Poll: Who would you like to see as president?
- Thread starter indyfan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Before you jump the gun there I'm actually from England so I won't be voting in your election anyway. If it was an election that I could take part in I would actually bother to research the candidates first. I'm not that much of an idiot contrary to what some might say. Just from what I've seen so far I'd vote for Obama if I could, because he is a better orater.videonerd250 post=18.74461.835718 said:
Wasn't meant to attack you personally. Just people who think like you.wewontdie11 post=18.74461.837805 said:
...that sounds like more of an attack than intended.
Personally, I like the way Barack thinks, I like the minds behind his economic policies, and he picked a VP that actually knows a thing or two about world affairs prior to becoming VP.
Afro Physics makes a really good point here. Just thought I'd point that out. As you were.afrophysics post=18.74461.834839 said:
Don't worry about it, I knew what you meant I was merely trying to clear things up.videonerd250 post=18.74461.837827 said:
The main thing that everybody here is missing though is that no matter who gets elected, they are going to be better than George Bush.
God help the world if they're not.
As an aside, positive racism (or positive discrimination) goes on all the time, all female candidate lists for Parliament etc.Blind Punk Riot post=18.74461.835426 said:
But the choice was down to my belief that a black president will majorly change some opinions in the US. Something an old white man won't do.
And beyond that, I'm English so know very little about the policies of the respective candidates, so I have to make judgements at face value.
I do think you give me too much credit, my dear.JMeganSnow post=18.74461.834990 said:
Supporting free-markets out of utilitarianism is one thing, but to do so on normative grounds is troublesome. For the vast majority of markets out there, the tenants of the fabled First Welfare Theorem of Economics as written by Adam Smith are not met; specifically the absence of causes of market failure. You say that government involvement "leads invariably to dislocations, corruption and evils without measure." In reality, the absence of government involvement also leads to these as well. Why do you think laws are established and who do you think is responsible for them? Why are services like national security or defense are placed under the government's charge? I am not necessarily arguing that the government take full responsibility for everything as that is tyrannical. What I am instead arguing is that there be a better balance of public and private investment in the United States so as the entity with comparative advantage can provide the service at the lowest economic cost.JMeganSnow post=18.74461.834990 said:
No, actually, but wishful thinking and the use of the slippery slope fallacy to prove one's point do constitute something a bias. You seem to assume in the quote above that government involvement necessarily means the displacement of the rule of law. Many other developed countries have a sufficient level of government investment and they seem to fair pretty well with incomes per capita higher than those of the United States AND they rank higher than the United States for least corruption in Transparency International's databases. What I'm saying is that perhaps the government would do well to take control of certain aspects of the economy, but leaving the vast majority of the economy to be determined by the private sector. I understand what I meant may have been fuzzy regarding my last post, but I sincerely apologize.JMeganSnow post=18.74461.834990 said:
This "complaint" is more or less directed towards McCain's campaign, but more towards American attitudes towards (or possibly mislead because of) recent Republican politics and the misinterpretation of the discipline of economics. On the surface, it may seem that Obama and McCain offer similar policy solutions, but McCain is adamantly against bureaucratic spending, which I believe the US should probably reconsider. Perhaps the reason government involvement has failed in the US is due to a strangling of the capabilities of your government. The reason I support Obama is because he seems to understand that the US model of the public administration dichotomy is ineffective. To quote him, "We should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility [...] we should be guided by what works." So far, lax regulation and over-privatization (especially in the financial and energy markets) doesn't seem to work out too well as evidenced by the global financial crisis and the Enron scandal or even the issues with your health care/insurance system.JMeganSnow post=18.74461.834990 said:
To summarize, I was under the impression that America was the land of opportunity, where anyone can prosper, not just the select few. Under policies of Bush, your national debt has risen, your economy is shrinking and the vast majority of your countrymen are sinking into a poverty trap fueled by insurmountable debt, rising health costs and a government concerned less about these than they are about incentives from short-sighted lobbyists. I think you ought to revisit your definitions of "corruption," "slavery," and especially "freedom."
Personally, even though I do not reside in the US, I feel like Obama should be elected president. It might have been a harder decision if not for Sarah Palin ruining (In my opinion) McCain's image of experience.