The Offical TIF American Elections thread

[magekillr]

Precisely. Reagan's Ghost and the Republicans would argue that less regulation is the key to solving such a crisis.

 

 

 

It just tickles me that we're almost forced into nationalizing these institutions rather than by choice. I think it will get better, but if your credit is bad or even remotely touching anything related to bad, you'll never own a house for a long time.

[Deiophobus]

What you mentioned about delaying the inevitable Ginger, are you really sure about that? I'm just wondering how worried I should be about this.

 

 

 

P.S. I have been reading this thread from page one, but since I don't like to confront people much any opinion posts of mine would have been ignored, that's why you haven't seen me before.

[Ginger_Warrior]

What you mentioned about delaying the inevitable Ginger, are you really sure about that? I'm just wondering how worried I should be about this.

 

Eventually, we'll enter recession. I don't think there's anybody doubting that, even Alastair Darling.

 

 

 

And yes, you should be worried. The government has had to put loads of public money into the banking system to stop it collapsing on itself by renewing confidence and writing off all the 'bad debt' that couldn't be repayed. This means two things:

 

 

 

1) Either the government will raise taxes. Probably not in the short term because it needs people to spend money, rather than take it away from them. But eventually, this could be a possibility

 

 

 

2) A reduction in public spending. Universities, libraries, schools, hospitals, council services - they all suffer massively in a recession.

 

 

 

Because the banks will attempt to keep a hold of every penny they have at the moment, getting a mortgage will be near impossible. Gone are the days of getting a mortgage, doing your house up, selling it for a higher price and moving up the property ladder. This means people will likely be renting rather than buying their own houses, which means business for builders, plumbers, contractors and the like will suffer massively. Such industries are the foundation of civilisation and economic expansion, so that will have wider repercussions, including a reduction in the demand of primary goods.

 

 

 

Companies will earn less money - expect to see job cuts.

 

 

 

All this against the backdrop of rising fuel and food prices.

 

 

 

The extent of a recession is far reaching, and in some cases, puts people under extreme difficulty. My government seems intent on energy saving - that's not gonna help the people who will freeze to death during the winter this year because they can't afford to heat up their homes.

[Deiophobus]

I guess I should be thankful my parents have tenure at the University here.

[The Dark Lord]

This election, I'm rooting for Obama. McCain doesn't seem any different from George W. Bush, in my opinion, and McCain doesn't promote human rights. He has said clearly that he would oppose any legislation that would grant the right to gay marriage and any anti-hate crime laws that are inclusive of anything pertaining to the LGBT community. (An anti-hate crime law that is inclusive of homosexuals, bisexuals, and the transgender community would make it a punishable crime to commit any violence and discrimination against an LGBT. Some think it would "violate" freedom of speech -i.e. bashing gays due to "religious reasoning"- but really all this would do is give people who are sexual minorities a sound mind when they go to sleep every night or even a sound mind at work/school, and would make sure that all states and local governments actually prosecute a crime that was motivated by anti-LGBT hatred. Sadly, the nation is pretty much split down the middle. About half have anti-hate legislation with inclusive language protecting people for their sexual orientation. The other half have no legislation protecting sexual minorities. Furthermore, only a very few amount of states in the half that protect people of sexual orientation actually protect transgendered individuals. (transsexuals/intersexed individuals, bi-gendered, "genderqueer," cross-dressers, etc.) Radical Conservatives (mainly Evangelical Christians) are trying to fight against laws that would protect the inalienable rights of human-beings to have equality; this would of course include gay marriage and anti-hate crime laws. A recent example of an anti-hate crime legislation would be the Matthew Sheppard Act. Matthew Sheppard was a gay college student who was beaten severely by bigots, all because of his sexual orientation. He died in the hospital due to his injuries. The Matthew Sheppard Act would protect people based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and expression; of course the currently existing anti-hate laws based on religion, race, and national origin would remain intact. This Bill passed the Democratic House and Senate in late 2007 and George W. Bush threatened to veto it. Nine Republicans supported the Bill. John McCain refused to vote on it. In order to protect the Bill, they attached it to a proposal of funding more money into the war in Iraq. I do not know the status of the Matthew Sheppard Act, but I fear it has already been vetoed out of spite by yours truely, President Bush.)

 

 

 

Also, why should I vote Republican? They criticize Democrats for not having a "good enough" plan to execute their promises, yet the Republicans had a perfect opportunity earlier on in the decade to pass anti-abortion legislation; however, they never did it. In my opinion, the Democrats do make an honest effort to carry out their promises. Also, the conservatives seem against human rights (as relates to LGBT community and feminist ideals); they claim to be "pro-life" yet many of them also revel in the idea of the death penalty. Nothing pro-life about it; it's just terminology to gain emotional appeal and nothing more. I also believe that the conservatives are biased towards religion, especially Christianity. I, for one, support the separation of church and state. Also I'm staunchly against the death penalty, as I see no ultimate justified reason for it. It still violates human rights and many innocents are murdered due to executions and unfair trial. I can understand the emotional dilemma of the people involved who lost their loved one(s) due to a killer, but vengeance was (and still is) not the proper answer. It's easy to just convict someone of a terrible crime and then finalize everything by executing the individual; however, there's no guarantee that the person wasn't innocent and that the real perpetrator is still on the streets, murdering as we speak. I also think a pro-choice stance is the best answer to a very hard subject. Who are we to decide what's right and not right for a pregnant individual? We don't know how that person got pregnant. It's definitely not right to force a birth on an individual. Let's no forget the USA PATRIOT Act, which infringes on basic human rights. A person may be monitored without cause and a non-citizen may be arrested without cause. It violates the Constitutional and International policy on Freedom of Privacy.

 

 

 

Also, did anyone hear about when the nominees went to a big church to debate each other in order to appeal to the Evangelical community? It's sad that that even happened. Religion should not be a determining factor in politics, especially since many Evangelicals are radicals.

 

 

 

Radical Religion + Politics = Dangerous Theocratic Nation

 

 

 

Oh and by the way, I'll probably get flamed for this post by some radicals. Hey, I dare you to flame it. You won't accomplish "teaching a lesson/converting that damned godless Secularist" and your post may end up being reported, depending on the severity. I've already got forced into a debate by a religious radical at my school this week. She lost. (Of course she said she "won," probably do to the fact that it was like a twenty person-on-one debate -with me being the one- and that she threatened me, got in my face and screamed, and had many people throwing things at me.)

[Lordjake]

For someone who's advocated transparency, Palin sure doesn't bring much of it to her campaign.

 

In order to get some foreign experience, she's scheduled to meet with some foreign leaders this week, but just today she announced that all reporters are banned from the meetings... only photographers and a television crew are allowed in.

 

It pretty much turned the meetings into a photo-op #-o

 

 

 

And how can the Republican party think she's more prepared to face foreign leaders, than reporters/Biden? :wall:

 

I mean, I know she didn't do that well in the Gibson interview, but c'mon...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit:

 

Looks like she agreed to let 1 reporter in, when all the news networks threatened not to report on the meeting at all, thus negating any press Palin would receive.

[magekillr]

I want to know why foreign leaders even agreed to meet with her in the first place. Moreover, sorry, but foreign policy expertise and judgment isn't contagious.

[jackattack]

I don't see why any foreign leader would decline to meet with a possible future Vice-President.

[Saru Inc]

For someone who's advocated transparency, Palin sure doesn't bring much of it to her campaign.

 

In order to get some foreign experience, she's scheduled to meet with some foreign leaders this week, but just today she announced that all reporters are banned from the meetings... only photographers and a television crew are allowed in.

 

It pretty much turned the meetings into a photo-op #-o

 

 

 

And how can the Republican party think she's more prepared to face foreign leaders, than reporters/Biden? :wall:

 

I mean, I know she didn't do that well in the Gibson interview, but c'mon...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit:

 

Looks like she agreed to let 1 reporter in, when all the news networks threatened not to report on the meeting at all, thus negating any press Palin would receive.

 

 

 

Totally unrelated, but lol at Biden saying ROOSEVELT was President in 1929, and on the TV in 1929. And you guys mock McCain lol.

[Ginger_Warrior]

McCain thinks there's a border between Iraq and Pakistan now.

 

 

 

Biden didn't know who was president eighty years ago.

 

 

 

Make your own mind up.

[Quoi_Tu]

This just made me laugh (at both camps). They're like little kids:

 

Asked if he would vote against a plan that doesn't contain provisions he wants to help people keep their homes, Obama said, "I'm not trying to dictate one particular way, for example, to protect tax payers."

 

 

 

"But I need to be convinced that tax payers are going to get an upside on this thing and can be made whole when the economy recovers," he said.

 

 

 

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds responded to Obama's speech, saying in a release:

 

 

 

"Whether calling for a bipartisan oversight board or prohibitions on golden parachutes, Barack Obama is simply following in John McCain's footsteps while trying to respond to this financial crisis."

 

 

 

Obama-Biden spokesman Hari Sevugan said in response:

 

 

 

"Contrary to the lies told by the McCain campaign, it was John McCain who followed Sen. Obama's lead in laying out principles that call for strict oversight and accountability, protecting taxpayers and cracking down on CEO pay. We only wish he had adopted those same principles over the last 26 years rather than cheerleading for the deregulation agenda that helped produce today's crisis and repeatedly opposing limitations on the obscene compensation given to failed CEOs."

 

Article

 

 

 

 

As far as I can tell, the two candidates have very similar economic plans, but continously try to treat them as different or say they thought of it first.

[Lordjake]

Totally unrelated, but lol at Biden saying ROOSEVELT was President in 1929, and on the TV in 1929. And you guys mock McCain lol.

 

Ok, so Biden was 4 years off regarding FDR's presidency...

 

 

 

Palin is about 65 million years off regarding dinosaurs.

[magekillr]

As far as I can tell, the two candidates have very similar economic plans, but continously try to treat them as different or say they thought of it first.

 

 

 

Are you including their tax plans inside of their economic plans?

[Quoi_Tu]

As far as I can tell, the two candidates have very similar economic plans, but continously try to treat them as different or say they thought of it first.

 

 

 

Are you including their tax plans inside of their economic plans?

 

 

 

Well, true, I wasn't really thinking of tax plans. In that, they're quite different.

 

 

 

It does seem as though McCain is copying Obama, but I think that just has to do with a general concensus on some issues amongst economists. It seems like the big thing economists differ on are taxes.

[magekillr]

McCain has "suspended his campaign" and is asking Obama to do the same. He is also asking to "delay" the debates.

 

 

 

McCain is sweating like no tomorrow, and as he very much should be. Excuse me John, 3 days ago you said the economy was strong, and now you want to discuss a crisis?

 

 

 

If you can't juggle financial crisis and your campaign, how can you be President? Because a president never has to deal with foreign policy and economic issues at the same time?

 

 

 

Fuh pete's sake. If he can't handle both, he can't handle being president.

 

 

 

This is obviously nothing more than a political gamble, something McCain likes to take part in quite frequently it seems.

 

 

 

Also, what does "suspending" even mean? Are you closing your offices? Are your workers "off" temporarily?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Hey, if he wants to do that, let him. He's being damaged from his affiliation with the Republicans over the whole crisis anyway. He needs to be on the attack, and reinforcing the idea he's not more of the same.

 

 

 

Obama's a good 4pts ahead right now according to the BBC's poll sources. I'd settle for that.

[magekillr]

Also a note Ginger, national polls are not good indicators for American elections because our states actually choose the President (I know you're aware of this).

 

 

 

A national poll could have Obama 51%, and McCain 49%...yet Obama could win in a landslide.

 

 

 

He's polling excellently in Virginia and Colorado, and he only needs one of them to win the election.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Yeah I know. A minority voted for Bush.

 

 

 

I was illustrating the point that Obama's "pulling power" is generally better than McCain's at the moment, in terms of voters.

[Deiophobus]

I tried to have a serious talk about the economy with some people online today (my first mistake). First they said "Lol, Americans losing their imaginary paper money, how sad". Then I tried to explain that it would affect them too, as they're English. And they said "My parents pay for my stuff it won't affect me.".

 

They went out to say I knew nothing about economics, and say good riddance that the American economy was bad.

 

:roll:

[megakiller32]

I hate Obama's view on immigration, more or less summed up:

 

Deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impractical. - Yes it is,

 

Immigrants are scapegoats for high unemployment rates. -Again, agreed here, but

 

Illegals shouldn't work; but should have path to citizenship. - Of course they should work, they mooch off another countries society, and get free citizenship!?

 

 

 

Imo, if you're an Illegal immigrant, unless you can do some decent work or manual labour, bugger off.

 

(But what do i know, i'm not American.)

[Hawks]

Personally I would vote for McCain because he's not Obama and now he's got Palin who's pretty much full of win. :D I can't vote though, only 14 now... Gotta wait 'til next time.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I hate Obama's view on immigration, more or less summed up:

 

Deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impractical. - Yes it is,

 

Immigrants are scapegoats for high unemployment rates. -Again, agreed here, but

 

Illegals shouldn't work; but should have path to citizenship. - Of course they should work, they mooch off another countries society, and get free citizenship!?

 

 

 

Imo, if you're an Illegal immigrant, unless you can do some decent work or manual labour, bugger off.

 

(But what do i know, i'm not American.)

 

I love ignorance (actually no, I hate it).

 

 

 

Illegal immigrants do not generally come over to another country to simply "mooch" off its taxpayers. Yes, there are a bunch who do, but the majority of them genuinely seek to make use of the opportunities that lie in that country. We should be thankful people want to work for our country in order to fuel economic expansion, which in turn should improve the quality of life for everyone. This is even more so in America, where the issue of illegal immigrants coming over for universal health care is a non-issue.

 

 

 

We have an unemployment statistic (in the UK) of 1.7 million. That's not high by any stretch of the imagination, but it's still 1.7 million people that should receive priority (or a good kick up the backside) for work before giving work to those who have entered this country illegally. It is therefore right to give them a path to citizenship where appropriate, while jobs are being filled by people who have legal right to be here.

 

 

 

The only (and I mean only) concern I have with that system is that it effectively awards illegal behaviour - in my honest opinion, this should be noted on their criminal record when citizenship is achieved for future reference, in case they fall foul of the law again.

[Deiophobus]

Personally I would vote for McCain because he's not Obama and now he's got Palin who's pretty much full of win. :D I can't vote though, only 14 now... Gotta wait 'til next time.

 

 

 

Could you explain more about your views?

[Hawks]

Personally I would vote for McCain because he's not Obama and now he's got Palin who's pretty much full of win. :D I can't vote though, only 14 now... Gotta wait 'til next time.

 

 

 

Could you explain more about your views?

 

 

 

Sure. First a bit about myself. I am in the middle class, and have a cronic disease, Type 1 Diabetes. So I am automatically against anything that involves more taxes on the middle class (to give to lower class- THIS IS CALLED SOCIALISM AND AMERICA IS A DEMOCRACY.) and any sort of universal health care system. This is due to (see Britian as an example) people in other countries with universal health care and my condition get much worse care. There are waiting lists of people for insulin pumps, whereas here in the US if your insurance will cover it (most will, and Medicare/Medicade will as well) you can get it much sooner than if you lived in those countries. Also a universal health care system is once again leaning toward socialism...

 

 

 

There are only a few things I disagree with McCain/Palin on and a lot of things I disagree with Obama on. Also I have become more against his campaign and supporters since the hacking of Palin's e-mail and the 'lipstick on a pig' comment. I happen to be a girl who plays hockey. My mom stated after that comment was made (and Obama said something else about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick) that in her case there is no difference as she is very angry at the Obama camp for saying that...

 

 

 

So yeah my parents are a big influence but at least they're not feeding me lies.

[Ginger_Warrior]

They've not fed you lies, they've just given you an incredibly warped view of the world instead.

 

 

 

Firstly, you are aware socialism is an economic model, while democracy is a governmental model, aren't you? Unless you're saying I live in a totalitarian state, simply because I have the NHS.

 

 

 

Secondly, the "lipstick on a pig" comment was also used by McCain himself!

 

 

 

Finally, Obama supports taxing the upper classes more, not the middle classes. It's called progressive taxation, which has nothing to do with socialism. He supports the concept that the middle and lower classes should receive more state support, not simply be taxed more in the middle class' case.