Thread: Whos your favourite canditate?

I haven't made up my mind at all, but I generally agree more with republicans.
I really don't care about this election, though I will be able to vote for the first time.
Howie's link suggested I like Huckabee then Ron Paul then McCain I think.

Anyone but Clinton.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

As a non-american, can anyone here tell me which of these candidates (if any) avows to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because I'd really like to know..

There is one and his name is Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

As a non-american, can anyone here tell me which of these candidates (if any) avows to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because I'd really like to know..

Obama has stated a desire to be out of Iraq by 2009, but hasn't promised to leave, and has no timetable. I don't know his stance on Afghanistan.
I'm not sure about Clinton's ideas, and Gravel doesn't count.

Paul wants us to be out of Iraq immediately, as we are there illegally and don't need to wait to pull out, we just need to leave. There won't be any "negative effects" if we just pull out. The only bad thing would be our troops would be out of harms way and... wait. Never mind. There's no negatives to pulling out immediately.
Every other republican wants to stay until we've "won" which is impossible, considering it's an illegal occupancy, and not even a war. I seem to remember hearing something strangely similar to this that happened in the 60s early 70s that lasted 16 years called The Vietnam War which was also impossible to win because it was not really a war, but an occupancy with Vietnamese Patriots fighting back.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

Paul wants us to be out of Iraq immediately, as we are there illegally and don't need to wait to pull out, we just need to leave. There won't be any "negative effects" if we just pull out. The only bad thing would be our troops would be out of harms way and... wait. Never mind. There's no negatives to pulling out immediately.
Every other republican wants to stay until we've "won" which is impossible, considering it's an illegal occupancy, and not even a war. I seem to remember hearing something strangely similar to this that happened in the 60s early 70s that lasted 16 years called The Vietnam War which was also impossible to win because it was not really a war, but an occupancy with Vietnamese Patriots fighting back.

Mass evacuation of Iraq would mean transfer of 500,000 people to Kuwait. Ie, IED HEAVEN. Also, do you think all killing in the country would stop if we just left? With every home owning an AK47 assault rifle? Yes, we do allow them to own guns.

Your statement of Vietnamese Patriots ammuses me. I would like to hear what you know about the Vietnamese war. If you knew about it, you would know that the Vietnamese war was a war between 2 distinct countries, and not an occupation.

Extreme solutions like the one you proposed do little to solve problems.

I regret the fact that the UN doesn't have the balls to kick American ass whenever nessesary. Unity is power. The UN only works against CORRUPT small countries btw. What makes these americans think that they are the only ones with the right to "defend freedom"???

The american way of thinking:


.............opposite..........
Freedom -------->tyranny

...................Enemy....................
US=Freedom ---------> country X = evil

According to this it doesn't matter who the US attack...since they are "the land of freedom" (that's how they call THEMSELVES) they are always right. Because the enemy of the "land of the free" must be "the land of evil".
tsss.

Originally Posted by Alric

Creating the UN isn't something to be proud of. Its a corrupt group which does nothing but boss smaller countries around. Heck we ignore it half the time. UN is also one of the biggest pushers of totalitarianism. They want all governments to follow their laws, use their criminal courts. They are always trying to get countries to force people to give up their rights, such as putting in place global gun bans. We do not want them or need them. And whats NATO? Basicly the same kind of crap in a different package.

Originally Posted by Alric

Actually most people who know about the economy agree that the government interference during the Great Depression, only caused it to last even longer than it would have otherwise. We do not want the government manipulating our money in hard times, its been proven many times the more the government does to stop something, the worse it gets. The best thing is the government to just step back and let the markets work themself out.

The problem is, the market doesn't always work things out. Monopolies form because of greed and harm free competition. Without government, these would form naturally, and would harm the economy. The market does not always balance things out. Should we get rid of worker safety laws, and hope that those employees will choose to work at safer companies? Employees had no protection before standards for safety were required. Setting these standards wasn't specifically stated in the Constitution. However, until the government began protecting workers, they died or were injured frequently, due to the greed and carelessness of companies. 150 years was not enough time for the market to fix this problem. Letting the market take care of problems does not work. The market called for slavery for large part of America's history. Should we have just let blacks be enslaved simply because you don't think that the government should be regulating the economy? Racial discrimination was much reduced thanks to questionably constitutional Executive Orders and Supreme Court decisions which stretched the Constitution to its limits. Should we have just let citizens be discriminated against?

As for the greatest presidents, that is very much your own personal opinion. Many believe that Lincoln and FDR are the two worst presidents we have ever had. I am one of them.

I'm sorry, but this is not correct. My statistics about ranked presidents come from surveys with lawyers, political scientists, and professors. I did not bring my own opinion into play. You are very much in the minority about Lincoln and FDR.

As president Lincoln destroyed states rights, and treated the constitution as if it were a piece of trash. FDR played a key part in creating the abominations we have today, social security, medicare, are just two of the worst. He expanded government so far that its totally sickening.

I find it hard to believe that you do not consider Lincoln's freeing of the slaves in the south as a great achievement. I also am surprised to see that you dislike programs that help Americans in need. The fact of the matter is that there are people in America that need help. The government needs to provide this function, because no one else does. I find it disturbing that anyone wants a government that is austere towards its people. Our government shouldn't sit idly as Americans suffer immensely. I realize that you might not feel this way, but I challenge you to think about how you would want the government to act if you were in that position. I find it hard to believe that you can honestly say, "I'd like my government to do nothing for me if I were in a position of poverty and destitution." FDR was almost universally adored in his time for helping Americans in need. That is an undeniable fact. It has nothing to do with opinion. Lincoln is almost universally respected as one of the greatest advancers of equal rights. That too is undeniable. Anyone who disagrees with this is very much in the minority. That is an undeniable fact.

Creating the UN isn't something to be proud of. Its a corrupt group which does nothing but boss smaller countries around. Heck we ignore it half the time. UN is also one of the biggest pushers of totalitarianism. They want all governments to follow their laws, use their criminal courts. They are always trying to get countries to force people to give up their rights, such as putting in place global gun bans. We do not want them or need them. And whats NATO? Basicly the same kind of crap in a different package.

The UN has not been corrupt. That is pure opinion. The UN forces smaller countries to adhere to basic principles, that is true. However, this is necessary to ensure that they fit in with the world in general. If a country began piling up nukes and aiming them at other countries, should that be their prerogative? Certain basic rights of humans need to be secured first. In fact, every government functions on the basic idea that citizens give up some rights, so that the government can protect their vital rights. This is how every government works.

Heck yea, Ron Paul isn't going to 'leverage' the position of president to over come challenges. Hes going to follow the constituion and do it legally. People often forget, just because the people got away with it, its still highly illegal. When presidents abuse their position to expand government its not a good thing, its a crime.

Please realize that it has been absolutely necessary in our history for presidents to use expanded powers. Any history class will agree with this. Without the arguably unconstitutional measures that Lincoln took, the Union would not have been preserved. Let me reiterate. There would not have been a United States, had Lincoln not exceeded his explicitly stated constitutional powers. I do not know how this can be ignored. Our history has shown that during a crisis, it is absolutely vital that the presidents are able to lead the country. By the way, something is only unconstitutional if it is challenged. A law or action will still be valid, even if it looks blatantly unconstitutional, as long as it is not ruled invalid.

Originally Posted by tswift_2

The problem is, the market doesn't always work things out. Monopolies form because of greed and harm free competition. Without government, these would form naturally, and would harm the economy. The market does not always balance things out. Should we get rid of worker safety laws, and hope that those employees will choose to work at safer companies? Employees had no protection before standards for safety were required. Setting these standards wasn't specifically stated in the Constitution. However, until the government began protecting workers, they died or were injured frequently, due to the greed and carelessness of companies. 150 years was not enough time for the market to fix this problem. Letting the market take care of problems does not work. The market called for slavery for large part of America's history. Should we have just let blacks be enslaved simply because you don't think that the government should be regulating the economy? Racial discrimination was much reduced thanks to questionably constitutional Executive Orders and Supreme Court decisions which stretched the Constitution to its limits. Should we have just let citizens be discriminated against?

There are unions which can deal with many of that stuff, without the government getting into the middle of it. It should be totally legal for people to sue a company if they get hurt on the job and its the company's fault. A company doesn't want to be sued so they have reasons to make sure its safe. And what about government controlled monopolies? Oil would be a lot cheaper today if the government hadn't caused oil monopolies to form with heavy regulations on them. The government also pays out so much money to companies, and it often promotes companies to do poorly by bailing them out for taking bad risks.

Originally Posted by tswift_2

I'm sorry, but this is not correct. My statistics about ranked presidents come from surveys with lawyers, political scientists, and professors. I did not bring my own opinion into play. You are very much in the minority about Lincoln and FDR.

Its entire possible I am in the minority, but its not a small minority, and its far more common than you let on.

Originally Posted by tswift_2

I find it hard to believe that you do not consider Lincoln's freeing of the slaves in the south as a great achievement. I also am surprised to see that you dislike programs that help Americans in need. The fact of the matter is that there are people in America that need help. The government needs to provide this function, because no one else does. I find it disturbing that anyone wants a government that is austere towards its people. Our government shouldn't sit idly as Americans suffer immensely. I realize that you might not feel this way, but I challenge you to think about how you would want the government to act if you were in that position. I find it hard to believe that you can honestly say, "I'd like my government to do nothing for me if I were in a position of poverty and destitution." FDR was almost universally adored in his time for helping Americans in need. That is an undeniable fact. It has nothing to do with opinion. Lincoln is almost universally respected as one of the greatest advancers of equal rights. That too is undeniable. Anyone who disagrees with this is very much in the minority. That is an undeniable fact.

People always goes straight to "He freed the slaves so hes great." Yea freeing the slaves is great but not in the way it was done. Instead of having a war which resulted in the death of over 600,000 american lives, for the same cost of the war they could of bought all of the slaves, then freed them, without a single loss of life.

As for providing for americans in need, no the government does not need to do it. And its totally untrue that no one else will do it. There are thousands of charities in the US which help provide for people who are in need. If our taxes were drastically reduced people would have far more money to give to charities an they will do the job without the government wasting the money.

This isn't about what the majority thinks, this is about what is right and what is wrong. If 60% of the people decide they no longer wanted to follow the constitution it wouldn't matter. The constitution is legally binding and the people must follow it. You can not simply ignore it as many past presidents have done. Its called treason.

Originally Posted by tswift_2

The UN has not been corrupt. That is pure opinion. The UN forces smaller countries to adhere to basic principles, that is true. However, this is necessary to ensure that they fit in with the world in general. If a country began piling up nukes and aiming them at other countries, should that be their prerogative? Certain basic rights of humans need to be secured first. In fact, every government functions on the basic idea that citizens give up some rights, so that the government can protect their vital rights. This is how every government works.

The UN is corrupt, they have been caught taking bribes and stuff in the past. They also don't apply their laws equally to everyone. Even worse some countries like the US totally ignore UN laws. Or like Isreal can stockpile nuclear weapons and the UN tells them to stop and they couldn't care less. Yet a smaller country tries something and UN come crashing down on them.

Also you are wrong in how governments work. Citizens do not give up rights in order to have their rights protected. For starters that makes no sense. How can the government protect your rights when you already given them up? You can't the government just took away your rights. Secondly governments shouldn't be allowed to do anything that the people can not do themself, because the government is made up by the people. If the people are not allowed to do something, what right does the government have to do it?

Originally Posted by tswift_2

Please realize that it has been absolutely necessary in our history for presidents to use expanded powers. Any history class will agree with this. Without the arguably unconstitutional measures that Lincoln took, the Union would not have been preserved. Let me reiterate. There would not have been a United States, had Lincoln not exceeded his explicitly stated constitutional powers. I do not know how this can be ignored. Our history has shown that during a crisis, it is absolutely vital that the presidents are able to lead the country. By the way, something is only unconstitutional if it is challenged. A law or action will still be valid, even if it looks blatantly unconstitutional, as long as it is not ruled invalid.

You are wrong, not everyone agrees with that. I have taken high school and collage histroy classes and they do not all agree. It is never necessary to 'stretch' the constituion, and its illegal. Which is why the courts so often over rule them. Though not always.

As for what he did to preserve the Union, you are 100% correct in that. Except there is one question, that is nearly always ignored. Which is, why did the states not have the right to leave? The answer of course, is that they did have the right to leave. Was it a wise choice to try and leave? Who knows, thats up to debate. Maybe it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that the states did have the right to leave if they so wished.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

According to this it doesn't matter who the US attack...since they are "the land of freedom" (that's how they call THEMSELVES) they are always right. Because the enemy of the "land of the free" must be "the land of evil".
tsss.

Classic ignorance. A textbook definition.

All British people have bad teeth. See, I can do it too!!!

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

The american way of thinking:


.............opposite..........
Freedom -------->tyranny

...................Enemy....................
US=Freedom ---------> country X = evil

According to this it doesn't matter who the US attack...since they are "the land of freedom" (that's how they call THEMSELVES) they are always right. Because the enemy of the "land of the free" must be "the land of evil".
tsss.

Not allowing a nation to be free is evil. It is extremely evil. If your nation ever unjustifiably loses its freedom, you will agree. You will agree so much you will be overwhelmed by it. But you might not be able to come here and talk about it because your ability to express your ideas on the internet might not exist any more. Do dictators have a right to do that to their people? No, it is very evil.

Notice how we do not go to war with the governments of free nations. Are you worried that we might declare war on Canada or Australia? Of course not.

Murder, tyranny, poverty. I'd challenge anyone to pick one to stop and justify allowing the other two to continue. It can't be done, and yet it is our burden to act.

This is a false choice, of course. I think it is fully within our means to act against all three of these evils at once. Still, we are all fixated by schemes that stop one and allow the others, aren't we?

If we should simply weigh the good and the bad together, how do we know which solution has the most good and the least bad? One could make a thousand historical analogies in every direction. We devolves into sophistry if we attempt to be convincing without any solid information about what the consequences of our ideas would be.

Perhaps having the knowledge of what should be done is as important as having the means to do it, and without that knowledge, we are simply incapable of addressing all three evils. We are left at square one, with an impossible choice. Choose your poison, as the saying goes.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I think it is fully within our means to act against all three of these evils at once.

What specifically do you suggest?

Killing enemy combatants justifiably does not qualify as "murder" any way, and neither does accidentally killing civilians in the crossfire. Plus, long term peace can result after war. We have made it happen a bunch of times.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Your statement of Vietnamese Patriots ammuses me. I would like to hear what you know about the Vietnamese war. If you knew about it, you would know that the Vietnamese war was a war between 2 distinct countries, and not an occupation.

Extreme solutions like the one you proposed do little to solve problems.

I think Elis.D isnt to far off with his claim about vietnamese patriots. what i think he meant to say was north vietnamese patriots. It was a war between North vietnam and south vietnam. the americans after blowing up their own battleship and blaiming it on the
N.Vietnamese entered vietnam on behalf of the south vietnamese and the maurading americans were outlasted by the vietkong who suffered greatly as did other vietnamese people. and all because america was trying to stop a soviet union allied state from emerging. How callous.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What specifically do you suggest?

Plus, long term peace can result after war. We have made it happen a bunch of times.

Yes at the cost of thousand of lives,sometimes hundreds of thousands and even more.

Its kind of sad that the country with the most freedoms will never know peace. Whats even more sad, is that we are nearly always the ones starting the wars.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Yes at the cost of thousand of lives,sometimes hundreds of thousands and even more.

How many are saved? Do you think we should have stayed out of World War II? World War I? The Revolutionary War? The Civil War (against the Confederacy)? War is sometimes necessary, wouldn't you say? Of course civilian war casualties are awful, but allowing a much greater number to be killed would be far worse.

Originally Posted by Alric

Its kind of sad that the country with the most freedoms will never know peace. Whats even more sad, is that we are nearly always the ones starting the wars.

If you are talking about Iraq, the current war is a continuation of an earlier war due to noncompliance with the ceasefire. The first war was started by the Hussein regime when they took over Kuwait. The Taliban of Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda after 9/11. They were starting shit with us by doing that. If you consider rescuing other countries from take over "starting the wars", I majorly disagree with you. And you use the term "nearly always"? What exactly are these examples that make up the vast majority?

I am not talking about iraq but the hundreds of wars, military engagements, peace keeping missions or whatever else you want to call them, declared or otherwise. The hundreds of instances where military troops moved across foreign boaders and killed people. How many millions of Americans soldiers have died? How many hundreds of millions people have died in wars which we took part in?

I think the Americans should just stay in America. That would make thing so much easier. And the UN should grow some balls and take action when countries like Iran start producing nukes.
What I'm saying is that the UN (that includes the US) should be taking on "evil" and not the US alone.

Ron Paul. He's the only candidate (Dem. or Rep.) that will get us out of Iraq immediately. And the only candidate that will cut spending and fix the economy.

I agree that it's ridiculous to base your vote on anything but the issues. I'm a Mormon but Romney is one of the last people I'd like to see in the white house.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

I think the Americans should just stay in America. That would make thing so much easier. And the UN should grow some balls and take action when countries like Iran start producing nukes.
What I'm saying is that the UN (that includes the US) should be taking on "evil" and not the US alone.

We're not in Iran, Bush invaded the wrong country. The UN didn't support the effort in Iraq, they are keeping tabs on Iran. They are keeping careful watch on Iran and will invade in diplomacy doesn't work.

And all of Clinton, Obama, and Paul all have plans to fix the economy. Spending money isn't up to the president, Congress controls the money. It'll be interested to see what happens when Bush tries to built permanent bases in Iraq and Congress doesn't write the check.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Mass evacuation of Iraq would mean transfer of 500,000 people to Kuwait. Ie, IED HEAVEN.

No, we have no reason to mass transfer to Kuwait, we need to mass transfer right the fuck back to the US. We have no reason to be in Iraq, or even Kuwait.

Also, do you think all killing in the country would stop if we just left? With every home owning an AK47 assault rifle? Yes, we do allow them to own guns.

I don't care! It's Not Our Business! We are not a nation that was founded to police the world! We need to take control of the rave happening in our own house, before we tell the neighbors to turn down their music.
They need to take care of their own mess, we don't need to be there, and legally we're not supposed to be there.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

I don't care! It's Not Our Business! We are not a nation that was founded to police the world! We need to take control of the rave happening in our own house, before we tell the neighbors to turn down their music.
They need to take care of their own mess, we don't need to be there, and legally we're not supposed to be there.

.. and I won't even mention Guantanamo Bay..

Damn.. I mentioned it..

Also you are wrong in how governments work. Citizens do not give up rights in order to have their rights protected. For starters that makes no sense. How can the government protect your rights when you already given them up? You can't the government just took away your rights. Secondly governments shouldn't be allowed to do anything that the people can not do themself, because the government is made up by the people. If the people are not allowed to do something, what right does the government have to do it?

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. A basic primer in governmental science is needed here. Look at a basic outline of Rousseau's Social Contract. Just use common sense. In order for the government to protect your right to life, they must take away the right to kill. The government protects your property by taking away any right to take whatever you want. In nature, there is no concept of rights, because everything is a right. The social contract between the government and the governed states that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and the citizens give up some rights in order to have other rights protected.

As for what he did to preserve the Union, you are 100% correct in that. Except there is one question, that is nearly always ignored. Which is, why did the states not have the right to leave? The answer of course, is that they did have the right to leave. Was it a wise choice to try and leave? Who knows, thats up to debate. Maybe it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that the states did have the right to leave if they so wished.

I do not know where you get your ideas from. The South wanted to leave because the United States wanted to abolish slavery. That is the basic reason. Obviously other minor reasons came into play, such as economic factors. However, the fact of the matter is, the southern states would not have seceded if the North did not want slavery abolished. To say that it was alright for the south to have seceded on the basis of slavery is to implicitly support slavery. The South did not have a valid reason to secede, to say so is inherently racist. Unlike the United States during the revolutionary period, they were not oppressed. They were the ones doing the oppression.

Originally Posted by Alric

People always goes straight to "He freed the slaves so hes great." Yea freeing the slaves is great but not in the way it was done. Instead of having a war which resulted in the death of over 600,000 american lives, for the same cost of the war they could of bought all of the slaves, then freed them, without a single loss of life.

I'm sorry, but history disagrees with you. Not only was this tried (Southern states were given the opportunity to free their slaves, and some slaveowners were offered compensation), but Lincoln also ruled it out because it still would have let slavery continue. How would equal rights be advanced by tacitly approving slavery?