US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[GundamFan0083]

I see, I was just wondering.
I don't like cheaters, and I hope that Bachmann is not the Republican candidate primarily because I don't see Obama winning a second term unless things really turn around, and her as President is as bad as Perry or Romney in my view.

[james0246]

^Nearly every poll currently has Obama winning against any of the current Republican candidates, and since Bachmann was always such a long shot to begin with, her chances were always slim to none. No, I'm more worried that she or Perry could be chosen as a vice-presidential candidate. That could be bad for Obama (and definitely for the country).

[Ithekro]

Considering this is politics and trying to get people to like you first, you play to what you know. At this point there is no real cheating unless you are writing in names of gravestones or holding a gun to someones head. Later on, when the votes actually matter, it us purely voting and things like concerts will not mean a thing.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

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

Well, it is half-and-half. Half of it is free-wheeling capitalism, where greed and pressure to survive is the main theme, and the other half is the state-bureaucratic-capitalism, where the officials controls special sectors and sell special rights and lands to their friend and relatives.

Anyway, I don't think I should derail this thread further that I already have.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by james0246

^Nearly every poll currently has Obama winning against any of the current Republican candidates, and since Bachmann was always such a long shot to begin with, her chances were always slim to none. No, I'm more worried that she or Perry could be chosen as a vice-presidential candidate. That could be bad for Obama (and definitely for the country).

Which is odd considering how far down his approval rating has fallen in recent months.
Tells you what Americans think of the current crop of most of the Republican Candidates.
Accept Ron Paul that is.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Considering this is politics and trying to get people to like you first, you play to what you know. At this point there is no real cheating unless you are writing in names of gravestones or holding a gun to someones head. Later on, when the votes actually matter, it us purely voting and things like concerts will not mean a thing.

I know politics is a dirty business, but it doesn't change my opinion when they cheat.
If they'll cheat over something as trivial as a straw poll, what will they be like when the vote really counts?

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Well, it is half-and-half. Half of it is free-wheeling capitalism, where greed and pressure to survive is the main theme, and the other half is the state-bureaucratic-capitalism, where the officials controls special sectors and sell special rights and lands to their friend and relatives.

Anyway, I don't think I should derail this thread further that I already have.

No, I made a comment about China that you disagreed with, and you set me straight on it.
I don't know how James feels about it, and he's a mod, but I'm glad you told me.
I found this article helpful while I waited for your response.

China today: socialist or capitalist?

http://links.org.au/node/1355
You ladies and gents are teaching this old dog new things all the time.

[Ithekro]

What would hope for (somewhat) is for a TR situation to happen again. One party or the other decides the best way to get rid of someone in their party that is popular but doesn't follow the party line exactly gets put into the position of Vice President. They run the Senate for a few years, and then when the one or two terms are up for the President, the party does not nominate them to follow on and they ride into obsurity (like Dan Quayle). There is of course one problem with this tactic that the Republican Party discovered in 1901...the Vice President is just one heartbeat away from being President of the United States of America. This is how the youngest man to ever hold the office became President...via the assasination of President McKinley. That man of course was Theodore Roosevelt.


Unfortuantely I don't see anyone that would be interesting to be Vice President to fill that sort of roll....nor do I care for the idea of having someone off the President.

[Xagzan]

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?

24 hour news cycle that needs to fill its blank airtime with whatever it can get its grubby little paws on. Hatred and fear sell.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

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.

We need more Neil Degrasse Tysons fighting for the importance of scientific advancement. In fact just recently I saw him saying what you are saying right now, except he said dream instead of goal. But it's the same, he was lamenting the loss of grand dreams in America, like it used to have. How it's gone from a nation that can push the frontiers of the known universe to a nation that simply doesn't dream, has no great aspirations except partisan bickering. Need more of this man.

I don't know what exactly Obama did to NASA aside from grounding any future missions(?), but I do know NASA receives such an insignificant part of the federal budget ($17bil in 2007) that even cutting it entirely doesn't make any kind of visible dent in the national debt (which shouldn't even be the top priority but that's another story). Meanwhile you have hundreds and hundreds of billions spent on the bloated military, which could easily afford to lose a few hundred billion and not feel it at all. But why make things harder for the American war machine, I guess.

[Ithekro]

From what I understand Obama basically cut the return to the moon mission concept in favor of a maybe we can go to near-Earth asteroids and eventually Mars setup...but without an actual plan. NASA probe and other project funding is more or less intact, but the manned mission stuff is practically dead from the lack of a goal. The shuttles removed from service supposely because they served no practical purpose (in this theory the ISS was put in production to give the shuttle a purpose, but also limited the station because of the limits of the shuttle's cargo bay. The ISS supposely has no other real practical fuction as far as Congress is concerned). The Constellation project was the Bush responce to the get NASA moving again by going back to the moon, but permenently this time. That was scrapped as a supposely useless concept by Congress and later the Obama administration.

NASA has gotten more funds than it was expecting, but some of that is for private companies to develop faster. Which to be fair they are. If all goes as planned, by the end of the year the United States will have a fuctioning "civilian" space program in the Falcon/Dragon system and I think the Cygnus system. Both can move cargo to orbit and dock with the ISS, but the Dragon will also be able to carry people into orbit...as many people as the shuttle could carry..seven.

NASA's Orion will be out a while later as a larger, up to date version of the Apollo spacecraft that will be more adaptable to multiple mission types based on what they can connect to the capsule. It is slated to operate outside of Lower Earth Orbit, but can also dock with the ISS if needed.

What I am hoping for is that the civil sector can develop commerce in orbit and someone will actually find us jobs out there (or at least jobs for robots that need to be operated from down here). Industry jobs as oppose to exploration jobs, because while exploration is the fun thing, industry is what will get the politicans and business people interested...and it could help the economy. If we can find, acquire, and use resources from outside our planet, we can have a space ecomony. And if you can have jobs in space, you will need someplace to house the workers, and someone to provide for the workers. You will need space stations and/or settlements on the moon, or the asteroids, or Mars, to provide for these jobs...and that can make money if the resources acquired can be justified verse getting the same things out of out own planet. (The motherload of course would be something we can't get on Earth, or just something rare on Earth that is found elsewhere....even if all they find is a rock of precious metals....that would be enough to warrent a "gold rush" of sorts)

If a President came forward with a platform for space exploration or just an obital and extra-orbital industry platform...I've vote for them. I don't think I'd care what party they were from at that point, nor probably what stances they had on other issues, because that is important to me, because other issues seem petty compared with the chance of species survival by getting off this rock with at least some of our population. Maybe not right then, but everything starts someplace.

[Anh_Minh]

Moon/Afghanistan comparison.

[synaesthetic]

The ISS is so ridiculously pointless. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. It's the NASA equivalent of Palin's bridge to nowhere.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Moon/Afghanistan comparison.

Makes you wonder if those conspiracy theorists don't have a point (not saying they're right tho).

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by james0246

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.

got links on where can i read about this?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The ISS is so ridiculously pointless. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. It's the NASA equivalent of Palin's bridge to nowhere.

Not like I approve of NASA being shafted, but right now we cannot let a bunch of islamist nutjobs taking over Afghanistan, especially when they can possibly make Pakistan fall, we are talking a neighboring country that have nuclear weapons and is regularly in dickfights with India. Not to mention that the fact that Pakistan having sheltered Bin Ladin for about ten years is making me question about where are they really standing.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The ISS is so ridiculously pointless. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. It's the NASA equivalent of Palin's bridge to nowhere.

Like many NASA plans... it started out being a horse but then by the time Congress was done budget snipping it was a giraffo-griffon-pig. Same with the Shuttle... hundreds of design-loops driven by budget cuts. At the end its hard to remember the original idea was to build an industrial platform in space to begin building geo-synch stations where you can actually start to do science. Or go to the moon and build radio telescopes on the Far Side.... or... meh.

[Keroko]

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?

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.

[Ithekro]

About the only fuctional thing (politically) the ISS has is that it provides a joint effort between several different contries in a place that isn't world politics...but it is science and engineering. The EU, Japan, Canada, Russia, and the United States all have instrest up there and are all constributing something to the ISS. Some more directly than others for one reason or another (Canada doesn't have a space launching system of any kind that I am aware of...but they do provide personel and the robotic arms) Japan, Russia, and the EU all provide supplies and ships to support the station... and Russia provides transport for the crew until the Americans can get that rolling agian with the civilian Dragon program.

A station where there is peace. Even if it is only a crew of six. (as oppose to a quarter million)

I'd hope that a use can be found for it aside from long term human endurance testing, small zero-g science experiments and observation projects. It is there already...so why not make use of its existance? It's got those robotic arms. It has long term living conditions....it has a long structural support truss. How about building something on that truss? Something that isn't part of the station. Say...another station, or a spacecraft?

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If a President came forward with a platform for space exploration or just an obital and extra-orbital industry platform...I've vote for them.

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.

And if NASA could even get a bigger fraction compared to the defense budget, then space exploration may have gotten greater progress.

[Tom Bombadil]

The recent Daily show is awesome: all the news reporters pretending that Ron Paul doesn't exist is quite hilarious.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...011-ali-velshi

Edit: Opps, meant to put it in the US election section.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

The recent Daily show is awesome: all the news reporters pretending that Ron Paul doesn't exist is quite hilarious.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...011-ali-velshi

Fucking region blocked.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Not like I approve of NASA being shafted, but right now we cannot let a bunch of islamist nutjobs taking over Afghanistan, especially when they can possibly make Pakistan fall, we are talking a neighboring country that have nuclear weapons and is regularly in dickfights with India. Not to mention that the fact that Pakistan having sheltered Bin Ladin for about ten years is making me question about where are they really standing.

It would be nice if we could just ignore them and let them be India and China's problem. A mutual, "you hate us, we hate you, but if we don't bother you anymore, you shouldn't bother us again either" agreement. But the world has become too small for that now. The oceans of water no longer provide the protection they once did.

Though they do not have the fuctional range to strike the Americans (or even the Europeans I believe) directly, there is still no telling what sorts of smaller nuclear devices could be smuggled into any of these nations. However, if Pakistan, under there current or possible future leadership, is still in a pissing match with India...they will likely focus on India and not the West. And because that warzone is right on the Chinese border, it becomes their problem directly if either side decides to go all out nuclear on each other.

Iran....eh. Maybe they will get nucluear weapons. They have the range to hit Israel and maybe Greece...but they have enemies closer to them than that. Saudi Arabia for one. Also I would go so far as to dare them to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon. Because I know the Israelis have an ace somewhere in case of that. Iran does that, and Iran dies...horribly from the retribution from the Isrealis (and problably others since nuclear strikes are about the only thing the world as a whole agrees is a bad thing. It likely responce is that the first one to use such a weapon outside the UN sactioned members (and even then it is subject to a lot of speculation) will likely be on the receiving end from all the legal nuclear powers weapons as per the concept of mutually assured destruction)

No sane or even semi-sane world leader is going to choose death in atomic fire by launching a small handful of nuclear missiles. The reason the Cold War remained cold or small scale was the concept of mutually assured destruction. While the nuclear powers have cut down on the number of weapon they have...they still have enough to take out everyone else on the planet (at least effectively). First strike is meaningless now as the retribution will happen no matter what. Only the missile defense systems provide some messure of chance against a nuclear strike working...and as far as I know, only the United States is providing that service.

While cutting defense spending seems logical, I would contend that there is a need to maintain what exists in terms of hardware, and maintain a viable replacement policy for said hardware (even if it is only to build a new version of the same thing after the older piece gets old an worn out from use instead of some new tech replacement). The Navy has been cut down a lot in the last few decades. The carriers are barely at replacement level construction now (the oldest carrier, Enterprise, will be retired before her replacement is finished. The next one, Nimitz, will probably be replaced before she ages out...maybe, which would bring the fleet up to 12 carriers, down from 103 at the end of the Second World War). Even then, the Chinese are building to counter them...after all this time. The military will contract in personel after they are pulled out of their current conflicts in the Middle East. The Army will not need to be as large and the Marines will likely not need to be as large. The Air Force may contract a little, but the Navy will likely need to maintain its already reduced levels, partly to defend allies in Asia from any potential Chinese aggression if they actually build those other four carriers. While the Atlanic Fleet and others might not be as needed without the Soviet threat and no other hostile power in the region having a sizable navy, the Pacific Fleet will require the Navy to maintain its size (or even move ships in again) to defend Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea while also defending US territories, Hawaii, and the West Coast.

If we can't find a way to just let things go that is....or if we can handle seeming "weak" to the world...assuming someone doesn't take advantage of that weakness. That has been part of the danger of the Military Industrical Complex...even if you want to get out of it, there are those outside looking in that might see it as weakness and attack...and that has happened before. It just gets so complex that you wonder if it is all about profit, or if it has become the game. The game that if you stop playing you lose, but you can also not win the game unless someone else stops playing. Some don't want to win (in the conquest sense) they just want to survive, but they don't know who is also just trying to survive, and who is going for conquest. The easiest way is to not play...but that isn't an option anymore...it is like Vancouver after a football game. You might not be playing, but the mob violence will still get you because someone else is still playing.

That is probably the hardest part of being President. Not knowing what your fellow world leaders will actually do, and knowing that if you make a mistake, a lot of people will die. Sometimes knowing that even the right choice will result in people dying. You can see it in almost every president...how much they age in the four to eight years they serve. You certainly don't become president for the pay, and your power is limited not only by laws, but by time. You only have four to eight years in that job.