United States Presidential Election 2012 MEGATHREAD
2,907 replies, posted
[quote]I think a lot of people in here do not realize the moral and philosophical issues with taking money from someone that earned it, and giving it to someone who didn't. Let alone the economical issues.[/quote]
You are ABSOLUTELY right!
So tell me, what exactly is the justification for a corporate firm to forcefully take the product of a factory worker's labor to distribute in whatever fashion they want? What justification is there to take the produce from a farmer's land to profit off of?
How come the guy who works the field makes hundreds of times less money than the man who forcefully takes his resource?
[QUOTE=Tigster;37627329]Stop calling it redistribution of wealth and pretending the government literally just steals money from the rich and hands it to the poor. People who say that clearly have no idea how a government functions.[/QUOTE]
Redistribution of wealth is not a bad phrase.
It is the phrase the entire world uses except us.
It is amazing that the only reason I am so liberal is because I went to a French school in the USA, where they taught me terms like Redistribution of Wealth without trying to make it sound like a bad word.
[QUOTE=person11;37630320]Redistribution of wealth is not a bad phrase.
It is the phrase the entire world uses except us.
It is amazing that the only reason I am so liberal is because I went to a French school in the USA, where they taught me terms like Redistribution of Wealth without trying to make it sound like a bad word.[/QUOTE]
The reason I hate it being used in the context that it's used in the states is because people who use it generally have no idea what they are talking about. They apply the meaning wrong, and think it's literally a handful of money being taken from the wealthy and given to the poor, as if that's all that occurs, when clearly that's not the case.
It's not a bad phrase, I agree, but people apply it so terribly that it becomes marred.
It just depresses me sometimes how different we are here.
When I graduated from the French high school and went to an American college, there was a huge adjustment period in which I learned that "Socialism" is a bad word for some reason. It also shocked me that there is such thing as people who do not subscribe to Keynesian economics.
[QUOTE=person11;37630603]It just depresses me sometimes how different we are here.
When I graduated from the French high school and went to an American college, there was a huge adjustment period in which I learned that "Socialism" is a bad word for some reason. It also shocked me that there is such thing as people who do not subscribe to Keynesian economics.[/QUOTE]
There's a really prevalent ethnocentrism that just takes hold and keeps people from being open-minded about things. It boils down to "This is America and we do it this way, your way, no matter how efficient or morally correct, is wrong."
Of course, you can fill in the blank about what [I]it[/I] is, but you see my point. Our elected officials use this as a huge talking point as well, pushing that same idea into everyone's head that we are America, and we aren't like those other countries, we're different.
It's laughable hearing people say America is the greatest country on Earth, because it's so wrong. If our methods are so perfect, why is our country tearing at the seams?
I don't think I ever used redistribution of wealth? In fact, I'd argue the way that democrats use it is entirely wrong. Here's why: Wealth is not a set number. Wealth is created by the upper class, so you're not "redistributing it" by taxing it. I think socialized salaries would be more of redistribution of wealth, based on the democrat's rhetoric. But this is only a minor point of my last post. And whoever was talking about the farmers etc.. They are getting paid, it's a job position they accepted. You make a product to sell it, it is not "taken" from them.
My friends only arguement about obama is "lol he made us over 6 trillion in debt." Yes, that is not good, but he spent that to do important things, and he apparently doesn't care about anything else.
Most of my friends are just completely disillusioned with American politics in general. None of them are going to vote, which is sad, but I can't really blame them.
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;37634661]Most of my friends are just completely disillusioned with American politics in general. None of them are going to vote, which is sad, but I can't really blame them.[/QUOTE]
Do they like the free Internet?
You know who doesn't like the free internet? Paul Ryan and friends
Tell them Obama is a pimpmaster
[editline]11th September 2012[/editline]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1211407[/url]
Yesssssss
[QUOTE=person11;37635813]Tell them Obama is a pimpmaster[/QUOTE]Reminds me of this gem from 08
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LIlA_dLWcM[/media]
The biggest problem I have with Romney is that he's so obviously snake oil salesman
Literally half the shit he says is either totally wrong, or he says it to try and appeal to whoever he is talking to the most. I've got no idea what he'll actually DO in office other than act as a puppet for the republican agenda since he's not actually the type of person who comes off to me as someone who actually knows how to lead a country - more like someone who wants to be in a position of power and who has lots of money. I don't believe for a fact that he actually cares deeply about the crap he campaigns for - Obama suffers from this too for an extent... but he has a side to him that makes it apparent that for some of his issues, he actually cares a damn about them.
I don't like Obama for several reasons but at least he's got redeeming qualities and a level... of leadership "backbone". Sure he's a great speaker who tries to appeal to the audience to get his point across but he comes off less as a guy who just wants power and more as a guy who can actually think for himself (even if he still is corruptable for certain policies, even if he sucks at getting certain things he promises actually done, etc). He's not really proven himself as a total loser of a president, even if he's a disappointing one considering a lot of his image is a fascade (as well as a lot of what he promises). But I don't think he's a bad leader at all, and he doesn't have that snake-oil side to him. He just never lived up to his expectation, and dropped the ball several times that goes against what we'd expect him to do (such as the whole deal with those online freedom acts and such).
I'd feel safer with Obama in office than Romney by far.
Ideally I'd like to have someone like Ron Paul but with a poltiical ideaology that is closer to center. Ron Paul would have made an awesome president I felt, as he really knew what was wrong with the country and all the shit that the government kept doing wrong and legimitately got passionate/angry at these things instead of getting overly political and/or wanting it for the power game. However his views on how to actually fix such issues were the dealbreaker for me - extreme libertarianism isn't a good idea for a counntry to do in the modern globalized world. Especially as in this day and age, Trans-National Corporations have proven themselves to hold the real power and corruption (you could say, they are the new colonial world powers) - and a libertarian idealology is perfect breeding grounds for an abusive TNC's-to-people relationship.
more links
warning extremely biased against Romney
[url]http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/i-didnt-know-you-had-families-mitt-romney-told-group-of-gay-parents/politics/2012/09/11/48832?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNewCivilRightsMovement+%28The+New+Civil+Rights+Movement%29[/url]
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/09/mitt-romneys-epic-incompetence[/url]
[QUOTE=KorJax;37636285]The biggest problem I have with Romney is that he's so obviously snake oil salesman
Literally half the shit he says is either totally wrong, or he says it to try and appeal to whoever he is talking to the most. I've got no idea what he'll actually DO in office other than act as a puppet for the republican agenda since he's not actually the type of person who comes off to me as someone who actually knows how to lead a country - more like someone who wants to be in a position of power and who has lots of money. I don't believe for a fact that he actually cares deeply about the crap he campaigns for - Obama suffers from this too for an extent... but he has a side to him that makes it apparent that for some of his issues, he actually cares a damn about them.
I don't like Obama for several reasons but at least he's got redeeming qualities and a level... of leadership "backbone". Sure he's a great speaker who tries to appeal to the audience to get his point across but he comes off less as a guy who just wants power and more as a guy who can actually think for himself (even if he still is corruptable for certain policies, even if he sucks at getting certain things he promises actually done, etc). He's not really proven himself as a total loser of a president, even if he's a disappointing one considering a lot of his image is a fascade (as well as a lot of what he promises). But I don't think he's a bad leader at all, and he doesn't have that snake-oil side to him. He just never lived up to his expectation, and dropped the ball several times that goes against what we'd expect him to do (such as the whole deal with those online freedom acts and such).
I'd feel safer with Obama in office than Romney by far.
Ideally I'd like to have someone like Ron Paul but with a poltiical ideaology that is closer to center. Ron Paul would have made an awesome president I felt, as he really knew what was wrong with the country and all the shit that the government kept doing wrong and legimitately got passionate/angry at these things instead of getting overly political and/or wanting it for the power game. However his views on how to actually fix such issues were the dealbreaker for me - extreme libertarianism isn't a good idea for a counntry to do in the modern globalized world. Especially as in this day and age, Trans-National Corporations have proven themselves to hold the real power and corruption (you could say, they are the new colonial world powers) - and a libertarian idealology is perfect breeding grounds for an abusive TNC's-to-people relationship.[/QUOTE]
Obama definitely sold us snake oil with that whole universal healthcare facade.
Obama essentially applied the Massachusetts health care bill to the whole country. Which puts romney in a exceedingly awkward position.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;37636779]Obama essentially applied the Massachusetts health care bill to the whole country. Which puts romney in a exceedingly awkward position.[/QUOTE]
Not really, he'll just change his stance to match his conservative brethren.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37636600]Obama definitely sold us snake oil with that whole universal healthcare facade.[/QUOTE]
I don't think he really did on healthcare
The biggest problem obama has is he promises the world then gives us an island (which may or may not be because he was sidelined by congress). What we have planned now is a far cry from something like the NHS, but it is a decent step twoards something better. But he's not outright failed or implemented something that's totally fucked things up.
[QUOTE=person11;37630603]It just depresses me sometimes how different we are here.
When I graduated from the French high school and went to an American college, there was a huge adjustment period in which I learned that "Socialism" is a bad word for some reason. [B]It also shocked me that there is such thing as people who do not subscribe to Keynesian economics[/B].[/QUOTE]
What do you mean? Of course there'd be a lot of people that don't buy into Keynesian economics, it is a polarizing issue that isn't even settled in the economist community till today. Economic theories aside, the role that the government should play in the economy directly corresponds to one's values. So you'd get people who want a big government and vice versa.
I suppose. It's just that I have never seen a non American buy into Austrian Economics.
[QUOTE=KorJax;37637613]I don't think he really did on healthcare
The biggest problem obama has is he promises the world then gives us an island (which may or may not be because he was sidelined by congress). What we have planned now is a far cry from something like the NHS, but it is a decent step twoards something better. But he's not outright failed or implemented something that's totally fucked things up.[/QUOTE]
I seriously disagree. I think the bill simply plays into the insurance industry's hands(which it was designed to do), and doesn't really fix the costs of healthcare or address any major issues in the system.
[QUOTE=person11;37638043]I suppose. It's just that I have never seen a non American buy into Austrian Economics.[/QUOTE]
What about an Austrian?
[QUOTE=person11;37636455]more links
warning extremely biased against Romney
[url]http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/i-didnt-know-you-had-families-mitt-romney-told-group-of-gay-parents/politics/2012/09/11/48832?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNewCivilRightsMovement+%28The+New+Civil+Rights+Movement%29[/url]
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/09/mitt-romneys-epic-incompetence[/url][/QUOTE]
Could some people post articles like these against Obama? Preferably logic based and without the use of the word God. I feel like I'm only letting myself jump on the bandwagon against Romney, so the more evidence I see against Obama the more likely I'm moving to Sweden.
Well, these are some of the main non-Santorum arguments against Obama:
1. Occupy Argument: Obama has been using many drones, deporting lots of illegal immigrants, imprisoning Manning and going after Assange, supposedly (meaning not) personally cracking down on Occupy Protests, empowering banks and business interests or something. Stuff about the income gap and internet freedom.
2. Not good enough argument: Obama came into office with a message of hope and change, but has barely done enough to make things better for women and minorities. Black people are at their worst state of inequality compared to other races since before the Civil Rights act, and Obama has not done anything to prevent Republicans from denying women abortions around the USA. Stuff about Obama supposedly ignoring civil and women's rights.
3. Ron Paul argument: Obama has been spending way too much money and the debt will kill us all and the Federal Reserve is evil RON PAUL REVOLUTION. Other stuff about Obama and the evils of Keynes and his economics.
Hey, I decided to do a very quick comparison on campaign donations towards Obama and Romney. This isn't going to be "number of donations below $250", but give a greater idea of [I]who[/I] is donating and [/i]how much[/i] they are donating.
Potential problem is the names of corporations might be shared, but not necessarily affiliate with each other. For example, there are many "ABC"s, but I don't know how many of them are subsidiary or affiliated with the American Broadcasting Company.
All numbers can be double checked at the FEC, and of course this is not a complete analysis.
ABC
Obama: 875 Romney: 0
ABC Studios
Obama: 381 Romney: 0
ABC TV/Lionsgate
Obama: 126 Romney: 0
ACLU
Obama: 532 from various states Romney: 0
Bank of America
Obama: 16,924 Romney: 5,113
Bank of America Merill Lynch [B]NOTE:[/B] Multiple spelling of "Merril Lynch" under Romney, I put them all together as one, if they aren't a single entity I apologize.
Obama: 545 Romney: 6353
Goldman Sachs
Obama: 4,104 Romney: 699
Goldman Sachs & Company
Obama: 168 Romney: 0
Exxon Mobil: All companies
Obama: 11613 Romney: 8166
Shell Oil [B]NOTE[/B] There is a Shell "Exploration and Productions CO" but I couldn't find conclusive evidence that is was related directly to Shell Oil. If it is then these numbers will vary wildly.
Obama: 2856 Romney: 250
Unitedhealth Group
Obama: 1689 Romney: 95
Deutsche Bank
Obama: 1578 Romney: 1350
This is all I have patience to do for now. I encourage you guys to look for yourselves at the donations. Just put in your favorite, or least favorite, company into ctrl + f and see how the candidates stack up.
You realise anybody can donate to whichever campaign they want, feel free to donate to ron paul 2016 (assuming hes still ablebodied enough in 4 more years)
Also france is not a perfect country as you say it is, they have a massive income gap and illegal immegration problem just like us, and they had a bigger stake in the evil lynch bank, redistribution is not evil, just it goes against 200 years of american fiscal tradition
I am pretty sure France is much better than the US on income gap. Much better taxation and healthcare as well.
And yeah, people in the USA complain about Muslims and THEY think there are tensions?
I think France has like, 8% of its population who are not "French" as traditionalists (racists) claim.
Sure as hell not going to vote for Jill Stein
I wish the American Green party was a little less progressive and a little more pragmatic
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;37643653]Sure as hell not going to vote for Jill Stein
I wish the American Green party was a little less progressive and a little more pragmatic[/QUOTE]
I don't think you get the point. They aren't actually trying to win, they are trying to take votes from Obama so that Obama has to promise more progressive reform to win back the votes.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37643872]I don't think you get the point. They aren't actually trying to win, they are trying to take votes from Obama so that Obama has to promise more progressive reform to win back the votes.[/QUOTE]
Ironically that hurts their cause more than it helps it, because if Obama loses over it, you have Republicans. And Republicans don't give even the smallest fuck about what anyone slightly left of themselves think.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37645698]Ironically that hurts their cause more than it helps it, because if Obama loses over it, you have Republicans. And Republicans don't give even the smallest fuck about what anyone slightly left of themselves think.[/QUOTE]
That's the point! If people didn't do this we would have identical political parties. I'm assuming a lot of these people would rather have a semblance of political progress at the expense of possibly electing Republicans for a term or two.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37646624]That's the point! If people didn't do this we would have identical political parties. I'm assuming a lot of these people would rather have a semblance of political progress at the expense of possibly electing Republicans for a term or two.[/QUOTE]
Wait, the point is to create a divide in your own side, making yourself lose, so that the conservatives can do whatever they want?
That's extremely counter-productive to your goals.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.