Can we talk politics?
 

For everyone who is in the US or who follows the politics in the US, do any of the current presidential candidates stand out to you? If so, what makes them stand out to you?

And even if you don't want to answer the above questions, you can answer this one...

Which issues are at the very top of importance to you? Taxing? Healthcare? Social Issues? Education? The War? Obviously all of the above should be of importance, but which would be the most important when it comes down to the vote?

Ron Paul stands out the most to me. The most important issues I see are the war in Iraq (and overall middle easten foreign policy), government spending, taxes, and monetary policy.

free healthcare

We will never have that. The United States is never going to switch to free health care. Because of the fact of all the illegals would rush to the hospitals and there would be no paper work so there would be a problem there. Watch the movie Sicko. It explains it.

People who run for presidency lie more then my eyes blink...And I try very hard not to blink.


They promise us stuff they never bring because well congress never passes anything.


I would like to see America quit worrying about who has the most money, which company is paying of what people in DC. And looking at the big picture not just the small picture. America has a lot more problems then any other country.

I never said if it was going to happen or not, I was saying it is something I would want. DAMN U CANADA!!!

Sorry took your post out of wording. Yeah it would be nice to see Free Health care in America. But then again.......We will not see it for a long time. As long as we have big billion dollar companies paying off people in congress to deny such a bill we will never see it. So I take it the more money your company has the more laws you can break and the more power you can do anything with huh?

The War is the main issue....and I'm sure there is no one right way to approach it. The ideal situation would be anything that removes our troops from that area while also leaving a stable government behind. It'll take years to fix properly so I'm obviously going to be voting for people that are willing to stay the course and manage that problem over the long term.

On the home front I'm concerned about the following:

- Education: Anytime we can spend more money on education I'm all for it as long as it's put to good use. I do not agree with the way the education system is run (at least in my experiences with it both as a student and as a big bother seeing both my siblings deal with it).

For one thing funding should be sent where it's needed most. I'm kinda torn here because allowing federal money to be spent means every state can benefit but it's often mis-managed to the point where I can see at least my local schools begin better off without it (in other words the states would have to take care of their own).

Another thing: The teachers are still underpaid, lets raise the wages to attract good educators and get rid of the useless ones (and there are plenty of them in the system that's for sure). Also buying new equipment for a football team with everything it already needs is not a good use of funding!!! Sports come after the classroom, not before.

- The Internet, Big Media, DRM, Consumer rights: Anyone that supports further restrictions of my rights automatically gets placed on my "shit list". ;). I'm a firm believer in freedom on the internet and freedom to copy media/files I own and have paid for. I do not support restrictions on anything in the name of "the children" or whatever other hot-button issue comes up.

- The war on drugs: Just as bad as the war on Iraq IMHO. My opinion of the war on drugs is this: Catching violent drug dealers is good but filling up the prisons with "drug users" is bad.

If someone is sitting in prison for a drug charge and has not committed a violent crime isn't it obviously a bad idea to stick him in a system with tons of violent criminals? How can you not expect someone to come out of prison worse off in a situation like that? You know they tell "war stories" in there right? ;)

<"So, what are you in for?>

I think we should go easier with the drug charges, fines instead of prison time would be a good start (although it varies from state to state). Prison should be a last resort after things like counseling and rehab are attempted. Drug use (especially addiction) are the result of other personal problems more often then not.

My point is these people need help and we should attempt to help them. If you can help someone that has gone astray and made a few mistakes and turn them into a working and productive member of our society then we've done the best we can do and that is obviously a better use for the money than what we spend it on now (go look up how much it costs to keep one man in prison for one year).

- Social issues: Gangs are still a huge problem everywhere and the issues go very deep (a lot of things are drawn a long the lines of race, after that comes control of resources and money). Worse yet they are even operating inside of our prisons! (I really hate prisons because it's just a hot bed of bad activity -,-).

We need more people out in the field keeping up with the gangs. Most of the large cities have "gang units" that take care of this stuff. I think we should have one in every community, and it should be there before there is already a large problem if possible. This is mostly a local issue but the federal government could help out in some respects (training begin the main one.)

- Health Care: The current way is total bullshit imho. Insurance hasn't changed since the days when it was sold from a horse and buggy. I would be willing to allow a portion of my pay to go towards a fund which would insure health care for me (and others) when needed. If I walk into an ER I shouldn't have to worry about begin turned away nor should anyone else.

Medications should not cost an arm and a leg. The producers of medications should not be allowed to profit off the illness of the people in the world.

- The Space Program: Lots of stuff going on at NASA atm, a lot of it not good. ;/

Things we need as far as the space program is concerned:

1) A reliable way to get to low-earth orbit (and beyond) after the shuttle is retired.
2) A replacement, or extending the planned de-orbit date of, the Hubble Space Telescope.
3) I'm not in full support of a "manned Mars shot". Instead I'd like to see more probes sent to more places of interest. Putting a man up there is great and all but it just drives up the cost of missions. For one manned mission we can do multiple unmanned missions.

O and NASA is always in need of more funding. -,-

- One paranoid issue to end this post: Anyone that supports anything resembling the world of the book 1984 isn't getting my vote. ;) I'm happy I live in the boondocks where they the pine trees provide a lot of cover and they'll never be able to put up cameras (or at the very least, I can avoid them).

Signed - The man in the tin-foil hat.

O yea, did I mention it's almost impossible to find someone that I'd like to vote for? ;) I think it's obvious that no sane person would run supporting most of the things I do! :D What I try to do is get an idea of who the person is behind the agenda and politics. In other words I try to vote for the one that has their head screwed on correctly. ;)

Technically, there isn't such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay.

The overall issues for me are energy independence and a self-building economy relying on local workers. For this purpose the ideas put forth by Dennis Kucinich and his Green Works Program are the most sound. It would move the United States from an Oil Bank based energy policy to a Solar Bank based energy policy. Solar Bank energy includes not only solar but wind, small hydroelectric and tidal power generation. We have the technology to make the switch but it will not happen as long as Big Oil controls the government. Both Bush and Cheney come from families that made all their money off of oil and still do.

Switching would decrease the need for us to be in the Middle East and therefore the need for this war which is no longer really about terrorism but control of oil reserves. It would eliminate the need to continue converting our crop fields for corn and soy to make e85 ethanol and biodiesel. It would create decent good paying jobs instead of the largest employment sector living off minimum wage in the retail industry. It will also bring technology improvements to other sectors of our lives.

Unfortunately, I do think that Kucinich's ideas are too much for the conservatives in both parties to handle. However they would reshape this country much like Roosevelt did to work on bringing us out of the depression and through World War II. Therefore my campaign will be to get him appointed Energy Secretary of whoever does get elected. The president is only as good as his advisors.

A lot of people might think I am crazy but I am a huge supporter of John Edwards. If people would just listen to the way he speaks and what he speaks about I believe that any "Democrat", would like to see a person like him in office.

Universal Healthcare? John Edwards not only believes in that strongly he was the very first candidate to come out with a specific plan to funding it ( including cutting the billion dollar tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans that Bush imposed ). He also says, promises and explains how that is Congress refuses to pass his Universal health care bill that 1 year after he is in office all of Congress will lose their government sponsored health care. In case you were wondering, yes he can do that.

Education? He was also the first cadidate to come out with a detailed Education plan. The plan is titles college for everyone. It basically states that anyone can receive Tuition and books free of charge from the Governement if you qualify for that college and you also work up to 10 hours a week at a job of your choosing. John Edwards believes strongly in working hard in order to become a better person. He grew up in Robbins, North Carolina which is basically like a 1 way street town with dirt roads and become what he is now.

The War? He believes that all combat troops should be completely removed within the first year of his administration. He also believes STRONGLY that the all nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of. You can look more into his explanations of this on google. He voted for the way in the beginning..he will be the first to say that. However, one of the things that stands out about him is that he ADMITS to his mistakes. He has said time and time again he was just plain wrong for doing that. Have you EVER heard Bush say he was wrong? Have you really ever heard any politician say they were wrong?

The Internet? John Edwards is probably one of the biggest supporters of Net Neutrality running right now. He has not only advocated that, he has even wrote articles about that on sites like "The Huffington Post". His comparison is calling the Internet like a highway. Basically saying that we do not restrict certain highways to company sponsored transportation. So, certain parts of the Internet should damn sure not be restricted. He is a huge advocate of the Fair Use policy. He also believes that the people should be educated on the fair use policy so they do know that unless they actually have purchased the program/music it is illegal to download it from another source and that there are punishments for that. I don't know how much more you can ask from a candidate.

Anyway, sorry for turning this discussion into sort of an ad but I can honestly answer both questions you asked from just speaking about John Edwards. To the Ron Paul supporters: Ron Paul seems like an OK candidate but do not vote for him just because you like to go with the "Internet crowd". He believes in leaving pretty much EVERYTHING up to the states. My question to him is what will his decisions be when he actually has to use his brain instead of leaving everything up to the states? What about the things that states cannot decide. I have heard him enough talking about what he will leave up to the states..what will he do with the things that cannot be left up the states. Maybe you should ask that too.

I'm 100% behind Ron Paul.


Socialized healthcare works for a very short time before the economy can no longer sustain it. France and U.K. are both starting to run into trouble with it. There is no rationing mechanism since it is socialized.

I don't like very many of Kucinich's policies. I'm a libertarian and he is pretty far to the left, BUT, if he were to get the Democrat nomination and Paul didn't get the Republican nomination, I'd vote for him. He is honest and intelligent. These two qualities are something I value, currently, more than political positions.

Now come a day far in the future when things aren't so messed up, I'd vote political ideas. But right now, I'm more concerned with people who have noble intentions.



Anyways, I'm a libertarian/minarchist. I believe in maximizing freedom. (Freedom to, not freedom from.) Free market, no government involved in anything except enforcing contracts and such. I'm easily swayed though if someone can find faults in my beliefs.

Hillary Clinton + The War

I'm not north american, but Ron Paul makes me feel happy for you guys.

Very true.

Thank you! :)

I think some people have to get out more. It's no secret that socialism doesn't work. The fall of the soviet union isn't a secret; just open up a history book.

Anyway, education is a very important issue for me. I support Giuliani as far as that goes. It is critical to our country's education that we use vouchers to create competition between schools.

And if Hillary get's elected and tries to give us "free" healthcare, and pulls us out of Iraq, I'm going to leave this country, lol.

I am going to make my self clear. Hilary is just a speaker she is not a leader.


She knows how to speak but she doesn't know how to lead a country.


Plus if she pulls out the troops and say we get attacked again it's just another slap on our wrists. We are a big country but we are so scared to do anything.

I'd like to see educational reform to some degree. Starting with the No Child Left Behind Act.

The key word is "vouchers". Another thing that's not a secret--competition creates quality!

Ron Paul is the only logical choice for America. He's the only one that speaks honestly about the issues facing our nation. No other candidates voting record even comes close. Ron Paul all the way!!

What line of work are you in whitemike? Whatever it is, would you like to do it for free? I doubt you would, which begs the question; why you would want others to provide service to you for free? Universal healthcare and all forms of socialism are immoral. No one has the right to take something from someone else even if the government allows it.

Hey Brad, I read your list and I think Ron Paul fits about 90% of it, especially the war. He voted against it from the beginning. He's against the Dept of Education and wants to return the power to the states. He's never voted to regulate the internet, strongly opposes the war on drugs for the same reasons you mentioned, and he's a doctor and has some great ideas on the medical problems we face. Here's a good interview with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA7jHaowNME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWdz1pnAFUA

You know what, I have a problem with these so-called Ron Paul supporters. I'm not trying to point my finger at anyone here, but I highly doubt that anyone who supports him is actually a Libertarian. I think they're just anti-war liberals.

I am a libertarian and I would support Ron Paul if he wasn't anti-war.

The Libertarian party does not support the Iraq war. At least 70% of Americans are against the war. I can't imagine that anyone who is truly informed could be in favor of the Iraq war. For that matter, he's not anti war. He's anti-unjust, undeclared, pre-emptive war.

Here is a press release from the Libertarian party yesterday.
http://www.lp.org/media/article_545.shtml

Apparently the Libertarian party doesn't share your views. :rolleyes:

I'm a libertarian with a lower-case 'L'. I'm a very conservative libertarian. And there's more to being a libertarian than your position on the war.

And I don't see how anyone who is truly informed can be against the war. Violence is down 70% since last june. And I don't understand how people think we can win this war by withdrawing.

The war debate is going to come down to what news source you choose to believe. I don't buy the main stream media's report they want me to hear on the war. There is a lot more violence there than there was before we ever invaded their country. Our soldiers are still dying. We had no business being there in the first place because there were absolutely no ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. About 1.2 million Iraqis have died as a direct result of our involvement. Don't bring some arbitrary statistic of violence being down as justification for a war we should have never started in the first place. There is nothing "conservative" about invading a sovereign country and killing its citizens. :rolleyes: There is no "winning" option for this war. We lost the day we marched in illegally. The war is a huge factor in the decline of our dollar, higher oil prices, the massive increase of our deficit, and the decline of our economy. It has generated ill will for America worldwide. Again, there is nothing conservative about any of that.

We are in a war buddy, people are going to die. And if you're trying to say that American lives lost at the hands of a country who wants us dead is justification for our withdrawal, then you're batty. And you can't dismiss the statistics because it's inconvenient for you to acknowledge them.

--------------- Added [DATE]1197388951[/DATE] at [TIME]1197388951[/TIME] ---------------

Right...and you think we should just leave and everything will be peachy right? There's two sides to a war, the violence isn't going to stop if we just up and leave. It will spread.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had no connections to the terrorists. We are at war under false pretenses.....you know, those weapons of mass destruction that were never found. :rolleyes: Please show me what Iraq did to us to warrant our invasion. You sound like a Fox News lapdog. Your opinion on the subject doesn't matter. No warmonger is going to be elected president because anyone with half a brain doesn't support the war.

We went in to remove a dictator and set up a more stable country. I'll write more later, I have guitar lessons.

Oh ya, Iraq is a lot more stable now. :rolleyes: Please, spare us anymore warmongering propaganda. Start your own thread about that BS.

Cheney in 94. I wonder what happened to his rationality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

The media doesn't show what you really need to see. Over in Iraq we are doing very good.

How do you know? Are you in Iraq?

Ncturnal, maybe you should take your ad hominem somewhere else, and spare us the bumper-sticker-arguments.

I predict this thread will be closed soon :D

:rolleyes: It looks like you need to brush up on your foreign policy just like Mr 911 does.

David Cross pretty much sums it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7aFXRAW7mg

Educating Rudy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

There is no shortage of countries that have unstable governments but you don't see us meddling with those. The Iraq war was about OIL and OIL alone. It has nothing to do with anything else and if you can't see that for what it is you're living in a dream world. Spare me the propaganda. We've been hearing that crap for years now. SCARRORISM at it's finest! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMqN0g-cAOU

Yes, let's all listen to the guy who get's all of his information from YouTube.

And even if it was just for oil, I don't want to hear you complaining when oil prices skyrocket if we leave.

Ncturnal I have been over to Iraq many many times. And the media controls this country. They don't show you exactly how good we are doing over there. The media only shows us deaths, and stuff. They never report on what achievements we have made for the Iraq people. Keep in mind you can't go to war without people dieing. Plus most of the media is democratic stuff. They are going to bash bush and the war and everything else. But if you haven't gone to Iraq your self then you really do not know how good we are doing over there. Ask some of the soldiers. Plus I will say a lot of soldiers knew what could happen when they signed up for the job. They want to protect our country and that is there job. Now some soldiers just signed up for the money and think that we would never go into war but they are wrong.

Plus you have to look at the picture from both angels not just one. Not just the one that you have always looked at. Sit back and really think before you say something think of all area's of this.

I will agree that yes Iraq did not crash planes into the world trade center. It was the terrorist group. And yes we should be focusing out troops more on Bin Laden then anyone else.

Now taking down the power in Iraq was a good idea because those people were in a bad country. Did we find Weapons of Mass Destruction No but he DID have the ability to produce them. That was the major threat.

Are troops dieing? Yes, It's a war.

Should we pull some troops out? Keep word some yes.

Do we exactly know why we got bombed on 9/11? No the only person who knows that is Bin Laden.

The fiscal irresponsibility of the war is driving our currency in the ground and you want to talk about oil prices? Even if oil prices remained the same, the net effect will be a price increase due to the devaluing of the dollar, but if you haven't noticed, oil prices have already gone up, but I'm sure the war has nothing to do with that. :D At least the oil companies are showing record profits since the start of the war, otherwise it would be a total loss. :up: I'm more concerned with our reckless spending on this war and the needless death of 1.2 million people than I am oil prices. We've spent $1.2 TRILLION (and climbing) so far on this war and your best argument is gas prices? https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2007/12/31.gif Where do you think this money for the war comes from? If you think this qualifies cheap oil, all I can ask is are you that bad at math? For example, we use over 20 million barrels of oil a day. The AP said today that oil will average $85 a barrel in 2008, which is $1.7 billion a day or $620.5 billion a year. So if we would have just bought the oil instead of spending it on the war, we'd have almost 2 full years at our current elevated prices or 6 years at pre-war oil prices. Justifying the death of 1.2 million people for cheap oil is repugnant but it doesn't surprise me coming from the Rudy camp.

Where do you get 1.2 million dead? What we have done, is free the Iraqi's from Saddam so they can exterminate each other...lotta love between those muslim brothers over there.

I think the media in general favors the war. They were key in pushing the WMD propaganda that was used to justify the war in the first place.

No doubt, but this war could have been prevented. WMDs was cover for other ulterior motives prompting this war. Oil interests are the sole reason for us being there.

I'm prior military and a Gulf war vet. I still have plenty of friends in the armed services. None of them I know want to be there and they don't want to play policeman for Iraq. The suicide rate for veterans is around 18%. Ron Paul has received more in donations from military personnel than any other candidate and that has to be because he's the only one promising to bring them home.

Agreed

I completely disagree with this point. The WMD scare was just hype. Iraq never posed a threat to us. They didn't shoot down a single plane in 10 years prior to this war. Their Army is a fraction of what it was during the Gulf war. They have no Air Force or Navy and no way to launch an attack against us. There are countless other "bad countries" that we completely ignore no matter how many of their own people they kill. The ONLY reason we took an interest in this one is because of OIL. There is no debating this and that nullifies every contrived justification for killing 1.2 million of their people.

An unnecessary one.

We know exactly why he did it. He told us specifically why he attacked us: Our ties to the Saudi family, our occupation of their holy land, and our support of Isreal. The 911 attacks were blow-back as a direct result of our foreign policy in the Middle East. The 911 Commission report confirms this. Paul Wolfowitz confirms this. Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA's Bin Laden group confirms this. I really don't get why this fact alludes some people. You can't do whatever you want to other countries and not expect some sort of retaliation. You can bet if someone did the same things to us, we'd retaliate.

--------------- Added [DATE]1197409793[/DATE] at [TIME]1197409793[/TIME] ---------------

655000 since we invaded in 2003. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html The rest were during the sanctions we imposed. Yes, a lot of them are killing each other, but we are directly responsible for a majority of the 655000 deaths otherwise. We are also responsible for the civil war that has ensued. Even Cheney admitted in 94 that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. (posted earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY) It doesn't take much to understand that we created the mess.

Well, I would argue with your assessment we are responsible for their hatred for one another. What I will ask, is those who are fervently opposed to the war such as yourself never seem to offer any suggestions on how to make it right (pulling out is a stupid answer, so please don't go there). Also, Ron Paul for Pres...thanks for the chuckle...I needed the laugh this afternoon ;)

Agreed.

Removing a leader (no matter how awful) does no good if you don't have a plan for his people after he leaves (or is killed). If you go back through history you'll see the results of doing that time and time again.

I don't support a "pull out" because it's the worse thing we can do at this point. It'll take years and years to fix and I don't have all the answers but we need to do something to resolve the issues in Iraq.

Our goals should be:

1) Removal of US troops over time. If we are doing the things we should be in Iraq we should be able to remove a number or troops over a period of years. Removing them all tomorrow would be useless (the warlords in the area would just fight with each other after we leave in an attempt to control resources). Leaving them over there for an extended time (5 - 10 more years) in full force is also a bad option.

In other words we need a smooth, steady, withdraw from Iraq.

2) The Iraqi people must be able to Govern and protect themselves from outside threats and threats from within their own country. If we do not achieve the goal of putting a stable government in place all of this was for nothing.

Of course this all goes out the window if things don't go perfectly. Am I the only one that thinks Iraq will no longer be a country years from now? I honestly think it'll split itself into smaller countries over time if the Iraqi people can't agree on (and accept the workings of) their new government.

Our goal should be to repeat the success in Japan after WWII.

edit- I should mention that I never agreed with or supported going into Iraq in the first place. IMHO we did a bad thing by going in no matter how much people talk about removing "Saddam and his evil empire".

We've screwed up and now it's up to us to make it *right*. That's why I *do* support staying there until things are stable, no matter how long that takes.

I didn't mean to imply that we are responsible for the hatred they have for one another. I meant we were responsible for a most of the 655,000 that have died. I'm not even sure if the 655,000 figure includes the ones that have killed each other.

Suggestions going forward? Stop ++++ing around with the internal affairs of other countries. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and we have some overwhelming problems at home that need to be corrected before we are qualified to preach to others that there is a better way.

How is pulling out a stupid answer? We are going to have to leave eventually and the net result will be the same whether we leave 1 year from now or 10 years from now. History repeats itself and this is very much like Vietnam. Everyone said there would be chaos when we left there and communism would over run the world but it never happened. We lost 60,000 troops and Vietnam lost 3,000,000 people. We didn't accomplish anything by imposing our will and going in on false pretenses and Iraq is no exception. At the rate we are going, we will have no choice but to leave Iraq for economic reasons because we are hemorrhaging and nearing total bankruptcy. The dollar is nearing collapse and countries are already starting to drop it to use the Euro instead. The current course is not sustainable especially when we borrow the money from China to fund the war. At some point the money will stop and they will not be able to tax enough to cover the costs. Then what do you suggest? It is morally wrong to offload the burden of our mistakes to the next generation of Americans.

So Ron Paul as President makes you laugh? Why is that? Because he's honest? Because he's the only one that has a clue about the economy? Because he's one of the only defenders of our liberties in Washington? Because he votes against all the wasteful spending? Because he's the only one that takes the oath to uphold that worthless piece of paper we call the Constitution? I suppose you're right. We'd be much better off with the corrupt, business as usual politicians who have done so well up to this point. Get real.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2007/12/30.gif