OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Irishmafia2020]

I'm voting for the dangerous, Muslim, Terrorist, Socialist, radical, black guy - who wants to redistribute the wealth....
Oddly, those were all selling points for me!
In his defense he has kids, plays basketball, and uses the internet.... Just like me!

[Tifone]

Now "Terrorist" and "dangerous" would hardly seem "selling points"

Except, well, of course those are trash as we all know...

Even McCain says Obama is a "decent family man"! (someone still has to explain me why in the mind of our enlightened McCain, "arabs" cannot be "decent family men" )

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

That's somewhat my notion as well. Too bad that Condi Rice isn't a candidate. The US having a black woman as president, that would really be a signal. And somehow, strangely, I'd think that she'd even have better chances of winning than Obama.

I'd vote for condi in a minute - or powell.
Just. not. Soteuro.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by rabelais

Heh. I can't believe I'm going to respond to this... triumph of hope over experience explains so many things...

The increasingly obvious attempts of the GOP to suppress votes and violate the constitution which is the legal basis of our social contract makes your civic discourse ref-working laughably moot. Look at history since say, well, ever start with hunter gatherers if you like... the liberals (those in favor of agriculture, staying in one place long enough to ferment grains... or in favor of heliocentrism, public sanitation, natural selection, universal suffrage, or whatever the era happened to bring, have nearly always been right. Even the uber-liberals of yesteryear (Jefferson, Lincoln) seem bizarrely conservative by today's standards. Wait 30 years and see if gay marriage is still an issue, assuming civilization doesn't go all MadMaxish.

Saying true things may be impolite, but immature is a much higher standard.

In any case I think Obama is WAY more mature than I am, and conspicuously more so than McCain except neuro-degeneratively.

I said nothing about 9/11... other than I hope the goat book gets a central display case in W's presidential library, I suppose.

Did you miss the eighties or the last eight years? What I said about Reagan is not factually controversial... and the data on the elections is pretty compelling.... check out RFK jr writings, or bradblog...be interesting to see if the media episteme changes once cheney and addington are out of office.

What is conservative about the bush doctrine or monster deficits,the unitary executive, or... well almost anything they've done that wasn't cynically throwing a bone to the fundies?

Look, I'm sorry if you think I'm being unfair. But the current republican party has so violated the trust of the country that calling them out for their unprecedentedly bad behavior is really the least we should do.... it's ironic that the nigh-whimsical impeachment of clinton for bull****ting about private marital infidelity should have insulated bush from impeachment for truly world-historic crimes, at least in terms of trashing the united states.

Now I really need to work on that CBM Man pretender, if you wish to continue discussing my hypertrophic sense of alarm and civic indignation send me a PM? I think we're upsetting Gandalf.

Rabe

I have never claimed that either party had a monopoly on virtue. Motivating your voter group to vote - and making it seem invincible and surpressing the vote of your opponents is the point of election - as long as its legal.

For every scandal of surpression I can name you one of fictitious voters - such as the famous daly machine in chicago - the kennedy machine in massachussets - cynthia mckinney bussing thousands of supporters to the polls after they were closed in Atlanta.

The republican party hasn't violated the trust of the country any more or less egregiously than the democrats did. Clinton perjured himself under oath - and it was proved and that was far worse than anything any republican has been proven to do.

You don't like the republicans - I get it - but this constant, weird, leftist schism between our government and our people is whats unprecedented.

Like it or not, part of the social contract is - we elected a president - now - until you can vote him out or impeach him - act like he *is* your president, it is your congress.

[Ylvali]

Originally Posted by otthegreat

I'm curious about what some of our friends outside of the US (i.e other dominions players) think about the two party system. I agree with what seems to be the general opinion here that it needs some work.

Well I´m from Sweden and here many of us are quite concerned about your election as well as the finanical crisis. Regarding your political system I can only speak for myself (and to me it is horrendous) but fact is that when referring to the US as a democracy many friends of mine and other swedes put "democracy" in quotes.

For us it is simply very hard to swallow a two party system with such abysmal variation between the two alternatives as "democratic".

Especially when a majority of the votes don´t always mean victory.

I guess I´d vote for Obama if I was american, but I´m afraid that even with him we will have to continue sending humanitarian aid to, and receive refugees from, areas ravaged by US invasions and "pre-emptive strikes" (FYI one small swedish town accepts more iraqi refugees than the entire US)

Our image of the US will remain that of an unpredictable bully to be feared and watched closely. A country so powerful that you have to sign deals with it even knowing they will be systematically broken. Our goverment will remain silent in fear of repression, and our political right will seize the opportunity of the crisis to push for privatization, tax-cuts and economic deregulation (the shock doctrine on export)

It would take a LOT of work to change that image. But I do hope you´ll try, for the sake of this planet.

[sector24]

Politics is far too deceptive for me to glean any kind of understanding. I can only understand my own position and even then it's hard to say which candidate will serve me better or if either candidate will serve my interests at all. (I suspect the only one looking out for me is me)

I would like to see a strong diplomat in office. Someone who could repair our relationship with countries that are supposed to be our allies, but secretly don't like us all that much. However, neither of the candidates come close to fitting the bill. So I think we're going to spend another 4 years in which the entire world thinks we're a bunch of arrogant cowboys that do whatever we want.

Second, I would like to see an economist in office. Someone who knows how to run a business and do it successfully. Again, no luck there. So we're going to spend another 4 years in which the administration goes deeply into debt while simultaneously telling everyone in America to do the exact opposite and save their money for retirement.

Oh, also I'd really like to not have to pay more in taxes. I currently give back 52% of my income to the government. I earned it fair and square, stop stealing my money.

[Aezeal]

as a reply to the last few posts:

Ehm as an outsider I think Obama would fit the diplomat who fixes bonds far better than mac. (We do thing america doesn't listen much to the rest of the world and while I can respect the fact you put your own before others (they are elected to help their own) I think the way america is doing it now is not with enough consideration for the rest of the world, I'd also like to note that unlike most I'm not per definition against the war in iraq) Not in the least due to the fact that even our most rightwing political parties are more leftwing than even your democrats (but they would still "fit" better with us than the republicans). Also most person I hear thing america is odd cus they are being so hard on abortion and on the other hand don't do much about gun control and have a bad healthcare system for a first world country (3 things which I, and probably most around here see fixed better under democratic rule than under republican rule.)



The 2 party system as such doesn't bother me that much since politics is about compromising and in the 2 party system the compromises are made before elections within the party which then turn out the compromises and one of them gets elected and does things somewhat as they said they would. With us here all parties are generating more differnt stand points but after election they still have to work together with 2-3 parties and then they have to make compromises which always makes pplz unhappy too. (IMHO to few peoples want to understand that making compromises is what politics is all about.. you can't get it all your way... )

Sector: I don't think putting an economist in office would make that much difference I'm pretty sure all departments dealing with economy have plenty of economists in there and I'm also pretty sure they intend to do the best for their country and so will give decent advice to the one in office.

I also think pplz see taxes to much as money getting stolen, the money doesn't go to the government and vanish there (well most of the time) some of us are payed by that actually, healthcare, the roads we drive on etc etc etc etc. you all know this and it should be taken into account. Here pplz might complain abit (a lot) but in the end stuff is arranged for us etc and that costs money

PS some of the problem above probably just arise from the fact that a too large part of america is "strange" IMHO (against abortion, pro-gun, pro setting america above the rest of the worls...etc etc etc) since that is, in the end the reason politics last decades has been as it was.

I'll be the first to admit I've never been to america though.

[sector24]

Economist is probably the wrong word. Businessman perhaps would be more accurate. The problem with the current economists is that all of them have ties or used to work for the companies that caused all the trouble in the first place. I'd like a 1st line of defense that would veto bills that are financially irresponsible. I know it's a lot to ask for.

The stealing money thing is a joke (mostly). I don't mind paying for roads and whatnot, but 52% is a lot for the US. I think the average is something like 29-32%. You know the old saying, "A fine is a tax for doing the wrong thing. A tax is a fine for doing the right thing."

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

as a reply to the last few posts:
I also think pplz see taxes to much as money getting stolen, the money doesn't go to the government and vanish there (well most of the time) some of us are payed by that actually, healthcare, the roads we drive on etc etc etc etc. you all know this and it should be taken into account.

Unfortunately the more money the government takes the larger it becomes. One of the biggest and most important long term benefits would be changing taxes into a flat tax rate. There are so many people in government and outside of government who spend their lives just crunching numbers and reading tax laws. Think of all the long term benefits if all these people and the people of the future would instead be spending their lives providing medical research, new businesses, technologies, etc., etc., .

I do see higher taxes as money vanishing... I'll provide just two personal examples.
First I know a single mom of 5 kids with only highschool education who cannot take a job which pays her more than $9.50 an hour because it means the government will drastically cut the healthcare and financial support she recieves for her kids. She calculated for her to take a job which can match what the government provides it would need to start her at $60,0000 a year. This type of government interaction has trapped her into a poor lifestyle with no way out. I remember being excited how I found her a medical job where she easily qualified that paid $15.50 an hour and then I was shocked when she explained why she could not apply for the position.
Second is my brother works at one of the state universities... and you would not believe how government money is wasted. First the universities must spend X amount each year otherwise they will not recieve their yearly government increase. As a result the universities buy extra supplies ranging from computers to furniture whether or not its needed. Most of the extra supplies are sent back after a year or two to make room for new supplies. I heard another story where a dean cut three university jobs for her department which would have helped the department and then gave herself a raise claiming she saved the university money... the raise was about a $30,000 increase. What other jobs allow you to vote yourself a raise... oh yeah congress... that's messed up.

Within these two scenarios it's obvious there's no real system of checks & balances... the government just blindly throws money at these departments. So until I have the option to vote where my taxes are being spent I will fight against every dime being taken. Will a new president be able to redistribute the wealth fairly... NO because the government is broken and unfortunately only congress can fix it. Neither the democrats or republicans have shown effort for what really needs to be fixed.

[thejeff]

I'll agree with your single mom example. It's a silly system. A more graduated drop as you earned more would make far more sense. And universal health care would make a lot of those issues go away. Having health care tied to employment leads to a lot of problems and results in a system that costs more and produces worse results than other "developed" countries.

As for your university example, any decent sized bureaucracy works the same way. Any good sized company is full of politicking over departmental budgets and personnel. More money translates into more importance.

More importantly, I'm not sure how a flat tax addresses any of your concerns. I assume you're talking about a single income tax rate with no (or minimal) exemptions or deductions? Simplifying parts of the tax code would have benefits, but I don't see what that has to do with the actual flat part of the flat tax. You could equally well remove the deductions and keep graduated tax rates, or have a single rate with all the complex deductions.
A flat tax would also raise rates at the lower end and, especially if you also remove the deductions for her children, make your example single mom's situation worse.