[Nuke]

ive always found that voting third party sends a message to the main parties that their candidates arent quite up to snuff. but i wouldn't vote and expect your guy to win, your just sending a message. and if you cant find anything at fault with the current administration, but you want to voice with your vote that you think an independant is what you need that works fine. but if you do not like the current administration and want someone else, then you are better off just voting for the other party, even if you dont like them.

neither party produces good candidates. you always get the same hippies vs bible thumpers election. none of the candidates have a clue how to fix the current issues. they just keep reciting the mantras their party has hammered into them. and even if they did figure out what to do, it would probibly result in decreased popularity and their chances for re-election would be slightly lessened. if they do make any hard decisions ,anything they do in their first term doesnt go into effect till their second (obamacare). the way i see it if a president's first term doesnt shine, i dont want them for a second.

id love to see an independent come in, get elected, and show everyone else how its done. if there was another candidate that i thought had a snowballs chance in hell for winning id throw my vote in that direction, but as it stands, there is no one that i think has a better shot at winning, especially because there is an incumbent in this election. so im gonna vote republican, because thats my best bet for dethroning obama.

how i would solve things is id hack the military budget in half. we would still have the most expensive military on the planet. of that half would go to domestic use, and the other half to reducing our debts without having to hike taxes (i would still tweak the tax code to not have so many loopholes). we shouldn't be stomping on our own people to help everyone else. we can go back to being the world police once were out of debt. thats what needs to be done. also i kinda think were falling behind in space tech, and need to give nasa moar money, but thats a tiny bit of the budget and really isnt worth mentioning.

[stinkyFeet]

Sorry about that, I wanted to erase what I said before anybody noticed.

I was going on about how they both sucked, but now that I think about it, Obama did accomplish one thing that may be more important than all the other issues combined: Our withdrawal from the war in Iraq and the our partial withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan.

For all the faults that republicans should love about him, that one thing does more for taking us off the path for things like the Patriot Act and Gitmo than any single bill could of. Not to mention the $$$.

[Nuke]

well i figure we made our point with the war on terror, and all the other crap that popped up as a result of 911. that was neccisary at the time. im not going to give obama any credit for ending the wars though. they were spiraling down anyway. we made our point that if you **** with us we **** with you. id like to think were done with that, and can move on. im also not giving obama any credit for the op that fragged bin laden, as that was bush's project and was only a carry over. obama certainly didnt fly in the stealth choppers and put a bullet in his head. he probibly didnt even have a say in planning the op. at most he just gave the go ahead.

thats not what i call a shiny first term. thats just following through with party doctrine and carrying on the legacy of the last president. nothing has changed. its the same old **** over and over. he may have done a good enough job, or even a good job. but i dont want a good job, i want an epic job. he is president after all.

[Mort]

Cut defense spending, close down a good chunk of your bases in Europe(they can defend themselves), adopt Simpson Bowles and return to Clinton era taxes. Short term fiscal sustainability solved.

End Sarbanes-Oaxley, reinstate Glass Steagal, cut the over regulatory parts of Dodd-Frank.

Change the corporate tax to 18%(still higher than what they pay), close loopholes.

Introduce a visa for entrepreneurs, offer students graduating in US universities green cards on graduation day, allocate 20% of visas for economic purposes.

[Mort]

crap double post

[Nuke]

those bases arent about protecting you guys, its about maintaining a strategic position in europe.

really we need to stop being the world police and work on internal issues for awhile. as much as i like constantly being at war. i guess all things in moderation (except booze dope and whores).

[Mort]

The figure for maintaining America's overseas bases are around a trillion if the figure is recalled correctly. If the US went back to its pre-ww2 isolationist attitude, it would see a lot of it's problems solved while a whole lot of problems pop up for everyone else

[Alex Heartnet]

The figure for maintaining America's overseas bases are around a trillion if the figure is recalled correctly. If the US went back to its pre-ww2 isolationist attitude, it would see a lot of it's problems solved while a whole lot of problems pop up for everyone else

The problems that would pop up from doing so aren't nearly as bad as what the media might tell you.  Both Russia and China are well equipped both military and economically for dealing with a supposed nuclear Iran - it's just that the only reason why they haven't intervened themselves is that they are happy to sit back while the US does so, occasional grumblings aside.

Foreign terrorists?  Oh please, our oceans are doing a good job of keeping us safe.  European countries are the ones that are much more vulnerable in that regard.

The war in Afghanistan is going nowhere (and yes, the US still has troops there last I checked.)  Considering that the old Soviet Union had the same problems fighting in Afghanistan as we are currently, keeping our troops there will not accomplish anything productive.

Meanwhile, back home, corrupt politicians use the nonstop wars as a distraction from domestic issues.  I suspect the politicians won't be able to get away with half the stuff they do if people would stop blindly repeating "Support our troops" over and over again.

[NGTM-1R]

The problems that would pop up from doing so aren't nearly as bad as what the media might tell you.  Both Russia and China are well equipped both military and economically for dealing with a supposed nuclear Iran - it's just that the only reason why they haven't intervened themselves is that they are happy to sit back while the US does so, occasional grumblings aside.

Or the fact they don't want to.

[Aardwolf]

... or the fact that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. 




RE: elections, lesser of two evils, etc.:

We need a (can't remember the correct name for this thing) "priority ballot"... where you put 1 for the guy you want, 2 for the guy you want if that guy doesn't get anywhere near enough votes, etc....

Also, we need direct elections instead of this electoral crap.

Also, we need to vote on weekends like just about every other civilized country has.

[swashmebuckle]

We need a (can't remember the correct name for this thing) "priority ballot"... where you put 1 for the guy you want, 2 for the guy you want if that guy doesn't get anywhere near enough votes, etc....

I believe it's called the alternative vote, and unfortunately both major parties have a huge interest in blocking its adoption.

Also, we need direct elections instead of this electoral crap.

That one might actually happen at some point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[Alex Heartnet]

...it's just that the only reason why they haven't intervened themselves is that they are happy to sit back while the US does so, occasional grumblings aside.

or the fact they don't want to.

Why would they need to intervene themselves when another nation is doing so for them?  Both China and Russia have interests in the region, and absolutely dwarf Iran in terms of economic power.

... or the fact that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. 

You are right, they don't have any, but that is not the point I am currently trying to make.  The US government in currently involved in other questionable wars, ones where nuclear weapons are not used as a justification.

Rogue states tend to upset their neighbors, some of which possess the resources for dealing with the problem themselves.  The supposed terrorist threat seems to me the sort of threat that can well enough be dealt with using a bunch of spies and other covert cloak-and-dagger stuff.  And if an attack does slip through, well, it's not worth giving up liberties for a bit of added security.  Public shootings have been a thing ever since the invention of the Tommy Gun.

[NGTM-1R]

Why would they need to intervene themselves when another nation is doing so for them?

Assumption: they care about Iran being nuclear-armed or not-nuclear-armed.

[Alex Heartnet]

Assumption: they care about Iran being nuclear-armed or not-nuclear-armed.

Either way, the US are the ones currently intervening.  This means that if other nations do care about a nuclear Iran, they won't have to intervene.  And if they don't care about a nuclear-armed Iran, then they don't have to intervene!

[SpardaSon21]

Except that the nation in the area most likely to intervene on its own, namely Israel, probably wouldn't mind dropping a crapload of cluster bombs and guided missiles on Iran's nuclear program and then asking Iran exactly what they plan to do about it.  U.S. and European influence is probably the only thing stopping Israel from handling the situation its own way.

[NGTM-1R]

Either way, the US are the ones currently intervening.  This means that if other nations do care about a nuclear Iran, they won't have to intervene.  And if they don't care about a nuclear-armed Iran, then they don't have to intervene!

Interesting case of tunnel vision to leave out the fact that the EU and even Canada are on the bandwagon and would probably be there without us, but do continue.

And Israeli intervention.

And your assumption that because they don't care they won't intervene. (China doesn't give a **** about the nuclear aspect, but they do care about their oil supply and they buy a lot of it from nations in that part of the world.)

And your assumption that it's even a reasonable option for the US to drop out. Let's face it: we buy oil from the guys to our north far more than the Gulf. But there are many secondary effects beyond that, economic, military, and political, that make it an issue of importance.

[Dragon]

It's a kind of a "between hammer and anvil" situation. US can't afford a war with Iran, but it also can't afford not intervening. All for economical, political and military reasons. The only solution would be to defuse the situation diplomatically, but Iran doesn't seem eager to embrace such a solution, and Israeli aren't going to be easy to talk down either. The situation in the Middle East is now very difficult, and changes are needed. The trick is agreeing on what those changes should be, and implementing them with words and not with missiles.

[stinkyFeet]

... or the fact that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. 

Iran does to have a nuclear weapons program. It just happens to consist solely of foreign agents trying to sabotage it. 

[Mort]

Stopping Iran from obtaining nukes isn't to prevent Iran from getting nukes but to make sure the rest of the Middle East doesn't decide to join in the Nuclear Party. Iran doesn't get along well with it's neighbours. The removal of US power would also see a build up in the Asia Pacific because of everyone would start being scared of China, particularly Japan, Taiwan and probably South Korea. The Asia Pacific will be the 21st century equivalent of the Balkans in the 20th Century knocked down a few notches