US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

I do think a reason for this is that those who really could use such help, particularly on the right, have been convinced by their representatives and media sources that what's good for the giant corporations is good for them. That old "trickle down" economics that as far as I can see, has proven itself complete bs in the past 30 years or so. The wealthiest Americans have unsurpassed amounts of money. It does not "trickle down." They simply sit on it.

We need more honest people like Warren Buffet.

Personally, I believe in "Trickle up" economics.

Give money to the poor and they'll spend money on goods which "trickles up" to the rich

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Look, champ. If you seriously say that Europe of now is comparable to the USSR, then there's really no point in discussing. How are you supposed to debate with someone who insists that the moon is made of green cheese?

Don't be ridiculous.
You and I both know I didn't say that Europe is comparable to the USSR.
I said that the USSR was not Communist is was Socialist, and it was.

It's the other way round, naturally. Take Germany. Since everyone is ENTITLED (look up the meaning) to the minimum living standards, it can't be withheld by the government, and people know that. Which is why there's unemployed who'd rather prefer to skip out on exhausting work offered to them (e.g. farm helper to harvest) and stay home instead. They have this freedom, it only means that they won't get anything MORE than the minimum living standards.

What is going to stop your government from withholding those entitlements if it so chooses?
I think you underestimate the power of government.
Either that or there is a huge difference between what Germany will do to its citizens and what the US government will do.
Maybe we have become a police state?

No, the real serfdom shows in the US. There, a company boss can simply say "you show up on saturday or I fire you", and that's that. If you can't afford to lose health insurance for you or your family, you are FORCED to show up, and that's what people do (and bosses routinely use that to exploit extra work out of their employees, due to the miserable workplace protection laws in the US).

And why is that?
It's because that worker's money lacks the buying power for him/her to start a business of his/her own.
Small businesses are getting killed by the rise in gas, food, and goods prices.
It's making it harder to hire, harder to keep the lights on, and harder to operate.
It's not the businesses that are moving us into serfdom, its the money system we're using.

So, the reality is in fact the exact opposite of what you say. You have much more freedom in "socialist" Germany.

Socialist Germany?
When did I say Germany was socialist?
I said that Europeans have more of a collectivist mindset than Americans, and they do, you've proven that.
I also told you that collectivism comes in many forms, not just socialism, and it does.

I do respect that you made your way no matter what - it's admirable. But willpower alone does NOT create a job in the US nowadays, and if it does, it's rarely sufficient to keep yourself afloat. You need education in a non-dying job and luck (or connections). If you lack those... you're screwed.

Thank you.
And I agree that unless things change drastically, we in the US are screwed.

Looking forward to this guy, then. Perry?? Romney??? Bachmann???? Or even Palin????? I give Ron Paul props for consistently sticking to his line, but I don't think he's electable.

Ron Paul is the only candidate I see on the Republican side that has a chance of changing this country for the better.
The rest are corporate shills who'll just make things worse.
Obama is no better.
He's the third term of George Bush Jr. so far in his policies, and unless the Democrats field a viable challenger, the Dem and Republican tickets will be practically the same in my view.

Which is why Big Oil is drowning Washington with lobby money to prevent any kind of climate deal and to dismantle EPA. Right.

Who's dismantling the EPA?
Just because their policies are being questioned does not mean they're getting shut down.
Believe me, if our congress wanted to shut them down, they would.
The reason that the EPA regs are now in question is because of people like Dr. Roy Spencer. He's a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite.
His research is showing that original data on CO2 heat containment may be wrong, and that temps of the Earth fluctuate constantly without the help of man.
Currently the Sun is entering into a lull in what has been called the most active Sun cycle in 8000 years.This is why I view AGW as a farce, and see it as more harmful to the environmental movement than helpful.
I mean, our governments are actually talking about creating a carbon-exchange system so corporations can pollute if they pay a fee.
That's insane!
Our government is corrupt now, what do you think will happen if that kind of a new "market" is opened up.
Wallstreet is drooling over this new opportunity.
God I'd like to throttle Al Gore for what he's done to the environmental movement...

Wake up people, you're being lied to.

Yes, it's performing a better service for half the money you spend - AND everyone is covered.

That's because we have a corporatist version over here.
I'm not against government health care for the poor.
I think we need it.
What I'm against is forcing everyone to buy private insurance just to be a citizen.
And that's what Obamacare does.

If you're super-rich and can afford the premiums, you find most specialists in the US. If you're normally wealthy, most European countries perform better and more services than the average coverage in the US. And if you're one of those 40+ million uninsured... let's not go there.

40 million?
Are you counting the illegal aliens here?
Because they shouldn't be getting any services from the US government.

Seriously. Educate yourself from independent sources. The US healthcare systems is a complete unmitigated disaster. I've watched it in action myself, and I vowed never to visit the US again without an insurance to transfer me back to Germany in case of illness.

I never said it wasn't, but most of the problem lies in outrageous lawsuits and lobbying by big Pharma as well as the insurance companies.
We need tort reform here, as well as new pharmaceutical regs, and reigning in what insurance companies charge by allowing them to compete across state lines would help also.
It has helped with car insurance immensely.

Kuchinich?? Wow, now you really shocked me. I can see then why your friends might call you a leftie

What's wrong with David Kuchinich?
Why does everyone get weird about him.
I like him, I like Nader, and I like Ron Paul.
I diversify my tastes in politicians because we need a very diverse congress and we don't have that right now.
We basically have corporatist A or corporatist B.

You were wrong in that you claimed that it wouldn't happen in public schools, which I showed it did. Concerning religious and private schools you were right, but that was uncontested.

The SCOTUS has already ruled on this.
Intelligent Design cannot be taught in public schools in the USA.

You are aware that most of this money were based loans and CDS's which the American banks OWED to these not-at-all-so-sorry banks? You say that the US should have borrowed money and sold CDS and not owned up to it? Wow, now that's a superpower! And you have the chuptzah to call that a "bailout" of European banks?

If you feel I'm wrong somewhere, feel free to confront me. But RCM is really a ridiculous source.

Fed’s Biggest Foreign-Bank Bailout Kept U.S. Munis on Track

U.S. Bailout Funds Saved European Banks -- Without Much Transatlantic Reciprocity

You and your military. It's hilarious.

I fail to see what's funny about it.

But thanks for worrying for us, it's heartwarming. Look at all of Europe together and compare it to the US. We're in a much better shape than you are. If we'd do the same you do and merely print more dollars and borrow till you drop, we'd have no problem at all. Instead we actually do something, like cutting spending AND raising taxes trying to balance our budget. Isn't that exactly what you demand from your politicians?

Maybe your politicians listen but ours are stone deaf.

No, it's a fair assessment of an incompetent hack. Noonan is one more of the coffin nails which Hiatt gathered to ruin the reputation of the once-great Washington Post.

In your opinion, not mine.

That's not the definition here. If the US bankrupts, it affects the rest of the world economy, too, and they're still no member of the Eurozone.

Oh, well then why didn't the world bail out Greece?
Why was it viewed as a problem for only the Eurozone?

I could answer that the Eurozone and the US are very different (e.g. the Fed and ECB), but it's a waste of time.

You're talking about economically, I was talking socially.

[lots of words deleted]

Look. If the US were socialist, then YOU WOULDN'T HAVE PRIVATE PROPERTY AT ALL. Do you even know that much? Communism and dogmatic socialism (which is what you routinely accuse Europe to be) negates private property. You are the country of MINE MINE MINE, not socialist.

Is is private property if the government can confiscate it at will?
Police confiscate cellphones, government officials take land/homes, and can enter a home without a warrant now that SCOTUS has expanded "probable cause" to mean just about anything.

It's clear that your idea of freedom and mine are totally different.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah, we've got those in Europe too. Can't say I see a problem with that.

Originally Posted by Keroko

I too have to ask what's wrong with this. The earlier point Gundamfan made sounded as if the government was blackmailing its people, not that it had simple rules that make traffic safer and healthier.

Originally Posted by james0246

I'm perplexed as well. It's impossible for a “functional” society with the number of people America has to not have rules and regulations (whether they are minor rules such as car insurance or major rules such as do not kill unless attacked). That being said, even going back to America's foundation, there were still taxes, rules and regulations (the first progressive income tax was established by Abraham Lincoln himself). You could argue that bureaucracy has become too powerful (who hasn't argued this?), but this fanciful notion of "freedom" without simple rules (and I consider at least car insurance and a car inspection to be very simple rules (the emissions test is debatable)) is nothing more than chaos given a kinder title.

The safety inspection I can understand and have no problem with, but I want the three of you to tell me how having insurance or getting emissions is going to help keep people safer on the public roadways?

Notice I didn't mention DUI checkpoints?
That's because those save lives.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Most rules are setup because of stupid people doing stupid things and ruining it for the rest of us.

Or the government found yet another way to get money out of something...but usually both at the same time.

Not just the government Ithekro.
Out here our emissions testing is done by a private company called Envirotest, and insurance in this state is "no fault" meaning that when there is an accident no one is at fault for it.
Both parties usually pay unless one party is totally negligent, then the other party's insurace company will try to get out of paying.
However, that doesn't help save lives or make driving safer, what it does do is line the pockets of insurance corporations like Progressive, State Farm, etc.

Laws that actually make us safer I can get behind, but laws lobbied for by corporations who just want to make their services mandatory.
I have a real problem with when government is used to enforce corporate profit margins.
That's why I'd like to know if it's the same way in Europe.
Is their auto insurance government or private?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The safety inspection I can understand and have no problem with, but I want the three of you to tell me how having insurance or getting emissions is going to help keep people safer on the public roadways?

It doesn't keep people safer on the road, but it helps protect victims from those without insurance. Too many times I've seen someone who's uninsured cause an accident, give fake insurance info, and then drive away without ever having to take responsibility (financially or otherwise) for the damage they caused. The victim then has to suck up the damage themselves. Even if their personal insurance covers it, their rates will still go up because of it.

How is that any different from wanton vandalism, destruction, or theft?

[GundamFan0083]

Do you live in a "no fault" state?
Because without "no fault" the person responsible has to pay, insurance or no insurance, which is how is should be.
In "no fault" if one party doesn't have insurance the state picks up the tab.
I would think that "no fault" actually encourages bad driving.

[DonQuigleone]

Aye, it's the same in Europe as the US regarding car insurance. GDB is pretty much on the ball. The insurance is usually private. They don't have a monopoly though, as not necessarily everyone drives.

Personally, I don't think Europe is more collective or individualist then the USA. I actually think that government aid enables individualism as you no longer need to rely on the people around you. Without a state there you really need to cultivate community ties, and you have to think in such a way as putting your community first.

Whereas with social welfare programs you can pretty much exist on your own. So long as you're reasonably cautious nothing can seriously endanger you. Without government you'd have to rely on others.

So, somewhat ironically, welfare engenders selfishness and individualism, and lack of it forces people together. So a lack of government welfare would probably make America more collectivist, not less. The world is a risky and dangerous place when you're on your own.

[GundamFan0083]

While I don't always agree with you DQ, I have to admit you make very interesting and excellent points.

I can see where a democratic collectivist system (without corporate lobbying) could actually help spur individualism.
This leads me to some of my own ideas on how individualism must be balanced with collective responsibility.
The question for me is where do we draw the lines on both?

[synaesthetic]

We, as a nation, need a goal.

This goal should be space development. What happened to that country-wide spirit of coming together to put a man on Luna before the Soviets? Oh, right, because we had someone to hate.

Why is it that America is only motivated strongly by fear and/or hate?

Don't say we have technological hurdles to space development. That's a flat-out lie. SpaceX has already proven that a heavy launch vehicle capable of lifting 100 tons can be built for less than a tenth what the gubment claimed it'd cost.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Do you live in a "no fault" state?
Because without "no fault" the person responsible has to pay, insurance or no insurance, which is how is should be.
In "no fault" if one party doesn't have insurance the state picks up the tab.
I would think that "no fault" actually encourages bad driving.

Nope, don't live in a no-fault state. And the only way to force someone without insurance to pay for it is to take them to court, after getting the cops to track their license plate number. Odds are you won't recover your money, since you'd either spend more on court bills or the offender wouldn't be able to pay.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

We, as a nation, need a goal.

This goal should be space development. What happened to that country-wide spirit of coming together to put a man on Luna before the Soviets? Oh, right, because we had someone to hate.

Why is it that America is only motivated strongly by fear and/or hate?

Don't say we have technological hurdles to space development. That's a flat-out lie. SpaceX has already proven that a heavy launch vehicle capable of lifting 100 tons can be built for less than a tenth what the gubment claimed it'd cost.

They were actually talking about this on the Daily Show the other night. Saying we need Europe to start a war with themselves so we can supply them weapons for a few years and build our economy back up, and then swoop in as the heroes at the end to revitalize the American Spirit.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by GDB

They were actually talking about this on the Daily Show the other night. Saying we need Europe to start a war with themselves so we can supply them weapons for a few years and build our economy back up, and then swoop in as the heroes at the end to revitalize the American Spirit.

Uh... I'd rather start building space colonies, thanks very much.

But I think we both know which option the GOP would rather choose...

*cough*

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

We, as a nation, need a goal.

This goal should be space development. What happened to that country-wide spirit of coming together to put a man on Luna before the Soviets? Oh, right, because we had someone to hate.

Why is it that America is only motivated strongly by fear and/or hate?

Don't say we have technological hurdles to space development. That's a flat-out lie. SpaceX has already proven that a heavy launch vehicle capable of lifting 100 tons can be built for less than a tenth what the gubment claimed it'd cost.

Syn, you need to be President.
That is one of the most intelligent things I've read in a very long time.
You are right, we need a national goal.
We're lost right now.

Originally Posted by GDB

Nope, don't live in a no-fault state. And the only way to force someone without insurance to pay for it is to take them to court, after getting the cops to track their license plate number. Odds are you won't recover your money, since you'd either spend more on court bills or the offender wouldn't be able to pay.

Both seem to be a problem.
Considering that the public highways and byways are collectively owned by the citizenry, would it not be better to have a government insurance program for motorists?
Not a mandory one, since you don't have to have a car, but in place of these private insurance companies I think we should set up a system in which everyone pays a tax to use the roads and that tax should be used for insurance.

Okay, now everyone can call me a socialist (Fabian preferred ).

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Both seem to be a problem.
Considering that the public highways and byways are collectively owned by the citizenry, would it not be better to have a government insurance program for motorists?
Not a mandory one, since you don't have to have a car, but in place of these private insurance companies I think we should set up a system in which everyone pays a tax to use the roads and that tax should be used for insurance.

Okay, now everyone can call me a socialist (Fabian preferred ).

I think the competition system works adequately for Car insurance, unlike health insurance because when you think about all the abuses associated with health insurance, it doesn't really apply to Car insurance. Car insurance is functionally similiar to house insurance, and it's not really insuring something absolutely related to your welfare. If your car insurer screws up, you can probably move on. With health insurance, you could go years without using it, and once you actually do and they turn out to be a dud then you're screwed for life, as you probably won't be able to get health insurance with another provider at any reasonable cost.

With Car insurance, if they refuse you, you probably shouldn't be driving anyway (be it due to a horrendous record, or some impairment).

Capitalism works extremely well for items that are easily comprehended in the short term, and car insurance has much more immediate effects then health insurance.

The government is satisfied so long as any car insurance you hold pays for other people's damages, anything beyond that is on you. So for instance, some car insurance will cover sudden breakdown, others won't. Some people prefer to fork out the extra cash for that.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

We, as a nation, need a goal.

This goal should be space development. What happened to that country-wide spirit of coming together to put a man on Luna before the Soviets? Oh, right, because we had someone to hate.

Why is it that America is only motivated strongly by fear and/or hate?

Don't say we have technological hurdles to space development. That's a flat-out lie. SpaceX has already proven that a heavy launch vehicle capable of lifting 100 tons can be built for less than a tenth what the gubment claimed it'd cost.

Well, now we know how we can motivate America back into science development. Some random nation appearing out of nowhere that is 2x stronger then the U.S. and far more advanced to make us look bad and motivate us to either steal their tech, or to try to tech up to their level

[Ithekro]

A gothic lolita wearing, homosexual President with bad teeth? That would be interesting. Sounds like something out of Monty Python. We will have to wait until the 2020 election for that though, as Syn needs to be 35 years old to become President. But I can get behind a political Space Platform.

As for emissions controls on cars...I live in California...we probably have the strictest and weirdest set of laws for that in the country as we try to dictate terms to the car manufacturers on the subject. I however drive a car that no longer needs to be Smogged, as it is older than I am (in fact is it 40 years old). They figure the older cars will either run well, or they will have fallen apart by now. It fact it passed its last smog test better than a more modern car at that time (of course we've removed one smog control part since then because that part was failing and making the car run poorly).

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Neither did Lenin since communism was never achieved.
The USSR was a socialist country, as China is today.

Funny guy. Yes, all pandas in China pratice Kung-Fu.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think the competition system works adequately for Car insurance, unlike health insurance because when you think about all the abuses associated with health insurance, it doesn't really apply to Car insurance. Car insurance is functionally similiar to house insurance, and it's not really insuring something absolutely related to your welfare. If your car insurer screws up, you can probably move on. With health insurance, you could go years without using it, and once you actually do and they turn out to be a dud then you're screwed for life, as you probably won't be able to get health insurance with another provider at any reasonable cost.

With Car insurance, if they refuse you, you probably shouldn't be driving anyway (be it due to a horrendous record, or some impairment).

Capitalism works extremely well for items that are easily comprehended in the short term, and car insurance has much more immediate effects then health insurance.

The government is satisfied so long as any car insurance you hold pays for other people's damages, anything beyond that is on you. So for instance, some car insurance will cover sudden breakdown, others won't. Some people prefer to fork out the extra cash for that.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Funny guy. Yes, all pandas in China pratice Kung-Fu.

Okay.
What do pandas have to do with Kung-Fu?
You lost me.

[Vexx]

The USSR was a socialist country, as China is today.

He's saying you're misusing the term if you're thinking it applies to China (which is actually a lot more complicated).

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

He's saying you're misusing the term if you're thinking it applies to China (which is actually a lot more complicated).

Oh, I see.
Well then I would be honored if he'd tell me what China is like now.

On a the subject of the US Elections, did you read this article?

How Michele Bachmann Bought the Ames Straw Poll
http://www.unelected.org/how-michele...mes-straw-poll

I know that poll isn't supposed to mean much, but if that's true it certainly lowers my already low opinion of Mrs. Bachmann.

[Ithekro]

I was under the impression the Straw Poll was basically whoever got the most fundraising done wins (essentially)...which is practicaly buying votes...from a certain point of view.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Oh, I see.
Well then I would be honored if he'd tell me what China is like now.

On a the subject of the US Elections, did you read this article?

How Michele Bachmann Bought the Ames Straw Poll
http://www.unelected.org/how-michele...mes-straw-poll

I know that poll isn't supposed to mean much, but if that's true it certainly lowers my already low opinion of Mrs. Bachmann.

I don't know your citation, but this is how Huckabee won, and Bush before him. Straw Polls are always fairly meaningless, but the Ames Straw Poll is particularly silly. Sadly, so few actually know about how the poll works that the results always seem more important than they actually are.

That being said, I am sad that Pawlenty dropped out. He was a buffoon, but he was still fun. I would have thought that his ranking would have kept him in the race a little longer, but he was apparently spending more money than I thought.