Next Us President

[RedScare]

...contrast that with Huckabee, I see no choice, because I just cannot take another religious nut for another 8 (or 4 years)

Federally mandated diets and church on Sundays. Sounds like a great time.

[crunchtastic]

I have to admit to not paying too much attention to Huckabee. Is he garden-variety old southern baptist, or one of the truly scary dominionists?

Red, if you feel like reading something that will have you fighting the urge to pack your bags for Canada or Costa Rica, I recommend American Theocracy by Kevin Philips.

[TheNiche]

I have to admit to not paying too much attention to Huckabee. Is he garden-variety old southern baptist, or one of the truly scary dominionists?

He's populist. Socially conservative, economically liberal, the antithesis of Ron Paul. Probably closer to John Edwards than anyone in his own party, and an excellent example of how the Republicans basically lack a consistent/coherent political philosophy this time around.

My fingers are crossed, but I am very concerned that my only choices will be populists (Edwards or Huckabee), douchebags (Clinton or Romney), crazies (Richardson or Paul), or dangerously inexperienced--albeit articulate--products of the Daly political machine (Obama). Rudy took it on the chin, and although he might be electable, I seriously doubt that he can recover at this point. Biden was at least competent and experienced, even if I didn't usually agree with him, but he's gone. If Thompson can pick up a lot of the Paul constituency when Paul bows out (which absolutely needs to happen before Super Tuesday!), he might stand an outside chance, but essentially, if he's not on the ticket, I've given up hope for a decent presidential candidate.

Edited January 5, 2008 by TheNiche

[lockmat]

Anyone know of any good sources that give unbiased information on the candidates? Or do I need to grab bits and pieces everywhere?

And I can't believe Obama's youth and inexperience does not concern people.

Edited January 5, 2008 by lockmat

[crunchtastic]

He's populist. Socially conservative, economically liberal, the antithesis of Ron Paul. Probably closer to John Edwards than anyone in his own party, and an excellent example of how the Republicans basically lack a consistent/coherent political philosophy this time around.

That doesn't answer my question, which was purely about religion. Theologically speaking, where does he fall? There are many variations, even within the southern baptists, way more in the greater protestant/ evangelical pool.

I agree he is an unlikely Republican candidate and it concerns me that the radical evangelical conservatives (GWB's former base, scary friggin zionists and all) have glommed onto him. I actually do have concerns with Obama's inexperience. As for his 'message of change' I think he's deluding himself. He's the new corporate boy.

My nature is old-school populist, but anymore, only in my dreams. It runs in the family. My non-political mother famously said during the 2000 debates on tv, about GWB, "that man doesn't give a sh**t about me," turned and walked back into the kitchen.

[Guest danax]

I'm kinda warming up to Obama, though. The same ol' same ol' sure aint working. And, if he turns out to be a bust, how bad can it be? I mean, we seem to have survived 8 years of GW, didn't we?

He is the same ol same ol though, just another manakin for the new world order, or will be if elected. Ron Paul is the only one speaking the truth. It can be as bad as him continuing to march forward with the "unseen hand's" agenda; war, destroying of America etc.

[TheNiche]

He is the same ol same ol though, just another manakin for the new world order, or will be if elected. Ron Paul is the only one speaking the truth. It can be as bad as him continuing to march forward with the "unseen hand's" agenda; war, destroying of America etc.

Paul is, I think, perhaps the only candidate that is actually speaking his mind. He's nucking futs...but at least he's honest about it.

[TheNiche]

That doesn't answer my question, which was purely about religion. Theologically speaking, where does he fall? There are many variations, even within the southern baptists, way more in the greater protestant/ evangelical pool.

I don't really care what brand of baptist he is, and moreover, I can't know what he is because he's a politician, so I'm afraid I can't answer that...but it wouldn't have registered with me if I'd heard it.

I agree he is an unlikely Republican candidate and it concerns me that the radical evangelical conservatives (GWB's former base, scary friggin zionists and all) have glommed onto him. I actually do have concerns with Obama's inexperience. As for his 'message of change' I think he's deluding himself. He's the new corporate boy.

"Change" is being overused by everyone. Huckabee and Obama are only the worst offenders. Nobody is deluded. It's just a word that focus groups have revealed has a resoundingly strong effect on what seems from my vantage point to be our constantly-drunken electorate.

My nature is old-school populist, but anymore, only in my dreams. It runs in the family. My non-political mother famously said during the 2000 debates on tv, about GWB, "that man doesn't give a sh**t about me," turned and walked back into the kitchen.

Funny, I'd give my left pinky at this point for a viable candidate that didn't give a sh**t about me.

[memebag]

Paul is, I think, perhaps the only candidate that is actually speaking his mind. He's nucking futs...but at least he's honest about it.

Kucinich and Gravel speak their minds, too, further proof that mind speakers can't be elected president.

I want a president who will fight the insurance industry for meaningful nationalized healthcare. None of the electable candidates will do that, so I'm out of luck. My fall back is someone who can start digging us out of the foreign policy nightmare GWB has created. Obama has so much charm he might be able to do that, so he's my pick.

[crunchtastic]

As long as popular sentiment swings back a little, and people stop believing things like: The Markets Will Solve Everything for us, there might be a future for American politics.

Worst case is the US becomes the next test case for IMF/World Bank supra-capitalist policy. My greatest fear is, anti-American sentiment gets strong enough and wage/inflation gap grows big enough, it could happen. Privatize everything. No more currency supports; no more social systems. That's the "crazy" part of Ron Paul. For all of you folks that 'hate big government' this should delight you. It scares the crap out of me, though.

[crunchtastic]

I want a president who will fight the insurance industry for meaningful nationalized healthcare. None of the electable candidates will do that, so I'm out of luck. rt

If there were a single policy issue one had to pick in order to vote, this would be mine.

And no, no mainstream candidate can buck the insurance companies on this.

[crunchtastic]

Anyone know of any good sources that give unbiased information on the candidates? Or do I need to grab bits and pieces everywhere?

And I can't believe Obama's youth and inexperience does not concern people.

Pretty much everyone is at the mercy of the spin doctors. Read as many different sources of news as you can. Pick a couple of international ones. When it comes to to actually voting, the old standby is the League of Women Voters. http://www.lwvhouston.com/

they do sample ballots and basic q&a's on the candidates.

For right now, my favorite place to hang out is this guy: stats mainly, but good commentary:

http://electoral-vote.com/

[TheNiche]

If there were a single policy issue one had to pick in order to vote, this would be mine.

And no, no mainstream candidate can buck the insurance companies on this.

Really? That's something I'd vehemently vote against. It'd be one thing if they were talking about a very minimal preventative healthcare package...that I like because it saves everyone money in the long term and could really reduce the spread of contagious diseases. But total socialized medicine creates a whole mess of problems. With stuff like that, I'm a firm believer of the idea that if you really want it, you and like-minded people should give to charitable causes that are committed to bringing it about. Charities are probably better at administering it than government anyways...would you disagree with that?

You have no business telling me that I should fund my neighbor's healthcare. That is my discretion. Anything else is theft.

[webdude]

Really? That's something I'd vehemently vote against. It'd be one thing if they were talking about a very minimal preventative healthcare package...that I like because it saves everyone money in the long term and could really reduce the spread of contagious diseases. But total socialized medicine creates a whole mess of problems. With stuff like that, I'm a firm believer of the idea that if you really want it, you and like-minded people should give to charitable causes that are committed to bringing it about. Charities are probably better at administering it than government anyways...would you disagree with that?

You have no business telling me that I should fund my neighbor's healthcare. That is my discretion. Anything else is theft.

The government steals from everyone to fund a bunch of stuff from wars to farmers. Everyone has their own version of what should be used for, what is wasted and what is theft. If I can choose, I rather not pay taxes, but since I have to, I rather it be wasted on healthcare. That is like in the same importance to me as fire department and police to me. I had the experience of really going though our current health care system and tackle insurance companies, it is really broken. Rather than wasting money overseas, I would rather they waste it in trying to get healthcare right.

Edited January 5, 2008 by webdude

[TheNiche]

The government steals from everyone to fund a bunch of stuff from wars to farmers. If I can choose, I rather not pay taxes, but since I have to, I rather it be wasted on healthcare. That is like in the same importance to me as fire department and police to me. I had the experience of really going though our current health care system and tackle insurance companies, it is really broken. Rather than wasting money overseas, I would rather they waste it in trying to get healthcare right.

I accept taxation as a necessity, but don't want any of my tax dollars to be wasted. Police and fire services aren't waste, generally, although specific programs within those departments sometimes are. I prefer to evaluate all programs on a case-by-case basis. If we can cut war funding (provided minimal adverse consequences) and farm subsidies and funding to social support programs, including healthcare, I'm a very happy voter. They need not be replaced with an alternative form of waste.

Edited January 5, 2008 by TheNiche

[crunchtastic]

Really? That's something I'd vehemently vote against. It'd be one thing if they were talking about a very minimal preventative healthcare package...that I like because it saves everyone money in the long term and could really reduce the spread of contagious diseases. But total socialized medicine creates a whole mess of problems. With stuff like that, I'm a firm believer of the idea that if you really want it, you and like-minded people should give to charitable causes that are committed to bringing it about. Charities are probably better at administering it than government anyways...would you disagree with that?

You have no business telling me that I should fund my neighbor's healthcare. That is my discretion. Anything else is theft.

Right. The commonly held misconceptions of "Socialized Medicine". I'm not talking about government paid health care, only eliminating the insurance profit. Single-payer.

Your abstract approach will alienate you. You assume someone elses faith, or family, will step on in. Think again. This country's free market created the ____ that's killing people today. The wars, the food additives. The water policies. The ag subsidies. The 'market-solve' . Exactly how will regular people fix things, on their own? You, clearly, are young. You don't have children, and your aging parents must not be a concern.

I work for the insurance industry; and can assure that you better hope to bloody hell you stay healthy and insurable. The very fact that that you're expressing an opinion on this forum will be accounted for when underwriting a case. If my job is eliminated for the sake of universal healthcare, I will easily work somewhere else. For peanuts, or for myself.

Edited January 5, 2008 by crunchtastic

[NewMND]

Does anyone watch "30 Rock?" Such a crazy show, but anyways, there was one episode when the blonde character, I think her name is Jenna, went on Hardball with Chris Matthews because she was trying to do damage control, because it was printed that she hates the troops, but she meant theater troupes. Anyways, she was trying to sound smart on the show, and she goes something like "If President Bush is so serious about terrorism, then he needs to capture and stop Barack Obama before he can strike again," and she continues on "I'm for change and I believe in change so I'm voting Osama 2008!" It was funny if you were there.

Anyways, as far as Obama vs Clinton, on a "likability" (I dunno how to spell the word) level, I like Obama, but when it comes to foregin policy, I definately think Clinton would be the better fit. And when it comes to foreign policy, I also think Clinton will be more conservative than people think she will be. I think I'd prefer to see Clinton run for president, with Obama as her VP. His likeablity can help balance out her personality disorder, and as VP, he can gain much more experience, and be more seasoned the next time he runs for president. I like Obama, I just think he needs a few more years experience before he becomes president, and being the vice president seems like a good training ground, well, in theory anyways.

As far as Republicans, I guess I like McCain the best, but he's just so old! Romney seems like a douche with good hair, and something about Guilianni bugs me when he talks, which I guess is a shallow reason to dislike someone.

[memebag]

But total socialized medicine creates a whole mess of problems.

Like longer lifespans, lower per capita health expenditures, and all that jazz the other industrialized nations get? Yeah, what a mess.

You have no business telling me that I should fund my neighbor's healthcare.

I get to tell you to fund fire departments to put out your neighbors fires, police departments to stop your neighbors from smoking weed and raping each other, schools to educate your neighbors kids, environmental agencies to stop your neighbors from polluting your air and water, NASA to send your neighbors into orbit, the DOD to help your neighbors kids be all that they can be, etc.. Why can't I tell you to fund doctors to stop your neighbors from giving you tuberculosis?

[TheNiche]

Right. The commonly held misconceptions of "Socialized Medicine". I'm not talking about government paid health care, only eliminating the insurance profit. Single-payer.

If you eliminate insurance profit, no one will issue insurance policies. If the single payer is government, that is socialized medicine. If you believe I'm mistaken and want to draw a distinction, I'm all ears.

You assume someone elses faith, or family, will step on in.

No. I don't.

This country's free market created the ____ that's killing people today. The wars, the food additives. The water policies. The ag subsidies. The 'market-solve' . Exactly how will regular people fix things, on their own? You, clearly, are young. You don't have children, and your aging parents must not be a concern.

I work for the insurance industry; and can assure that you better hope to bloody hell you stay healthy and insurable. The very fact that that you're expressing an opinion on this forum will be accounted for when underwriting a case. If my job is eliminated for the sake of universal healthcare, I will easily work work somehwere else.

The free market is responsible for war? I thought that that was a gov't. function? Ditto water policy. Ditto ag subsidies.

As for food additives, I have two questions for you: 1) which ones are you talking about, and 2) do they taste good? If they taste like crap and harm you, then someone's about to go out of business, at which point you'll have no justification for complaint. If they taste good and harm you, then you need to stop ingesting them if they're so bad and let hedonists like myself be hedonists. If only you'd let me by way of your vote, I'd promise you that you wouldn't have to pay for my eventual health care once the heart conditions develop.

I work for the insurance industry; and can assure that you better hope to bloody hell you stay healthy and insurable. The very fact that that you're expressing an opinion on this forum will be accounted for when underwriting a case.

Ummm...yeah, how's that?

[webdude]

Like longer lifespans, lower per capita health expenditures, and all that jazz the other industrialized nations get? Yeah, what a mess.

They have their own set of problems, but I would certainly agree that it isn't as messy as what we have, and I certainly have one less worry for my family if we have that kind of system right now.

I get to tell you to fund fire departments to put out your neighbors fires, police departments to stop your neighbors from smoking weed and raping each other, schools to educate your neighbors kids, environmental agencies to stop your neighbors from polluting your air and water, NASA to send your neighbors into orbit, the DOD to help your neighbors kids be all that they can be, etc.. Why can't I tell you to fund doctors to stop your neighbors from giving you tuberculosis?

LOL. I agree with all except maybe our kids' education.

If you eliminate insurance profit, no one will issue insurance policies. If the single payer is government, that is socialized medicine. If you believe I'm mistaken and want to draw a distinction, I'm all ears.

No. I don't.

The free market is responsible for war? I thought that that was a gov't. function? Ditto water policy. Ditto ag subsidies.

Many companies have a conflict of interest in prolonging war so folks will buy weapons, building materials, and other related services, but they don't really called it war, its call rebuilding, bringing democracy and such.

As for food additives, I have two questions for you: 1) which ones are you talking about, and 2) do they taste good? If they taste like crap and harm you, then someone's about to go out of business, at which point you'll have no justification for complaint. If they taste good and harm you, then you need to stop ingesting them if they're so bad and let hedonists like myself be hedonists. If only you'd let me by way of your vote, I'd promise you that you wouldn't have to pay for my eventual health care once the heart conditions develop.

Except there is a lag time in that free market where some folks will get harm or die first before the business eventually goes out of business.

Edited January 5, 2008 by webdude

[crunchtastic]

The free market is responsible for war?

Sweetie, Niche, really. I mean, really.

Ummm...yeah, how's that?

I sold my soul to the devil a long time ago. You need to listen when I tell you to not jack around with these things--I know.

[TheNiche]

I sold my soul to the devil a long time ago. You need to listen when I tell you to not jack around with these things--I know.

OK, then. PM me. I wanna know how this works.

[TheNiche]

Like longer lifespans, lower per capita health expenditures, and all that jazz the other industrialized nations get? Yeah, what a mess.

Yep, and that is precisely why I conceded a minimal preventative plan. Gotta seperate the wheat from the chaff.

I get to tell you to fund fire departments to put out your neighbors fires, police departments to stop your neighbors from smoking weed and raping each other, schools to educate your neighbors kids, environmental agencies to stop your neighbors from polluting your air and water, NASA to send your neighbors into orbit, the DOD to help your neighbors kids be all that they can be, etc.

First, let me state a general opposition to the DEA (which I think needs to be replaced by the IRS), some bull____ programs within the EPA, NASA in almost every way, and certain parts of DoD funding. And I think that education funding at the federal level needs to be vastly increased because there are clearly some problems among voters when it comes to policy analysis, and that'll come back to bite all of us in our collective ass.

As I've said before, funding has to be considered on a project-by-project basis. There are programs that make sense, to the benefit of just about everybody, but there are also many that don't. I don't understand how two HAIFers now have been so short-sighted as to believe that because I favor minimal federal involvement in healthcare, I must seem to fall pretty much into the extremist Ron Paul camp.

Why can't I tell you to fund doctors to stop your neighbors from giving you tuberculosis?

You can tell me to, but the decision is mine to make. If it benefits me or my neighbor, why can't I kill you?

Edited January 5, 2008 by TheNiche

[RedScare]

Charities are probably better at administering it than government anyways...would you disagree with that?

You have no business telling me that I should fund my neighbor's healthcare. That is my discretion. Anything else is theft.

I absolutely disagree that charities do a better job. In fact, the number of charities spending donations on non-charitable "overhead" has gotten so bad that legitimate charities report that they are having trouble meeting goals. The Iraq War also shows the problems with private industry running the war. Billions of dollars have simply disappeared. The idea that privatization is always better is a myth perpetrated by free market profiteers, who see government as a money spigot.

As for your claim that taxes are theft, I will simply say you are wrong, as you have the opportunity to elect the officials that impose the taxes. I do not call it theft that Bush has wasted a Trillion dollars on a phony war, and it will not be theft if they spend it on saving lives, rather than wasting them, either.

[RedScare]

Anyways, as far as Obama vs Clinton, on a "likability" (I dunno how to spell the word) level, I like Obama, but when it comes to foregin policy, I definately think Clinton would be the better fit. And when it comes to foreign policy, I also think Clinton will be more conservative than people think she will be. I think I'd prefer to see Clinton run for president, with Obama as her VP. His likeablity can help balance out her personality disorder, and as VP, he can gain much more experience, and be more seasoned the next time he runs for president. I like Obama, I just think he needs a few more years experience before he becomes president, and being the vice president seems like a good training ground, well, in theory anyways.

As far as Republicans, I guess I like McCain the best, but he's just so old! Romney seems like a douche with good hair, and something about Guilianni bugs me when he talks, which I guess is a shallow reason to dislike someone.

I completely agree with you that Clinton is more of a hawk than the conservatives give her credit for. In fact, this is the reason I no longer support her. She is virtually a Bush clone (except that she is intelligent) on foreign policy. As for Giuliani, you are right to be bugged by him. He is an authoritarian (look, I didn't call him fascist like I wanted too. ). If you are troubled by Bush's insistence on spying on Americans, wait till Giuliani becomes Cop-In-Chief.

[memebag]

You can tell me to, but the decision is mine to make. If it benefits me or my neighbor, why can't I kill you?

Do you want to kill me?

[TheNiche]

I absolutely disagree that charities do a better job. In fact, the number of charities spending donations on non-charitable "overhead" has gotten so bad that legitimate charities report that they are having trouble meeting goals.

If you don't like the way a charity is managed, don't give to that charity. Instead, reward those that are most effective and that have the mission statement most in line with your own values.

I absolutely disagree that charities do a better job. In fact, the number of charities spending donations on non-charitable "overhead" has gotten so bad that legitimate charities report that they are having trouble meeting goals. The Iraq War also shows the problems with private industry running the war. Billions of dollars have simply disappeared. The idea that privatization is always better is a myth perpetrated by free market profiteers, who see government as a money spigot.

Crunchtastic said that private companies are responsible for starting the war. They didn't, that was my point. The Bush administration made the case and congress authorized it. There have been lots of problems administering the war since, and oversight of the private firms is certainly among them...but that has no bearing on my point...it is a red herring.

Privatization is not always better, I agree with you on that. Another red herring.

As for your claim that taxes are theft, I will simply say you are wrong, as you have the opportunity to elect the officials that impose the taxes. I do not call it theft that Bush has wasted a Trillion dollars on a phony war, and it will not be theft if they spend it on saving lives, rather than wasting them, either.

Read the first sentence of post #225.

[TheNiche]

Do you want to kill me?

Not unless you intend to rob me.

[memebag]

Not unless you intend to rob me.

I don't. Why did you ask if you could kill me?

[TheNiche]

I don't. Why did you ask if you could kill me?

You asked:

Why can't I tell you to fund doctors to stop your neighbors from giving you tuberculosis?

Unfortunately, since I'd already said earlier that I would favor a basic preventative healthcare program, I read through about half of that sentence and caught the word "tuberculosis" at the end, and figured that you were asking me to pay for the treatment of my neighbor's TB.

If you're asking whether I'd be willing to include quarantine as part of the preventative healthcare program, I would. But I won't pay for that person's treatment.

EDIT: In retrospect, my conditional death threat is really really funny.

Edited January 6, 2008 by TheNiche