Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on January 05, 2008, 07:17:16 pm
-
Ok since no one else has posted this yet, I might as well.
Obama and Huckabee won in Iowa, any thoughts?
-
Huckabee is a religious nut, and is unfit to be holding any office, not just the Big one. Obama seems ok, but he's a front runner candidate which means he's pre-approved by big business and the media, and as such probably isn't 'ok'.
overall I'm pessimistic cause the idea election for me is Paul vs Kucinich (i'd vote for Kucinich)
-
Paul. FTW.
EDIT: But I've never heard of Kucinich...
EDIT2: Yeah, Paul vs. Kucinich would be win... Too bad it won't happen...
-
I like Paul's attitude, hate almost all of his policies. Dissolving our overseas bases and all government institutions, including the IRS? How does he expect us to pay off our debt? Or protect key allies like Japan?
I want Mike Gravel to win, but it ain't gonna happen, so I'm putting my vote in for Obama.
EDIT: Although looking at Kucinich, he looks promising. He won't win, though - did he even place in Iowa? He does, however, encourage his voters to back Obama, so maybe an Obama-Kucinich team in the future?
-
Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy and has good relations with all of its neighbors. Why in God's name would it need protecting?
But yeah, let's face it - Paul doesn't stand a chance. I still support the guy, just as I did before his campaign and as I will after it, but the mindset of empire, both domestic and foreign, is by now too engrained in the American consciousness to simply do and about-face. Which is too bad for you guys, because a gradual draw-down would have been less painful than the collapse which is now inevitable.
edit: Obama seems like a nice enough guy, but his fundamental view of America's place in the world doesn't seem to differ much from, say, Romney or Hilary Clinton or McCain. It's just that he would hold a few more conferences and conduct a few less bombing sorties, which I suppose counts for something.
-
overall I'm pessimistic
Too bad it won't happen...
but it ain't gonna happen
He won't win, though
See, aren't those just self-reinforcing attitudes? If everyone keeps saying "he can't win", regardless of who they're referring to, he won't. That's why people are complaining about Fox shutting out Ron Paul. You need to vote for who you want to win, whatever his supposed chances of success.
...including the IRS? How does he expect us to pay off our debt?
The US has more sources of income than the IRS. In fact, taxes don't even supply the majority of the nation's income.
-
See, aren't those just self-reinforcing attitudes? If everyone keeps saying "he can't win", regardless of who they're referring to, he won't. That's why people are complaining about Fox shutting out Ron Paul. You need to vote for who you want to win, whatever his supposed chances of success.
I never said I wouldn't vote for him, it's just that I doubt he'd have a chance even with my vote. I'd have every intention to vote for Paul, provided I was old enough to vote.
-
Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy and has good relations with all of its neighbors. Why in God's name would it need protecting?
North Korea? Maybe China at some future date?
See, aren't those just self-reinforcing attitudes? If everyone keeps saying "he can't win", regardless of who they're referring to, he won't. That's why people are complaining about Fox shutting out Ron Paul. You need to vote for who you want to win, whatever his supposed chances of success.
Yea, that sounds good in theory, the problem is changing people's mind sets. They don't want to vote for people they think won't win and waste their vote, so they vote for someone else, thus dooming them to lose, and the cycle keeps repeating itself. You're going to need a breakout candidate to break that cycle - Paul's the closest so far, but he's not gonna be able to do it.
The US has more sources of income than the IRS. In fact, taxes don't even supply the majority of the nation's income.
Ok, fair point, but I still don't think dissolving all of our nation's institutions is gonna fix our problems. For instance, he wants to dissolve FEMA - who's gonna be there the next time a major catastrophe happens? Yes, FEMA sucked during Katrina - but that's because Bush staffed it with cronies who didn't know how to do their job. When crisis has struck in the past, FEMA has performed admirably.
Basically I think Paul has adopted a policy of throwing out the baby with the water, and instead of reforming institutions to make them faster, more efficient, and more cost effective, he wants to get rid of them completely - which is not what we need right now IMO. Dissolving those institutions would also mean reduced aid for the poor and middle class, which is definitely going to spread the rich/poor divide.
Paul has a good attitude and a good heart, but I don't see his policies as being the best for the country right now, at least economically and stability-wise. Plus most of his supporters just annoy me - they're completely ravenously in this guy's pocket, and don't have any doubts whatsoever - when I expressed my concerns to one fan, he simply stated that "Ron won't do anything that's not for the good of the country, he has no ulterior motives". I don't know about you, but I think that's a dangerous attitude to have towards a politician.
-
North Korea? Maybe China at some future date?
:wtf: :wtf:
C'mon, tell me you're kidding. China wants to do business, not attack anyone. Their economy is so inter-dependent with Japan's (and more importantly the US's) that I can guarantee that war is the last thing on their mind. And North Korea is incapable of even feeding its citizens. It is one of the most backward-ass, destitute, non-functional nations in the world. Their entire industrial capacity could be leveled by the JASDF within a day.
Maybe if Tom Clancy were President of the World...but otherwise, no.
Dissolving those institutions would also mean reduced aid for the poor and middle class, which is definitely going to spread the rich/poor divide.
How about the extra $10,000 it would put in their pocket each year? Who knows best how to spend my money -the government or I?
-
C'mon, tell me you're kidding. China wants to do business, not attack anyone. Their economy is so inter-dependent with Japan's (and more importantly the US's) that I can guarantee that war is the last thing on their mind. And North Korea is incapable of even feeding its citizens. It is one of the most backward-ass, destitute, non-functional nations in the world. Their entire industrial capacity could be leveled by the JASDF within a day.
Maybe if Tom Clancy were President of the World...but otherwise, no.
Hm. Well, your argument is persuasive, however, with increased global tensions with Russia and in the Middle East, I think that the US needs to retain some forward deployment capabilities - it can dissolve it's bases in non-key areas, however I still think it should keep it in areas where the force projection either enhances stability or where vital US interests (read: oil) are at stake. Now, I'm all for that "No blood for oil" crap, but really, those protesters are driving their cars to those rallies, and where do you think they get it from?
No, what we don't need is all of our institutions (like the EPA) being shut down. We need better management, incentives (and even force through laws) to make companies develop alternative fuel sources.
How about the extra $10,000 it would put in their pocket each year? Who knows best how to spend my money -the government or I?
That assumes that they're even making enough to get that extra ten grand - and even then, it's not like they get a check for it - the most they'd see is probably $20 more on each of their paychecks. Meanwhile, we have inner city kids living like they were in Somalia.
-
Hm. Well, your argument is persuasive, however, with increased global tensions with Russia and in the Middle East, I think that the US needs to retain some forward deployment capabilities - it can dissolve it's bases in non-key areas, however I still think it should keep it in areas where the force projection either enhances stability or where vital US interests (read: oil) are at stake. Now, I'm all for that "No blood for oil" crap, but really, those protesters are driving their cars to those rallies, and where do you think they get it from?
I?
I don't want to go too far off topic, but I have to ask: what gives the US the right, unique among 192 nations of the world, to have "force projection" capabilities and maintain overseas "interests"? As I see it, and as the vast majority of people in the world see it, the United States has no special right or duty to police the world or guarantee stability or any of that crap. They are entitled to the same thing as everyone else: to protect their territorial intergrity from foreign attack. Nothing more. That's why I like Ron Paul - his position on foreign policy is essentially "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". How would you respond if China suddenly decided to station 100,000 troops in Venezuela to "protect their interests"?
That assumes that they're even making enough to get that extra ten grand - and even then, it's not like they get a check for it - the most they'd see is probably $20 more on each of their paychecks. Meanwhile, we have inner city kids living like they were in Somalia.
Actually, it works out to about $400 per paycheck, assuming a very modest family income of $30k. And who's to say that they wouldn't save it or invest it? It brings up the fundamental question: should people be trusted with their money? I say yes. And if they screw up, it's their own fault. If the government were not relied upon for charity, private charity groups would blossom to fill the gap. There are already hundreds of such groups making sure that everyone who needs it is taken care of.
-
Quote
Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy and has good relations with all of its neighbors. Why in God's name would it need protecting?
North Korea? Maybe China at some future date?
Japan is not on good terms with its neighbors, there are plenty of east asian states that don't like them. the dislike isn't nearly strong enough to push them into war.
Japan actually has a pretty good army and would be a pretty tough nut to crack. North Korea is going to attack them with what? Hordes of hungry refugees? And even then how would they get there? The North Korean navy is a terrible joke.
Dissolving our overseas bases and all government institutions, including the IRS? How does he expect us to pay off our debt?
The personal income tax doesn't go towards paying the debt per se, it goes to paying the interest on the debt. As was mentioned earlier, the Federal Reserve holds 40% of the government debt, do you really think that comes without a price tag attached?
-
Hm. Well, your argument is persuasive, however, with increased global tensions with Russia and in the Middle East, I think that the US needs to retain some forward deployment capabilities - it can dissolve it's bases in non-key areas, however I still think it should keep it in areas where the force projection either enhances stability or where vital US interests (read: oil) are at stake. Now, I'm all for that "No blood for oil" crap, but really, those protesters are driving their cars to those rallies, and where do you think they get it from?
I?
I don't want to go too far off topic, but I have to ask: what gives the US the right, unique among 192 nations of the world, to have "force projection" capabilities and maintain overseas "interests"? As I see it, and as the vast majority of people in the world see it, the United States has no special right or duty to police the world or guarantee stability or any of that crap. They are entitled to the same thing as everyone else: to protect their territorial intergrity from foreign attack. Nothing more. That's why I like Ron Paul - his position on foreign policy is essentially "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". How would you respond if China suddenly decided to station 100,000 troops in Venezuela to "protect their interests"?
I didn't say it was the most pleasant thing, nor did I say it was the most desirable - and I didn't say the US was the only country with that right. If memory serves me, the UK has overseas bases in or around Argentina?
Anyway, the point is that the US's overseas bases are a remnant of the Cold War, and with the second Cold War that's brewing (yes, it's there), I don't see them going away any time soon. While I do see the need for their existence, I don't desire them - which is why I want a compromise - closing down half or 3/4ths of the bases, and halving the strength of the remaining bases.
Japan actually has a pretty good army and would be a pretty tough nut to crack. North Korea is going to attack them with what? Hordes of hungry refugees? And even then how would they get there? The North Korean navy is a terrible joke.
Nukes?
And regardless of fact, I will not vote for a man that basically advocates a return to a laissez-faire (spelling?) economy. The abolishment of the EPA, standards boards, etc, would do more harm than good.
-
How functional their "nuke" is is up for debate.
-
How functional their "nuke" is is up for debate.
It's still a valid threat, do you want to take that risk? I sure don't. Besides, 10,000 US troops is more than enough to keep most aggressors at bay, and that's not a sizable base by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Beside which - to do so would be to invite instant national suicide. And while Kimmy Boy might be nuts enough to do it, detonating nukes is by no means a one-man affair. In the end, sanity would prevail and the NK brass wouldn't allow it.
And in any case, I don't see how US forces in Okinawa could deter such an attack. Japan already has PAC-3s itself. If the point is to defend against incoming missiles, the US presence doesn't even come into the equation. It's not as if the Marines can put on their helmets and go shoot down a nuclear weapon.
-
How functional their "nuke" is is up for debate.
It's still a valid threat, do you want to take that risk? I sure don't. Besides, 10,000 US troops is more than enough to keep most aggressors at bay, and that's not a sizable base by any stretch of the imagination.
Actually lot of Japanese people themselves don't want the base.
-
Beside which - to do so would be to invite instant national suicide. And while Kimmy Boy might be nuts enough to do it, detonating nukes is by no means a one-man affair. In the end, sanity would prevail and the NK brass wouldn't allow it.
And in any case, I don't see how US forces in Okinawa could deter such an attack. Japan already has PAC-3s itself. If the point is to defend against incoming missiles, the US presence doesn't even come into the equation. It's not as if the Marines can put on their helmets and go shoot down a nuclear weapon.
They don't deter the attack with physical force, they deter it with their presence - if anyone attacks a country that has a US base, then they know the US is going to just come in and hit them back.
Actually lot of Japanese people themselves don't want the base.
I didn't know that. Maybe they should take a vote, if the majority agree, then we really don't have any business being there.
-
We can hit any location on Earth with a missile in the space of an hour, and we can land troops on any shore on Earth in the space of a month. That rather lessens the need for bases anywhere but here.
-
As to the missiles, yes, as to the troops - that month is only secured when we have bases to supply them and bases to fly them out of. With neither we have no way of getting out there.
And again, I'm not advocating keeping what we have now, I'm advocating a radical reduction.
EDIT: Besides, haven't you been arrested? :p
-
If I were american I'd vote for Hilary..she's got experience, but more importantly, by electing her Clinton is also coming back..who do you think would be her close advisor? ;7
Go Bill!
-
If I were american I'd vote for Hilary..she's got experience, but more importantly, by electing her Clinton is also coming back..who do you think would be her close advisor? ;7
Go Bill!
Oh Bill Clinton, the best Republican president US has had.
Guess what, that's one of the main reasons many people don't want Clinton back. Although it would be lovely to see: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton..
-
I fail to see your point - Clinton has done an amazing job as president.
-
That's highly debatable.
-
I fail to see your point - Clinton has done an amazing job as president.
yup, you didn't see it at all
-
Pfft. It's easy to see.
Americas condition before Clinton
Americas condition after Clintons term <--- USA actually got some foreign respect back
Americas condition after Bush
-
Pfft. It's easy to see.
Americas condition before Clinton
Americas condition after Clintons term <--- USA actually got some foreign respect back
Americas condition after Bush
no seriously you still miss the point
-
Here is what we need to do: Close down all our overseas bases, spend all our defense money on developing those portals from Prey, and build them everywhere so we dont need overseas bases Pftt!
-
no seriously you still miss the point
Which is?
-
If I were american I'd vote for Hilary..she's got experience, but more importantly, by electing her Clinton is also coming back..who do you think would be her close advisor? ;7
Go Bill!
Hilary looks so horrible as a candidate.
-
Since I'm not American, and politics confuses me, I figure I'll just wait for the election, then read up on that candidate's policy.
-
Democrats:
Who will win?
Hillary Clinton
Who I'd like to win?
John Edwards/Barack Obama
Republicans:
Who will win?
Rudy Guliani
Who I'd like to win?
Rudy Guliani
-
I sure hope it isn't Hillary for the win.
she's taking money from all the wrong people...
-
no seriously you still miss the point
Which is?
A) The joke is about Clinton being a Republican-light (which has nothing to do whether he was a successful president or not)
B) It was Bill, not Hillary, Clinton who was a president
C) For many people the entire idea of country's executive order being dominated by two families is repulsive
-
Who I'd like to win?
Rudy Guliani
What are you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz) smoking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes)?
I sure hope it isn't Hillary for the win. She's taking money from all the wrong people...
But didn't you hear - the military-industrial complex isn't "the wrong people"! They want to build schools and feed orphans and play with kittens. Ain't that so, Janos?
-
Rudy Giuliani is asked to count to twelve and he goes
"1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-11-9-11-9-11-9-11"
-
the thing with Okinawa is actually a fairly controversial issue in Japan, a lot of people want it gone, but a lot of people want it to stay. most of the complaints about it stem from the jurisdictional situation, every now and then there'll be some wingnut solder or just some jackass moron who get's into a jrunken car wreck killing some people or goes out and rapes and/or kills someone and they will fall under the US UCMJ rather than the local Okinawan law, and no mater the outcome the fact that they won't be able to try the individual for crimes committed against them leads to resentment (not to mention the guy getting off a lot). however a lot of people like the income they get from the bases, and some people do consider it good to have the base there as a deterrent (China would probably be the biggest enemy, but a lot of Japan's neighbors still hold a lot of resentment about what they did in WW2)
-
Democrats:
Who will win?
Hillary Clinton
Who I'd like to win?
John Edwards/Barack Obama
Republicans:
Who will win?
Rudy Guliani
Who I'd like to win?
Rudy Guliani
Wait a second...the Clintons live near my relatives...if Hillary wins they will live in the White House...
:(
...I wanted to talk with Bill!!!
Ah, Rudy Giuliani. Good, good...his Italian surname makes him perfect *runs*
-
the thing with Okinawa is actually a fairly controversial issue in Japan, a lot of people want it gone, but a lot of people want it to stay. most of the complaints about it stem from the jurisdictional situation, every now and then there'll be some wingnut solder or just some jackass moron who get's into a jrunken car wreck killing some people or goes out and rapes and/or kills someone and they will fall under the US UCMJ rather than the local Okinawan law, and no mater the outcome the fact that they won't be able to try the individual for crimes committed against them leads to resentment (not to mention the guy getting off a lot). however a lot of people like the income they get from the bases, and some people do consider it good to have the base there as a deterrent (China would probably be the biggest enemy, but a lot of Japan's neighbors still hold a lot of resentment about what they did in WW2)
Japan is a prosperous country. If the bases closed down, it's not as if anyone would starve. Most likely the JSDF would either take it over, thereby continuing the revenue to local businesses. or the area would be opened ip to residential/industrial development. And as for Japan's neighbors, which ones are you reffering to (that are hostile)? China's elite class is prospering too much by capitalism to consider war. They've learned the lesson from America and will build a financial empire rather than a military one. I think it's safe to say that China has no interest in provoking a conflict with Japan because of the economic consequences. Their respective heads of state have recently made mutual visits and promised good relations.
-
New Guliani ad "Ready"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iFhGtKO-Q
If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of square-jawed young soldiers goose-stepping in formation. On balance, it's actually funnier than it is terrifying.
edit: anyone know how to embed YouTube videos with SMF?
-
Japan is a prosperous country. If the bases closed down, it's not as if anyone would starve. Most likely the JSDF would either take it over, thereby continuing the revenue to local businesses. or the area would be opened ip to residential/industrial development. And as for Japan's neighbors, which ones are you reffering to (that are hostile)? China's elite class is prospering too much by capitalism to consider war. They've learned the lesson from America and will build a financial empire rather than a military one. I think it's safe to say that China has no interest in provoking a conflict with Japan because of the economic consequences. Their respective heads of state have recently made mutual visits and promised good relations.
The JSDF does not have the funding, or the need, for the base. Besides, this ignores the other bases; the Navy has basing facilities on Honshu still that the Japanese want us to keep (hell they were upset when we stopped basing a CVBG), because right now Aegis and the SM-2 Block IV LEAP is the best defense against North Korea losing it (sanity breaking out there is not a given, after all, it hasn't yet) and launching a nuclear missile, or a barrage of chemical or biological missiles, their way they've got. (It is no accident the JMSDF bought Arleigh Burkes, and they've been trying to get their hands on the LEAPs since it was on the drawing board, but the technology is not up for export by law.)
China has a huge standing military and they have demonstrated a willingness to provoke international incidents that could escalate to war. The country is unstable and may yet, like Germany before it, decide to solve their severe internal problems and indefensible borders via the strategic offense. China also has outstanding (and honestly quite legitimate) grievences against Japan dating back to WWII, and they've been pushing those internally even as they reach out the hand of friendship externally. It's not as clearcut as you make it sound. So far the Chinese have made a point of keeping their options open in the "we might decide you look good invaded" department.
Plus removing basing from Japan would greatly hinder the ability to protect Taiwan if China decides to make something of that.
There are similar cases. Closing down Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean would remove a major stablizing influence on all the powers there. India has made noises about harassing their neighbors, like Pakistan, before. Iran is not exactly the friendliest of nations. There are a lot of smaller nations on the eastern edge of the IO that do not get along, too, but know that it would be looked on unkindly if they were to start something in an area of major shipping lanes.
-
Back on topic, McCain and Clinton pull it off in New Hampshire.
So what does this mean for Romney? Personally I think if he can't win in the Northeast he doesn't have a prayer.
-
:sigh: :sigh:
8%....well, I still have high hopes for Super Tuesday.
So what does this mean for Romney? Personally I think if he can't win in the Northeast he doesn't have a prayer.
Mormon prayers are a powerful thing. Rememer that they have a hotline direct to God.
-
Rudy Giuliani is asked to count to twelve and he goes
"1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-11-9-11-9-11-9-11"
Heh... that's good... and unfortunately, accurate. Couldn't pick a worse high-profile Republican candidate for the Presidency in this go-'round.
-
:sigh: :sigh:
8%....well, I still have high hopes for Super Tuesday.
Vote fraud. And here's how we can tell...
Pre- and post- election polling showed Obama with a significant lead over Clinton; at least 10% in all cases. And independents who were undecided broke for Obama. But now the actual returns are showing Clinton leading by 3-5%.
Furthermore, they called the state when only 30% of results were in. And the entire time the votes were being updated, the spread stayed precisely the same: no swing of +/- 1 percentage point here and there; no trading of places among the low-ranked candidates.
-
Pre- and post- election polling showed Obama with a significant lead over Clinton; at least 10% in all cases. And independents who were undecided broke for Obama. But now the actual returns are showing Clinton leading by 3-5%.
Oh dear. Were they using electronic voting or was it a paper ballot?
-
Oh dear indeed. I suggest calling in Amolo Odinga to calm the situation. Voting irregularities in the US? I can't wait to see how this plays out. Then again didn't we see something similar in Florida or something in the last election. Sorry but I'm a Brit I'm not 100% on this stuff.
-
There were significant irregularities in florida in the 2000 elections, in 2004 there were massive irregularities in ohio.
I suggest calling in Amolo Odinga to calm the situation. Voting irregularities in the US? I can't wait to see how this plays out
We have experience with this and know exactly what to do about it......nothing. Nothing of real significance happened the last two times so I doubt anything with come of it this time. People are dieing in Kenya because of rigged elections, do Africans care more about democracy than we do?
-
There were significant irregularities in florida in the 2000 elections, in 2004 there were massive irregularities in ohio.
Thanks. As evidenced - I find it hard to keep up. I also got the impression such events weren't exactly thoroughly investigated.
-
...do Africans care more about democracy than we do?
Intrinsically, yes. Americans tend to take the privilege for granted, as do the people of most western nations. When you have to really fight to have your voice heard, it tends to mean a bit more.
Anyway, shush-up. There may have been irregularities, but you'd be a fool and a communist to make anything of them.
-
There were significant irregularities in florida in the 2000 elections, in 2004 there were massive irregularities in ohio.
Thanks. As evidenced - I find it hard to keep up. I also got the impression such events weren't exactly thoroughly investigated.
They weren't. Why would there be an investigation? The ones in power (the president in particular) were the ones that benefited from it.
Intrinsically, yes. Americans tend to take the privilege for granted, as do the people of most western nations.
Perhaps we have become too overconfident. Too sure of ourselves we are.
-
Vote fraud. And here's how we can tell...
Pre- and post- election polling showed Obama with a significant lead over Clinton; at least 10% in all cases. And independents who were undecided broke for Obama. But now the actual returns are showing Clinton leading by 3-5%.
Furthermore, they called the state when only 30% of results were in. And the entire time the votes were being updated, the spread stayed precisely the same: no swing of +/- 1 percentage point here and there; no trading of places among the low-ranked candidates.
However, there is absolutely no disrepancy with exit polls and actual votes, so no, and Obama's result is completely within predictions, as is Edward's, which again so no. What was wrong was the undecided voters, who apparentyl voted heavily for Clinton (and perhaps McCain as well!).
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/how_wrong_were_the_polls.php
What is interesting is the fact that Obama got relatively far more paper votes than Diebold votes, while the contrary is true for Clinton. However, about 80% of NH votes are cast with Diebold, and Hillary is quite popular in population centers.
-
I think my feelings can be summed up as "damnation"
-
What is interesting is the fact that Obama got relatively far more paper votes than Diebold votes, while the contrary is true for Clinton. However, about 80% of NH votes are cast with Diebold, and Hillary is quite popular in population centers.
Diebolds are also hidiously insecure, and there have been noted problems with them.
-
What is interesting is the fact that Obama got relatively far more paper votes than Diebold votes, while the contrary is true for Clinton. However, about 80% of NH votes are cast with Diebold, and Hillary is quite popular in population centers.
Diebolds are also hidiously insecure, and there have been noted problems with them.
Yup. Still, Diebold results are neatly in line with the exit polls :/
Here's hoping Obama will now campaign harder and beat Clinton. Clinton's "experience" card is so damn thin, she's had less time in elected office than Obama who always gets accused of being inexperienced!
And yet, with sadistic glee, I sometimes hope McCain or some at least remotely bearable Republican (not-Giuliani) wins, because then the Republicans had to deal with the entire Middle East crisis and financial downhill and couldn't just accuse Democratic president of "failing to do the job [we started but shhh don't mention that]".
-
Vote fraud confirmed (http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_not_counted.htm)
It leads off with Ron Paul, but it also focuses on the Obama->Clinton swing as well as a few other anomalies.
-
Vote fraud confirmed (http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_not_counted.htm)
It leads off with Ron Paul, but it also focuses on the Obama->Clinton swing as well as a few other anomalies.
Yes, confirmed indeed, as it say---
"While I have no evidence at this time --- let me repeat, no evidence at this time --- of chicanery, what we do know is that chicanery, with this particular voting system, is not particularly difficult. Particularly when one private company --- and a less-than-respectable one at that, as I detailed in the previous post --- runs the entire process."
oops.
Speculation != confirmation
-
Did you not read the article I linked? There were 31 votes in a certain county that should have been recorded, while the actual recorded total was 0. That's fraud. Whether it was intentional or not is immaterial; it happened. And if it happened in one county, it's very possible that it happened in others.
Blithely ignoring evidence is no way to win an argument. It doesn't work for TrashMan, and it won't work for you.
-
The problem is the term 'vote fraud' has the same undertones as 'vote rigging', which is something completely different.
Maybe we should use a term like 'Vote Discrepancy' until it's known whether the numbers were deliberately manipulated?
-
But why give a class of professional con-artists the benefit of the doubt? Remember the "intelligence failures" that led to Iraq. "No officer, I didn't try to rob that house. My intelligence sources told me that it was in fact my house. Boy is my face red."
I think the real problem is that US citizens find the concept of deliberate voter fraud so outlandish, so "third-world" that their righteousness will not let them contemplate it actually taking place in their cherished country. And let me say that I don't know whether it did or didn't - not now or in 2004 or in 2000. But it's certainly possible. Something tells me that seriously considering the possibility offends the American sensibilities so deeply that you could have all the evidence in the world and it would be neatly ignored.
But in a remarkable turn of events, I'm actually with Janos on this one. I hope that the most hawkish, militaristic candidate is elected (Guliani or McCain) so that the inevitable fiscal/military crash comes sooner rather than later. Then us Paulites will be there to say "I told you so" from the comfort of our tax-free drug-legal moonbase, which Dr.Paul is constructing at this very moment..
-
Could we at least postpone the fall of the empire until I'm finished benefiting from its institutions of higher education?
-
Heh, me too.
Seriously though, you could also argue the opposite, that because World-Wide opinion of the American government is generally extremely low, we want there to be vote-rigging, it would fit nicely with our image of them.
I will accept your point that it would be very hard indeed to convince people of vote fraud, but that's an ongoing paradox through the West at the moment, I think the Internet is partly to blame, we are subjected to so many off-the-wall viewpoints these days that no-one pays any attention to them any more. So when someone claims vote rigging, we just think 'Oh look, another conspiracy theorist.'
Whilst I'm loathe to use a term as cliche as 'the truth is out there', I do think that not all 'conspiracy theories' are purely the realm of the Tin Foil Hat brigade, but there are so many now that it's almost impossible to tell the genuine ones from the crackpots.
The problem is, I guess, more than anything now, America needs a 'clean' election, where there are as few doubts raised about the result as possibly. Personally, I'd recommend going back to paper balloting, there still seems to be a great deal of Technophobia in various sections of American society, people trust paper. It will have to go electronic eventually, but they need to do a lot more to make sure the system is secure and publicly trusted.
-
But you're assuming that anyone with say-so is interested in having a clean election. Getting people used to the idea of being screwed over, to the point where they no longer care, makes sense from a self-serving politician's point of view. Sure, their particular posse may loose this time, but next go around they'll be the winners of the corrupt system and round and round it goes.
Could we at least postpone the fall of the empire until I'm finished benefiting from its institutions of higher education?
Sure. Your fancy-pants college edumacation will come in real handy when President McCain starts drafting people because "the insurgency is in its last last final last throes". They'll need plenty of innalekshuals to service their F-22s.
-
Well the idea was sort of that I'd like to have my degrees before I flee to Europe in sheer terror.
-
Did you not read the article I linked? There were 31 votes in a certain county that should have been recorded, while the actual recorded total was 0. That's fraud. Whether it was intentional or not is immaterial; it happened. And if it happened in one county, it's very possible that it happened in others.
Blithely ignoring evidence is no way to win an argument. It doesn't work for TrashMan, and it won't work for you.
Yes, I am ignoring evidence because I have just pointed out that in fact, exit polls and actual records have no disrepancy at all, which is quite damn important when one considers whether a fraud happened or not!
How many votes did Ron Paul get, and how much did he get according to exit poll (n=1955)? Is there a disrepancy?
And well, I can just post another link,
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2264 (http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2264)
-
Did you not read the article I linked? There were 31 votes in a certain county that should have been recorded, while the actual recorded total was 0. That's fraud. Whether it was intentional or not is immaterial; it happened. And if it happened in one county, it's very possible that it happened in others.
Blithely ignoring evidence is no way to win an argument. It doesn't work for TrashMan, and it won't work for you.
1. Why do you bring me in this discussion? Why do you soil my good name? :wtf:
I'm a rational person, I don't ignore strong evidence and such posts are uncalled for.
*smacks goob*
They shouldn't have let you out of prison! :D
2. The masses are whimsical. It takes so little for them to change their vote.. I don't pretend I can predict the results and IMHO, anything thinking he can is full of bull***. While it certainly is possible there was a fraud (it ALWAYS is) it just as likely there wasn't one.
-
I'd prefer all the election stuff to stay in one thread, which quite possibly means a little bit of extra lenience with it, however, let's please not let this turn into a flamewar? ;)
-
Yes, I am ignoring evidence because I have just pointed out that in fact, exit polls and actual records have no disrepancy at all
Yes, you are. All it takes is one counterexample to prove a generalization false.
How many votes did Ron Paul get, and how much did he get according to exit poll (n=1955)? Is there a disrepancy?
One county says he got 0, but the people who voted in that county said he got >0. That's a discrepancy.
And the discrepancy is not limited to Ron Paul. Clinton and Obama had the widest shift... over 14 points in one night? When dozens of polls consistently show one outcome, and a single poll shows another outcome, the burden of proof is on that single poll to prove that it is correct.
And well, I can just post another link,
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2264 (http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2264)
I'm not sure if you read that link carefully, since it supports my argument. The person quoting the New Hampshire attorney general is calling attention to the possibility that the voting systems could have been corrupted.
Anyway, if you can't see what's right in front of your eyes, there's not much I can do to convince you.
-
I'm not sure if you read that link carefully, since it supports my argument. The person quoting the New Hampshire attorney general is calling attention to the possibility that the voting systems could have been corrupted.
Anyway, if you can't see what's right in front of your eyes, there's not much I can do to convince you.
You have been talking of confirmed fraud.
However, nothing is confirmed. You know very well that mere accusations and some lost votes in one county do not constitute a fraud, only an accusation.
If you think I miss your point, then perhaps you should understand that actually you miss mine - you talk about confirmation, which has not happened.
And the discrepancy is not limited to Ron Paul. Clinton and Obama had the widest shift... over 14 points in one night? When dozens of polls consistently show one outcome, and a single poll shows another outcome, the burden of proof is on that single poll to prove that it is correct.
All polls nailed the other candidates, which got as much as predicted, but the point is that independents started to favour Clinton. Hence the horrible one-night jump (which was also obvious on exit polls as I repeat for the third time). These independents are usually underrepresented in phone polling, which focus on registered D/R voters for obvious reasons.
Rasmussen poll has now nailed 2/2 of Republican winners and 1/2 of Democratic winners. It's widely considered the most reliable phone poll there is.
-
Well the idea was sort of that I'd like to have my degrees before I flee to Europe in sheer terror.
Why? Flee to a European university for an education - their educational standards are higher than those in most US post-secondary.
Actually, so are a few of Canada's, for that matter.
-
The New Hampshire secretary of state's office has announced they will do a state-wide recount.
-
Well the idea was sort of that I'd like to have my degrees before I flee to Europe in sheer terror.
Why? Flee to a European university for an education - their educational standards are higher than those in most US post-secondary.
Actually, so are a few of Canada's, for that matter.
I think that's largely a myth. My understanding is that European schools work you harder but American education is more flexible, in that it's easier to decide you don't like something and make a drastic switch. And I think that's arguably more important; my experience with American college education is that you get what you put into it. Anyone from Europe please feel free to set me straight, though.
-
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080112/FRONTPAGE/801120412
Jennifer Call's eyes searched the office for nothing in particular. Her arms waved and her fear spilled out.
"This is where I grew up," Sutton's town clerk said yesterday. "This is my hometown, this is where my family is, and all of sudden, my name is being splashed across the internet as this horrible person. And the frightening part is, I don't know these people and they don't know me."
Call wants the nationwide army of boisterous Ron Paul supporters, believers in more conspiracy theories than Oliver Stone, to know that she's committed no crime.
Not treason, as the dozens of phone callers screamed. Not fraud, as the dozens of e-mails charged. Nothing.
Human error, by someone unknown, caused Call's office to claim Paul received zero votes from the town during Tuesday's first-in-the-nation primary.
Paul actually got a whopping 31 votes.
Out of 920 cast.
-
I think that's largely a myth. My understanding is that European schools work you harder but American education is more flexible, in that it's easier to decide you don't like something and make a drastic switch. And I think that's arguably more important; my experience with American college education is that you get what you put into it. Anyone from Europe please feel free to set me straight, though.
I don't know the rest of europe but I can tell you how things work here in Croatia...
Breadth. You learn everything. You suffocate in theory till ti starts coming our of your nose. you cover so much in large detail over a small ammount of time, that you really don't have much time to put that knowledge to use.
Lots of theory..little practical work.
Once you finish you know everything but at the same time know nothing... :lol:
-
if we elect Clinton it will be like bill Clinton all over again because the entire time, she had him by the balls :lol:
-
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NV.html
So Romney wins a (fairly) big one, and Clinton wins two in a row.
Thoughts?
-
I think romney was pretty desperate to win in Michigan. I doubt he can win in the south against huckabee, so he needs to win in the northern states.
I'm not really sure what guliani is doing......
-
Losing, thank god. I think he would have been dangerously electable as a candidate.
-
Sure. Your fancy-pants college edumacation will come in real handy when President McCain starts drafting people because "the insurgency is in its last last final last throes". They'll need plenty of innalekshuals to service their F-22s.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22745282/
McCain ended up winning in SC, your prediction might very well come true, rictor.
-
The current delegate count.
Republicans, 1191 needed to win
Romney 59
Huckabee 39
McCain 36
Thompson 5
Paul 4
Hunter 2
Giuliani 1
Democrats, 2025 needed to win
Obama 38
Clinton 36
Edwards 18
Gravel 0
Kucinich 0
The rest have dropped.
-
lol @ Giuliani
-
And for more news: Fred Thompson has dropped out of the race.
Obligatory link: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/22/thompson.out/index.html
Also, Rasmussen polls.
McCain is now the GOP front runner (Chuck Norris said McCain's too old) with 22%, Romney close second with 19%, Huckabee 16%. In Dem side, Clinton now leads Obama 42-31, Edwards only 13%.
-
God damnit. I'm gonna have to smoke so much opium before I cast my vote for Clinton.
-
God damnit. I'm gonna have to smoke so much opium before I cast my vote for Clinton.
why not vote repub---
sorry
-
The only thing that would make that seem like a good idea is PCP, and that **** ain't right.
-
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
(http://home.grandecom.net/~snbailey/trogdorgame.png)
Vote Trogdor!
-
Trogdor? Pffft. Vote Kzer-Za
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Ur-Quan_Kzer-Za.png)
-
Kucinich is out as well.
-
Pffft...I know far better candidates:
DARTH VADER
http://www.comicspage.com/brewster/brewster.html
DIRK RAIDER:
http://www.comicspage.com/comicspage/main.jsp?catid=1876&custid=69&file=20080122csbre-a-p.jpg&code=csbre&dir=/brewster
-
God damnit. I'm gonna have to smoke so much opium before I cast my vote for Clinton.
Can't you just, y'know, burn down an orphanage instead? Have some decency, at least.
Kucinich is out as well.
The little guy never had a chance, unfortunately. If the Dem base voted their principles, it would be Kucinich by a landslide.
,,,but you just know all the other candidates are jealous of his wife.
-
Yeah seriously, if there were a fellatio scandal in that hypothetical White House I really would be pissed off.
-
It's already obvious that the winner will be either Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Whoever wins, a historically important election will be won - if electing the world's largest country's leader is not a big event in itself. The US will have either the first female President or the first African-American President. So far, rhetorics does not seem to point this out so much, but I guess it's a factor for the people.
The largest problem I can see in every election is that the great majority of the people cannot judge who is the better candidate, only based on who is more sympathetic to them It's practically all about rhetorics - who says what and how. Who will do what when elected is a different issue.
If I were an American, I would vote for Obama. He is not as experienced as Hillary, there is no doubt of that, but I think that can be a good thing. What I mean is that HC acts based on what is expected from her, while Obama acts what he thinks is right. That's why he seems to be a better candidate to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but independence is an important value for Americans.
-
It's already obvious that the winner will be either Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Whoever wins, a historically important election will be won - if electing the world's largest country's leader is not a big event in itself. The US will have either the first female President or the first African-American President. So far, rhetorics does not seem to point this out so much, but I guess it's a factor for the people.
The largest problem I can see in every election is that the great majority of the people cannot judge who is the better candidate, only based on who is more sympathetic to them It's practically all about rhetorics - who says what and how. Who will do what when elected is a different issue.
If I were an American, I would vote for Obama. He is not as experienced as Hillary, there is no doubt of that, but I think that can be a good thing. What I mean is that HC acts based on what is expected from her, while Obama acts what he thinks is right. That's why he seems to be a better candidate to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but independence is an important value for Americans.
This entire "experience" thing is damn weird. It's a superb talking point, but seriously, Obama has more experience in legislative bodies, in constitutional matters and in civil rights matters. Clinton was a first lady, was appointed to be the chairman of new HC intiative, travelled 79 time abroad and was elected as a senator in 2000. She has whopping 8 YEARS in senate.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, was elected as a state senator in 1996, was re-elected twice, got to Senate in 2004. Before that, he majored in PolSci and "As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.[28] He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.[29]" Clinton was quite active as a first lady and as such has some experience Obama doesn't, but Obama has been an elected representative for 12 years and has actually studied law and political science.
-
[quote author=TopAce link=topic=51359.msg1046167#msg1046167 He is not as experienced as Hillary, there is no doubt of that, but I think that can be a good thing. What I mean is that HC acts based on what is expected from her, while Obama acts what he thinks is right.[/quote]
That's a really smart way of looking at it.
-
I think it's profoundly naive to think that Obama is this maverick outsider who fights for principles because the system has not yet corrupted him. It's a narrative that marketers and PR people have cooked up - he's a career politician, just like most of the rest of them. When it comes to defending the status quo in Washington, I see no reason to hope that he will prove any different than Clinton.
-
In that case, you are right...both have a strong PR machine that writes speaches and adjusts their apperance.
It's also not unheard that some politicians are placed there by those behind them - a candidate is nothing more than a puppet, a trustworthy face that will get people to elect him, and the people behind him the power.
Frankly, I have a hard time to believe anyone is telling HC what to do.
Obama? Who knew anything about him before the election race begun? Where did he suddenly pop up from? IMHO, he looks like he's been created for the election..
-
I think it's profoundly naive to think that Obama is this maverick outsider who fights for principles because the system has not yet corrupted him. It's a narrative that marketers and PR people have cooked up - he's a career politician, just like most of the rest of them. When it comes to defending the status quo in Washington, I see no reason to hope that he will prove any different than Clinton.
So is he better, is he worse, or are you just sprouting off cheap rhetorics of South Park Republicanism?
-
So is he better, is he worse, or are you just sprouting off cheap rhetorics of South Park Republicanism?
I guess that depends entirely on your definition of "worse".
Is he likely to exercise either the power of the American government over its people or of the American nation over the world not differently or more constructively, but less? If the answer is no, and I think we can all agree that it is, then he is a champion of the status quo. Or would you like to point to a few policy positions where Obama differs significantly from, say, John McCain?
-
So is he better, is he worse, or are you just sprouting off cheap rhetorics of South Park Republicanism?
I guess that depends entirely on your definition of "worse".
Is he likely to exercise either the power of the American government over its people or of the American nation over the world not differently or more constructively, but less? If the answer is no, and I think we can all agree that it is, then he is a champion of the status quo. Or would you like to point to a few policy positions where Obama differs significantly from, say, John McCain?
That's because you are a libertarian. I'm a communist and I think more is the key thing here.
You are framing it weirdly. It's entirely possible to have vivid discussion and differing thoughts inside one large encompassing structure, especially in a two-party system such as USA. You, as a self-announced libertarian, should be quite aware of the fact that even the fringe is very able to fragment and change.
And here goes for differences: McCain opposes most abortion, Obama is pro-choice. Obama is much softer on drugs than McCain. Obama defends UHC, McCain opposes. Obama does not hug George Bush, McCain does. Obama is more tolerant of gay rights than McCain.
There.
-
I don't particularly care who wins the election as long as the enforce a little cultural change at the US State Dept (and others). Time to move beyond Realpolitik please, the Cold War is over.
It would also be nice if the new Pres elect could wind down the exceptionalism, the triumphalism, the militarism and the hypocrisy. But that would all come with abandoning Realpolitik.
-
That's because you are a libertarian. I'm a communist and I think more is the key thing here.
You are framing it weirdly. It's entirely possible to have vivid discussion and differing thoughts inside one large encompassing structure, especially in a two-party system such as USA. You, as a self-announced libertarian, should be quite aware of the fact that even the fringe is very able to fragment and change.
More is not the key when the people being trusted with money and power are a pack of gibbering baboons. Is there not some merit to the principle that anyone who wants power should under no circumstances be allowed to wield it, or at the very least be watched like a hawk and kept within legal bounds?
But the great thing is that I don't have to convince you - time will tell. It's entirely possible that Mr. Obama will be the next Prez, or Hilary Clinton, and then I will be sure to point out every time Asscrackistan is bombed or embargoed while the administration smiles for the cameras. The viciousness of American foreign policy is institutional, not the unique invention of George. W. Bush.
And here goes for differences: McCain opposes most abortion, Obama is pro-choice. Obama is much softer on drugs than McCain. Obama defends UHC, McCain opposes. Obama does not hug George Bush, McCain does. Obama is more tolerant of gay rights than McCain.
1. Will Obama abolish the War on Drugs? "Softer" is a matter of degrees.
2. UHC is financially unfeasible. Whether you're for or against it makes no difference.
3. McCain is from the socially liberal wing of the GOP. If Bush the Evangelical didn't change abortion policy, neither will McCain.
4. The 5-6% of Americans who are gay will be overjoyed. The other 6,482,000,000 of us can look forward to more of the same.
-
I don't particularly care who wins the election as long as the enforce a little cultural change at the US State Dept (and others). Time to move beyond Realpolitik please, the Cold War is over.
I'm no fan of realpolitik, but it's pretty much the only reason you're not at war with Iran right now. Gates, Rice and Mullen are at least sane enough not to start WW3.
It would also be nice if the new Pres elect could wind down the exceptionalism, the triumphalism, the militarism and the hypocrisy. But that would all come with abandoning Realpolitik.
That would also be very nice, but I have a hunch that this will come shortly after a cure for cancer, cold fusion and interstellar travel. In other words - ain't gonna happen.
-
2. UHC is financially unfeasible. Whether you're for or against it makes no difference.
How is it unfeasible? It would force the government to finally do something the outrageous costs.
EDIT: And Obama won big in South Carolina.
-
Universal health care is not unfeasible...but it will take guts considering the roadblocks that are up down there. Most of the rest of the western democracies already have it and have for a very long time.
-
I don't particularly care who wins the election as long as the enforce a little cultural change at the US State Dept (and others). Time to move beyond Realpolitik please, the Cold War is over.
It would also be nice if the new Pres elect could wind down the exceptionalism, the triumphalism, the militarism and the hypocrisy. But that would all come with abandoning Realpolitik.
Nice thought, doesn't really work that way. Clinton the First kind of proved that cruise missile diplomacy is the order of the day then. The truth is that if you abandon that and act more according to principles then there's going to be a lot more military use, though it might be lower-key in nature.
I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing, mind you, since from where I'm sitting things like Operations Praying Mantis and Earnest Will, or Tomahawk strikes on places we find offensive rather than invading them, were vastly more effective uses of US military power than what we've done with Iraq.
-
That's because you are a libertarian. I'm a communist and I think more is the key thing here.
You are framing it weirdly. It's entirely possible to have vivid discussion and differing thoughts inside one large encompassing structure, especially in a two-party system such as USA. You, as a self-announced libertarian, should be quite aware of the fact that even the fringe is very able to fragment and change.
More is not the key when the people being trusted with money and power are a pack of gibbering baboons. Is there not some merit to the principle that anyone who wants power should under no circumstances be allowed to wield it, or at the very least be watched like a hawk and kept within legal bounds?
There is :confused: I was not denying that at all.
Libertarianism takes away the powers granted to elected governments and gives a very large percentage of that power to private companies who are do not answer to the will of the population but to the will of the shareholders. As such, it does not in any way dimish anything except governmental waste, which, although often harmful and undemocratic, can theoretically be ended with active participation in politics. Power would be shifted to private organizations and clubs.
But the great thing is that I don't have to convince you - time will tell. It's entirely possible that Mr. Obama will be the next Prez, or Hilary Clinton, and then I will be sure to point out every time Asscrackistan is bombed or embargoed while the administration smiles for the cameras. The viciousness of American foreign policy is institutional, not the unique invention of George. W. Bush.
And such is the face of politics and has always been. Not wanting for catastrophic change in the government type does not in any way mean that people arguing against it vehemently support all practices a certain type of government is capable of.
You also said that I'm no fan of realpolitik, but it's pretty much the only reason you're not at war with Iran right now. Gates, Rice and Mullen are at least sane enough not to start WW3.
Yet loath one very significant facet of it only three posts later.
And here goes for differences: McCain opposes most abortion, Obama is pro-choice. Obama is much softer on drugs than McCain. Obama defends UHC, McCain opposes. Obama does not hug George Bush, McCain does. Obama is more tolerant of gay rights than McCain.
1. Will Obama abolish the War on Drugs? "Softer" is a matter of degrees.[/quote]
**** if I knew. You asked for differences in political position. I gave them. If weed is your only issue, then go find a candidate who will actually do something about it.
2. UHC is financially unfeasible. Whether you're for or against it makes no difference.
Seems to be working pretty well for every other western country, though - and is generally a well-liked system, even with its weaknesses.
3. McCain is from the socially liberal wing of the GOP. If Bush the Evangelical didn't change abortion policy, neither will McCain.
And once again, that is not what you asked, you asked for differences between two candidates.
4. The 5-6% of Americans who are gay will be overjoyed. The other 6,482,000,000 of us can look forward to more of the same.
And?
-
Seems to be working pretty well for every other western country, though - and is generally a well-liked system, even with its weaknesses.
France - 63,718,187
Canada - 33,390,141
UK - 60,776,238
US - 301,139,947
Population difference, mk?
The US currently spends about 15% of its GDP on health care, which is the highest in the whole world, and yet we still can't cover the majority of Americans. So, explain to me how you suggest for us to pay for all 300+ million of ours, when Canada still can't effeciently treat its senior citizens with one-tenth of our population?
-
How is it unfeasible? It would force the government to finally do something the outrageous costs.
Let's say that we could wave a magic wand and suddenly allocate half of the military budget to UHC. Never gonna happen, under any administration, but let's assume. That's $300b a year. Divide that by 300m Americans, and you get $1000/person/year. Given the costs of medical services in the US, there's no way in hell that this would be enough. The government can't set costs, so each person would be entitled to roughly one eye exam every year. Anything more and they would have to pay, same as now.
Not to mention the fact that, due to budget deficits and public debt, this $300b we're working with can't be (responsibly) spent in the first place without resorting to more loans. Which is, again, simply robbing the young and those yet unborn to pay for current expenditures.
-
Seems to be working pretty well for every other western country, though - and is generally a well-liked system, even with its weaknesses.
France - 63,718,187
Canada - 33,390,141
UK - 60,776,238
US - 301,139,947
Population difference, mk?
The US currently spends about 15% of its GDP on health care, which is the highest in the whole world, and yet we still can't cover the majority of Americans. So, explain to me how you suggest for us to pay for all 300+ million of ours, when Canada still can't effeciently treat its senior citizens with one-tenth of our population?
And yet somehow Australia, which has a landmass about the size of continental USA but population of only 20 million, can somehow arrange universal health care for all citizens. And so can Netherlands, which has ten times the population density of USA.
The point about UHC is not that it is perfect, it is simply superior to all private systems there are. Do you think it's better to
A) have a UHC, even if a bad system, where everyone can be treated, or
B) have a private system where people without insurance will die of easily curable or preventable diseases?
-
The US currently spends about 15% of its GDP on health care, which is the highest in the whole world, and yet we still can't cover the majority of Americans. So, explain to me how you suggest for us to pay for all 300+ million of ours, when Canada still can't effeciently treat its senior citizens with one-tenth of our population?
You're forgetting something important: Healthcare costs in america are out of control and through campaign contributions the government has no incentive to do anything about it.
-
What can it do? It has no legal authority to set prices, or even influence them. The government, regardless of its intentions, is powerless on that front. Unless they close down all existing hospitals and convert them into public ones, thereby also making all doctors government employees. And I fully believe that there would be a revolution before that happened, given how profitable the medical industry is and how entrenched the idea of private medicine is in the US.
Unless I'm missing something.
-
What can it do? It has no legal authority to set prices,
It does, that is called "regulation"
Looks like Guiliani's campaign is dead, McCain won in Florida. I'm surprised Huckabee is doing so poorly.
-
mccain is pretty cool, and he actually spent time in a pow camp. i have a soft spot for crazy people :D
voting hillary has charm as well, putting bill in the pink bedroom :D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vIAfBqWOL4&feature=related
-
The view of the campaign here is Oz is pretty much that it's all about the 3 Dem candidates (O & H centric), with scant attention to the Reps.
Which is weird 'cos Oz's media has been fairly right-wing for the past decade or so. Maybe it's the Kev'olution.
Oh, and the problem of applying free-market economics to healthcare is that sooner or later some other country (like India), will be able to provide better, cheaper healthcare for the ones who can afford it, and the domestic medical industry collapses.
An interesting example can be found in Roman cities. The Romans built sewage systems throughout their cities regardless of who used them, poor or rich. Basically this was self-interest from the ruling class as the sewage systems kept diseases down in the cities, diseases that the rulers themselves might catch. The construction and maintenance also provided jobs for the pleb's. Sure it cost a lot of money, but the intangible benefits were enormous.
A similar philosophy can be applied to modern healthcare and welfare systems. The trick is to minimise the number of diseased beggars in the street.
-
I wouldn't compare the Roman healthcare system to a postmodern one. We're talking about two worlds with different needs, social organization, and technological posibilities. Not to mention there was no capitalism at that time.
-
I've still yet to hear a single good explanation why the HMOs couldn't be replaced with non-profit mutuals.
Of course I'm obviously a dangerous subversive and a *gasp* socialist for even suggesting that people might be better off with a private company that doesn't make a profit.
-
What can it do? It has no legal authority to set prices, or even influence them.
Government has all the authority to deal with things their existing laws allow. Governments can legally set prices if they want to, because they can create a law to set prices.
You kept harping about states' rights in some other threads and states' complete sovreignity. So how come does a state not have sovereignity when it comes to taxation and public offices?
The government, regardless of its intentions, is powerless on that front. Unless they close down all existing hospitals and convert them into public ones, thereby also making all doctors government employees. And I fully believe that there would be a revolution before that happened, given how profitable the medical industry is and how entrenched the idea of private medicine is in the US.
USA already has public healthcare. It's just bad. The network exists and besides: many countries have both public and private medical institutions living in harmony. Often public healthcare even pays some money to private, were a person to select private over public (there are seriously like 20 different systems out there).
Unless I'm missing something.
20th century perhaps.
-
I'm no fan of realpolitik, but it's pretty much the only reason you're not at war with Iran right now. Gates, Rice and Mullen are at least sane enough not to start WW3.
Naaa, the Yanks aren't invading Iran because they know that if they do then the group that would benefit the most is Al-Qaeda. A-Q wants them to invade - OBL is on record as saying so. Prompting a US-Iran war is a top priority for them, hence neither Iran or the US are actually all that keen on doing so despite the rhetorical grandstanding. Us Oz'ians would be unlikely to support a US military action in Iran or if we did it would only be a token effort (like we're doing in Iraq & Afghanistan), however the new Oz gov is a bit more mindful of maintaining their soft power relationships than the previous gov.
Also the yanks can't afford it, Security Dilemma be damned.
Ask yourself this: throughout history, which great leaders have won wars by cutting taxes? There are systems known as 'war economies' for a reason.
Another interesting thought: we all talk about the 'war in Iraq'... but who are we at war with? Iraq? No, we're meant to be helping them...
-
I've still yet to hear a single good explanation why the HMOs couldn't be replaced with non-profit mutuals.
Of course I'm obviously a dangerous subversive and a *gasp* socialist for even suggesting that people might be better off with a private company that doesn't make a profit.
Dude, I live in a country with a decent public health-care system. I like it this way. I just don't think it's possible in the US right now.
The reasons are, broadly, social and practical. Social because HMOs, many doctors and somewhere between 30-50% of the population simply wouldn't stand for NHC. Technical because the US government owes so much money that they can not responsibly spend another penny on anything. Guns or butter, it doesn't matter. Costs being what they are, any amount of money which the government could feasibly contribute would be a drop in the bucket.
The reason NHC works in Britain, Canada and most other places is that there is a 50-year tradition of doing it that way. The system is in place, everyone is used to it, and the machine runs. What would be required in the US would be a virtual 180* turn. The medical industry is a behemoth that will not gentle step aside. And the government is effectively broke, so they can't chip in any money to insure the uninsured.
Government has all the authority to deal with things their existing laws allow. Governments can legally set prices if they want to, because they can create a law to set prices.
You kept harping about states' rights in some other threads and states' complete sovreignity. So how come does a state not have sovereignity when it comes to taxation and public offices?
If the government hasn't engaged in price-fixing for, AFAIK, several decades, why would they do and about-turn now? If a particular state wants to implement NHC, more power to them. I'm just wondering why none have done so. I'm also skeptical whether whether they actually have the power to tell a private practitioner, say a dentist, how much to charge for an exam. I admit that I don't have the specifics here, but it doesn't seem consistent with the extent of power that the government, whether state or federal, is generally granted in the US.
-
If the government hasn't engaged in price-fixing for, AFAIK, several decades, why would they do and about-turn now?
Because now it is the most unaffordable it's been in several decades?
-
Election update: Clinton and McCain have some pretty sizable leads now.
-
Damnation upon Hillary.
-
I like her. Methinks she knows very well what's she doing.
-
McCain has pretty much won the GOP. The Dem race is too close to call, but I'm predicting Obama.
-
It doesn't really matter who wins the Dem race.
It's going to end up being Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama anyway.
-
I like her. Methinks she knows very well what's she doing.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
She certainly knows what she's doing, but I can't imagine why you of all people would like her. Although, on reflection, that actually makes an insane kind of sense.
For the sane people here, this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock3b.html) is an interesting article that was linked at DailyPaul today. It was originally written by Albert Nock in 1936 but applies very well to the political situation today.
-
Muppets '08 (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1800898)
I found that rather insightful. :D
-
It doesn't really matter who wins the Dem race.
It's going to end up being Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama anyway.
Is there a tradition in American politics of asking the runner-up to be Veep? Because from the limited number of elections I can recall, that hasn't been the case. If Hilary became VP, she would totally fill Cheney's Evil Grey Eminence shoes. Hell, if there's one person that I can imagine giving even Cheney nightmares, it's her.
edit: And may I be so bold as to remark, with great bitterness, that people are ****ing sellouts. All the e-warriors who were touting Kucinich/Paul as the only principled candidates, as indeed they are, have now jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Because apparently, eloquent rhetoric and a nice smile are enough to take the place to actual integrity. Right and wrong are decided on the basis of popularity, not on actual positions. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting here in my Cranky Old Man bunker, supporting the same principles tomorrow as I did yesterday.
-
Reference Kerry/Edwards.
Plus, neither Clinton nor Obama really have a choice. The Dems are so split between the two candidates that I'm fairly certain the voters who supported the loser in the primary won't vote for the winner in the general election. Well, that might be stretching it, but the idea has been floating around and I seriously wouldn't be surprised if they did it.
-
edit: And may I be so bold as to remark, with great bitterness, that people are ****ing sellouts. All the e-warriors who were touting Kucinich/Paul as the only principled candidates, as indeed they are, have now jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Because apparently, eloquent rhetoric and a nice smile are enough to take the place to actual integrity. Right and wrong are decided on the basis of popularity, not on actual positions. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting here in my Cranky Old Man bunker, supporting the same principles tomorrow as I did yesterday.
Eh, well Kucinich dropped out, and I would sooner vote for the moldy orange in my fridge than that slightly more bat**** insane version of Old Man Carnes from Oklahoma!, so, as they say, what are you gonna do?
Plus, neither Clinton nor Obama really have a choice. The Dems are so split between the two candidates that I'm fairly certain the voters who supported the loser in the primary won't vote for the winner in the general election. Well, that might be stretching it, but the idea has been floating around and I seriously wouldn't be surprised if they did it.
I think you might be underestimating how terrified a lot of people are of the possibility of another Republican administration. Clinton makes me gag but I will not hesitate one instant to vote for her if she gets the nomination.
-
The Dem base will back whoever gets the nod. Neither's supporters are rabid enough to sabotage the other candidate, especially after the loser duly gives his/her endorsement to the winner. In other words, lovers of Diet Coke will consent to drinking Cherry Coke because the prospect of Pepsi appalls them.
Now personally, I would like that to be Hilary, since Obama looks like he could pull the crumbling pieces back together for a few more years. But I have full faith that the rot is so deeply institutional that a single competent leader won't ultimately matter.
Eh, well Kucinich dropped out, and I would sooner vote for the moldy orange in my fridge than that slightly more bat**** insane version of Old Man Carnes from Oklahoma!, so, as they say, what are you gonna do?
Seppuku?
-
Eh, well Kucinich dropped out, and I would sooner vote for the moldy orange in my fridge than that slightly more bat**** insane version of Old Man Carnes from Oklahoma!, so, as they say, what are you gonna do?
Vote for Nader? ;7
-
My favorite in this election is actually Mike Gravel, despite his lack of a smoking hot wife. But I don't think I can bring myself to throw away my vote, however much self-loathing voting for the viable candidate will cause me. I'll probably spend a few weeks dressing slutty and calling myself a whore in the mirror.
God damn, politics just leaves me feeling in need of a long shower, followed by a frenzied, escapism-induced orgy with simultaneous consumption of cannabis, alcohol, and exotic tropical fruits while Messiaen and Massive Attack play in the background.
Actually everything sort of leaves me in need of that, but with regards to politics I'm actually making a point.
Sorry-- it's late.
-
God damn, politics just leaves me feeling in need of a long shower, followed by a frenzied, escapism-induced orgy with simultaneous consumption of cannabis, alcohol, and exotic tropical fruits while Messiaen and Massive Attack play in the background.
:eek2: :shaking:
I think this (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp08142007.shtml) just about sums up how politics makes me feel. :blah:
By the way, you should sign up for therapy....
-
But that **** is my therapy.
-
But that **** is my therapy.
Touché.
-
She certainly knows what she's doing, but I can't imagine why you of all people would like her.
WTF is that supposed to mean? :wtf:
-
edit: And may I be so bold as to remark, with great bitterness, that people are ****ing sellouts. All the e-warriors who were touting Kucinich/Paul as the only principled candidates, as indeed they are
On the other hand, recorded legislation
, have now jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Because apparently, eloquent rhetoric and a nice smile are enough to take the place to actual integrity.
What does integrity mean? Seriously. You describe Paul as an "integrate" candidate. What does this mean in practice?
Right and wrong are decided on the basis of popularity, not on actual positions. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting here in my Cranky Old Man bunker, supporting the same principles tomorrow as I did yesterday.
edit: Actually this was unnecessary. Sticking to same principles is good in theory. It does not work in practice, though.
And hey, you do realize that people are not electing "right and wrong", but the candidate for the presidency, right? So "right and wrong" imply nothing else but condescension.
He lost. He has no way of winning. His popularity and ability to have an effect were democratically analyzed and guess what - he has none. His rabid fans didn't have any other effect than to ridicule Paul even more.
-
What does integrity mean? Seriously. You describe Paul as an "integrate" candidate. What does this mean in practice?
it means he knows how to integrate. other candidates only know how to multiply and divide. some candidates even have trouble with add and subtract.
-
What does integrity mean? Seriously. You describe Paul as an "integrate" candidate. What does this mean in practice?
it means he knows how to integrate. other candidates only know how to multiply and divide. some candidates even have trouble with add and subtract.
mother of god
it's the enemy
mathematics
-
It was certainly my enemy in high school. The only thing that ever made me even remotely entertain the notion of a god was the fact that I passed chemistry.
-
What does integrity mean? Seriously. You describe Paul as an "integrate" candidate. What does this mean in practice?
it means he knows how to integrate. other candidates only know how to multiply and divide. some candidates even have trouble with add and subtract.
What about derivations?
-
What does integrity mean? Seriously. You describe Paul as an "integrate" candidate. What does this mean in practice?
it means he knows how to integrate. other candidates only know how to multiply and divide. some candidates even have trouble with add and subtract.
What about derivations?
i'll derivate YOU (I was hopeless in mathematics, which is the reason I despise Paul so much)
In other news, not surprisingly Obama took the Potomac primaries. Clinton must now win in Texas and Ohio.
-
Goober, to what extend is your reply serious? A ten-year-old is supposed to be able to multiply two or three two-digit numbers with the aid of only a pencil and a piece of paper.
-
I was channelling Janos there for a moment.
-
I was channelling Janos there for a moment.
you are a naughty boy and I will "channel" you soon enough
-
I was channelling Janos there for a moment.
you are a naughty boy and I will "channel" you soon enough
Stop it you two, or you'll both receive the channeling of a lifetime! I mean it, just try me!
-
What about derivations?
And the "integrali"? And the "equazioni differenziali"? Those ARE dangerous! :blah:
Italian medias give Hillary for a loser because she's firing her whole staff. That's strange, it should be done secretly. That's some kind of reverse-advertising.
-
What about derivations?
And the "integrali"? And the "equazioni differenziali"? Those ARE dangerous! :blah:
Italian medias give Hillary for a loser because she's firing her whole staff. That's strange, it should be done secretly. That's some kind of reverse-advertising.
how the hell could she "secretly" fire her campaign staff? they're really visible and a key part of every single campaign? would she replace them with clones or robots
-
With their twin sisters/brothers :P
-
how the hell could she "secretly" fire her campaign staff? they're really visible and a key part of every single campaign? would she replace them with clones or robots
Maybe not 100% secretly, but...letting EVERYONE know doesn't help her.
-
how the hell could she "secretly" fire her campaign staff? they're really visible and a key part of every single campaign? would she replace them with clones or robots
Maybe not 100% secretly, but...letting EVERYONE know doesn't help her.
Have you heard about this thing known as "press"