23 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

i'll just quote a bit from a newspaper article i read today that i thought was an interesting analysis of the current candidates for the presidential election.

Jimmy Carter said around the times when Ronald Reagan took over that "the USA is going out of control"(1). while Reagan said "this is a new age for America". it has been a conservative era, where most of the last 30 years the president has either been a Reagan or a Bush.
But we now we are seeing the beginning of the end of this era. we see that the talk of the presidents-to-be are moving away from the neo-conservative and tried-and-true politics of the last thirty years. Obama won the Iowa democratic position as main candidate, and he is one of the few candidates that truly have played on the promise of change. and with a surprising support from a group that earlier were not known to politically engaged; the young.

There is alot more to be said about Obama and the new demographics, but i don't have any good sources at hand at the moment. But there is another stroke that i need to put on the canvas that is more important than the details that i have mentioned as of yet.

None of the other candidates embrace the ways of the current presidency. there is no vice-president or major politician from the current "rulership" in the white house, which is also a strange thing. But the thing that makes it really weird, is that none of the candidates are running on policies that Bush jr and co have been using the last 7 years. Not even the Republican candidates dare to embrace the legacy of the Bush administration in full.

to sum things up, i think these are the early signs of politics more up to date with the current population of the western world. it might be the first side-effect of the free information flow on the internet, it might not. but whatever it is, it is a sign that conservative politics can come in too large doses, even in the USA.



(1)=english->norwegian->vague memorization of what the norwegian was back to english

[Paladin58]

I'm proud to be one of those who caucused for Obama, because I think there needs to be some major change in the way our country works right now, after Bush basically vice-gripped us with security bills and other garbage, like pretty much killing Habeas Corpus. I also like his idea for universal health care 'for those who want it', not forcing it on us if we have an outside provider.

[Cossack]

If Obama wins the white house I will have gained a previously non-existant respect for american politics.

Duke, you are right in that for the past many years, every single president whether republican or democratic has had virtually the same foreign and economic policies, as well as the same general way of running the country.

Though you are right that none of the candidates are affiliated with the current administration, I think Obama is the only one who can really bring some change to the long since monotone american political system.

GO OBAMA!

[Cheshire Fox]

My vote would personally have gone 100% to Kucinich, too bad there's no way in hell he would ever get elected. In the meantime...god I hope we get Obama in the office. I hate my government.

[Beowulf]

As great as it would be to see a black guy in office, but I ask you, is America really ready for it? How willing are the people to elect Obama? I'll probably toss my vote his way since he sounds competent, intelligent, willing to change things... you know all kinds of good shit but the big thing is getting all of the sticks in the mud to go along with such a drastic change. If he wins a Southern state, I'll be shocked... considerably shocked.

Pompous old white guys can't rule forever though so I welcome this change.

Edited by Beowulf, 07 January 2008 - 03:55 AM.

[Paladin58]

Well, in terms of states in the South, the only two that would be crucial to win would be Georgia and Florida, which both have large enough populations of African Americans to tip the balance in his favor... If they vote, that is...

[Ash]

It is dismaying when getting votes depends on one being of an ethnic minority or female (Thatcher/Halonen, anyone?).

I would pass argument that one should go for the one who has the best policies, but then they all piss in the same pot, so that's a waste of time and I won't insult your intelligence by claiming otherwise...

[Tom]

I have no support for Obama. I care not if the candidate is male, female, black or white, there is no real choice in this election again. The one real one who makes sense has been painted off as a nutjob because he stands in the way of the NWO. I have as much faith in Obama as I do Billary Clingon or even George Bush for that matter.

All these candidates are products of Rockerfellers Council on Foreign Relations. Ron Paul is the only real American standing. Yet he has no chance in hell anyway thanks to the corporate controlled media and ignoramuses.

I think people need to do research on whos pockets these people are in before saying "I VOTE FOR THEM BECAUSE I LIKE THE BULLSHIT THEY ARE SPOUTING!"

This image should be what people should really advocate.
[attachment=18478:l_005779...4b895a52.gif]

[duke_Qa]

Ron Paul would not only withdraw from Iraq, but also from UN, NATO, WTO and other international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol . he also wants to pull the US out of NAFTA, because he fears a North-American union between USA, Canada and Mexico. he also doesn't want the USA to be a part of the International Court of Justice(same as bush)

politics in the US: all federal tax to be removed, VAT, inheritance taxes, central bank, education department, energy department, security department(fema included[that doesnt sound too bad though ]), and drastic cutbacks on FBI and CIA. he is strongly opposed to public welfare including healthcare. and on top of that, he is against net neutrality.

basically he is a sort of chicago-school politician who wants to cut off all "stagnating" bureaucracies to start fresh... and in most countries which this has been done, you can't say it went peacefully. and here apparently we got a guy who wants to do that on a international scale.

I'm sort of surprised that he has gotten such a major online support, net neutrality and all that. But then again i guess none of the candidates as of yet have promised that.

[Tom]

I think if you research hes more for net neutrality. He does not want to regulate the internet nor does he want any corporate or state interference with it.

The Income tax in the USA is pointless, it serves nothing other to cover the national debt. I realise hes a nut when it comes to being anti abortion / anti homosexual marriage, but he would not infringe that on any of the states. He is purely against bureaucracy which is what the real problem is now.

Give the states back their power and limit the federal government to what it should be.

I don't see why all that stuff cannot be done at state level. The truth is it can and imo it should. There is no need to have state controlled education or other bureaucracies. Hes also for reducing homeland security which should be more appropriately named "Ministry of Truth."

Hes got so much support because hes one of the only candidates that isn't a member of the CFR.

Of course his changes would go peacefully. Hes trying to undermine the federal reserve system which is in the new future going to cause a massive economic recession in the states as well as send shockwaves across the world. The reserve system is the tool of international bankers. Hes right in saying America is bankrupt because it is. All the money in circulation is debt, not credit.

I might not agree with him on healthcare, but I don't see why states that want it can't set it up. Local taxing not central taxing is a better system.

[duke_Qa]

I think if you research hes more for net neutrality. He does not want to regulate the internet nor does he want any corporate or state interference with it.

the problem with net neutrality is that if you don't make a rule for it, corps and isp's will start buying up network speed and make it work best for those who pay extra. if he is so much against bureaucracies and rules as this guy seems to be, he would be leaving himself open to total free-market Friedman-esque economics. that is not a better situation than centralized official organs, since democracy in corporations are close to zero.

i have nothing against the thought of decentralising alot of the power in the USA, re-funneling the taxes states pay into their own budgets and making their own decisitions is not a bad thing. the bad deal is if they at the same time privatize all of these functions you go back to a semi-medieval noble system where the rich governs the poor.

The true enemy in this situation is sentralization. the smaller the number of people a bureaucracy has to worry about, the more efficient it will be. To support groups of 5-40 millions is alot easier than supporting 300 millions. also if local politics have alot more to say about what actually comes out of the budget, things generally get more specialized for the local enviroment and the money will be more efficient.

[Tom]

Paul is an old man. All the americans need is a real leader to expose the corruption in their country. They also need someone who will set the trend to restore their republic, the american's can do the rest.

The enemy is statism yes. I agree with that. To be honest to see if Paul actually has had any effect or not, we won't know until hes eliminated from the race and another corrupt president is "elected."

And his view on the internet is that he doesn't want it restricted, its just he lacks the knowledge to understand how it works. The best bet is to let the real nerds like us force the legislation for it, rather than people like Paul. There just need to be a more conscious push now. People need to wake up from the brain dead state that consumerism has twisted them into.

Regardless if Paul does get "elected" or not, which he won't, i hope its a significant enough push for the Americans to realise that they cannot keep spending the way they do. Consumerism has to come to an end otherwise our societies will come to any end through the collapse of economics or any other problem we have caused by our ignorance.

[Casen]

Ron Paul is smart, I respect him, but he won't win and some of his policies are too loose. He'll turn us from the United States of America into the Incoherent States of America. We'd be only one step from being not a country but 50 different countries.

I don't know about you, but after all the shit the Bush administration caused, some countries may want to attack us, and being so un-united would...eh...I'm being paranoid.

Case and point, speaking of paranoia, Ron Paul's fan base is actually full of loads upon loads of tinfoil hat, wacko conspiracy theorists. People who believe in the North American Union, the 9/11 truth crazies, anti-zionists who want the "Israel lobby" kicked out the United States so we won't get attacked anymore, and a load of other bull. Not to mention the frightening amount of white nationalists that support him.

Of course, Ron Paul doesn't espouse any of these beliefs.

And also duke_Qa what do you mean none of the current presidents are like the previous corrupt officials? Maybe not "corrupt", but are you even paying attention? Mike Huckabee, anyone? Holy shit this guy scares the shit out of me. He's Bush on steroids, and hes young, and he has fucking Chuck Norris campaigning with him; this adds to the fear he will appeal to more people by being "cool", but he'll do more shit to us than Bush did. And he'll continue the Iraq war.

And he talks professionally, unlike Bush who fumbles and such, which while many would see that as a positive thing, Bush was so indirect that a lot of the things he wanted to do just never got done. Huckabee, looking at how dedicated and straightforward he is, terrifies me. I really don't care much about economics for the moment, I just care about social issues, and the Christian Right is backing him practically 100%. While he has not said offensive things towards a specific religion (that I know of), many of the Christian Right people have said loads of things that personally have hurt me. I don't want anyone in power than is backed by those people. They alienate me.

This is actually one of the reasons why I'm actually hoping Romney beats him out in the event a Republican were to win. Romney may be a Mormon, and Mormonism is...screwed up. I mean you can nitpick at the Bible with science books but you can tear the book of Mormon to shreds with science and even historical facts. But thats not the point, the thing is, being a Mormon, Romney is part of a fairly disliked minority in the US, downtrodden, members of the Christian Right already are steering clear of him; and that makes me comforted to know Romney won't be backed by the Christian Right.

Regardless, I'll be content with ether Hillary or Obama. But just knowing preemptively that Huckabee won't make it to November will alleviate a horrific, sickly feeling in my stomach.

[mike_]

As great as it would be to see a black guy in office, but I ask you, is America really ready for it? How willing are the people to elect Obama? I'll probably toss my vote his way since he sounds competent, intelligent, willing to change things... you know all kinds of good shit but the big thing is getting all of the sticks in the mud to go along with such a drastic change. If he wins a Southern state, I'll be shocked... considerably shocked.

Pompous old white guys can't rule forever though so I welcome this change.

I beg your pardon? Have you even actually traveled to a Southern state in the last few...decades?
The South is lightyears ahead of how terrible things were in the '50s and '60s, so unless you've come down here frequently, I highly suggest you don't assume things.
Not trying to start an argument here, but as someone who's lived in the South his entire life, I find that more than a little offensive.
Cheers,
-mike

Edited by elfhelm.., 09 January 2008 - 03:54 AM.

[Casen]

Meh, even if the laws changed, the mentality seems to be undesirable.

I mean, if it wasn't for them, chances are, we would stop having Conservative Republicans.

[Cheshire Fox]

http://somechildrenl...d.blogspot.com/

Actually, this kind of sums up a lot of my feelings about current day politics, especially as a minor...

[Casen]

I have something else to say.

Ronald Reagan, okay, was he 100% bad? Can we agree that he did good things and bad things?

Also people, I don't like Bush, but in my opinion, the intention makes the person. The accurate definition of Bush?

Okay, people died in the war in Iraq. One thing that irritates me is that people compare Bush to Hitler, a Fascist, whatever. You all know deep down inside thats not accurate. Call him what he is, still makes him a horrible president, irresponsible, and a bad leader. You don't need to horrifically exagerrate. That's what fuels Bush supporters. Think about it.

And some of you are probably going to oppose this out of the fact that your emotions will read me wrong, even though your technical mind read me right, as in I'm justifying things hes done; that is not the case. While I believe at least some of his reason for invading Iraq were true, I believe there might have been alterior motives...probably were some. His war was grossly miscalculated.

But jumping to conclusions because you hate someone = bad. It causes a form of dualism that just perpetrates in fights back and forth, causing little moderation making people subconsciously then eventually consciously conform to ether side. The reasons why many liberals refuse to be moderate in their evaluation of Bush is that it hurts their emotions and makes them feel like their supporting him. Similar things happen with conservatives, although with the technical side of things. It forces people to take a side, rather than intelligent debate.

And yes, the war in Iraq was unjust, miscalculated, and unjust. I am sure no one here thinks Saddam was a -good- person, and getting rid of him, theoretically, good, but the implications and the result were obviously bad. And you may be saying why isn't Bush repenting? Well, hes a politician, he can't cave, so much pressure over him. He's a human being. That's it.

Main point: He is not driven by hatred, something else, but not hatred. So to compare him to Hitler with those propaganda posters...just immature. Call him what he is, irresponsible and a bad leader, but nothing else. He didn't invade Iraq for the purpose of killing civilians. Does that make the result void? No, but that still makes the person. That was not his intention.

Goes with everyone else that existed.

[MSpencer]

Obama sells you good and bad things; the things you want to hear, not the things you want. Obama is one of those people who loves to jump on the free healthcare bandwagon, but then you look at his policies, and he only supports universal healthcare for children.
Obama has a propensity to preach change like some sort of messianic hero, but what he has for written policies are vacant and lacking. You can speak about change all you like, but if you don't have a plan to implement it, I doubt anything will happen. He's a good politician; he speaks to the American people about what they want most, a difference in politics, a new kind of politics, hope, but is he prepared to deliver? He wants to sit down and bargain with big business. He doesn't commit to specific plans. He has no plan for the future of America, but his rhetoric would make you believe that he does.
I just don't believe he's what's right for the United States. He has no experience, and no plans for fixing the country.

Now we're going to take a trip down'ta Al'bama.

I beg your pardon? Have you even actually traveled to a Southern state in the last few...decades?

But where, oh where, does all the racism come from...
How many African Americans are serving in the United States Senate? Should I answer that one for you? One. And he's more interested in becoming President.
How many African Americans have served in the Senate in the last 100 years? The answer is three, one from Massachusetts, and two from Illinois.
What about the House of Representatives? Plenty, but not nearly representative of the distribution of African Americans in the United States; and from a quick glance? The vast majority are from north of the Mason-Dixon Line.
I don't know about the south, something crazy is continuing to happen there. I have a friend who was a postdoc in North Carolina, moved back to Berlin a month ago, and he said that you basically had to fit the mold of what they wanted you to be like. There's still a very restrictive system in the south, and it's detrimental to anyone the least bit different.
And hell, if I get discriminated against in Massachusetts, I can't imagine Al'bama.
I'm liking this.

And moving on to the person who loves to just read their own words, Kacen. You actually make some good points though... so I can't say much bad.

Mike Huckabee, anyone? Holy shit this guy scares the shit out of me. He's Bush on steroids, and hes young,

Mike Huckabee is the next Ayatollah. He believes in the infallibility of his own religion, and both he and Mitt Romney seem to believe that religious intervention in everyday life is just fantastic for democracy. Not only that, but he believes HIV+ people should be isolated in society, homosexuality is immoral, and believes an appropriate answer to "Why do you not know about the National Intelligence Estimate about Iran?" is ""Nobody's going to be able, if they've been campaigning as hard as we have been, to keep up with every single thing, from what happened to Britney last night to who won 'Dancing with the Stars.'" So some real life horrifying things Huckabee's done. Hopefully this will dissuade any complete morons from voting for this religious, fascist quack.

On Dec. 28, Huckabee says the assassination of Benazir Bhutto means we need "very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there's any unusal activity of Pakistanis coming into the country."
http://www.huffingto...ua_n_78541.html

To rectify this blunder, one of Huckabee's senior aides explains to reporters that Huckabee has "no foreign policy credentials."
http://www.cnn.com/2...ef=rss_politics

On Dec. 30, Huckabee appears on Meet The Press and announces that despite his previous assertion that deporting 15 million illegal immigrants would collapse the economy, he strongly believes that all illegal immigrants should be deported. However, he does not believe that the American-born children of illegal immigrants should be deported. So what happens to them? Well, duh, obviously they would go with their parents. Make sense?
http://www.crooksand...-not-really-huh

On Dec. 31, Huckabee gathers reporters and lectures them on the evils of negative campaigning. He then plays a 30-second ad his campaign had created to attack Mitt Romney, before declaring the ad to be so awful that he has instructed his staff not to run it. The press has no choice but to guffaw at this transparent piece of bullshittery.

What was so awful about the ad? Well, it was pretty tough on Romney's record. For example, one of the data points flashed up on the screen criticized him for performing "no executions" while serving as governor of Massachusetts. Phew! It's a good job they didn't run the ad, or Huckabee might have looked like a sadistic maniac rather than a Christian pastor.
http://www.washingto...7123102528.html
http://blogs.tnr.com...tions-quot.aspx

On Jan 2, Huckabee expresses his support for the striking TV writers. He then immediately crosses their picket line in order to appear on the Tonight Show, prompting the striking writers to start carrying large signs reading "HUCKABEE IS A SCAB." A bemused Huckabee then claims he had no idea that crossing the picket line would cause a problem.
http://thinkprogress...abee-is-a-scab/

The man... is a fucking... nut.
And an idiot. Well deserving of a place on Olbermann's worst people in the universe list.

Ronald Reagan, okay, was he 100% bad? Can we agree that he did good things and bad things?

He cut taxes based on some archaic and ridiculous system which claimed it would generate more income, doing permanent damage to the United States economy and perpetuating this myth of "Reaganomics" working (Well, his advisors told him it would work; too bad they were stupid, corrupt douchebags), and presided over one of the largest, most expensive, most pointless, and most positively disgusting military buildups in United States history, touting programs such as Star Wars, and the 700 Ship Navy plan, all of which had positively no effect on Soviet morale or "will to fight," as they had been in an economic freefall for a good eight years or so. Not only that, but he could very well have been the catalyst for the destruction of humanity with his "stern policy against the imperialists." And have we forgotten about Afghanistan? Panama? Grenada? Iran-Contra? Oliver North? Illegal executive privilege to funnel weapons to guerillas in other countries to overthrow the legitimate government causing untold tens of thousands of deaths?
And then, AFTER the bastard was out of office, he ran ads calling Hillary Clinton a communist during her push for universal health care. And now you're all fucking demanding it? Oh please.

If Reagan was a remotely decent person, then I'm a saint.

The reasons why many liberals refuse to be moderate in their evaluation of Bush is that it hurts their emotions and makes them feel like their supporting him.

Us "liberals" refuse to be moderate in our evaluation of George Bush because he's the worst president the United States has ever had. I think any flak he gets is probably well deserved. His entire administration has been catalogued by scandal after scandal after scandal, an illegal war, a quest for vengeance, negligence in defence of the country, the largest, most inefficient growth in government ever, the appointment of crooks, liars, and unqualified cronies to positions of ungodly power, the creation of a bureaucracy which governs "homeland security" which is crushed under its own girth, and cowboyish stunts which have not only cost the United States its reputation around the world, but also a good portion of its military supremacy, and pretty much all of its diplomatic power.
And his appointee to the position of Ambassador to the UN was someone who believed the UN shouldn't exist.
Oh and his Vice President, who is only alive because of government health care, has seen his stock options in Halliburton increase by over 1000% within three months of the Iraq war starting. Sound like a conflict of interest? No, it's war profiteering, something a whole lot worse.

So while American troops are dying, face down in a ditch in a Baghdad street, with 7.62 rounds throughout their body, their intestines spilling out on the sidewalk, or their limbs blasted all about the boulevard; remember, remember that they died for George W. Bush and his quest to unseat Saddam Hussein and kill him in some unhinged, maniacal journey to finish the crusade his father started.

Let it be known that I have no sympathy for that man; I have no sympathy for war criminals. He is a human being, and he, like everyone else in our society, should pay the legal price for his decisions. He deserves nothing short of spending the next twenty years in a United Nations prison; he deserves the fate that Slobodan Milosevic was supposed to get.
I demand justice. The American people demand justice. The Iraqi people demand justice. We want our demands answered; impeachment should not be off the table, extradition should not be off the table, this maniac must be dealt with by the international community at large. You want a Saddam Hussein? Bush condones the torture of potentially innocent people, invades countries without reasonable pretext, and does not provide basic securities and liberties to his own people. We also have reason to believe he's producing weapons of mass destruction; why don't we bomb Washington into the ground and pick through the rubble to find out?
It's exactly the same logic as the Americans used when they bombed Iraq. Defend George Bush all you like, it doesn't make him less of a criminal.

[Casen]

But he remembered Poland.

[MSpencer]

That is in no way a suitable response to my post. And no, he didn't remember Poland. Poland was simply a stepping stone to defeating the Soviet Union. Much like, say, supporting Taiwan in case we get into a serious Cold War with China.
Go back, read my post, formulate a response.
Hostile, do not reply to this stub message. If anyone wishes to debate my points, debate Post #18, not Post #20.