2012 U.S. Elections - President Obama Re-elected

[Riku3220]

There's also hundreds of thousands of jobs that are supplied through the military. Downsizing would really screw a lot of people.

[Celt23]

There's also hundreds of thousands of jobs that are supplied through the military. Downsizing would really screw a lot of people.

Paul wouldn't kill the current military jobs, he would move all of our troops from bases overseas back to the US. I didn't check to see if this was already mentioned, but he has more support from active military than any other candidate.

[aspeeder]

There's also hundreds of thousands of jobs that are supplied through the military. Downsizing would really screw a lot of people.

And you think downsizing any other part of the government wouldn't come with either loss of jobs or loss of resources that could make people more vulnerable? It was a rhetorical situation at most, I realize that as hegemon downsizing our military at the moment is a precarious situation at best (Especially with all the North Korea nonsense of late). I was mostly trying to point out the differences between Taiwan/Hong Kong and the US.

[Crocefisso]

The only problem I see with downsizing the U.S. military is that the U.S. has angered many, many nations over the last century. Showing signs of weakness (aka, slashing military funding) could encourage possible hostile nations to attack. Pure speculation here of course. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

That really depends on how much the military budget gets cut by. For example, the US defence budget is still four times the size of its nearest competitor, so catch-up is very difficult. Even China, which is militarising rapidly, predicts it will take 20-30 years to catch up with the US in terms of military prowess.

 

And then it's worth considering that many of the big and emerging powers need the US and the trade it provides to continue their economic growth: China, India, Brazil etc. The only potential agitators are Russia, Iran, and maybe some dysfunctional Arab and/or African countries with strong anti-US sentiments, all of which pose no real threat to the USA.

 

EDIT: It's also worth noting, in the conversation between sees_all1 and aspeeder, that all the Asian countries regardless of size are involved in a massive arms race at the moment. For example, Singapore has the fourth highest arms spending per head (or however it's expressed technically). It seems all the territorial disputes are contributing to a massive build up of tension there.

[sees_all1]

The other example to look at is Hong Kong.

If you're referring to the policy of positive non-internention, it's important to remember that he government was still important in creating and maintaining physical and regulatory infrastructure in order to strengthen healthy decision-making, which is absent in the truly lassiez-fairre future that I imagine you're dreaming of. And once again, that's a city-state less than half the size of Rhode Island and the population of Virginia with little to no military concerns, these two examples where "small" government works is unsurprisingly in small countries. And you know what's one of the first things we could cut from the government to become more like the countries you listed? The military.

The Department of Education. The Department of Energy. The Department of Health and Human Services.

Merge the Department of Defense with the Department of Homeland Security. Merge the Department of the Interior with the Department of Agriculture.

 

Also cut the number of rules and regulations (loopholes, really) in half, from around 80,000 pages to about 40,000. Some laws just don't make sense in every state, so leave those laws to the states.

[Jonanananas]

You know what, if our country was only slightly larger than Maryland, with 2/3rds the population of California, produced less than 1/15th of our total GDP, and was under the boot of a vast global power that forced us to severely limit the possibilities that the government can do I'd agree with you. But you know what, America isn't in a similar situation to Taiwan, at all. Oh, and if you knew anything about Taiwan's politics then you'd know that they have been supporting more progressive governments over the past 30 years, so if you actually were in a government similar to Taiwan's I'm sure you would be raging about how the country is turning socialist.

That's fine. Except you're ignoring how an area with a GNP of $170/person, with no natural resources to speak of, grew into a country with a GNP of about $37,000/person in about 50 years. Socialism didn't get them there, free markets did.

 

We have to be clear what we're talking about here(At least, I see this problem). From what I've seen, to a lot of Americans pretty much everything in Europe is socialist, whereas here it would be the preliminary stage of communism.

 

When I'm saying that the states would be in need of some socialist reforms, I mean stuff like universal health care, employee protection, etc. (Though I do freely admit I don't know specifics of how this works in the USA). It does not mean an economy controlled by the state. The economy should be as unrestricted as possible without causing financiel meltdowns or emplyee exploitation and thte like. Unrestricted economy obviously still is the best driving force for growth.

[Quyneax]

Unrestricted economy obviously still is the best driving force for growth.

That's something to be set right.

 

The definition of free market includes that everybody has all information, can buy anything and sell anything at any time to anyone etc.

It doesn't take much to see that we can't manage that even if it's only because geography determines the speed at which you buy and sell.

 

In a perfect free market, any individual can make more money than the market allows by not providing the information: false year reports showing greater profits to lure investors, for example, or cartels providing wrong information about production costs (of course cartels would be undercut in a perfect free market, but that takes time).

You need an institution to make sure people actually stick to the rules, that's what goverment is for. The rules apply to the market as well - rules are restrictions, so the goverment must restrict the market for it to work well.

 

Communism has much the same flaws, that everyone is supposed to work as they are able and take what they need. Any individual can increase their benefit by working less and taking more.

 

Of course in small groups where everyone knows everyone, social pressure works instead of an institution like a goverment. In a way, you could say the goverment is social pressure formalized.

[Cow]

I probably won't vote. I don't like either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, but I prefer Obama by miles to Romney. I'd only support a candidate that runs in support of same-sex marriage and ending the death penalty. If I happen to vote, it'll be for Barack Obama. I find the two-party system in place very frustrating, but I don't think it'll change.

 

To me, Obama has been alright. Of course he hasn't lived up to campaign promises, but I would be very disappointed if a candidate like Rick Santorum were to win.

 

Slightly off topic: I think that the country is too big, too diverse, to be run by a single head of power. The election process narrowing down choice into either "us or them" leads to too many compromises and candidates running on platforms that they don't support, but gather more votes.

[Jonanananas]

I probably won't vote. I don't like either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, but I prefer Obama by miles to Romney. I'd only support a candidate that runs in support of same-sex marriage and ending the death penalty. If I happen to vote, it'll be for Barack Obama. I find the two-party system in place very frustrating, but I don't think it'll change.

 

To me, Obama has been alright. Of course he hasn't lived up to campaign promises, but I would be very disappointed if a candidate like Rick Santorum were to win.

 

Slightly off topic: I think that the country is too big, too diverse, to be run by a single head of power. The election process narrowing down choice into either "us or them" leads to too many compromises and candidates running on platforms that they don't support, but gather more votes.

 

Shouldn't you still vote for Obama? If you abstain, you are giving up your possibility to change something. Obviously it will be hard to find the candidate you want, but seeing as you said you like Obama way more then Romney, voting for him would at least push into that direction. If enough people show that they like this and there will be more liberal candidates to choose from, at some point maybe even those who support same-sex marriage and the abolishment of the death penalty.

The only possible reason you shouldn't vote is if you are truly completely indifferent about the candidates.

[Cow]

Yes, I should. If presidential and senate elections are at the same time (same polling place, just separate paper or whatever) which I believe they are, I may vote. I think I should vote in senate elections.

(Virginia).

I realise that if everyone thought this way, that it wouldn't hold true, but: It's hard to imagine the difference one vote would make.

[aspeeder]

Unrestricted economy obviously still is the best driving force for growth.

That's something to be set right.

 

The definition of free market includes that everybody has all information, can buy anything and sell anything at any time to anyone etc.

It doesn't take much to see that we can't manage that even if it's only because geography determines the speed at which you buy and sell.

 

In a perfect free market, any individual can make more money than the market allows by not providing the information: false year reports showing greater profits to lure investors, for example, or cartels providing wrong information about production costs (of course cartels would be undercut in a perfect free market, but that takes time).

You need an institution to make sure people actually stick to the rules, that's what goverment is for. The rules apply to the market as well - rules are restrictions, so the goverment must restrict the market for it to work well.

 

Communism has much the same flaws, that everyone is supposed to work as they are able and take what they need. Any individual can increase their benefit by working less and taking more.

 

Of course in small groups where everyone knows everyone, social pressure works instead of an institution like a goverment. In a way, you could say the goverment is social pressure formalized.

And even with all that in mind there is no such thing as a "true" free market in the sense that you can buy ANYTHING. For instance, I highly doubt that it's legal for any private citizen in the US to buy a fully functional nuclear silo complete with warheads and rockets ready to launch, and I also doubt that anyone wants to see that fantasy come to fruition either.

[Locke_Superbus]

You know what, if our country was only slightly larger than Maryland, with 2/3rds the population of California, produced less than 1/15th of our total GDP, and was under the boot of a vast global power that forced us to severely limit the possibilities that the government can do I'd agree with you. But you know what, America isn't in a similar situation to Taiwan, at all. Oh, and if you knew anything about Taiwan's politics then you'd know that they have been supporting more progressive governments over the past 30 years, so if you actually were in a government similar to Taiwan's I'm sure you would be raging about how the country is turning socialist.

That's fine. Except you're ignoring how an area with a GNP of $170/person, with no natural resources to speak of, grew into a country with a GNP of about $37,000/person in about 50 years. Socialism didn't get them there, free markets did.

And it had nothing to do with massive amounts of US aid sent in by the US to counter Mainland communist influence, the massive influx of intellectuals escaping the Great Leap Forward, or the fact that the Taiwanese government did massive amounts of planning and greatly supported universal education to shift the workforce away from agriculture and towards technology.

 

and lets not forget the massive chunk of outsourced manufacturing the inland soaked up........ until recently those corporations started outsourcing from there because the population weren't exploitable and desperate enough. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE MAGICAL INVISIBLE HAND OF FREE MARKET!

[jasignhagj]

Obama just came out in support of same sex marriage.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html

 

While I fully agree with his decision, I'm not sure it was the smartest political move at this point. Opinions?

[The Dark Lord]

Gay marriage, **** yeah!

 

Hopefully this doesn't doom us to 4+ years of a far-right Mormon for president.

[Jonanananas]

Yeah, I don't think that will get him voters...though I am personally in favor of it as well.

[Crocefisso]

Sadly, I have to agree with the above assessments. In America these days (among older and less educated people especially), progress and open mindedness are dirty words.

[sees_all1]

Obama just came out in support of same sex marriage.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html

 

While I fully agree with his decision, I'm not sure it was the smartest political move at this point. Opinions?

It's the best move he could have made.

 

Basically, anyone who strongly disagrees with Obama is likely to vote against him anyway due to his stance on abortion. What he just did was court his liberal base and the gay vote trying to get them excited for the election; finally they have someone to fly their rainbow flag.

 

Democrat's aren't thrilled about Jimmy Carter v2.0. Heck, even 40% of the Dems in West Virginia voted for a convicted felon over Obama in their primary.

[Bonez899]

Please, I really am just putting an opinion.

 

The States makes a big giant deal out of the election, here in Canada we have the promises, we have the commercials (to a lesser extent) but in the end we just suck it up and go to the polls voting for the person we think least likely to screw us over in the end.

[champion]

That's pretty much what everyone does in every election they can vote in.

 

 

Yeah I agree with what sees_all is saying about Obama's choice to endorse gay marriage. I think it does help him. People who are that opposed to gay marriage wouldn't have been voting for Obama anyways.

[obfuscator]

That's pretty much what everyone does in every election they can vote in.

 

 

Yeah I agree with what sees_all is saying about Obama's choice to endorse gay marriage. I think it does help him. People who are that opposed to gay marriage wouldn't have been voting for Obama anyways.

Yep. Smart political move.

[champion]

Oh and here's an interesting article.

 

In prep/high school, Mitt Romney pinned down a gay classmate and cut his hair off.

 

What a douchebag.

[Riku3220]

Oh and here's an interesting article.

 

In prep/high school, Mitt Romney pinned down a gay classmate and cut his hair off.

 

What a douchebag.

And when I was a child I used to blow up small animals with firecrackers. Should that exempt me from being an animal rights activist if I wanted to be?

[champion]

Well I was never implying he shouldn't be running for President, I'm just saying he is/was a douchebag.

 

Not to mention that he wasn't just a child when he did that, he was probably 17 or 18 years old. If you're doing stupid shit like cutting a kid's hair off because you don't like the way he looks when you're that old, I have to question your ability to reason in general.

[Riku3220]

Oh, sorry. I thought you were trying to say something along the lines of "He did bad things in his past therefore he's unfit to do anything positive in the future."

[obfuscator]

Well I was never implying he shouldn't be running for President, I'm just saying he is/was a douchebag.

 

Not to mention that he wasn't just a child when he did that, he was probably 17 or 18 years old. If you're doing stupid shit like cutting a kid's hair off because you don't like the way he looks when you're that old, I have to question your ability to reason in general.

A lot of people do stuff as a kid/teen they regret (myself included). I wouldn't judge him based on that, this far after the fact.

 

Granted, I'm not all that impressed with Romney in general, but more because of what he's done as an adult.