Jump to content

Next US President?


If you could vote in the upcoming US elections, who would you vote for?  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. If you could vote in the upcoming US elections, who would you vote for?

    • John McCain
    • Hillary Clinton
    • Barrack Obama
    • Some left-wing candidate with no chance of winning
    • Some right-wing candidate with no chance of winning

Recommended Posts

They only combat deaths and do not include Iraqis. But I guess they don't count. and why exactly is the US in Iraq anyways? hmm? Comparing murders in Chicago to Iraq is impossible. I thought Washington DC had one of the highest murder per capita rate (along with Chicago, Detroit, nyc etc)?



Has Chicago listed at #20.

McCain Camp: Let's Push Back Biden-Palin Match-Up, Too

It's obvious they don't want to have any debates.

Palin doesn't know anything about McCain

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

Or maybe it is because McCain has been for deregulation. Now he is for more regulation?

Oh right McCain was part of Keating 5 which was paid by corporations to provide less regulation.

Anyone see the video of where Palin is blessed by a pastor to protect her from witchcraft?

I guess if she is elected Americans don't have to worry about witches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched some of the Katie Couric interview with Palin and it was a complete disaster.

Foreign relations interview

Palin: ‘What The Bailout Does Is Help Those Who Are Concerned About Health Care Reform’ ->>>>>> I LOL wayyy too much watching her answer this simple question. 1:30, very funny. Her first part of the response is nice, but then she hijacks the question and talks about jobs and trade and stuff and how "reducing taxes... has to accompany tax reductions"


As Jon Stewart pointed out, why was it so hard for McCain to read the 3 page bailout plan? Heh, Jon Stewart was good tonight.

And the bailout plan has failed tonight, so the debate with Obama (mccain isn't going) will be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the financial crisis is solved, McCain has returned to campaigning and going to the debate.

Oh wait it has not been solved but now McCain can make it to the debate anyways.

Also McCain ads already say he won the debate.


Probably not, but she hasn't made many appearances in the media. Wich might be deliberate.

She gave her first press conference the other day. She was asked 5 questions and only answered 4. That is a big interview!


Presidential debate is actually decent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but your job is far more necessary to you than it is to your employer. Unless you work for a very small business, your employer will not suffer very much if you quit; but you will suffer much more if you get fired. Therefore, your employer has far more power over you than you have over him.

And my previous point stands: A job is a relationship in which the employer represents demand and the worker represents supply. The employer demands work; the worker supplies it. Just like in a supermarket, the customer demands cheese (for example) and the supermarket supplies it. To say that employers "create jobs" is as stupid as to say that I "create cheese" when I go to the supermarket to buy cheese.

There are two answers to this, the social democratic answer and the socialist/communist answer. Naturally, I support the socialist/communist answer - but I will give both:

Social democratic answer: So what? Economic activity is not good for its own sake, it's only good to the extent that it benefits people. It is possible to have an economic policy that will discourage economic activity and still end up benefitting the majority of people (for example, if the total benefit to the majority is smaller than the loss to the rich minority). Such a policy is a good policy. It's better to have 10% unemployment and a decent standard of living for everyone (including the unemployed), than 3% unemployment and a low standard of living for poor people, with long working hours, crappy jobs, no vacations, and expensive health care.

Socialist/communist answer: What you are saying is that we are at the mercy of employers - at the mercy of corporations - and that we must appease them with low taxes, low regulations and other sacrifices, in order to keep them happy so that they will continue to give us the scraps from their table. You sound like you're telling a slave to work hard for his master because the master provides him with food, and if he doesn't work hard enough he might not get food. That is a disgusting, cowardly, shameful suggestion. We refuse to be slaves. We refuse to appease our masters. We owe them nothing; they owe us everything. Yes, of course our employers have power over us. But the proper response to people who have power over you is not to bow and obey; it is to revolt and take their power away from them. The employers threaten to take our jobs away? Fine! We will nationalize their companies and "create" our own jobs!

You are right, of course. But why is that the case? Why can't you - or even a large group of people - suddenly decide that you want to earn money by building cars, and do it? Because you don't own all that machinery and those production chains. Because they are all someone else's private property.

So yes, what you say is true, but this is a condition caused by capitalism (or to be more exact, by the existence of private property over the means of production). But we could replace capitalism with a system where, for example, any group of people could walk into a car factory and start making cars, subject only to some kind of arbitration procedure if two groups want to use the same factory.

Hello hello.

it would seem that you are assuming that there are no other employers to go to in a capitalistic society, or rather; that the CEO's all are in a joint marketing scheme against all the workers.

It's kind of interesting, employers in the US convince their employees to stay put through benefits such as retirement, health insurance, stocks; and often the retirement packages become more valuable with duration of work experience in that particular company.  The problem is that those benefits are not always mutual currency between competing companies.  The result is a stagnant, and immobile work force.

So essentially the workers get more for staying put and less for being a mobile corporate hopper.

The way to solve this without nationalizing the means of production is to nationalize the benefits and keep the basic means of production privatized.  When you empower employees with nationalized benefits, then the big bad guys that are in charge of the means of production are forced to make working conditions both more efficient and more bearable while also maintaining a sensitivity to the demands of the market.  In this case the workers are also the consumers.  So the tables are turned and the bosses become the slaves in a sense.  But then who want's to become a boss?  Well, naturally he will get slightly more pay for being the boss.  So long as their are other bosses to go to who are in direct market competition, things should be ok for the work force. So long as corporations are not allowed to create joint monopolization while the workers are allowed to do so, the real slaves will be the corporate bosses, whose "moderate" remuneration is enough motivation for them to keep things running smoothly.

Also, when you look at the means of production, differentiation of procedure (and thus machinery, I would assume) is vital for free-market comparisons that will shed light on "the best" way for production to appease the needs of the people.  Do the people want shoddy electronics that break down after 2 years but look really cool, or do they want a more simplistic and effective design that lasts for several years?

When the government owns the means of production, how would they be able to offer this same methodology of market progression?

I guess this is presupposing the idea that the people know what kinds of product that they want better than "the government", (whoever that ends up being).  It's also assuming that people are inherently good at judging what is necessary over what is excess.  Essentially, saying that people are more efficient of percieving how best to accommodate their changing needs than the government.

Another problem is the bureaucratic red tape.  If the government owns the means of production and a certain type of factory becomes essential to certain societal needs, how does the government go about appointing and distributing the factories among the differing groups that desire to make the said products?  It would seem that the government would have to be very perceptive and wise when making that judgement call that would leave others outside of the means of production who wish to be a part of that process.  And how would the officials decide which version of the product is better and for which people? 

It doesn't matter if people want to make the cars or not.  If they don't know what they are doing, then they are going to be shoddy cars.  So why bother letting them into the factory in the first place?  Who's to say that the government can even tell which car makers are more "qualified" to be making the cars than somebody else?  credentials are nice (which is what a Bureaucrat will inevitably have to rely on) but experience and market feedback seems to be a much more accurate deciding factor than an exclusive group of officials who are perhaps naive of the rapidly changing demands of society.

I suppose that Nationalization of the means of production would only work in an older market that has been thoroughly tested and subjected to the free-market test.  Then perhaps the government could step in and buy the factories and let groups waltz in and out as they wished.

However, when it comes to newer and inovative markets, it would seem that Nationalization of production would slow it down and perhaps make several mistakes.

Also, who would create and invent the machinery used for production?

Would the ideas belong to the individual or the government?

How would an inventor's labors be rewarded in Communism?

Not trying to be antagonistic, just slightly curious.

Absolutely not. Why should you deserve to be paid more for a talent that you were born with? You didn't choose to be born with it. You didn't make an effort to be born with it. You do not deserve any special treatment for having it.

but why not?

When someone is a "unique" individual and others desire for that "rare" talent, people tend to get naggy about wanting to be a part of that "marketable" talent.

Nagging is the worst form of torture, thus remuneration of sorts is arguably ethically required (depending upon the social circumstance, I suppose).

In a capitalistic or even socialistic society, this works fine.

In a communistic society, the green eyed monster would reign supreme; thus killing anyone born with inherent individuality that is (for some reason) desirable.  Men are not born inherently "equal" in the literal sense, they have subtle differentiations.  If one differentiation is societally most preferable by general consensus, why ignore that and rebuke it rather than encourage it?  Isn't that killing individualism in a way? Especially if the "talent" is able to contribute to society on a large scale, either culturally or otherwise.

As for superior education, yes I agree that you should be compensated for the work and effort you put into educating yourself. But I do not believe this should come in the form of higher wages after you finish your education; I believe it should come in the form of regular wages while you are working on your education. In other words, I believe students should be paid for studying, just as if they were working in a regular job, but I don't think they deserve higher wages after they are done with their studies.

NAFTA can harm all workers, though Mexican workers probably receive the greatest part of that harm. I said that NAFTA harms workers by keeping labour immobile while making capital mobile. This doesn't only mean that Mexican workers are prevented from finding better jobs in the US while American companies are free to exploit lower-paid workers in Mexico. It also means that American and Mexican workers are forced to compete. They cannot join together in a single union.

Of course Obama is probably a protectionist and doesn't care about any of this - but I don't support Obama.

I didn't know Obama was a proctectionist.  That makes me very sad.

I'm embarassed of US politics right now.


It's like watching cit-com re-runs.

Political satire is perhaps a good word for our current media reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in an interview with Katie Couric, Palin did not know about any financial reform policies McCain had introduced in his 25-30 year career.

Now in another interview with Palin, she won't say what newspapers or magazines she reads. Either she has no clue what she reads (she says all of them...), or her handlers do not want her to answer the question (or any questions).

Palin on which newspapers she reads: ‘Um, all of them.’

McCain and Palin blame this type of stuff on:

GOTCHA JOURNALISM! - youtube palin/mccain interview

Where voters ask Palin a question out of the blue and Palin answers with an answer that is different than McCains.

Palin has a degree in journalism, yet cannot list a newspaper/magazine that she reads.

Palin has no idea what Hamas is or what their role in the Gaza Strip is

Commentator guy is a bit annoying but makes the point after video clip (then rambles on).

I think I just realized that whenever I hear Palin asked a question and she answers it, I forget what the question is because she completely hijacks it and talks about something unrelated.

CNN: Sarah Palin Has Never Seen Russia From Alaska

But she has foreign policy experience!

Q:Given what you've said, senator, is there an occasion where you could imagine turning to Gov. Palin for advice in a foreign policy crisis? A:I've turned to her advice many times in the past.

McCain has only known Palin for a month yet he has turned to her for advice in the past!? sure thing.


1 min youtube vid of her interview with katie couric.

After Voting For Earmark-Laden Bailout Bill, McCain Seems To Call For Bush To Veto It

So he's most likely bullshitting about being the person to decrease spending. He votes for pork projects, then says he is against such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin isn't crashing during the debate yet. But she is avoiding every question (except climate change).

She keeps changing everything to energy related.

Hmm, biden and obama don't want gay marriage.

Palin doesn't want gay marriage and from what she said she doesn't want them to have the same rights as married people.

I think she just crashed at the part where she said bidens plan is a "a white flag of surrender".

She just said the central place for war on terror is Iraq...

Palin keeps winking at everyone...

She just crashed with executive experience question.

Biden just killed Palins "mccain maverick" comment. She is really bad.

At the very end she said "say no to energy Independence"

Palin is an average family? I didn't know the average American was a governor.

Palin brought up Bidens dead wife...

Palin said she wants to increase infrastructure and cut spending.. (is that possible?)

Oct3 edit:


I think she was winking at me. She gets my vote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin even has famous people supporting her!

Just like in this ad:

Nice to see Famous Person thought she was great in the debate.

Palin Web Ad Cites Thumbs Up From 'Famous Person'

U.S. shelves diplomatic plans for Iran: Officials tell AP that with U.S. campaign in full swing, now is not the time

So in other words they want to help McCain win.

'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'" - Palin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American politics around election time is hillarious, especially with all the hype around Obama. Democrats think he's the messiah and Republicans think he will bring on the apocalypse, when the truth is that an Obama presidency won't change very much of anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the sounds of it, this Acorn organisation is accused of the worst attempt at voter fraud in history. Registering the same person 72 times and handing in 'sloppy' forms?

Now, I'm not saying no registration fraud is happening, just that it's at most a few isolated amateurs.

In a country where the government doesn't make its own electoral rolls, only thing I'd criticise voter registration programmes for is sowing false hopes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American politics around election time is hillarious, especially with all the hype around Obama. Democrats think he's the messiah and Republicans think he will bring on the apocalypse, when the truth is that an Obama presidency won't change very much of anything at all.

Yet this makes a very nice excuse to draw public attention away from the real problems, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, considering that the employers are given said role because they control the means of production/finance/general assets required to finance the means of their laborer's work, it seems they usually (when it comes to large scale corps especially, but generally necessarily to a degree for all employers it seems) enjoy a significant (advantageous) difference over employees in generally any normal ''employee/employer competition scenario''.

Since the sufficiently large scale employers (who probably usually control the majority of the work/production/whatever in a country) have sufficient wealth to simply abandon their company at any point (especially considering in such a case they would sell their company's assets if need be. Of course, unless this were to another corp or wealthy individual who would set up a corp who would then be in the same position... but, even without this, their wealth would probably still be easily sufficient) and enjoy ludicrous luxury for the rest of their lives, they can, without much fear, simply ''refuse to do business'' with employees on any terms except those that involve reaping absurdly large undeserved profits from their employees.

Meanwhile, for the employees, refusal to do business means death (in a laizzes fare system).

In addition, even if the corps did not have this advantage (for example: if they only owned the means of production that they could not sell for some reason and did not possess a sizeable fortune) they could simply ''play hard ball''. They could refuse to ''do business'' on reasonable terms even if it meant their deaths.

As a matter of fact, whenever participation is required by some for the sake of everybody, those few can do this. If somebody is stuck in a hole or something with somebody else and both are required to participate in an escape attempt for the attempt to have a chance of success, then one of them can always say: screw you, I don't care if I die I won't participate unless you agree to my (possibly unfair) terms.

Of course, this would require bluffing, but still, it wouldn't really be the case for the presently rich.

Still, what certainly seems to be the case is that most unfair employer-employee relationships exist in many countries where the ''pay check'' is not so dependent on benefits bestowed by corps that render the work force immobile and eliminates ''employer competition''. Unless there are other that cause this thing to happen, then it seems that there is SOMETHING else that maintains fore-mentioned unfair relationships to begin with.

In a socialist system, better results would probably be reasonably rewarded. Therefore, people are motivated to come up with the best means of production possible. Of these means, one might rate them on their performance and choose the ''best'' of them. This would be much the same as in capitalism, except it would not be possible to reap absurd wealth.

As for market performance. In both socialism and communism it is not as though an individual can acquire an infinite amount of items. From their wealth or ''credit'' they would choose what they most desire. Once again, the same as in capitalism except for an important difference (less important than the last perhaps); the items purchased will be chosen by people with reasonable wealth who therefore are more likely to make reasonable purchases that will improve the overall happiness of the population more than the purchasing of (and hence continued production of, due to this ''system'' of determining what would be best to produce via gauging demand) items by the obscenely rich.

Essentially, if 50% of the wealth is owned by obscenely rich people who waste most of their great wealth on frivolities, then that wealth is being wasted. This waste will (as explained above) cause wasteful production to be prevalent; instead of a 1000 people growing much needed food on a farm, they will be mining for all but useless diamonds... instead of engineers designing something with a good use to total cost ratio, they will be designing something for the desires of the absurdly rich that will probably have a poor use to total cost ratio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...