Poll: United States Presidential Election

[BaronAsh]

But the problem with that is in government run healthcare system you CAN'T sue for malpractice and I'm not sure how often that happens in other countries but it is really rare here and I think that if our government were to take over healthcare malpractice rates would rise.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

But the problem with that is in government run healthcare system you CAN'T sue for malpractice and I'm not sure how often that happens in other countries but it is really rare here and I think that if our government were to take over healthcare malpractice rates would rise.

*facepalm*

It's not "government-run health care", it's "government-run health insurance". Huge difference. The government isn't in charge of your medical treatment; that's between you and your doctors, and yes doctors up here can be sued for malpractice just like in the good ol' US of A. My understanding is that the incidence of malpractice up here is somewhat lower than down there, though that's a general impression and I don't have any direct studies. In any case our doctors aren't killing their patients any faster than yours... which is nice considering that we're treating more people with lower incomes with *preventative* care, which is less prone to malpractice than "OMG that tooth abcess just ate into his brain!" procedures. (Actual case in the US, got huge coverage here.)

Government-administated health insurance isn't perfect, but it is better than that feudal tangle of insurers you guys have.

-- Steve

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

A fine poll, but you left off the quintessential other.

I think you are going to find a surprising number of people come election time who are simply fed up with both parties.

The Democrats have had control of the Legislative branch for sometime now

A. There is no way a Bob Barr or a Ron Paul would win the general election. I personally would love it if either of those 2 got in, but it's just not possible, so I feel it would be a waste of my vote to put it to either of them.

B. Yeah, there's a lot of people fed up with both parties (myself included), but the numbers throughout history show that people don't really care.

C. The Democrats have had control of the legislative branch for about a year and a half, I find it hard to believe anyone can expect a massive amount of reform in that short time period.

On topic: I'm a Ron Paul supporter at heart, but I'm voting Obama, because he is the lesser of the two evils, and my candidate doesn't have half a chance of getting even 1 state.

You really think that Obama is an underdog? He's a media darling! I have serious doubts that john mccain is going to win.

Edit: And for those of you who really do think Obama's an underdog...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijClHoidEl8XEJMJoUooHU1R_nmgD939B4880
The poll shows a 48-46 split with a two percent margin of error. That's as close as you can possibly get.

He never said that Obama was an underdog, just Ron Paul. Kurtz, you're an intelligent guy, you stand up for what you believe in, and I respect you for that. However, you seem to have a habit of mis-understanding what people post. I've done that myself a few times, maybe you're just having an off day, but you seem to be doing it a lot lately.

Oh, I thought when he said "my candidate" he meant the candidate he was "voting for". My mistake but a confusing sentence. When else did I misunderstand someone?

 

[Beowulf DW]

Oh, I thought when he said "my candidate" he meant the candidate he was "voting for". My mistake but a confusing sentence. When else did I misunderstand someone?

Well, there have been a few threads (Like the one about games for girls) in which we've argued against similar yet different points. To use the games for girls one as an example again, I made a statement (that should have been clarified a bit) that a boy or a girl would enjoy a good game equally, if they just played the game. You argued that games appeal to one gender more than the other (which I agree with). We were arguing over different points, but we were both correct to a degree. It was my fault as well, really. I didn't figure it out until we were already several posts into the debate. I also could have tried to make sure that my point was more understandable, but at the time I thought I was being quite clear.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

Oh, I thought when he said "my candidate" he meant the candidate he was "voting for". My mistake but a confusing sentence. When else did I misunderstand someone?

Well, there have been a few threads (Like the one about games for girls) in which we've argued against similar yet different points. To use the games for girls one as an example again, I made a statement (that should have been clarified a bit) that a boy or a girl would enjoy a good game equally, if they just played the game. You argued that games appeal to one gender more than the other (which I agree with). We were arguing over different points, but we were both correct to a degree. It was my fault as well, really. I didn't figure it out until we were already several posts into the debate. I also could have tried to make sure that my point was more understandable, but at the time I thought I was being quite clear.

No, you were avoiding the question and I was addressing it directly - your argument was that the game could potentially be enjoyed by both sexes, and we're talking about TARGETING games towards specific sexes and the types of games that would sell to that particular sex. I think in that situation it was actually you who missed the point of the thread.

 

[Rankao]

We have the technology so why don't we use it. Maybe just maybe it's not too late to make a difference. i just saw earlier their video clips in pollclash and thats why i made this comment.. you can see the video clip in http://pollclash.com/?id=161

if you think its not to late then you are living in a false world. I do believe that man's efforts have drastic effect of the climate. Imagine China, who completes a new coal planet somewhere along the line of 1-3 a week. Now the question is, do we have any right to tell them to stop? Well we do because it effects us, but they very much have the right to obtain the privileges that the Western World has bought in blood and money. You find me a good way to tell China and India to stop developing so they can have better lives. Maybe, just maybe, we can slow down Global Warming.

With me pointing to China and India, countries who are developing to join their Western Cousins, do not mistake me saying that they are the sole cause of the issues we will be facing. Europe and America also a large part of the problem and it took us almost 200 years to start noticing the effect and later the cause. I think China has the right to do what I needs to allow their people the luxuries we take for granted.

Short Answer, its to late my friend, now we just need start learning how we will have to adapt.

 

[Knight Templar]

Now the Palin troll is banned is it safe to talk?

Good.


Palin is the Rep VP because she is a bad person to pick. They want to distract from Obama and that?s just what they are doing, it?s wrong. I can?t support a political party that exploits a person in such a low way just for the limelight.

There is zero reason to pick Palin apart from making a jump around the monkey cage.

I heard a interesting idea a little while ago, many Americans don?t vote so if that?s you give your vote to somebody else. PM somebody who you trust on the net (like a person here) and ask who they would vote for then vote for that person.

Your country affects so much in the world if you don?t care about the race for the white house give your vote to somebody non-American who does care.

 

[rapidoud]

Where's the poll for "Don't care for US politics"? Kevin Rudd is doing jack all here as it is (and no, I am not British and do NOT have a British accent, stupid yanks)

But I think John McCain, mainly as I haven't seen Barrack Obama do anything.
And it'd be nice to not have a corrupt leader in the US every once in a while.

 

[Muphin_Mann]

I think Obama will win, primarily because the repulicans royaly f-ed up their chance with Bush. Not that i mind seeing what Obama can do.

 

[TomNook]

There is zero reason to pick Palin apart from making a jump around the monkey cage.

One could say the same thing of Obama.

 

[watchman 2353]

You know who should win. Bob Barr.

 

[BaronAsh]

But the problem with that is in government run healthcare system you CAN'T sue for malpractice and I'm not sure how often that happens in other countries but it is really rare here and I think that if our government were to take over healthcare malpractice rates would rise.

*facepalm*

It's not "government-run health care", it's "government-run health insurance". Huge difference. The government isn't in charge of your medical treatment; that's between you and your doctors, and yes doctors up here can be sued for malpractice just like in the good ol' US of A. My understanding is that the incidence of malpractice up here is somewhat lower than down there, though that's a general impression and I don't have any direct studies. In any case our doctors aren't killing their patients any faster than yours... which is nice considering that we're treating more people with lower incomes with *preventative* care, which is less prone to malpractice than "OMG that tooth abcess just ate into his brain!" procedures. (Actual case in the US, got huge coverage here.)

Government-administated health insurance isn't perfect, but it is better than that feudal tangle of insurers you guys have.

-- Steve

Well if its government run Health insurance then how would taxes not rise?

And honestly I don't think that I should have to pay for the jackass who crashed in front of my house or the guy that was smoking his whole life even though EVERYONE told him not to.

 

[Rankao]

Where's the poll for "Don't care for US politics"? Kevin Rudd is doing jack all here as it is (and no, I am not British and do NOT have a British accent, stupid yanks)

But I think John McCain, mainly as I haven't seen Barrack Obama do anything.
And it'd be nice to not have a corrupt leader in the US every once in a while.

Well that sucks, it would have add a lot of humor to have the British accent added to it. What accent do you have?

 

[Labyrinth]

Obama is not a Marxist. He is a capitalist. Let me make that -very- clear definition.

I am sorry but that is pure bullshit. You have no clue what capitalism is if you think Obama supports capitalism, or is a capitalist. His solution to problems is to create government or government sponsored solutions. A capitalist would look to private sources that would resolve the issue, not government.

Obama's economic advisers (Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson) are both previous CEO's of Fannie May. A GOVERNMENT sponsored enterprise. They are neck deep in blame for giving out loans to people who could never pay them back, knowing full well that the government would bail them out if things went wrong.

In a true capitalist economy, the government doesn't bail ANYONE out, and doesn't interfere with the economy at all. The "crisis" is the last remnants of capitalism trying to correct for years of artificial inflation due to the government interfering with economics by offering no-risk loans to people who would not pay them back.

And Obama has the balls to try and blame the "Republicans" and "capitalism" when he is taking advice from two people who actually caused the problem. Pure capitalism hasn't existed in the USA for over 40 years, constantly being undermined by liberal policies that "protect" people. Ironic now that when capitalism is finally working that liberals cry the most.

Obama is a socialist. Whether his particular flavor is Marxism is not the point. Obama supports government interference in the economy to "protect" people from risks. Obama is the antithesis of capitalism.

I am amazed at the sheer ignorance of the concepts you and other Obama supporters are throwing about. It is no wonder that Obama has gotten as far as he has when he has so many people with no clue giving him fanatical support.

The whole deal with Marxism is that in a perfectly Marxist society, there would be no actual government as everything would belong directly to the people as a whole rather than to an authoritive body. Capitalism, however, is based around fiscal things, mostly profits, a 'free' market with multinational conglomerates and the like. From what I've observed, there is not a single American mainstream politician who even comes close to Marxism. As for broadening it to socialism as a whole, that's not pulling weight either. I have seen nothing to show socialist tenancies.

In fact, I'd like to recommend a number of you to a very good website. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ All information there is thoroughly researched, independent of party influence and collected, analysed and reported on by people from all areas of political thought and ideology.

By the way, I'm not an Obama supporter. He's too right-wing and conservative for me.

 

[pieeater911]

Obama '08!

McCain is a warmonger and Palin is an absolute moron who should not be our back-up president under any circumstances.

I'd rather have anarchy than have her in office if McCain wins and then dies.

 

[BaronAsh]

Obama '08!

McCain is a warmonger and Palin is an absolute moron who should not be our back-up president under any circumstances.

I'd rather have anarchy than have her in office if McCain wins and then dies.

Your on that "omg republicans are dumb" train aren't you?

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Well if its government run Health insurance then how would taxes not rise?

And honestly I don't think that I should have to pay for the jackass who crashed in front of my house or the guy that was smoking his whole life even though EVERYONE told him not to.

I suppose taxes would rise, but I strongly doubt that they'd rise more than what you'd save from no longer paying health insurance premiums. Bigger premium pool means smaller risk for every individual insured, so that cuts rates a bit... so does the non-profit status, so the markup on the service is lower. You lose a bit to inefficiency, but nowhere near as much as the alarmists in the US (fueled by the apocalyptic predictions of the insurance industry lobbyists) claim.

And you might be interested to know that your latter argument has been put forward to prevent young drivers from gaining insurance. Pick your battles.

-- Steve

 

[BaronAsh]

Well if its government run Health insurance then how would taxes not rise?

And honestly I don't think that I should have to pay for the jackass who crashed in front of my house or the guy that was smoking his whole life even though EVERYONE told him not to.

I suppose taxes would rise, but I strongly doubt that they'd rise more than what you'd save from no longer paying health insurance premiums. Bigger premium pool means smaller risk for every individual insured, so that cuts rates a bit... so does the non-profit status, so the markup on the service is lower. You lose a bit to inefficiency, but nowhere near as much as the alarmists in the US (fueled by the apocalyptic predictions of the insurance industry lobbyists) claim.

And you might be interested to know that your latter argument has been put forward to prevent young drivers from gaining insurance. Pick your battles.

-- Steve

So its selective government run health insurance?

You really don't know how corrupt our government is, most of that money we'd be taxed would be wasted.

 

[pieeater911]

Obama '08!

McCain is a warmonger and Palin is an absolute moron who should not be our back-up president under any circumstances.

I'd rather have anarchy than have her in office if McCain wins and then dies.

Your on that "omg republicans are dumb" train aren't you?

No, I'm on the "omg this particular candidate and his vice president are dumb" train.