2012 Presidential election thread

[Dak]

So with your logic: compromise = slavery?

I very specifically stated that was no the case in the previous post.

And I supported DADT repeal, because it's not like flaming faggots are going to rush to join anyway. I'm just happy to not be in danger of getting kicked out anymore. The whole "battlefield readiness will suffer" argument is total bullshit too.

"Battlefield readiness" is one of those wonderfully vague terms politicians (generals are included as politicians) like to use.
I brought up DADT specifically because it was a great example of political compromise. Regardless of it's affect on the military, the general consensus is it is wrong to descriminate in any way/shape/form based on sexual preference. You were not happy with this compromise, because it was still wrong.

The same is the case in any more or less restrictive form of government. They are all compromises, or a "deal with the devil" in a manner of speaking.

Laizze Faire doesn't work, socialism doesn't work, so we have to stay relatively close to the middle.

This assumes these ideals are extremes on a linear scale. We also haven't had a free market economy in the US, and a state is rather anathema to the market.

The reason I brought up compromise (besides all the propaganda on the news regarding the debt deal), was that these are not extremes on a linear scale, but two of many different types of ideals/philosophies about life.

Your logic seems rather flawed in light of this reality, to "stay in the middle" of two ideas you claim don't work, would most likely produce a bastard child which doesn't work. The U.S. is a great example of this bastard child, and it doesn't work.

However, it doesn't fail due to the capitalistic injections, but due completely to all affects of the state. The banks were able to game the system to ruin the economy only due to the Federal Reserve/fractional reserve system, which exist/get their power because of the state.

Compromise with something that is wrong is no compromise at all.

 

[Dak]

So with your logic: compromise = slavery?

I very specifically stated that was no the case in the previous post.

And I supported DADT repeal, because it's not like flaming faggots are going to rush to join anyway. I'm just happy to not be in danger of getting kicked out anymore. The whole "battlefield readiness will suffer" argument is total bullshit too.

"Battlefield readiness" is one of those wonderfully vague terms politicians (generals are included as politicians) like to use.
I brought up DADT specifically because it was a great example of political compromise. Regardless of it's affect on the military, the general consensus is it is wrong to descriminate in any way/shape/form based on sexual preference. You were not happy with this compromise, because it was still wrong.

The same is the case in any more or less restrictive form of government. They are all compromises with a corrupt force/idea/entity, or a "deal with the devil" in a manner of speaking.

Laizze Faire doesn't work, socialism doesn't work, so we have to stay relatively close to the middle.

This assumes these ideals are extremes on a linear scale. We also haven't had a free market economy in the US, and the state is rather anathema to the market.

The reason I brought up compromise (besides all the propaganda on the news regarding the debt deal), was that these are not extremes on a linear scale, but two of many different types of ideals/philosophies about life.

Your logic seems rather flawed in light of this reality, to "stay in the middle" of two ideas you claim don't work, would most likely produce a bastard child which doesn't work. The U.S. is a great example of this bastard child, and it doesn't work.

However, it doesn't fail due to the capitalistic injections, but due completely to all affects of the state. The banks were able to game the system to ruin the economy only due to the Federal Reserve/fractional reserve system, which exist/get their power because of the state.

If it is wrong, it is wrong. There should be no compromise. You, of all people, should understand that.

 

[Badbird]

I wonder if Ralph Nader is going to run for president again. I might even support him.

 

[Badbird]

And Ralph just said he is not running for president in 2012.

 

[Draehl]

90% Laizze Faire
10% Socialism to combat outliers and things the government should properly handle. IE FDA, military, antitrust, SEC, general oversight (NOT on the excessive regulatory front, but keeping a keen eye on companies just to make sure they aren't doing something egregiously against the common good).

Social security, welfare, etc. can be handled privately or by getting people jobs rather than just handing everything out to them. We should sooner see massive public works programs than any form of welfare.

 

[Dak]

90% Laizze Faire
10% Socialism to combat outliers and things the government should properly handle. IE FDA, military, antitrust, SEC, general oversight (NOT on the excessive regulatory front, but keeping a keen eye on companies just to make sure they aren't doing something egregiously against the common good).

Social security, welfare, etc. can be handled privately or by getting people jobs rather than just handing everything out to them. We should sooner see massive public works programs than any form of welfare.

Who watches the watchers?

 

[King Richard]

I've been paying attention to the political escapades this year a lot more than in recent years. And Yahoo! has posted a few of these fact checker type articles on some of the stupid shit these Republican candidates say. Not surprisingly, most of them are a bunch of lying weasels, but after reading the article I found one of the reader comments pretty when he said something along the lines, "Where's the fact checker on Ron Paul? Oh right, he isn't a liar." I swear Ron Paul is like the Rodney Dangerfield of politicians, especially in these presidential campaigns. No respect.


Link: http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-slippery-assertions-gop-debate-032527744.html

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Any Green Party fans here?

Yup. Never have and never will vote for either of the two corporate parties.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I've been paying attention to the political escapades this year a lot more than in recent years. And Yahoo! has posted a few of these fact checker type articles on some of the stupid shit these Republican candidates say. Not surprisingly, most of them are a bunch of lying weasels, but after reading the article I found one of the reader comments pretty when he said something along the lines, "Where's the fact checker on Ron Paul? Oh right, he isn't a liar." I swear Ron Paul is like the Rodney Dangerfield of politicians, especially in these presidential campaigns. No respect.


Link: http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-slippery-assertions-gop-debate-032527744.html

That's about right.
Also, on Dak's point of taking a linear view of politics: Society can't be categorized in terms of black and white (or right/left, capitalist/socialist if you like). Most people make this error. Think of politics (to use a mathematical analogy) as a grid with 2 or more axes rather than a straight line. The solutions to our socioeconomic problems are more likely to be solved if we think 2 or 3 (or 4!) dimensionally rather than 1 dimensionally. It's this very limited worldview that has held us to the same ideas that were developed in the 18th and 19th centuries (capitalism, democracy, socialism).

 

[Draehl]

@Saparmurat

Let's go with strongly socially liberal, strongly fiscally conservative, and a moderately isolationist world view.

IE:

-Legalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, gambling. Heavily tax the unhealthy shit.
-Drastically reduce tax rates for everyone, welfare, foreign aid, corporate welfare. Oh, and drill baby, drill.
-Keep a strong domestic military and ramp up even further our intelligence capabilities but don't go dicking around with covert ops and invasions left and right. That's why we have so many enemies.
-Build a fucking wall along the mexican border, deport all illegals, then completely open up legal immigration to whoever can pass the test.

 

[Dak]

@Saparmurat

Let's go with strongly socially liberal, strongly fiscally conservative, and a moderately isolationist world view.

IE:

-Legalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, gambling. Heavily tax the unhealthy shit.
-Drastically reduce tax rates for everyone, welfare, foreign aid, corporate welfare. Oh, and drill baby, drill.
-Keep a strong domestic military and ramp up even further our intelligence capabilities but don't go dicking around with covert ops and invasions left and right. That's why we have so many enemies.
-Build a fucking wall along the mexican border, deport all illegals, then completely open up legal immigration to whoever can pass the test.

Sounds kind of like the USSR minus lower tax rates and open immigration.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

@Saparmurat

Let's go with strongly socially liberal, strongly fiscally conservative, and a moderately isolationist world view.

IE:

-Legalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, gambling. Heavily tax the unhealthy shit.
-Drastically reduce tax rates for everyone, welfare, foreign aid, corporate welfare. Oh, and drill baby, drill.
-Keep a strong domestic military and ramp up even further our intelligence capabilities but don't go dicking around with covert ops and invasions left and right. That's why we have so many enemies.
-Build a fucking wall along the mexican border, deport all illegals, then completely open up legal immigration to whoever can pass the test.

Those are all things I would do except for the wall. I actually think that having a porous border is an advantage rather than a detriment. Besides, the reason that illegals flood into our country (not so much since the recession that is likely going to turn into a depression) is because of the easy access to welfare and a high (by global standards) minimum wage. If we make minimum wage only accessible to American citizens, that would curb a lot of illegal immigration right there.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

"Build a fucking wall along the mexican border"
yes!
I'll add, bring home the fucking troops and have some of them guard said wall. No more dicking around. KOS, stay away from the wall!

 

[King Richard]

In perfect isolation, here behind my wall.

 

[Dak]

You wouldn't need the wall/troops if there were no easily accessible freebies.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

That's pretty much what I just said.

 

[Dak]

That's pretty much what I just said.

Not really. Without an oppressive police state there is no way to ensure things will "only be for US citizens".

There should be no minimum wage, or heavy taxes on "unhealthy things", or an increase in spooks/military.

 

[Dak]

They even sound the same!

 

[King Richard]

Just donated $100 to Ron Paul's campaign and saw my name on the little donation ticker. That was kinda cool.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Not really. Without an oppressive police state there is no way to ensure things will "only be for US citizens".

There should be no minimum wage, or heavy taxes on "unhealthy things", or an increase in spooks/military.

Of course you could pay illegals good wages under the table, but pretty much every reputable employer requires copies of identifying documents. thereby verifying citizenship. Of course, if we were to live in a completely anarchistic society, all those meddlesome regulations wouldn't be there to cause us headaches. I can see how that would be cool, but I really enjoy modern conveniences and technology, which would be extremely rare/non-existent without some sort of centralized government.