Barack and Vanilla Ice

[kosydar 0]

I'm in the same boat as you where I don't particularly like any candidate. That being said, it scares me to think how popular Obama is, given how he really does not have many qualifications to be President. Unless I'm mistaken, he is a one term Senator (who if it wasn't for Jack Ryan being a sex freak probably wouldn't have even been elected). Hillary on the other hand not only lived in the White House for eight years, but she also has her Senate experience, as well as a lot of insight into Washington through Bill. McCain is an American hero, has been in the House and Senate for a long time, taken great strides to reform the system (McCain-Feingold act), and has shown a willingness to work outside his party that no other candidate has. Obviously the war will be a major issue, but I'm sure the Republicans will find a way to make McCain look favorable in this. If the Dems don't win this election (which at this point is looking like a very real possibility), I think they'll really have to reevaluate their progressiveness in this campaign. This is a Democratic election to lose, and had a white Christian male run, would the results have been different? As racist, or sexist as it sounds I've seen a lot of data and research that shows that many Americans (self proclaimed Democrats) still hold reservations about voting for a woman or an African American.

[usahockey22 0]

As racist, or sexist as it sounds I've seen a lot of data and research that shows that many Americans (self proclaimed Democrats) still hold reservations about voting for a woman or an African American.

Yea, it will be interesting to see who comes out ahead in Texas next week. One of the main problems here is that people just see Barack as a black man and Hillary as a woman. I don't know how many times I've heard from people, or seen interviews on TV, where some person just spouts off about how it's their chance to vote for the first black president or the first woman president, even though they obviously know nothing about the issues. Of course given the superficiality of our mainstream culture, it is not surprising.

There are a lot of young voters coming out, and they don't see another Clinton as the symbol for change. Hillary certainly is more qualified to become president, but Barack better fits the bill of "change" in the eyes of the voters...he also has outdone her when it comes to humanizing himself in front of the cameras, speaking in a way that makes him seem trustworthy. Hillary comes off as being the self-appointed "chosen one" from the get-go, not really opening herself up to people in the way that Barack does. Some of her and Bill's attacks on Barack also haven't gone well for her at all. All in all, Hillary may have more experience, but she hasn't done a good job of convincing Americans that it's true. She and Barack agree on almost everything in the debates, and she hasn't done a good enough job of humanizing herself, differentiating herself from Barack, or adequately explaining why she is the better candidate.

When it comes to actual issues, I really liked Ron Paul's stances...Romney would have been my second choice. For someone like myself who favors a limited role of government, all of the current candidates are very wrong. I would probably go for McCain if he didn't seem like he wanted to start a third world war.

[cxo 0]

Because then at least the nutbag would have a sane partner.

Sane maybe, but I found Romney to be a complete moron, personally. Like I said, maybe I'm the only who sees it this way, but I just wouldn't want to tag my next to Romney's after his campaign.

[usahockey22 0]

Sane maybe, but I found Romney to be a complete moron, personally.

Yea, he probably just cheated his way through the harvard business and law schools. <_<

[cxo 0]

Sane maybe, but I found Romney to be a complete moron, personally.

Yea, he probably just cheated his way through the harvard business and law schools. <_<

Don't mistake education for intelligence.

[usahockey22 0]

Don't mistake education for intelligence.

I don't. (By the way, where did you get your degree....?) But from the debates I saw, Romney came off as the most well-educated of the candidates, at least on economic policy. This is one area in which presidents have been historically lacking.

He might appear to be a fast-talking, slippery businessman (and he probably is), but he's not a moron. I'd say Huckabee takes that prize.

[Chadd 916]

The only way for McCain to defuse the "get out of Iraq now" movement is:

We destabilized the country and destroyed their infrastructure. It would be morally and ethically indefensible if we were to leave them in worse shape than when we went in.

It puts McCain on the high ground without appearing to want war. It also makes any opposition look like the bad guys, something Obama has done a very good job of doing with his speeches. The only way to effectively battle someone taking the high ground is to fin higher ground (cue stevie wonder and the chili peppers).

[usahockey22 0]

Or bring up the fact that if we just totally pull out at once, the govt. we put in place would likely be overthrown ASAP by Iraqi fighters. Thus we end up losing billions in friendly oil "contracts" with our current Iraq government, and who knows if we would ever have any trade or civil contact with any future Iraq government if this were to happen.

I think McCain, along with other republicans, has already brought up the argument that we at least owe it to the Iraqi fighters who have taken our side, and who depend on our support. This argument I think is quite legitimate; the idea of an instant withdrawal of troops, as some on the left are supporting, is ridiculous.

[kosydar 0]

Don't mistake education for intelligence.

I don't. (By the way, where did you get your degree....?) But from the debates I saw, Romney came off as the most well-educated of the candidates, at least on economic policy. This is one area in which presidents have been historically lacking.

He might appear to be a fast-talking, slippery businessman (and he probably is), but he's not a moron. I'd say Huckabee takes that prize.

There is no doubt in my mind that Romney would be the best for the economy. That said, he didn't offer much else. He was very unpopular among other Republicans, as witnessed by McCain's conceding in West Virginia on Super Tuesday.

[Chadd 916]

Or bring up the fact that if we just totally pull out at once, the govt. we put in place would likely be overthrown ASAP by Iraqi fighters. Thus we end up losing billions in friendly oil "contracts" with our current Iraq government, and who knows if we would ever have any trade or civil contact with any future Iraq government if this were to happen.

I think McCain, along with other republicans, has already brought up the argument that we at least owe it to the Iraqi fighters who have taken our side, and who depend on our support. This argument I think is quite legitimate; the idea of an instant withdrawal of troops, as some on the left are supporting, is ridiculous.

They need to learn how to speak in better soundbites.

[lawryde 0]

That being said, it scares me to think how popular Obama is, given how he really does not have many qualifications to be President. Unless I'm mistaken, he is a one term Senator (who if it wasn't for Jack Ryan being a sex freak probably wouldn't have even been elected).

You are mistaken, He is on his second term in the US Senate.

One of our best Presidents of all time, Abraham Lincoln had less experience than Obama. He had only served one term in the house prior to becoming President.

Lincoln had one of the key characteristics of a leader that Obama has. He was an expert at giving speeches.

That's why our current President is a miserable failure (among other reasons), but the ability for the President to be able to convey his ideas and get the will of the people behind him is critical.

If senators and representatives have the majority of their constituency telling them that they agree with the President's policies, they have no choice but to go along with the President or face loosing their next election.

All "good" leaders in the past have been excellent at delivering speeches which rallied the populace behind them.

[mack 44]

Lincoln's overrated though and did a great thing but not for the right reasons.

[Chadd 916]

That being said, it scares me to think how popular Obama is, given how he really does not have many qualifications to be President. Unless I'm mistaken, he is a one term Senator (who if it wasn't for Jack Ryan being a sex freak probably wouldn't have even been elected).

You are mistaken, He is on his second term in the US Senate.

I'll skip the opinion stuff and stick with facts.

Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[lawryde 0]

That being said, it scares me to think how popular Obama is, given how he really does not have many qualifications to be President. Unless I'm mistaken, he is a one term Senator (who if it wasn't for Jack Ryan being a sex freak probably wouldn't have even been elected).

You are mistaken, He is on his second term in the US Senate.

I'll skip the opinion stuff and stick with facts.

Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

My apologies, he's served in two sessions of the Senate.

That doesn't change the fact that he has more experience than one of the greatest Presidents of all time, making everyone’s criticism of his lack-there-of irrelevant.

Lincoln's political experience:

Still, Lincoln clearly understood that he was "new in the field," that outside of Illinois he was not "the first choice of a very great many." His only political experience on the national level consisted of two failed Senate races and a single term in Congress that had come to an end nearly a dozen years earlier.

[cxo 0]

It's because of stupid arguments like these that we will never get anywhere, in anything political, and especially not in this conversation.

[lawryde 0]

It's because of stupid arguments like these that we will never get anywhere, in anything political, and especially not in this conversation.

It's not a stupid argument to question someone’s lack of experience to be President, and then have a civil discussion about it.

[cxo 0]

I'm not questioning the civility of the discussion, I'm questioning the relevance of trying to compare candidates to past presidents who we really don't fully understand to begin with.

[Chadd 916]

It's because of stupid arguments like these that we will never get anywhere, in anything political, and especially not in this conversation.

It's not a stupid argument to question someone's lack of experience to be President, and then have a civil discussion about it.

I would argue that assuming he will do just fine simply because Lincoln did is more of a wish than a certainty.

My quick take on Obama:

He'a more of the same us against them politics that we've had for the last 15 years. Rather than work to compromise, you sit on your position and blame the other side if it fails. We need someone who is willing to make progress, not just change. Not to mention that even the most favorable accounting of his proposals so far has him increasing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars, some as much as hundreds of billions of dollars.

[lawryde 0]

My quick take on Obama:

He'a more of the same us against them politics that we've had for the last 15 years. Rather than work to compromise, you sit on your position and blame the other side if it fails. We need someone who is willing to make progress, not just change. Not to mention that even the most favorable accounting of his proposals so far has him increasing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars, some as much as hundreds of billions of dollars.

Dude, he worked together with John McCain in the senate. How is willing to work with Republicans to get things done make him divisive? Every one of his speeches talks about coming together as a nation and not being a collection of red and blue states, and about working with Republicans to make progress.

From Wikipedia:

Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. In 2005, he co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[57]

I don't recall the exact number of billions we spend in Iraq every month, but he wants to get us out of there. $

He wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts $

He won't get everything done he wants, but he'll have money to do some of what he wants if he does those two things.

[Chadd 916]

My quick take on Obama:

He'a more of the same us against them politics that we've had for the last 15 years. Rather than work to compromise, you sit on your position and blame the other side if it fails. We need someone who is willing to make progress, not just change. Not to mention that even the most favorable accounting of his proposals so far has him increasing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars, some as much as hundreds of billions of dollars.

Dude, he worked together with John McCain in the senate. How is willing to work with Republicans to get things done make him divisive? Every one of his speeches talks about coming together as a nation and not being a collection of red and blue states, and about working with Republicans to make progress.

From Wikipedia:

Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. In 2005, he co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[57]

I don't recall the exact number of billions we spend in Iraq every month, but he wants to get us out of there. $

He wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts $

He won't get everything done he wants, but he'll have money to do some of what he wants if he does those two things.

His speeches and "vision" do not speak to compromise. I think immediately pulling people out of Iraq would be immoral, not to mention incredibly shortsighted. Again, even the most generous accounting and assumptions of immediate and total troop withdrawl still leave us tens of billions of dollars a year worse off than we are now.

We disagree and that's ok. I just think we're talking past each other and additional debate isn't going to change anything.

[usahockey22 0]

Every one of his speeches talks about coming together as a nation and not being a collection of red and blue states, and about working with Republicans to make progress.

Talk is cheap, and so are great speeches. Obama joined the senate a mere 3 years ago, and half that time has been spent campaigning for president. His performance thus far has not been bad, but it hasn't been anything great either.

My own opinion is that if Hillary or Barack gets elected, this country will be run into the ground...the amount of spending and taxation they are planning will be incredible, and this return to keynesian policies is the last thing we need in an economy that is on the brink of recession. The abrupt way in which they plan to end the war will also hurt our image worldwide (yea, I guess it's hard to imagine our image being even worse than it is now, but I think it will be), but more importantly, the economic and national security consequences of abandoning Iraq cannot be risked.

At least if Mccain gets elected, he won't have a republican-controlled congress to just give him everything he wants, as would happen with Hillary and Barack. A slow-down of new legislation in Washington, to me, is usually a good thing. Mccain may be a war monger, but I don't see how congress would authorize another preemptive war at this point, so it's not really an issue.

I truly hope that everyone hasn't fallen for the great new "party of change", which has somehow become the democrats. The democrats have been pursuing the same failing keynesian economic policy of excessive taxation and spending ever since the great depression--their ideas are certainly not any big "change". A real change would be returning to a limited role of government...Ron Paul was pretty close to this, but unfortunately didn't catch on.

[Jason Harris 31]

Your fear of Hilary or Obama running the country into the ground is interesting, considering we had another thread in which we discussed the deficit. As we discussed, 70% of the accumulated US debt since it was last retired in 1835 has occurred specifically during three administrations: Reagan and the two Bushes. One thing I will take to my grave is "trickle down economics" doesn't work, because it misunderstands humans in the way that something from the other side of the ledger, The Communist Manifesto, misunderstood humans.

What I mean by this is humans are like a baseball team; a little bit of interaction is required, but it's mostly an individual sport. The trickle down theory was to cut taxes, particularly to the wealthy, so they could then place the money into the economy and have its effects trickle down to create more jobs for everyone. The problem is humans become hoarders once they have enough in their war chest. Certainly that money can be made available for investment but, for some reason, money invested hasn't seemed to positively impacted our economy in the way that money spent has. For that reason, earlier in my life I would have been all for Ron Paul, but as I've gone through my adulthood, I've come to believe government can direct the economy better than individuals can.

Regarding national experience of the candidates, many people's fifth head for Rushmore had no national experience. On the other hand, many people's fifth head for the restroom also had no national experience.

Think about it and you'll know who's who. ;)

[usahockey22 0]

I'm not saying I support Reagan or either of the Bushes. They implemented some economic policies in the name of the free market, but in practice, these policies mostly benefit the rich and big business.

We already have, in theory, a progressive system of taxation that is supposed to essentially redistribute income from the wealthy to the poor to some effect...anyone who knows anything about the tax code though realizes that what happens is the opposite. Both sides are pushing the extremes...republicans want businesses and the rich to pay less than they should, democrats want them to pay more than they should. I'm not in favor of "trickle-down economics" where the rich get an unfair advantage...I would be in favor of something like a flat, negative income tax like Milton Friedman proposed (assuming that welfare would also be abolished).

I agree with Friedman's "moral argument", that free economic systems allow for more individual and political freedoms. When you put the power of directing the economy into the hands of bureaucrats, you lose your freedom of choice...instead of keeping more of your own money, and making your own purchasing, investing, and donating choices, you are forced to spend more of it on taxes to support big government programs that are supposedly created to help all of the people, but in reality usually only help some of the people. When you have special interests that group together for power, you create laws and policies that are favored by a majority that is really a collection of minorities. Without a unanimous decision, some group of people is always coercing some other group to comply. A free market allows for more freedom and individual choice.

I am basically against nationalizing any kind of service that doesn't meet some key criteria (i.e. national healthcare). In a true limited government system, you could justify nationalizing a service that: 1) would benefit all of the people in the state or country equally, or as equally as is feasibly possible 2) would cost all of the people equally, and the most important factor, 3) would be impossible or unfeasible (for some reason inefficient if left to the market) for the market to provide this service on its own.

Defense is one area that actually meets these criteria, at least better than most of our programs. I don't agree with the nation-building policies of Reagan and Bush, as those go against a limited government...but certainly programs like national health care, social security, welfare, housing, and education programs in government do not meet these criteria.

This is just the way I see it, you are of course entitled to your own opinion...I think history has demonstrated that market control leads to increased productivity (compare the returns and management of a fortune-500 company to some government programs that are just as large), as well as greater freedoms for individuals. If you look at almost any example in the world, generally the freer the system is, the freer the people will be. Quality of living standards, economic measures, all tend to support this.

You have to remember that nobody will manage your money better than you will...when bureaucrats spend money, they are making financial decisions for the public at large, not for their own wallets. There is no incentive to be efficient or spendthrift. Hence why we see government reports each year about the billions of dollars that are wasted simply due to ridiculous costs, mismanagement, or fraud. I'd rather keep my own money than let some politician squander it.

[Chadd 916]

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. G.B. Shaw

[Caustic Mick 0]

That's great. :lol: