[Abhorred]

Unfortunately, Drew, it looks like you might be in a shrinking group of those who would vote for the rival Democrat.

Heated campaign souring Democrats on rival candidates - Yahoo! News

"President McCain..." I suppose it's easy enough to say... So there's that...

[Drew]

I know. The thing is the Democratic race is so much more interesting than the Republican race right now, that the focus has been on the two candidates (more so Hilalry, but to be fair both) getting increasingly ugly at each other to try to stress what few differences there are. Because of this it's getting a lot easier to forget about the stark policy differences between both candidates and McCain, which I think helps explain this divisiveness.

My hope is that as soon as the Dems stop seeing the candidates in relation to each other, and see the eventual winner in relation to McCain, they'll quickly put their differences behind them, but the longer and uglier it gets the harder that'll be.

Basically, Obama needs to win Indiana; not because his candadicy is doomed if he doesn't, but becase if he blows out Clinton in North Carolina and edges her out in Indiana it'll be very hard for her to both justify her condinued candidacy, and fund a contest in the remaining races.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by Drew

As an aside, anyone else a little surprised Samer hasn't come in and flipped his shit about this thread?

Honestly, McCain seems to be economically a LOT worse for America than Clinton, whatever else you want to say about her. A buddy of mine and I have been going back and forth abotu his health care proposals all day, and not only would they probably be disasterous for middle class america, they totallly contradict his stated beliefs. I initially gave the guy a lot of credit for having the balls to state (quite correctly) that really what the problem was is that Americans pay almost 3x as much per capita for health care as their first-world peers and get, if not actually worse, than at least no better care ($6,300 compared to $2-2,500 or so). He's right, the amount of money spent on overheard and (my pet peeve) marketing in the American health care industry is appalling, and if we could redirect that into actual coverage we'd have no trouble with health coverage. He then inexplicably goes and tries to fix the problem solely by giving a $2.5k per capita/$5k per family tax credit, missing the point of course that this doesn't actually do anything to fix the root problem, that the industry itself needs to be reshaped...

Hey Bro,

Hillary is easily better than McCain, there is no comparison. However at this point I think Obama has the nomination sealed up, he is just 200 delegates short of the nomination at this point (with super delegates going for him daily).

Obama > Clinton > .................................................. . McCain

[Zugster]

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils may not be appealing, but it is the best we can ever do in a U.S. presidential election. It shouldn't be that way, but it absolutely positively is. In the short term, nothing can change that.

I support Obama. He is basically a very good man and VASTLY better than the alternatives. Even so, I know that if he wins there will be ways in which he will disappoint me on very important matters.

Should he not get the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary. Because the alternative is unthinkable.

Seriously... another 4 years of Republican presidency? 12 years in a row? More war? More corporate give aways? More assholes on the Supreme Court? More foriegn policy disasters? It's all too horrible to contemplate. As it is, it will take decades to undue the damage caused by Bush-Cheney-Rove.

I have a really hard time understanding how anyone into metal and what it means could vote for McCain and what that means.

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by Drew

I mean, it's only a problem that you're giving away 40% of your income to your government every year if in return you're not getting services (direct or secondary) that have value to you equal to 40% of your income, you know?

That's the whole point. First, I'm not receiving value on the taxes collected. Second, last I checked, the figure was at over 50% (In 2006, on the average, all your income from Jan 1 to June 6 went to pay taxes), not a "paltry" 40%. Third, these services provided actually cost much more than the revenue collected so the only reason they seem to have value is because we're charged less than their actual cost. Fourth, the revenue taken from me, supposedly put into "retirement plans" on my behalf are: 1) not guaranteed (I can pay into Social Security, etc. for my entire life, only to get nothing) and 2) a woefully underperforming ponzi scheme. Fifth (and most important) the vast, vast, vast majority of these "services" are beyond the powers granted to the Federal Government by The Constitution.

Ray

Originally Posted by Chris

... hopefully he'll have a decent amount of influence over her decisions.

I have my doubts. I still feel she ran the show the first time they were in office and he was just the public figure head.

For me, the big problem with the Clintons (and Bush Jr. seems to have learned this as well) is the constant "Say what ever you want, to get what you want, reality be damed." and when caught in a lie/hypocritical statement/inconsistent, conflicting, illogical statement/etc. attack the messenger, shift the blame, distort the past, etc.. Just look at the sheer crap, outright lies and sour-grapes Hillary has spewed during her campaign.

Ray

[Ken]

Originally Posted by Chris

Under Bill Clinton, I paid something like $1.50 a gallon for gas and the biggest national crisis was if his secretary blew him.

How much control does the president have over the price of gasoline? I don't know, but it seems to me we're being gouged at the pump because speculators in the commodities market are pushing up the price of futures, not because there's any shortage of oil.

You're right about the crises, though. Did Clinton deal with anything close to 9/11? I think the WTC bombing happened early in his first term, but a failed attempt where a 6 lives are lost is nothing compared to the collapse of the WTC, the loss of 2645 people, and the resulting devastation to the economy and sense of security of the American people.

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by Zugster

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils may not be appealing, but it is the best we can ever do in a U.S. presidential election. It shouldn't be that way, but it absolutely positively is.

No it isn't. Yes, in the next presidential campaign, the chance of a third party candidate getting elected is essentially zero, but what does one more vote for a Republicrat you don't want in office get you? Did your one vote put a dent in the tens of thousands of votes your lesser-of-two-evils lost by? Did your one vote make any difference in the tens of thousands votes that your lesser-of-two-evils won by? That is a wasted vote. What did your vote for the lesser-of-two-evils get you? Nothing except a lesser-of-two-evils that feels validated because of the number of people that voted for them.

What did not voting for the candidate you really wanted cost you? Your true views are hidden and you've given public support to a platform you don't agree with. One more or one less vote for a Republicrat has no net effect -- One vote for a candidate that actually supports your views has a real, net effect on their totals, perceived viability, public exposure, etc.. Voting for a candidate you really want shows that you're not happy with, and not buying into the Republicrat status quo. Voting for the candidate you really want is a step forward in changing the system, instead of supporting the status quo. Your vote, even though you didn't vote for "The Winner" wasn't wasted.

Originally Posted by Zugster

In the short term, nothing can change that.

Voting for a 3rd Party candidate most likely won't change the result of November's election, but it still produces short-term victories. Also, if you continually support the status quo, you'll never see any long term changes.

Regarding short-term changes: Assuming that the folks I encounter are a fair representation of the US as a whole, if everybody that said, "I'd vote for {insert a 3rd Party Candidate}, but ..." actually voted for that 3rd Party Candidate, the 3rd Parties would pull-in 30% - 40% of the popular vote. That will make a difference in the short-term and the long term. There is plenty of historical evidence that candidates "become" more green, libertarian, etc. when they see they're losing/have lost votes.

People actually voting for the 3rd Party Candidates in major elections (they already fair much better at the local/state level) will make it tougher for the networks to ignore/discriminate against the 3rd Parties. Voting for 3rd Party Candidates will expose them to more voters. Combine the two, and you'll get better voter turn-out because people that stay home because there is no real difference between the two flavors of Republicrat will see that there are more options.

Better showings in the national elections will help all 3rd Party Candidates at the State level. How do you expect the biased (bipartisan is not nonpartisan) election laws to be changed? Those are set at the state level, by the Republicrats, to favor the Republicrats.

Wasting your vote on a lesser-of-two-evils is an incredibly short-sighted decision if you're unhappy with the political status quo. It gains you nothing beyond a temporary warm fuzzy (a misguided "at least I did something") and only delays the changes necessary to make a real difference. The point of the election is not to cast your vote for the winner, but to make your wishes known.

If you're in a tight-race state, and voting for your lesser-of-two-evils will make you feel better if they only lose by a couple of thousand votes, go right ahead, but unless your lesser-of-two-evils wins by one vote, you've still wasted your vote by not voting for the candidate you really want and you're only delaying any real change in American politics.

Ray

[Zugster]

Elray, I have to disagree with almost everything you said.

First, you seem to assume that a 3rd party candidate is someone I actually would want to vote for and see in office. Not even close dude! Look at some of these pathetic candidates in recent times: Ralph Nader? Ross Perot? blech!!

Anyone who voted for Nader in the 2004 election - especially in Florida or Ohio - effectively voted for George Bush. Al Gore - though flawed in many ways - was a thousand times better than Bush. Had the election not be stolen (and yes it was stolen), we would not be at war in Iraq right now. That alone is more than reason enough to vote the lesser of 2 evils. Anyone who voted for Nader helped elect Bush-Cheney-Rove. Their vote was worse than wasted. It was for the wrong side.

[Vegetta]

Originally Posted by Drew

I actually remember paying less than a buck a gallon for a while there. $1.50 was the average, maybe, but it was pretty low. I also remember being surprised when it first crossed $2, and then shocked when it crossed $3. Now, we've been holding steady at $3.50 a gallon, $2.99 would seem comparably cheap, and it's a matter of time before we're over $4.

That said. Hillary is a VERY different animal than Bill. :/

The problem is tho that since crude oil is traded as a commodity there really is not much the president will be able to do to effect the price. One leverage we might have is from agricultural goods (food). Since bio fuels are doing so well now it is actually diminishing the amount of available food to the third world and it is driving up the price of food as well.

I kind of think that no matter who gets elected they will not win a second term. there is just too much wrong now for any of them to fix easily within 4 years. People are going to expect instant results and when things don't get any better (some people speculate things are going to in fact be much worse) they are going to scream for change again come next election.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by ElRay

TSecond, last I checked, the figure was at over 50% (In 2006, on the average, all your income from Jan 1 to June 6 went to pay taxes), not a "paltry" 40%.

January: 31 days
February: 29 days (as it was a leap year)
March: 31 days
April: 30 days
May: 31 days
June: 6 days
Total: 158 days
Totay days in a yeal year: 366.

158/366 = 43.2%

You sure about that, dude? I freely admit that, if your statistics are true, I was off by 3.2%. But 40% is a LOT closer to 43.2% than "over 50%" is to 43.2%.

For the rest of your points, my bad. I assume you're not connecting to the internet through the government-created infastructure, you don't drive on (at times badly) government paved and maintained roads, that you've hired a personal contingent of guards to patrol your borders rather than allowing the US government to do it for you, that your doctor and dentist went to elite private grade and high schools, and colleges and medical schools, and didn't do so with the help of government-subsidized loans, that you use Skype instead of a government-subsidizerd physical phone system, you run a generator in your backyard and buy your own crude at retail rather than government-subsidized gasoline, and you grow your own food and don't buy food at artificially low prices thanks to government subsidies for the farmers.

Calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" is all very well and good, but to do so you have to level the same charges at ANY defined benefit pension plan, and I don't think it sticks. It's not like current retirees are being funded solely by the money paid in by current workforce - the idea of a pension plan is that you pay into it as you work, the money is invested and earns an income, and grows enough so that when you retire part if not all of the benefits you will recieve will come from earned income rather than current contributions. It's worked rather well for the last century or so for private DBP's, and assuming our government stops borrowing so heavily against it to fund foreign wars it should work just fine in the future, provided our plan administrators are at all competent. I mean, I hate to make a point this un-subtle, but it's a straight-up time value of money thing.

Originally Posted by Vegetta

The problem is tho that since crude oil is traded as a commodity there really is not much the president will be able to do to effect the price.

Yes and no. Oil IS, in fact, a commodity, but blaming oil prices on commodity speculators (as Bush has attempted to do) really misses the point.

Oil may be a commodity, but it's a commodity traditionally priced in USD. Under Clinton, our budget was the strongest it's been in ages, and the US Dollar was at record highs relative to world currencies. The thing is, though, that the dollar is a commodity too. Under Bush, we waged a war entirely on credit; we didn't raise taxes and cut programs back home as is traditionally done in time of war, but rather we just borrowed the money by issuing more US debt in the form of Treasury bonds. In short, we flooded the market with T-bills. Now, if you consider a US bond as what it is - a USD interest-bearing commitment to pay a lump sum of USD at some point in the future - what this really means is we're selling way more commitments to pay dollars than the market is really looking for. If supply exceeds demand, the price of the contract (and in turn, the implied value of a dollar) falls.

So, in 2000, one dollar would buy you 1.2 Euros. Today, one dollar will buy you about .6 euros; the dollar has fallen by half in relation to the Euro. Is it any wonder, then, that USD prices for oil have skyrocketed? Return the dollar to pre-Bush strength, and gas prices fall by half, back to about $1.50-1.75 a gallon. Sure, there are other factors in play, not the least of which political instability in the region, but you can't seperate the drastic increase in oil prices with the drastic fall in the value of the dollar. Speculation has a lot less to do with it than Bush would like you to believe.

And, not to go all conspiracy theory on you or anything, but its a stretch to call it a coincidence that the presidency with strongest ties to Big Oil in recent memory (if not ever) has done very little to stop the slide of the dollar (and in fact has been accused, not unjustly, with trying to keep it low), sending oil prices through the roof and creating windfall profits for the oil industry, Hallliburton amongst them...