US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Keroko

Ever stood behind a car who's filter was broken? It's not nice, and in enough quantities a one-way ticket of screwing up your lungs. Now imagine an entire city the size of... oh, say, New York all with cars like that.

It's health protection, plain and simple. Yeah it also helps environmental protection somewhat, but health really is the main concern here.

Yeah, sometimes I think global warming is getting people pissed off and maybe we should do the argument the other way. In a manner that mattered.

Pollution kills people. Never mind ice caps, we all breath air. From that perspective alone, it should be more than sufficient argument both to have minimum emission standards and tax of releasing aerial pollution.

Everyone already pay a fee to get their garbage taken away. So why aren't those who release garbage into the air needing to pay for doing it?

Air is communal. This is the reason why smoking is restricted to certain places but junkfood isn't. If someone wants to eat a deep-fried stick of butter it would not affect my arteries. But if someone wants to smoke next to me than I would be forced to smoke too by proxy. I 100% believe pollution of every kind should be taxed the same way cigarettes are. If only to pay for cleaning up the mess later.

In China the ill and the elderly are already dying because of their near non-existent emission laws. The price had to be paid somewhere.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by flying ^

got links on where can i read about this?

No, and that is the point. I thought Pawlenty was doing okay, but since he did drop out, I have to assume he had money problems (or there was some scandal on the horizon that he was running from ).

Edit: I actually forgot that Pawlenty has spent the most time in Iowa of all the potential candidates, so if he couldn't win a simple straw poll it is doubtful he could win any of the primaries.

[Mentar]

After reading your last note I was scratching your head and wondering if I was jumping to alot of conclusions. I apologize if I did ^_^; ... but you have a pretty peculiar set of opinions.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

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.

Okay, so the USSR was "socialist", but Europe isn't comparable to the USSR. So is Europe socialist or not? *confused*

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?

...

I don't know how I can answer that. It's just unthinkable over here. Germany's basic law _entitles_ the people to the necessities of living. It couldn't even be revoked on a 2/3rd majority, so at worst the government could try to move the goalposts by redefining the amount of cash every unemployed gets in addition to housing, education etc. - but doing so gets immediately challenged in Germany's supreme court (and essentially always rejected). Consider this as likely as a law getting passed to outlaw the private possession of firearms in America.

Without this legal foundation, it is unthinkable to have the Government "withholding" anything.

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.

Economy of scale. It worked while there were no such things as corporations. By now they are dug in so deep with their own bought senators in the pockets and tax loopholes in place that no small business could compete anymore.

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.

Agreed. But going into detail here would go very far. So, only in a nutshell, corporations combined with the current tax code allow the stakeholder elites to siphon off all gains in productivity, leading to a concentration of wealth which becomes worse every year.

Socialist Germany?
When did I say Germany was socialist?

That was one of my assumptions, forgive me if I was wrong here. In America, this is a fixed meme in conservative circles.

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.

If you say that Germany is more collectivist than the US, I'd certainly agree.

Ron Paul is the only candidate I see on the Republican side that has a chance of changing this country for the better.

It would at least be interesting. I'd be particularly appreciative of his noninterventionism, and his lack of dogmatic support for Greater Israel.

The rest are corporate shills who'll just make things worse.
Obama is no better.

I wish I could disagree with you here. Obama has been a terrible disappointment to me.

Who's dismantling the EPA?

The "Drill, Baby, Drill" crew around Big Oil.

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.

I don't think there's such a thing as "your congress". It's just a debate club of bought figureheads.

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.

So why not simply provide it? As long as you push it on the (horrifically ineffective) private insurance companies, only those people with money have access to it. And I believe we're agreed that ER care only isn't healthcare (and actually _increases_ costs compared to preventive treatment)

What I'm against is forcing everyone to buy private insurance just to be a citizen.
And that's what Obamacare does.

So why no single-payer universal healthcare systems like in most other western countries? *scratch head*

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

Including them aswell, yes. Blame my collectivist-christian background ^_^;

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.

Tort reform won't remotely fix your problem, it's the literal fig leaf. Your doctors are earning twice of what they earn in comparable countries, the overhead of private insurers is absolutely rdiculous compared to the much more efficient national healthcare registers in other countries (oh the irony!), and since you forbid the government to properly negotiate drug prices with the drug companies, they are vastly overpriced, too.

What's wrong with David Kuchinich?
Why does everyone get weird about him.

No, don't get me wrong, I really respect Kuchinich! At least he's actually caring for the stuff he's working on, and he's no bought corporate shill. But he's a left-leaning Democrat, so I was surprised to see him on your list.

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.

Fully agreed.

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

I'm not even sure about that. I value freedom alot. My point is rather that in my opinion, rich countries like ours should be able to provide the basic necessities to everyone with no strings attached. I don't want to see homeless people on the street, unless they do so by choice (that's my idea of freedom). But noone should have to worry about where to sleep, what to eat, and where to get healthcare. We're rich enough for that.

And if that means that I'll only see half of my 6-digit yearly income post-taxes and post-healthcare, then so f*cking what. This is where my German catholic (very different to the American breed) social background kicks in, in _my_ opinion it's my duty. I still earn more than enough to make my living.

Freedom starts where constraints and necessities end. In my opinion, knowing for a fact that I can never hit total rock bottom widens my freedoms instead of limiting them. See the point I'm trying to make?

[Neki Ecko]

I wasnt going to even chime in on my opinion about this but I think I will go ahead and say it.

First of all, Obama did disappoint me in some way but Healthcare and atleast trying to be the adult in the room with a bunch of children is a plus, I guess.

I think that the big problem was the 538(?) people in HOR and in Senate, they couldnt just try to get along with each other. It became even worst with Rep/TP was getting involved (Before I get neg rep for this, Its everybody fault not just them).

Obama would get reelected, probably but I think that climate in the HOR/Senate needs to change or all of them needs their walking papers and bring new people in to do the job right.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by james0246

and Bush before him

Bush won it before? I thought no one who won the Ames Straw Poll ever ended up even being on the presidential ticket (at least, not for the two parties).

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Which is odd considering how far down his approval rating has fallen in recent months.

Didn't it just dip below 40%? I wouldn't really call that "far down".

Originally Posted by Kyuu

First things first. Current economic policies need to be fixed. The premise of Reaganomics is not working; and it needs to be reversed. Until then, programs like NASA are mere side-projects.

Good luck with that. You've seen how much the conservative sound byters idolize Reagan like a god, right?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Haak

Fucking region blocked.

For our international friends (forgive the quality):

[Xagzan]

Ironic since with some of his policies, there is no way he'd fit in with today's GOP.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by GDB

Bush won it before? I thought no one who won the Ames Straw Poll ever ended up even being on the presidential ticket (at least, not for the two parties).

Mitt Romney won in 2007 (only to lose the state to Huckabee, who lost the nomination to McCain who lost the election to Obama), but Bush Jr. won all portions of Iowa in 1999/2000 (and the presidency), and Dole won the poll and the state in 95/96 (but lost the election). I'd have to look up the results, but I am pretty sure that the majority of the polls winners never won the bid or the election (I think Bush Sr. won the first straw poll back in 1979, but Reagan won the election with extreme ease.)

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by james0246

Mitt Romney won in 2007 (only to lose the state to Huckabee, who lost the nomination to McCain who lost the election to Obama), but Bush Jr. won all portions of Iowa in 1999/2000, and Dole won the poll and the state in 95/96 (but lost the election). I'd have to look up the results, but I am pretty sure that the majority of the polls winners never won the bid or the election (I think Bush Sr. won the first straw poll back in 1979, but Reagan won the election with extreme ease.)

George W. Bush won everything (straw poll, state, nominee, presidency) in 2004, being the only candidate to win the straw poll and presidency.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Solace

For our international friends (forgive the quality):

You know, that is really incredibly blatant. Imagine if Ron Paul actually got the republican nomination? The media would implode: "Where was Ron Paul, he's just suddenly exploded onto the scene!" He was there all along , you were all just purposefully ignoring him...

[ChainLegacy]

If he won the nomination I'd finally have something to get excited about in politics. I can see why some people are baffled because he's so different from what every other candidate wants, but I'm convinced at this point we've taken the wrong route in this country becoming a world power and Britain's spiritual successor in world affairs. History has never favored this path, and Ron knows it. So even if he's making drastic changes, I'm willing to throw in my lot with someone I at least know will attempt to dismantle this hulking behemoth of a dysfunctional system we have.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Personally, I think Ron Paul is nuts, but that just isn't right. They guy is running for president, and while he probably doesn't have much of a chance, that's a deliberate snubbing. Did he run over Drew Griffin's dog or something?

He's anti-corporate and anti-militaryindustrialcomplex. He's the only actual "small government" person in the field. The rest are either megacorp puppets or theocrat whackjobs. I've watched Ron Paul for decades (used to live near his district). He's consistent in his libertarian stances. I've always said every congress needs at least one Ron Paul in the mix.

So.. naturally our US corporate media is going to ignore him. Its tragically superficial - they're focusing on Michelle for whatever sex appeal she has for old men and they're focusing on the heavy corporates who also belong to rather "interesting" religious beliefs (Mormonism and Dominionism). Fear Dominionism... really.

[Kyuu]

Gee... Ron Paul does well... and big media ignores him. The assholes. I swear.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...--the-top-tier

[Vexx]

reference conversation:

So why not simply provide it? As long as you push it on the (horrifically ineffective) private insurance companies, only those people with money have access to it. And I believe we're agreed that ER care only isn't healthcare (and actually _increases_ costs compared to preventive treatment)

So why no single-payer universal healthcare systems like in most other western countries? *scratch head*

That's because the 8000 pound gorilla (the health insurance lobby) squelched any attempts by Dems or GOP to provide a single payer system. The bomb of "forced insurance" that conservatives keep screaming about was the result of direct demands by the insurance corporations before they'd agree to stop dropping people for coughing. Hear that? It was the Corporations that wanted forced insurance NOT "the guvmint". That's when I start wondering about the basic clue levels of my "all government is bad" colleagues. It shouldn't be called Obamacare... its the trainwreck of the health insurance lobby's doing and their puppets in Congress.

Gee... Ron Paul does well... and big media ignores him. The assholes. I swear.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...--the-top-tier

As I said elsewhere, Ron is anti-corporate (probably one of the few consistent libertarians out there in that regard) and the corporate media refuses to give him air time.

[Xellos-_^]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s broadside against Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday night was a remarkable departure from the usual approach of major presidential candidates toward the Fed, which has been to make any criticism delicately and politely.
Perry was neither delicate nor polite. “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas,” Perry said. “Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost ... treasonous in my opinion.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z1

is the GOP also going to run on a blame bush campaign?

[cors8]

Treason charge coming from someone who "joked" about secession... how quaint.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z1

is the GOP also going to run on a blame bush campaign?

Of course not. They'll blame Obama and pretend that Bush was this innocent maiden who did only right.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Yeah, sometimes I think global warming is getting people pissed off and maybe we should do the argument the other way. In a manner that mattered.

Pollution kills people. Never mind ice caps, we all breath air. From that perspective alone, it should be more than sufficient argument both to have minimum emission standards and tax of releasing aerial pollution.

Everyone already pay a fee to get their garbage taken away. So why aren't those who release garbage into the air needing to pay for doing it?

Air is communal. This is the reason why smoking is restricted to certain places but junkfood isn't. If someone wants to eat a deep-fried stick of butter it would not affect my arteries. But if someone wants to smoke next to me than I would be forced to smoke too by proxy. I 100% believe pollution of every kind should be taxed the same way cigarettes are. If only to pay for cleaning up the mess later.

In China the ill and the elderly are already dying because of their near non-existent emission laws. The price had to be paid somewhere.

Pollution kills, but Carbon Dioxide doesn't - not in the quantities we're getting. Except, of course, if you consider its action as a greenhouse gas, and then we're back to the global warming thing.

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.

So what if that person isn't solvent? That's what (mandatory) insurance does - make sure that if you cause an accident, you can pay for it - through your insurance. I suppose if you're some kind of millionaire, I suppose you could put a large sum of money in escrow somewhere for that purpose, but it's just simpler to not make exceptions. If you're so rich, buy the whole insurance company and buy a policy from yourself or something.

You could tell me you're such a good, careful driver you'll never cause an accident - to which I'll answer "they all say that. Buy a goddamn insurance policy or walk."

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.

Reading rapidly - the "no-fault" thing is pretty alien to me - it doesn't seem to be about insurance at all. It's about the American Way of taking everything to court and it costing fortunes.

Here, typically, if two drivers get into an accident, each insurance company will reimburse its driver and sort out who was responsible among themselves. There might be some argument with the premiums, but not to the point where we have to give up on telling who the hell caused the freaking accident.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by GDB

Of course not. They'll blame Obama and pretend that Bush was this innocent maiden who did only right.

The GOP was blaming Obama while Bush was still in office.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

The GOP was blaming Obama while Bush was still in office.

there are republicans that blame Obama for the Auto company bankruptcies.