baghdad is also down. Al Qaeda in Iraq has shifted again, but now they only have but so far to go. They've went from Anbar, to Baghdad/Diyala, and now are in northern Iraq. They only have but so much Iraqi territory left to retreat too, and public opinion has turned against them. If we keep up the process of getting Sunnis to work with us against Al Qaeda, they could actually be defeated, or atleast severely crippled. Lastly, Bush and Maliki need to conduct more diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors, especially Syria and Iran.
About stem-cell research: It should be illegal to find a cure for cancer because some book of stories says it's wrong? If life began at conception, we wouldn't celebrate birthdays as the day we came out of the womb.
Celebrating your birthday is an old tradition, back when they didn't know about such things as "conception," and they don't change that often. It's a lot harder, if not impossible, to pinpoint exactly when a baby was concepted. This goes especially for normal, non-scientifically educated people. An embryo can respond to external stimula, I consider that to be more than enough to consider something organic to be "alive." This is also why I'm against abortion.
-
All I can say is that the USA's election system is completely out-dated.
I know the British system isn't perfect but in my view, it is much better.
-
All I can say is that the USA's election system is completely out-dated.
I know the British system isn't perfect but in my view, it is much better.
You mean the Electoral College? We all complain about it every four years, but it never goes away. There's no chance of the small states letting go of the influence it gives them, in any case.
-
::) the British one doesn't stand as an example of modern electorate.
-
(http://www.newsvine.com/_vine/images/users/nws/DeepThought/909593.jpg)
interesting...
-
I thought Paul might have been a bit further south than that. I suppose it's because he himself is pro-life, but supports a state's right to vote on it, among other issues.
-
that's typical right, i don't consider hard right any libertarian...but look at Gravel. I guess this can be compared to popularity :p you have to admit US public is highly influenced by 'fascist' right just to be opposed to any left at all.
-
Ron Paul isn't a Reagan or Goldwater in my opinion, but he's the best we got for this election. It's too bad he's pro-life, but at least he supports the state's right to vote on it.
And for once, I agree with Delfos. The Church Formerly Known As The Republican Party is most certainly doing this country more harm than good. They better clean their act up, or the Dems are gonna become the party in front.
-
The dems are going to sweep in 2008, Good ole W and his friends just wrecked this country. I do think its time for a strong 3rd party{cough}libertarian{cough}. We can blame the republicans for a lot but all the democrats do is the opposite of the republicans and vice-versa. Neither party is looking out for the best interest of the country.
Iraq: We never should have gone in. Colin Powell even said not to do it. He was ignored, then he said "OK, this is how you do it" and again ignored. I had told people that I'll give them 3 months to find the WMD's but didn't want to be there a year later hearing that they were still looking for them. After Desert Storm, we knew they didn't have anything and what they did have were left overs from the Iran-Iraq war. Weapons are not like a fine wine, they don't get better with age.
Iran: if we were going to invade anyone, it should have been them. They're the ones with the nuclear program. The same goes for North Korea.
I don't think tighter gun control is the answer. Take a look at Switzerland, every household must have a weapon and everyone must know how to use it. While it is too insure their neutrality, it also keeps the crime rate way down. Then again we're a nation of blamers and no one takes responsibilty for their actions.
-
That's why Collin Powell is quite respected around here.
You know, Bush will win US 2008, they already said they will take the troops out in march 2008, isn't that propaganda? or did he actually gained any reason?
-
He can't win in 2008, we have a two-term limit for a President.
On withdrawal: I have not heard an exact date, and since Bush will not be the Commander-in-Chief, it would be impossible for it to be past January 2009.
-
I'll be able to vote that year and I will tell you this. You might not agree with me but this is who I am voting for and why.
I am voting for Hillary Cliton just so we can have Bill back in the White House. He was a great president becuase he told when s**t was going down. He could go on for a special message during the super bowl and he would say this.
"Alright your goin hear some things about me and some hoes back in House." And what happened the next day, he was caught cheating with his secretary.
-
Bill sucked. He lied about knowing about the Rwandan Genocide when he did. Does ignoring the deaths of 100,000 not make you just as bad as Bush?
-
My nation's government had soldiers there and the commander-in-chief of that region was a Canadian. My government did nothing and they had the soldiers still there like nothing was going on. I feel more angry at my government then I do at Bill.
-
Bill also used depleted uranium in Serbia. 'tard.
-
His wife will do a better job. Obama is just not expereinced enough. If he was experienced than I sure there would be more faith in Obama. But I think Hillary will do so much better then the last five or six presidents.
-
Why?
-
Because when the first Bush was in office, we had WAR. (Go figure), this Bush has us in [/i]two wars. Bill's administration was most likely the best because for the first time, the United States wasn't in debt. Then out of nowhere, we are over three trillion dollars in debt! Where the hell did that money go? I think Hillary will get us out of debt. The war in Iraq, I think will take a while. If you want to leave properly, you have to take time to leave.
-
Hillary sucks. She's gonna turn us into a welfare state. She supports the forced public service of high school kids of 100 hours to graduate. She wants kids to do things against their will, completely un-educational, to graduate. Does that make sense to you?
-
I grew up in a group home/high school. We had those too. But it was more focused on life skills like how to buy an apartment and how to manage a budget. Hell, I just moved into one heck of an apartment in downtown San Diego because I had that kind of help. I think that's what Hillary needs to have. Something that can teach teens how to better themselves in the real world. But if she just means picking up trash than she can share that deep fiery pit of hell with Bush . But you know what as a former graduate I have to disagree with her on this Forced public service. Requirements to graduate are hard enough. We (or should I say you) shouldn't be forced to pick up trash.
-
with any democrat the country will turn it to the salvation army giving soc security to illegals and free health care to the people that dont deserve it that skip on taxes deeper in debt or B) have the tax rates go completely outta control and i wouldnt be surprised if they try to cut and run i think now we should be withdrawing troops but cut and run would cause it to turn into the Afghanistan of the cold war
-
^ and ^^^ are complete caricatures of the Democratic Party. Furthermore, they're caricatures of the Democratic Party of seventy years ago. The modern Democratic Party doesn't support a welfare state.
-
youre kidding right they just a few months ago try to pass a bill giving free health care to illegals what is that
-
GC, I assume that if you supported someone that had a chance, it would be Gravel?
Towlie: They already get free healthcare, and it has caused the closing of multiple hospitals around the country. Hospitals can not turn down someone in dire need, even if they don't have enough money.
-
I don't support that much excessive health care, but why shouldn't illegals come here? God knows the English came here, took the Indian's land (which would be illegal under our laws, but they're English, and the natives savages, so we deserve their land for God and Jesus!), so they're not "illegal immigrants"? If the immigrants want to come, stop being racist and let them. They're not "taking" your jobs, companies are giving them your jobs illegally
-
no that is they just dont pay the government wanted to provide it for them wile the elderly get an f u
and i said nothing about imagation i think if they are gonna be here illeagley they dont deserve the perks that the people that live here leagley get screwd out of
-
Myroria: Empires establishing colonies on the American continent are much more different than illegal immigrants. I actually feel bad that you would actually compare the two.
Towlie: While illegals do get perks we do without paying taxes, it is evened out as they are payed sub-par wages for the jobs that they do. Removing them would also be detrimental to our economy.
-
i did not say one thing about deportation
so the depletion of funds for health care and ss for the people is fair because they do get payed as well !?!?!i just thing they should take one thing from the amish if they are not gonna pay taxes they shouldnt get help from the government (they refuse help from out siders)
(btw in factory towns they get payed relatively well and a large chunk of them share a house with 2 or more other families in a junk house that is 400 a month tops)
-
lol we have a problem here too, but here we try not to exclude or shoot them down, neither slavery. Some spend a week, others a month, others more, but they have to come back to their country, it's the law. Anyway, very few are accepted, but i think they should be welcome. If you ask me, USA is benefiting from all the illegal immigrants in the country, since not even specialized and higher educated legal immigrants can access high places, and Us government doesn't do more than building a wall (asses), and...i lost the point, it's somewhere in there, just find it, i gtg to sleep...hmmmmm sleeeep...
-
its helping economy destroying government programs
kinda a catch-22 if we got rid of them the economy would fall through the floor if they stay welfare will run the debt up sky high cant win either way
-
I think the point that's being over looked is, it doesn't matter what happens the democrats will try to screw over the republicans and the republicans will try to screw over the democrats. The only real people getting screwed is the American public.
-
ya but they tend to screw one group or another
-
So vote Libertarian! (Well, Ron Paul this year)
The only one who screws you over is yourself.
-
matter of fact i was planing on it
-
well the stat says Gravel is more libertarian :p i think what you want is right wing?
-
well any 3rd party is better than dem and rep they both lost touch with the country
-
Too bad you younger folk/over critical foreigners can't vote in this election...
Maybe next four years!!! Hahahahahahahaha! *ahem*
Anyway, if Ron Paul wins the Republican Nomination I'm putting my vote in for him because he's solid Texan Blood! If he doesn't get nominated I'll see who gets nominated by the Democrats... Obama? no... Clinton? hell no. Richardson? meh... Christ the democrats suck this year, as usual! "Oh look at me ... I'm black, so vote for me! Look at me... I'm a woman and I wear pants, vote for me! Oh look at me I think war is bad vote for me!" Bull fucking shit! Last thing I need in my taxes is someone to wipe my ass, thank you but I wipe my own! I'm either voting Libertarian or Independent, Elephants suck and Asses are just useless now. What we need is a party with a giant robotic monster or a hot chick..... That'll get everyone's attention
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1137/1338424818_005db98868.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1287/1337537219_c5b06d6681.jpg)
-
To the people who were supporting Hillary and are against the war, keep in mind that she voted for starting the war in the first place. Then she's wanting to cut the number of candidates in elections as well...
-
Delfos: American libertarianism is stricktly right-wing, as it usually follows the Austrian or Chicago school of economics. So, no, Gravel is not a libertarian, just a true liberal, unlike other Democrats.
Also, I believe Paul is the only GOP candidate who voted against the war, and may possible be the only one other than Gravel who did so.
-
I'm just saying I don't see how its less illegal to wipe out an entire culture than jump a couple of fences. But whatever.
If the Democrats win, global warming becomes required curriculum in all schools and you have to believe in it to graduate.
If the Republicans win, we become a theocracy.
It's like AVP: Whoever wins...we lose.
-
Because they Native Americans didn't have laws concerning imperialism? I'm not saying it's right, but you were debating the legality. Also, for fuck's sake, don't enforce stereotypes.
-
::) We believed in 'Global Warming' way before Al Gore ever show up, my big town, or small city whatever suits you better, has recycling since...i dunno 2000? We don't have scientists saying it isn't happening or it's wrong or whatever. There's a great program here, if you produce more energy than the one you consume with clean energies, like photovoltaic or wind or whatever, you can sell it back to energy producers. It's estimated you take 30 years alone with small home-production to profit from the costs, but now government pays you to have clean source, takes between 2 to 10 years. This program came to life because self-production buildings that had solar panels on to of it had excess of energy, as you can see, even capitalists win with ecology, allot of stories about guys that bought allot of gadgets for clean energy and are profiting by selling it back to the energy company. Do you have any of this sort of thing in USA?
Ryaz i see, as i said, USA is mainly right wing, plus there's no left wing, mostly teased at and called "commies", for myro in example, a sort-of-capitalist socialism is communism all the way, and even more interesting, it's compared to fascist dictatorships like Stalin's, filled with bureaucracy. Actually i believe there can be achieved a short level of bureaucracy directly from socialism and not right wingers, specially monarchies. In example, in Portugal we have the Simplex program, it erases every waste of bureaucracy and shorts the path to anything, like creating a company can be done by Internet, Citizenship Card is a near future that will join ID, Health card and all the other cards in 1, including driving license. And it's a socialist party, clearly away from right wing, but with large difficulty in achieving socialist goals over workers in general.
-
If the Democrats win, global warming becomes required curriculum in all schools and you have to believe in it to graduate.
If the Republicans win, we become a theocracy.
It's like AVP: Whoever wins...we lose.
lol.
how incredibley true. i'll go for global warming over the theocracy though.
-
Ryaz, I do vote libertarian. The fact that gas rates have been allowed to climb to obscene amounts, no more jobs, the cost of housing skyrocketing and financial aid drying up in the richest country in the world is screwing me and the american people over. I didn't vote for anyone that is holding office, so how did I screw myself over?
-
To the people who were supporting Hillary and are against the war, keep in mind that she voted for starting the war in the first place. Then she's wanting to cut the number of candidates in elections as well...
She's also one of those Lobbyist Hags...
-
so who is actualy voting this coming election?
i know i am but i also see underage people arguing as if they are voting.
-
i am of age but i think all the people that are running are shit so i will not vote against some one. i dont think that is the right thing to do, and i dont know enough about the people that are 3rd party to vote for them
-
I've got an idea, why don't we make a poll near the elections, everyone could vote, foreigners, underage, anyone.
-
I'm of age ^_^
-
so who is actualy voting this coming election?
i know i am but i also see underage people arguing as if they are voting.
I am, but the selection is pretty crappy as usual. It comes down to the least of all evils.
To the people who were supporting Hillary and are against the war, keep in mind that she voted for starting the war in the first place. Then she's wanting to cut the number of candidates in elections as well...
She's also one of those Lobbyist Hags...
You get that with every candidate, though. All of them cater to certain lobbies and will continue to do so if they're elected. That's just the nature of politics here.
-
You sound so very resigned. Change it if you are unhappy.
-
Gallipoli-China now you know why I get so mad when I hear "if you vote for a 3rd party, you're just throwing your vote away". If people did vote for others, we would have a 3 party(or more) system going.
-
i see a 3rd party at least shaking it up in the next 20 yrs because people will be tired getting screwed no matter which party we vote for and then have their beliefs shoved down their throat
-
Oh for the days of Henry Wallace.
Note that I mention Henry Wallace and not the racist fucktard George Wallace.
-
I'm kinda just jumping into this, but someone will always feel like they are getting screwed. if a politician caters to the nature people, big business is getting screwed, cater to big business and small business get screwed, etc. etc. pretty much what every election comes to is who will supposedly do something for you and vote for them, and the politicians will always say what people want to hear. people are P.O'd at the war in Iraq so almost all upcoming politicians will say they want to pull out. but right after 9/11 everyone was P.O'd at the people that did it, and enough obviously wanted the war for it to even happen. its just what is the hot issue of the month and how they can appease the most amount of people to get the most votes
-
Way to live totally in the moment and completely ignore broad historical tendancies. I'm very impressed [/sarcasm]
-
are you talking to me? if so why than you very much.
*pats self on back.* if not...i still will do it, ;D
and which broad historical tendencies would that be?
-
its just what is the hot issue of the month and how they can appease the most amount of people to get the most votes
Well, from this sort of statement I inferred your position that people don't act on their interests. According to you, they pay attention to a series of unimportant, but eye-catching issues.
-
hmm...well to choose one of the most obvious. how many people are in Iraq? and how many people have immediate family/close friends in Iraq? now how many people are complaining about it talking about how it was wrong and etc. ? now, how is it in the interest of these people that have no relation to the war in Iraq other than what they have seen on TV? (i know I'm probably gonna piss off quite a few people here, if so...sry?)
-
problem is, you only have right-ish non-3rd parties. In Portugal the 2 most voted or the big ones are very close in the center, one is center left, another is center right, and since the revolution we've been with one or another. Good thing the ones your call 3rd parties are also very important,
Nationalist Party (not dumb but surely do foolish stuff)
CDS-PP (Right democrats) (probably the strongest right wing third party, normally connected with PSD (Social-Democrats), a center-right party)
PSD (social-democrats, big one, although the guy leading them is a stupid ass)
PS (Socialist, the ones in power, another big one, and yes I'm happy)
BE (Left-Block, very important third party, emerged from nowhere and it's the best and biggest opposition tot he government, it's the most professional one in my opinion, actually gets very appealing propositions to the government)
PCP (communists, also very important third party, close to BE but yell about workers and unemployment.)
-
hmm...well to choose one of the most obvious. how many people are in Iraq? and how many people have immediate family/close friends in Iraq? now how many people are complaining about it talking about how it was wrong and etc. ? now, how is it in the interest of these people that have no relation to the war in Iraq other than what they have seen on TV? (i know I'm probably gonna piss off quite a few people here, if so...sry?)
People have interests related to the war other than having family members in country. The war diverts funds from domestic programs, which pisses off welfare liberals and social democrats. It increases the likelyhood of profiteering, which annoys people concerned about corruption. It engenders human rights violations, which incences just about everybody. Especially in the latter case, an injury to one is an injury to all, and most Americans are perceptive enough to see it.
-
It engenders human rights violations, which incences just about everybody. Especially in the latter case, an injury to one is an injury to all, and most Americans are perceptive enough to see it.
So why are there not more people mad at the large portion of countries who subject their population to violations of their human rights year round?
-
Oh, but they are. However, under the current international law, State A does not have the legitimate right to interfere in the internal affairs of State B, whether State B is violating "human rights" or not. Of course, it is possible to debate the very notion of "rights," but this is neither the time nor the place. The point is that it is a total waste of effort to try to get the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of another State, no matter how legitimate the cause. Whether or not the UN or some other supra-national body has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a State is a matter for debate, but the average U.S. citizen has little control over UN policy.
The Iraq War, however, is a target that can be attacked, as it is a matter of replacing one United States policy (that of armed intervention) with another (that of peaceful reconciliation) rather than interfering in the internal affairs of another State.
-
I am probably missing the point here completely, but
The Iraq War, however, is a target that can be attacked, as it is a matter of replacing one United States policy (that of armed intervention) with another (that of peaceful reconciliation) rather than interfering in the internal affairs of another State.
Irregardless of if it is an armed intervention or a peaceful reconciliation the US will still be dictating to a certain degree to them on what they should be doing. A reason that it could still be an armed intervention is that if the troops pulled out the people still bombing and threatening will take back the goverment of Iraq.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said he there has been "progress on the security side, particularly in Baghdad," but said support from the U.S. was still needed and that there should be no timetable set for it to end.
"When things get better and the security situation gets better the Iraqi government will be able to talk about a timetable," he told a regular news conference.
U.S. officials have also said security has been improving but that they are not seeing significant progress politically with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government.
Got that from http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-09-sunday_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-09-sunday_N.htm)
-
Your source speaks for the Maliki government, which has experienced a severe loss of support in the past few weeks, with seventeen ministers pulling out of the cabinet. The Iraqi Parliament has several times passed resolutions calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, and whatever government succeeds Makili will likely iterate that position strongly.
A reason that it could still be an armed intervention is that if the troops pulled out the people still bombing and threatening will take back the goverment of Iraq.
This is a very strange argument, particularly as many of the people currently fighting against American forces never had a voice in the government of Iraq. Furthermore, if the Iraqi people vote anti-American (read anti-imperialist) parties into the majority of Parliament, that is their democratic right and the United States has no right to prevent them from doing so.
-
I'm sorry, I guess I should have made myself a bit clearer on the "taking back the government." I meant taking it back by force, not by democratic means. And even though the Maliki government lost 17 ministers from the cabinet, it still controls a vast part of the Iraqi Parliament and Maliki is still Prime Minister.
-
Maliki is only still Prime Minister because the parties that have withdrawn their support have not tried to form their own government, and will not try to do so until after the next election. He is Prime Minister by default, because nobody else wants the job with the current party alignment.
I meant taking it back by force, not by democratic means.
Why is it the business of the United States if a faction takes control of the Iraqi government by force?
-
I never said that he won the Prime Ministry because he was immensely popular, but
Your source speaks for the Maliki government, which has experienced a severe loss of support in the past few weeks, with seventeen ministers pulling out of the cabinet. The Iraqi Parliament has several times passed resolutions calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, and whatever government succeeds Makili will likely iterate that position strongly.
Here you make it seem like just because it was the Maliki Government it does not count that they still want the US troops in there because they lost support.
It increases the likelyhood of profiteering, which annoys people concerned about corruption. It engenders human rights violations, which incences just about everybody. Especially in the latter case, an injury to one is an injury to all, and most Americans are perceptive enough to see it.
If someone takes a government by force than it could go one of two ways. They could make it into a better government, or they could become corrupt, profiteering from the country, and they could violate many human right. Which by your own arguments means that if someone takes the government by force, and they take the latter course of action, it should affect the whole world .
-
The best form of government seems to be a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is finding someone that is benevolent and intelligent and won't turn into a meglomaniac.
-
no way.
-
I never said that he won the Prime Ministry because he was immensely popular, but
Your source speaks for the Maliki government, which has experienced a severe loss of support in the past few weeks, with seventeen ministers pulling out of the cabinet. The Iraqi Parliament has several times passed resolutions calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, and whatever government succeeds Makili will likely iterate that position strongly.
Here you make it seem like just because it was the Maliki Government it does not count that they still want the US troops in there because they lost support.
If it has lost the support of the Parliament, the representatives of the people, and of the people themselves, it is no longer legitimate. The Maliki government knows that without US troops they have no means of staying in power, so they want US presence to continue. The Iraqi people, which has withdrawn support from the government for precisely this reason, continues to want US troops out. There is no change on the horizon in terms of this opinion.
It increases the likelyhood of profiteering, which annoys people concerned about corruption. It engenders human rights violations, which incences just about everybody. Especially in the latter case, an injury to one is an injury to all, and most Americans are perceptive enough to see it.
If someone takes a government by force than it could go one of two ways. They could make it into a better government, or they could become corrupt, profiteering from the country, and they could violate many human right. Which by your own arguments means that if someone takes the government by force, and they take the latter course of action, it should affect the whole world .
It should, and it does effect the disposition of the public. But according to current international law it is no business of the United States whether another country's government is democratic or despotic. It is instead the business of the Iraqi people to better their own ggovernment and institutions, and they should only get material (rather than moral) help from the Americans if they ask for it.
The best form of government seems to be a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is finding someone that is benevolent and intelligent and won't turn into a meglomaniac.
This man has swallowed The Republic in its entirety and is really not worth debating.
-
mega quote, more about US 2008 election and less about politics? what does US elections got to do with politics anyway?
-
fixed ^^ post.
-
actually what happened in the congress the other day justifies what we were saying. There were 2 points of view, a general saying that fighting numbers are slowing down and another a politician saying politically and socially that country is a mess. Imagine, if EU has difficulty with Turkey about the culture and the rest of middle east, how wrong can it be trying to make Iraq into a capitalized western bank? or like Japan? Can't you be convinced that doesn't work anymore? There was a cute episode of Family Guy about it all turning into 'the west', in a moment they were sad looking Iraqi and sad looking women washing the cars and suddenly they turned into hot babes getting their boobs wet with the water rug, and the guys partying around or something else that i can't remember. Keep dreaming...
-
Exactly, the cultures and ideals don't mesh. The only reason Japan became capitalist is that they have somewhat similar ideas, and the fact they were forced to.
-
Oh, Iraq's capitalist enough. But you can have capitalism without meaningful parliamentary democracy.
-
The best form of government seems to be a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is finding someone that is benevolent and intelligent and won't turn into a meglomaniac.
This man has swallowed The Republic in its entirety and is really not worth debating.
Show me where I'm wrong. You guys debate about a republic or parliamentary system, but it doesn't really work. The leaders that get things done, for better or for worse, are the ones that have circumvented congress. People as whole will not wake up one day and realize what you're saying is right and makes all the sense in the world. People are sheep, that want to be lead and hope they're not going to the slaughter house. The ones that don't feel that way are branded as trouble makers, rabble rousers, intelectuals, etc. The "no child left behind" program isn't to make the US smarter its to lower standards and keep people controlable. You don't educate your slaves. It gives them ideas that they can do better.
-
The best form of government seems to be a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is finding someone that is benevolent and intelligent and won't turn into a meglomaniac.
Thus, monarchy with Myrorian characteristics: A monarchy where the monarch weilds absolute power, but can be impeached by a High Court and may not break certain, unbreakable amendments to a constitution. To put it very simply.
-
Thus, monarchy with Myrorian characteristics: A monarchy where the monarch weilds absolute power, but can be impeached by a High Court and may not break certain, unbreakable amendments to a constitution. To put it very simply.
True, but you still have to hope that the monarch is somewhat intelligent and the high court isn't stacked with the monarchs buddies.
-
Thus, monarchy with Myrorian characteristics: A monarchy where the monarch weilds absolute power, but can be impeached by a High Court and may not break certain, unbreakable amendments to a constitution. To put it very simply.
True, but you still have to hope that the monarch is somewhat intelligent and the high court isn't stacked with the monarchs buddies.
Bender, no one is disputing what you said. Alas, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we figure out a way to go with a benevolent dictatorship without the possible craziness, we will use it.
-
Best form of government is on the other topic.
-
True, this is about the US in 2008. This is what's going to happen, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". I know its a cynical outlook but I think too much damage has been done that 1 person can fix. Its always been easier to destroy than create.
-
I completely agree with you that whoever gets elected will be at best a Right Social Democrat, and that a complete overhaul of the State machinery and the people running it is needed. But of course, we're talking electoral politics here, and there's no reason not to indulge in speculative fantasy. It is, after all, the Internet.
-
Yeah but you'd figure that there enough people out there that we can band together and make a difference in 2008. I think its going to be Obama with hillary as VP.
-
Hillary would never consent to run as VP, and no candidate would choose her. In the first situation, she spent eight years as a second fiddle with no power in the white house, and would not desire a repeat. In the second situation, Hillary carries too much baggage onto any campaign, including her own, and would not be a good choice. The only reason one might choose her for VP is for her fundraising skills and apparatus, the latter of which will likely transfer to the nominee in any case.
A more likely ticket is Obama-Richardson or Obama-Dodd, presuming Obama gets the nomination. Obama wouldn't want Edwards stealing his limelight, and Edwards' appeal to southern populists is shorted out by Obama's race anyway, so he's out as a VP. The two I mentioned are smart but rather colorless compliments to Obama's charisma, and serve much the same function Gore served for Clinton in '92.
-
Hillary would never consent to run as VP, and no candidate would choose her. In the first situation, she spent eight years as a second fiddle with no power in the white house, and would not desire a repeat. In the second situation, Hillary carries too much baggage onto any campaign, including her own, and would not be a good choice. The only reason one might choose her for VP is for her fundraising skills and apparatus, the latter of which will likely transfer to the nominee in any case.
A more likely ticket is Obama-Richardson or Obama-Dodd, presuming Obama gets the nomination. Obama wouldn't want Edwards stealing his limelight, and Edwards' appeal to southern populists is shorted out by Obama's race anyway, so he's out as a VP. The two I mentioned are smart but rather colorless compliments to Obama's charisma, and serve much the same function Gore served for Clinton in '92.
I'm not sure about Richardson's effectiveness as a running mate. He has a long record of service, both appointed and elected, but he tends to make strange or confusing comments during debates, and that might hurt the position of the other candidate on the ticket. I can't remember any specific examples; maybe someone else can recall one.
Of course, no one can ever touch Gerald Ford in that department. Really intelligent man, but he had no way with words at all.
-
What about Dan Quayle?
Oh wait, he was an unintelligent man with no way with words at all. :trout:
-
could you give me some more info about those guys? i don't know that many...
-
could you give me some more info about those guys? i don't know that many...
The less you know about Dan Quayle the better.
-
:clap:
-
IS...you are no Dan Quayle.
-
Delfos: Potatoe
-
yes i think i can remember that, po ta toe, right...
-
yeah Quayle was a judge at a spelling bee and well the kid was arguing with him about it, that there was no "E" in potato.
-
Are you familiar with Louis Armstrong's work?
-
Hey, Hillary spoke to Washington the other day and said some things i would like to point out. She said that the 'cowboy diplomacy' will end if she gets elected and USA will be more connected and cooperative with the rest of the world.
Fine speech isn't it?
Wow, that's what we expect a president to do. If what she promises is true than I change my consideration about her. Maybe USA will finally realise what a President is supposed to be, not just a war-hunger cowboy.
bring back this discussion, also tell me if you heard President of Bolivia speaking in Daily Show, they shown it in CNN.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cMUd0g76FaA
-
If the end of cowboy diplomacy and more respect costs less property rights, more taxes, and required national service to graduate, I'd rather the US be hated.
-
If the end of cowboy diplomacy and more respect costs less property rights, more taxes, and required national service to graduate, I'd rather the US be hated.
I'm with you on that!!