|
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2012 00:46 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 00:35 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 00:28 Pandemona wrote:On January 04 2012 21:10 Derez wrote:On January 04 2012 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Man im so jealous of how American actually takes notice and votes in Elections and takes note of goverment issues...England is so so different, you almost have to force people to vote and its crazy.
Presidential election in America is nearly or is as big news as OUR own general election is. I have heard about the Iowa vote for the past week on news stations in England its crazy. When i was in America and our OWN general election was on, it was on 0 news stations in America (was in florida at the time) and when we asked the Americans about our Election they just said we dont really know its going on or /care its going on (they werent being rude just honest)...Crazy really xD
So close in the votes aswell, be very interesting year of voting i think. Good luck America! Yet out of a state of 3 million people, only about 120.000 people participated in this particular primary. A higher percentage of Europeans (on average) vote in their general election then they do in America. I'm not so sure they're better off in the US. 3million state, 120,000 people voted for the RIVAL to current president in the presidential race? So maybe the other 2.88million like Obama? In England, people vote for whoever is "most popular" or whoever tells them to vote for (ie the media) asked about why they vote for who they did not many give you a respectable answer, asked about political policies and info on debates they lack a decent answer or sometimes don't even know whats going on. To Derez: First, it's a primary, so not open to those not registered Republican. Second, it's a caucus. It is not as simple as showing up to vote at some random time all day. Also, population is 3 million of which ~829k are under age 18. The turnout isn't bad at all considering all that. First of all: The iowa caucusses are open to anyone that shows up and reregistration is possible on the spot. As an interesting tidbit, among (registered) republican voters, Santorum came in first. And yea, it's a causus, which is obviously different, but my point was that political participation in the US is probably lower then it is in Europe. I was responding to someone that claimed that US citizens are more involved in the politics/elections then people are in Europe. Based on things like participation in general elections, that's simply not true. More people go to vote in the UK/Germany/France/the Netherlands then do in the US. When visiting this thread it might seem like everyone is involved in politics, but that's only the people that were willing to click on the topic in the first place. You can explain it lots of ways (the electoral system plays a big role for sure), but to claim that people are more politically involved based on the Iowa caucusses is just stupid, especially since the guy I originally responded to doesn't really seem to know much about American politics in general (which is fine by me, all here to pick up something useful). American presidents are at times elected by less then 25% of the actual voting age population, which is crazy when your electoral system is based around pluralities.
I think the turnout for the last presidential election was 66% but that's still lower than the average for most other countries.
It's generally more difficult to vote in the US, since there's no internet voting and there's several barriers to registration. In states like Minnesota where registration is much easier, the voting rate is much higher than in other states.
Also voting on Tuesday is extremely inconvenient. It dates back to pre-industrial era when Sundays had to be free for church, but people needed a day of travel time on horse and carriage to make it to cities to vote. >.>
Also, Presidents are not elected by less than 25% of the voting age population. In the past 50 years, it's always been 50%+ and usually 60%+ and even those numbers are skewed towards the lower end, because voting age population != eligible voters. Criminals and immigrants are counted in the Census but they're not eligible to vote.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2012 00:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +He wasn't talking about ever, he was talking about right now. Right now, a Muslim would lose to a pedophile, sadly. In the future these views may change, and I sure hope they do. All those people were talking about their "right now" when they said that too. He's wrong, and so are you. And it shows how self-satisfying conclusions go a long way towards reinforcing stereotypes no matter how silly they are. A child molester would beat a Muslim. That's just nonsensical, no matter how clever it may have sounded. It's also a statement that's more accurately applied to Europe than anywhere else and even then it wouldn't happen.
And they were wrong when they said it about their time. Being Muslim is an automatic disqualifier right now, until another generation or two die out. Obviously the comparison to a pedophile is just a joke, although I'm not so sure Sandusky wouldn't win in Pennsylvania. Would it be closer if I said a senile old man instead?
|
The reason why it seems like more Americans are more involved in politics is quite simple, more actually are - in numbers. Even if less perceptual of USA's population goes to vote, it's still more people than countries with less population. If you have a country with 10 people and all 100 % goes to vote it still only 10 people that you can see/hear/read/discuss with.
Also the us media have much more political content (think what you will of the quality) than many other countries.
|
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
|
Well looks like Bachmann is dropping out now.
|
On January 05 2012 00:56 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 00:46 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 00:35 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 00:28 Pandemona wrote:On January 04 2012 21:10 Derez wrote:On January 04 2012 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Man im so jealous of how American actually takes notice and votes in Elections and takes note of goverment issues...England is so so different, you almost have to force people to vote and its crazy.
Presidential election in America is nearly or is as big news as OUR own general election is. I have heard about the Iowa vote for the past week on news stations in England its crazy. When i was in America and our OWN general election was on, it was on 0 news stations in America (was in florida at the time) and when we asked the Americans about our Election they just said we dont really know its going on or /care its going on (they werent being rude just honest)...Crazy really xD
So close in the votes aswell, be very interesting year of voting i think. Good luck America! Yet out of a state of 3 million people, only about 120.000 people participated in this particular primary. A higher percentage of Europeans (on average) vote in their general election then they do in America. I'm not so sure they're better off in the US. 3million state, 120,000 people voted for the RIVAL to current president in the presidential race? So maybe the other 2.88million like Obama? In England, people vote for whoever is "most popular" or whoever tells them to vote for (ie the media) asked about why they vote for who they did not many give you a respectable answer, asked about political policies and info on debates they lack a decent answer or sometimes don't even know whats going on. To Derez: First, it's a primary, so not open to those not registered Republican. Second, it's a caucus. It is not as simple as showing up to vote at some random time all day. Also, population is 3 million of which ~829k are under age 18. The turnout isn't bad at all considering all that. First of all: The iowa caucusses are open to anyone that shows up and reregistration is possible on the spot. As an interesting tidbit, among (registered) republican voters, Santorum came in first. And yea, it's a causus, which is obviously different, but my point was that political participation in the US is probably lower then it is in Europe. I was responding to someone that claimed that US citizens are more involved in the politics/elections then people are in Europe. Based on things like participation in general elections, that's simply not true. More people go to vote in the UK/Germany/France/the Netherlands then do in the US. When visiting this thread it might seem like everyone is involved in politics, but that's only the people that were willing to click on the topic in the first place. You can explain it lots of ways (the electoral system plays a big role for sure), but to claim that people are more politically involved based on the Iowa caucusses is just stupid, especially since the guy I originally responded to doesn't really seem to know much about American politics in general (which is fine by me, all here to pick up something useful). American presidents are at times elected by less then 25% of the actual voting age population, which is crazy when your electoral system is based around pluralities. I think the turnout for the last presidential election was 66% but that's still lower than the average for most other countries. It's generally more difficult to vote in the US, since there's no internet voting and there's several barriers to registration. In states like Minnesota where registration is much easier, the voting rate is much higher than in other states. Also voting on Tuesday is extremely inconvenient. It dates back to pre-industrial era when Sundays had to be free for church, but people needed a day of travel time on horse and carriage to make it to cities to vote. >.> Also, Presidents are not elected by less than 25% of the voting age population. In the past 50 years, it's always been 50%+ and usually 60%+ and even those numbers are skewed towards the lower end, because voting age population != eligible voters. Criminals and immigrants are counted in the Census but they're not eligible to vote.
Registration and days play a role for sure, as does a system based on states where a large portion of votes simply don't matter and votes in certain states are objectively worth more then votes in other states.
The 25% thing was a reference to the 1992 election and the total portion of the voting age population that voted for the winner. I realize that turnout is usually in the 50-60% range, tho before 2008 the last time over 60% voted in an election was in 1968.
Just take a look at recent elections, starting with 1992. Clinton got 43.1% of the vote, out of an estimated turnout of 55.1%. Napkin math says that 23,65% of the actual people allowed to vote, voted for Clinton. Granted, it's an extreme example due to Perot's presence. 1996 is at 24ish percent, 2000 is similar (with a higher percentage for the other guy) and that's where my math motivation ran out ;p. It's actually not that rare an occurrence. Only 1 out of every 4 people generally votes for the winner on election day, which is why american elections are a turnout game rather then changing minds. Whoever drives the most old people from strategic (read: partisan) areas to the polls wins the election.
The entire electoral system (starting with the anachronism called the electoral college) could be improved upon so much, but both parties have a vested interest in keeping it the way it is and abusing it when they are the majority.
On January 05 2012 01:20 Jibba wrote:
Oh, I misread your post and thought it was 25% total. Sorry.
As long as it's a winner takes all system, elections will gravitate towards two main parties. That's simply the nature of it, unfortunately.
Yup it does. You can make the system a lot fairer to voters by making it universal tho, and just counting nationwide votes at the end of the day and giving the guy with a plurality the win. I don't see why a californian vote should be worth less then a north-dakotan, and it would boost turnout and the legitimacy of political offices too.
|
United States22883 Posts
Oh, I misread your post and thought it was 25% total. Sorry.
As long as it's a winner takes all system, elections will gravitate towards two main parties. That's simply the nature of it, unfortunately.
|
And its funny how IOWA plays the biggest part in this whole process. Seems fishy to me to have a state that in no way whatsoever represents the challenges faced by America today be the state that starts the snowball towards the eventual Republican candidate.
It just seems bizarre. Have New York be the first state, or California?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On January 05 2012 00:56 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 00:46 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 00:35 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 00:28 Pandemona wrote:On January 04 2012 21:10 Derez wrote:On January 04 2012 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Man im so jealous of how American actually takes notice and votes in Elections and takes note of goverment issues...England is so so different, you almost have to force people to vote and its crazy.
Presidential election in America is nearly or is as big news as OUR own general election is. I have heard about the Iowa vote for the past week on news stations in England its crazy. When i was in America and our OWN general election was on, it was on 0 news stations in America (was in florida at the time) and when we asked the Americans about our Election they just said we dont really know its going on or /care its going on (they werent being rude just honest)...Crazy really xD
So close in the votes aswell, be very interesting year of voting i think. Good luck America! Yet out of a state of 3 million people, only about 120.000 people participated in this particular primary. A higher percentage of Europeans (on average) vote in their general election then they do in America. I'm not so sure they're better off in the US. 3million state, 120,000 people voted for the RIVAL to current president in the presidential race? So maybe the other 2.88million like Obama? In England, people vote for whoever is "most popular" or whoever tells them to vote for (ie the media) asked about why they vote for who they did not many give you a respectable answer, asked about political policies and info on debates they lack a decent answer or sometimes don't even know whats going on. To Derez: First, it's a primary, so not open to those not registered Republican. Second, it's a caucus. It is not as simple as showing up to vote at some random time all day. Also, population is 3 million of which ~829k are under age 18. The turnout isn't bad at all considering all that. First of all: The iowa caucusses are open to anyone that shows up and reregistration is possible on the spot. As an interesting tidbit, among (registered) republican voters, Santorum came in first. And yea, it's a causus, which is obviously different, but my point was that political participation in the US is probably lower then it is in Europe. I was responding to someone that claimed that US citizens are more involved in the politics/elections then people are in Europe. Based on things like participation in general elections, that's simply not true. More people go to vote in the UK/Germany/France/the Netherlands then do in the US. When visiting this thread it might seem like everyone is involved in politics, but that's only the people that were willing to click on the topic in the first place. You can explain it lots of ways (the electoral system plays a big role for sure), but to claim that people are more politically involved based on the Iowa caucusses is just stupid, especially since the guy I originally responded to doesn't really seem to know much about American politics in general (which is fine by me, all here to pick up something useful). American presidents are at times elected by less then 25% of the actual voting age population, which is crazy when your electoral system is based around pluralities. I think the turnout for the last presidential election was 66% but that's still lower than the average for most other countries. It's generally more difficult to vote in the US, since there's no internet voting and there's several barriers to registration. In states like Minnesota where registration is much easier, the voting rate is much higher than in other states. Also voting on Tuesday is extremely inconvenient. It dates back to pre-industrial era when Sundays had to be free for church, but people needed a day of travel time on horse and carriage to make it to cities to vote. >.> Also, Presidents are not elected by less than 25% of the voting age population. In the past 50 years, it's always been 50%+ and usually 60%+ and even those numbers are skewed towards the lower end, because voting age population != eligible voters. Criminals and immigrants are counted in the Census but they're not eligible to vote.
General election 2010, turnout for United Kingdom was 65.1% of the voting population voted. Which is nearly 4% up on the last general election due to huge campaign of people trying to get people to vote and more and more people actually taking note of "policies" etc etc due to global economic problems.
Year UK %
2010 65.1
2005 61.4
2001 59.4
1997 71.4
1992 77.7
1987 75.3
1983 72.7
1979 76
1974 Feb 78.8
1974 Oct 72.8
1970 72
1966 75.8
1964 77.1
1959 78.7
1955 76.8
1951 82.6
1950 83.9
1945 72.8
Is our voting % since records began...at a quick glance looks like gets worst every time t.t lol
|
|
|
I look at those candidates, I read about Obama's recent laws about war on terrorism and I fear that the US president has been a worthy leader and representant of the free, democratic world for the longest time.
|
On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor .
After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc
Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things .
+ Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe
|
On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe
Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice.
Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period.
That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that.
Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism.
You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US.
|
On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing?
The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others.
And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade.
(I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.)
And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine?
You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US.
What?
|
The whole reason Paul is appealing to me is the fact that he will quit wasting the billions upon billions that we spend. The last time I checked I believe it was in the neighborhood of 17billion. Meanwhile we as a country are so far in debt its disgusting. Him as a president would make it so that we can start taking care of our own instead of playing big brother to every conflict in the world. I don't agree with all of his views, but out all the people I am on the same page the most with him. As others have mentioned before in this thread I am sure; what he says is consistent, there is no backpedaling with him.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 02:49 lvent wrote:
The whole reason Paul is appealing to me is the fact that he will quit wasting the billions upon billions that we spend. The last time I checked I believe it was in the neighborhood of 17billion. Meanwhile we as a country are so far in debt its disgusting. Him as a president would make it so that we can start taking care of our own instead of playing big brother to every conflict in the world. I don't agree with all of his views, but out all the people I am on the same page the most with him. As others have mentioned before in this thread I am sure; what he says is consistent, there is no backpedaling with him.
I agree with this. I don't like all his views on foreign policy or the economy(I think it's a bit too extreme) but Paul's the only candidate I see that gives me the feeling that they're not completely full of shit.
|
On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? Show nested quote +You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What?
What what?
Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable.
Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy?
Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better:
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Apparently that applies also to human life.
Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself.
|
On January 05 2012 02:57 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 02:49 lvent wrote:
The whole reason Paul is appealing to me is the fact that he will quit wasting the billions upon billions that we spend. The last time I checked I believe it was in the neighborhood of 17billion. Meanwhile we as a country are so far in debt its disgusting. Him as a president would make it so that we can start taking care of our own instead of playing big brother to every conflict in the world. I don't agree with all of his views, but out all the people I am on the same page the most with him. As others have mentioned before in this thread I am sure; what he says is consistent, there is no backpedaling with him.
I agree with this. I don't like all his views on foreign policy or the economy(I think it's a bit too extreme) but Paul's the only candidate I see that gives me the feeling that they're not completely full of shit.
I hear your concerns; hell I share some of them. I think back though and look at the status quo and the history of the presidents and both R's & D's have failed us. Maybe we need someone thinking outside the box to get us out of the mess we are in. Clearly to me at least the system we got now is not working correctly. Social Security is looking like a giant ponzi scheme to me; I am 31 I very highly doubt I will ever see a dime back when I retire I pray my 401k stays strong lol
|
On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself.
You once again ignore the other states that are failing that ARE directly due to their fiscal policies, including their free health care. And you ignore the point that I made that Germany, although it is the strongest, has had continual decline in standard of living. You also ignore how I was discussing free healthcare based on its own merits, not compared to US fiscal policy.
And I never stated that healthcare is a product nor did I state that everything is a product to be parceled out for monetary gain. Rather, the point that I made is that everything is comes from the giving of a portion of another human being's LIFE ultimately. Is it not barbaric to take with the threat of force that which they have made with their LIFE, stripping them of their individual choice and effectively making at least a portion of who they are nothing but a serf sharecropping portions of their life? Somehow, in this model that you advocate, the inalienable right is a guarantee to be stolen from, with the threat of your life and liberty at stake, which are one's TRUE inalienable rights.
This also is not a rich/poor discussion, which you keep trying to make, but one of ownership of self.
And to follow your template, is this the part where I now insert some quote marginalizing the 65 million unique individuals living in France?
|
I really wish there was a viable method of online voting. Its such a shame that such a low % of the population votes. It being online would certainly help that a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
