American Politics

[Shanti418]

So I don't know if anyone outside the US is paying attention or not, but our political parties are having their primaries to pick their candidates for the upcoing presidential election.

On the Republican side, John McCain has all but secured the nomination. McCain has ridden his strengths, national defense and personal integrity, to the top of the heap, despite having a pretty moderate record on social issues. McCain is a pretty centrist candidate, which means his nomination rubs the evangelical Bushie conservatives the wrong way, but his appeal to independants and moderates also means that he still stands a fair chance to win a general election despite the fact that the Republican White House is the most unpopular in history. Still, the Iraq War is as unpopular as ever, and his unwavering support could definitely come back to hurt him in a national campaign.

The only other Republican candidate left is Mike Huckabee, who combines Republicanism with economic populism (a rare mix) and tops it off with crazy religious wackiness that makes Dubya look like Richard Dawkins. He's basically just jockeying for policital power and possibly the VP spot, as he's virtually mathematically eliminated from the nomination.

With apologies to Ron Paul.

On the Democratic side, everybody's energized and pumped and having to choose between who they like as opposed to who they dislike the least. As some say with picking nominees, Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love.
For virtually all of 2007, Hillary Clinton was far and away the front runner, riding the romanticized Clinton era, her personal interest in health care, and the vast political machine she has and combining it with personal political skill. This race was hers, it was her story, it was to be the final triumph of Clintonian politics and the final ignomy for the Bush men.
But Barack Obama happened along the way.



Basically, I'm just looking for anyone to talk politics. We're all intelligent people. I know there's plenty of people on this board who have opinions on American politics. I just want to hear them. Espeically the people who I've disagreed with on issues during the Dubya debacle.(I'm looking at YOU, Leatherneck. And you too, MIA OPR. And yes, even you, long lost PMOP) What do you make of this election? The unprecedented turnout and interest? The possibility, some say probability of a woman or black man in the White House?

[Professor Smooth]

I don't give a damn about electing a woman or a black guy to the white house. Anyone who can do the job well will be fine.

That's why I'm absolutely THRILLED with how the election has worked out thus far! I mean it, I'm really pleased. McCain is all but guaranteed to be the Republican nominee and he's damn well qualified for the job. I disagree with him on some things (of course), but I get the feeling that, right now, he's more in "get votes" mode than "say what I really mean" mode. If this guy is elected to the white house, then I won't be terribly upset.

Out of the two democrats, I'm cheering for Obama. I registered to get an absentee ballot just so I could vote for him. I think that he's got the ideas and principles to get the US out of the political dumpster that the Bush administration has tossed it into. He seems very honest and forthcoming while speaking in a way that I can compare only to The Rock. I hear Obama speak and I want to order the PPV.

Hilary probably wouldn't be terrible. I like her the least of the three candidates. First off, I'm not thrilled about the same two families running the United States for almost thirty years. That gets under my skin. Second, her dirty politics might help her to get elected, but they would not help her do the job. Perhaps she doesn't play as dirty as the Bush administration, but her antics with the Michigan delegates really turned me off to her.

But, yeah, come January, I think the US will start to be a place that, maybe, I won't feel the need to apologize for being from.

Oh, and if Huckabee wins, I am tearing up my American passport and renouncing my American citizenship at the US Embassy in Kyushu.

[spiderfrommars]

Basically I think the Clintons have already had two shots at making the world a better place (the US President is the most powerful person in the world after all). So I hope Obama takes it - everything about him feels fresh.

McCain doesn't seem all that bad, but Huckabee sounds like a total nut. The fact that he's no longer in the running gives me hope for humankind.

[Brendocon]

I've only being paying vague attention, but from what I gather the great unwashed American public essentially have a choice between a chick, a black man and John McClane.

I think we all know who's going to win on that score.

[Guest]

I've only being paying vague attention, but from what I gather the great unwashed American public essentially have a choice between a chick, a black man and John McClane.

I think we all know who's going to win on that score.

Will his re-election slogan in 2012 be "How can the same **** happen to the same guy twice?"

And where's his sweaty vest??

[Best First]

We were talking about this in the pub on sat night - in terms of what i sgoing on it is being very well reported here, so much so that one of my friends complained the coverage is dissporoportionate - still can't quit eget my head around this caucus/primaries thing tho.

We were saying its amazing how you have essentially had two elections with totally feckless/awful/sh*tbag candidates and now all of a sudden you have three people who all look like they could bring something of worth to the table.

My natural instinct is that i always hate to see the right in power as, at the simplest level their agenda is always about maintaining and advancing the status quo (if you can davnce a status quo) in favour of the haves but conversely McCain seems to have been a voice of reason in the Republican camp for a long while. Conversely again he seems to have been rather isolated on that position in a number of occassions and the notion of having a fundamentalist whacko as his Veep does not appeal.

Rommeny's (Sp?) invoking of Bin Laden when he handed support to McCain was straight out of 1984.

Was pleased to see Guliani fall out of the race -i think he's a one trick poney and i get the impression that he often took a lot of credit for that singlur trick off more deserving people anyway.

Democrats wise - i kind of liked Bill, but i always feel that this was because he was such a charming ****er and i'm less convicned it was to do with anything else, so while part of me would like to see him involved again... another part of me is skeptical of the Clinton package - i can't quite place my finger on why. Maybe they are just a bit creepy in their naked ambition, but thats probably also laregly true of everyone involved. Certainly the Clintons seem to have run the more underhand campaign.

The is one thing i do find fascinating tho - the fine line between fighting for your candedacy and not totally harpooning your own party with in fighting.

I guess in some ways i just think it woul dbe more interesting to see the reaction to a Black President than a woman President, so maybe i wanna see that a little bit more. i.e Mr T for president.

An american friend of mine said everyone she knows is convinced the Democrats will win. Not sure if this attitude is a good one for voter turnout if you are a democrat supporter.

Oh, also, i think the sums of money involved are genuinly disgusting and it speaks ill of any self procliamed democracy if you need access to these kind of funds if you want to get to the top of the pile.

Thus ends my waffly thoughts on this matter.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Thats one thing I still cant get my head around, the huge sums of money involved. Surely having oil company A finance election stratery B is going to result in a war in country C... oh no wait, it already did.

Seriously, it shouldnt be about the money tho? - obviously U need some cash but why doesnt every have a budget and campaign on the same level.

Let the best man win etc...

[Shanti418]

I don't give a damn about electing a woman or a black guy to the white house. Anyone who can do the job well will be fine.

True, but in a country where racism is institutionalized and gender inequality is still strong, it would send a powerful message to the masses.

That's why I'm absolutely THRILLED with how the election has worked out thus far! I mean it, I'm really pleased. McCain is all but guaranteed to be the Republican nominee and he's damn well qualified for the job. I disagree with him on some things (of course), but I get the feeling that, right now, he's more in "get votes" mode than "say what I really mean" mode. If this guy is elected to the white house, then I won't be terribly upset.

I probably will be. Don't get me wrong, clearly it can get worse than McCain, but he talks of Iraq as a hundred year war and he'd sooner sell his soul to save his marriage than do anything CLOSE to universal health care.

Out of the two democrats, I'm cheering for Obama. I registered to get an absentee ballot just so I could vote for him. I think that he's got the ideas and principles to get the US out of the political dumpster that the Bush administration has tossed it into. He seems very honest and forthcoming while speaking in a way that I can compare only to The Rock. I hear Obama speak and I want to order the PPV.
But, yeah, come January, I think the US will start to be a place that, maybe, I won't feel the need to apologize for being from.

Obama is a cultural phenomenon over here that's only going to get bigger if he gets the nomination. And clearly, making Smooth once again Proud To Be An American makes me want to buy beachfront property in hell.
Obama vs. Clinton is also about something else: Baby Boomers vs. Generation X and younger. The post baby boomers are beginning to have enough numbers to have some real democratic force, and Obama is playing to the change, the newness, the future, etc. The question is if the old Democratic guard still has enough raw supporters to carry Clinton.

Democrats wise - i kind of liked Bill, but i always feel that this was because he was such a charming ****er and i'm less convicned it was to do with anything else, so while part of me would like to see him involved again... another part of me is skeptical of the Clinton package - i can't quite place my finger on why. Maybe they are just a bit creepy in their naked ambition, but thats probably also laregly true of everyone involved. Certainly the Clintons seem to have run the more underhand campaign.

Tru dat. It's a funny dynamic over here. Once the Clintons started playing Clinton politics on Obama instead of the other side, everyone got all in a fit over it. I think they only have a more underhanded campaign so much as that Obama's campaign is taking the highest road seen in US politics for quite a long time. Like I was saying earlier, Hillary felt this election was hers, and now that she's in a fight, she's doing whatever it takes. Naked Ambition is it to the T.

An american friend of mine said everyone she knows is convinced the Democrats will win. Not sure if this attitude is a good one for voter turnout if you are a democrat supporter.

Well, so far democratic turnout in the primaries has overwhelmingly outnumbered republican turnout. Democrats of all stripes are energized and engaged based on the fact that, as you said, they have two good candidates. McCain's nomination alienates the republican conservative base, which could hurt him, but on the other hand, because he appeals of moderates, he stands a better chance at winning, so the conservatives have to decide if they can stomach him to hold on to the White House. I think Obama vs. McCain would be a hands down Democratic victory, as Obama's appeal to moderates would trump McCains, while Clinton vs. McCain will only energize the conservatives who are virulently anti-Clinton. Plus, McCain/Obama would again paint a stark generational picture.

Oh, also, i think the sums of money involved are genuinly disgusting and it speaks ill of any self procliamed democracy if you need access to these kind of funds if you want to get to the top of the pile.

Totally. Sadly, you must be a millionaire to run for any federal government office basically. But in this election, it's interesting: Hillary is running out of money right now because she has lots of big donors that have given the maximum amount ($2300), while Obama has hundreds of thousands of everyday people giving $25, $50 bucks, meaning that people are actually invested in his campaign, and they can give more as the race continues. The Internet and Paypal technology are doing a bang up job of democratizing the money game, basically.

[sprunkner]

We were saying its amazing how you have essentially had two elections with totally feckless/awful/sh*tbag candidates and now all of a sudden you have three people who all look like they could bring something of worth to the table.

Sadly, it took eight years of things really going wacko for a real election to happen.

[Yaya]

All I know is this.

McCain came out of nowhere suddenly, other Republican candidates disappeared suddenly.

I could believe this was just a natural occurrence of events if it happened slowly and logically.

But the quick rise of McCain with the recent Bush speeches supporting him? Well, call me cynical, but I think regardless of what McCain says, he's another "Bush in sheeps clothing."

What's the best thing to happen to the Republicans though ? A black man with the name Barrack Obama.

If ever there was a force more destructive to the future of this country and to democracy has we knew it, its name is Barrack Obama.

Why? Cause there ain't no way America will vote a black man in for President. But hey would have voted for Hillary.

The Republicans are smart. They will, behind the scenes, support Obama and when he wins over Hillary and she's out of the picture, oh watch how they bring out all the dirt they have on him. You won't hear about it yet. Just wait. After Hillary is defeated, Obama will be like a piece of bloody flesh surrounded by swirling sharks.


This election, to me, is not just an election. It is a moment that will shape the future of America in a very significant way.

Cause if after eight years of Bushism Americans don't see what's happening to America and it's principles, another Republican victory with John Bush III McCain will ensure that even if they come to this realization, it will be too late.

After this election, America will either be in a state of democractic recovery, or a state of phantom democracy, a dictatorship calling itself democratic, but being nothing like one at all. And it will have Obama to thank for it.

[sprunkner]

I think a black man has a better chance than Hillary with the whole baggage attached to the Clintons.

[Leatherneck]

Just a quick note to BF-- yeah, it's basically two elections; the first one is within a specific party [i.e., Obama and Clinton both being Democrats, they run against eachother] to see who gets to face the other party. I suppose it works out in the end instead of 8 candidates each getting between 10%-15%, because our democracy is winner take all as opposed to the British system where [as I understand] if party X gets 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the seats, Y gets 54% of votes, they get a corresponding amount of seats, etc.

On the Democratic side, I can't stand the Clintons, and I'd be quite surprised if she can garner enough support to win a general election; her negative polling [the question is asked to a broad audience "Would you vote for Hillary?"] is at 50% or higher. Democrats who wouldn't vote for Clinton probably wouldn't vote for a Republican [McCain maybe, their ideas aren't 100% off base] but would stay home or waste a vote on Nader or something.

The Clintons, Hillary especially, are politicians to the very core. Not people who want to help people, but people who will say or do ANYTHING to have power. I would go so far as to call her a conniving bitch, because it's pretty much true.

Further, I don't actually know what sort of experience Hillary has, despite what she claims. I suppose if being married to the president gives you the substantial experience necessary to hold the office, then Victoria Beckham has the experience to go out and play professional/WC soccer/football. Oh, despite being a pro-union Democrat, while she was on the Wal-Mart board of directors she CONSISTENTLY kept her mouth shut when Wal-Mart was doing everything it could to block unionization efforts.

Obama strikes me as someone who actually wants to do some good. I can't stand the bulk of his policies, but he's a decent person [or so he would want us to believe, we still have to remember he's a politician so he's probably substantially more prone to pulling dirty **** than a normal person... we wouldn't know, people outside of Illinois first heard of him what, 3 or 4 years ago? When he spoke at the DNC in 04, I believe] On that note, that's something that I think may end up biting him in the ass-- his lack of experience either on the national stage or in an executive position on the state level. Further, he has to contend with his own voting record; he was the most liberal senator in 2007. That will get him support from some sects of the Democratic party, but look back to some of the contenders the Democrats have put up against Republicans in the last 40-50 years-- the ultraliberal ones have gotten murdered (Mondale? Carter when he wasn't facing a VP turned President after Nixon resigned). Even within the Democrats -- it's a fairly close race between him and unelectable witch Clinton.

Oh, and on socialized healthcare -- I am sooooooooo against it. Note, I do not think poor people shouldn't have healthcare. I'm against the government running things, pretty much period. If you think about it, single payer healthcare sounds great until you remember that said single payer would be the same people who ****** up the Katrina response, can't balance a budget, and is run by a ridiculous old boys network. They ****** up social security, have an absurd tax code, and is basically the least efficient entity in the country. Further, when you look to similar first world countries that have socialized medicine, it's not exactly the great utopia people would like to believe. Wait times are insane, the facilities/technology are not the best, and so many of the best doctors have come to the US -- because competition breeds the best. It's pretty consistently Americans pioneering medical things because the motivator is there to do so. Sure, profit is evil and all, but the desire to maximize profit is supreme for innovation. Oh, and people from other countries who can afford it come to the US for treatment................

On the Republican side, I suppose we're just about locked into McCain. It bothered me before, due to some of his positions, especially on border security/illegal immigration, the retarded McCain/Feingold act, his tax policies, etc -- the latter being the most important, imo. Money is always better spent by the people than the government. It kills me knowing I work 3-4 months out of the year so the government can piss it away on $100m bridges to islands of 25 people in Alaska [seriously, the numbers might be off but it's stupidly real]. Though McCain has a fairly tough stance on earmarks such as that, so perhaps we will see less of it if he's elected. Overall, his policies obviously tend to appeal more to me than those of Obama/Clinton. And I heard a story on the radio the other day that pushed me closer to accepting McCain -- when he was a POW during Vietnam, his father was a high ranking military officer. Accordingly, I guess the Viet Cong were willing to deal him out of the camp and they told him this [or some details, but whatever, he had the opportunity to leave]. However, he didn't leave because he couldn't take any of the other American POWs with him. Also, he's apparently quite beholden to the military's code of "Duty, honor, country." Also, regardless of what the Democrats say, none of them will commit to having us out of Iraq even during their entire potential first term, so this is a president who is inheriting a war. McCain has military experience, so I'd choose him over the others to lead a country at war (and experience in politics in general).

In the end, I think it will probably end up being McCain. Against Clinton, he'll win hands down-- he's pretty centric and Hillary is doing her best to look centric, but McCain is SO much more likable across the board, and voters in this country are never well informed anyway. She's also a Clinton, which in the general election probably makes people outside of her base pretty queasy -- we had enough of Bill (I don't think people will quickly forgive his weak-on-defense policies in light of what has happened as a result of them) and as someone had mentioned, the prospect of having 2 families run the country for 24-28 years is, uh, nuts. Pretty sure that's the type of deal people died for to get away from.

McCain against Obama, I'm not sure if enough of the independents and "blue dog" democrats will come out for Obama, especially because I think McCain is a pretty Democrat-friendly Republican, if that makes sense. Further, as sad as it is, I don't know how accepting this country would be of a black man with an funny sounding name. But either way, there's a long time to go and lots of **** to be slung and we're nowhere close to the October surprise!

There is one thing I can say for sure about this process -- i am SICK of it. The primaries have, for all intent and purposes, been going on for over a year. And there's still just shy of 9 months left. [composite word including 'f*ck'].

[Yaya]

The Clintons, Hillary especially, are politicians to the very core. Not people who want to help people, but people who will say or do ANYTHING to have power.

You mean "anything" like use a terrorist attack to fool the people of the country and play on their emotions so they can invade a country to steal their oil and get rich with hundreds of thousands of lives lost?

See, to me, that kind of "anything" is far worse than having an affair with an intern kind of "anything".

We're dealing with a presidential election here. Who isn't a politician?

You pick the lesser of evils and go with that.

[Metal Vendetta]

Oh, and people from other countries who can afford it come to the US for treatment................

That is weird, 'cause here in Buenos Aires, Americans come here to get their dentistry done for two reasons: A) it's higher standard and B) it's cheaper (including the flights) to get it done in BA than in America, because here they have a welfare state subsidising the health service. I even found a google link to Americans getting their dentistry done in Mexico.

So...the US healthcare system is better...how?

[Shanti418]

Just a quick note to BF-- yeah, it's basically two elections; the first one is within a specific party [i.e., Obama and Clinton both being Democrats, they run against eachother] to see who gets to face the other party. I suppose it works out in the end instead of 8 candidates each getting between 10%-15%, because our democracy is winner take all as opposed to the British system where [as I understand] if party X gets 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the seats, Y gets 54% of votes, they get a corresponding amount of seats, etc.

Two points of clarification: One, I think BF understood our primary/election setup. The two elections he was referring to were the past two presidential elections. Bush, Gore, Bush, and Kerry are the feckless s***bags. Two, in Democratic Primaries, it DOES work under a system of proportional representation, ie when Obama gets 55% and Clinton gets 45%, they each get the requisite amount of Democrats, whereas in the Republican Primaries and the General Election, it is winner take all. Another reason why this race is so close.

Although I don't agree with all of your views on Clinton, Leatherneck, I do agree that she's a cutthroat politican and I do agree that her taste for corporate donations has colored her policies and sullied her reputation. And your obvious distaste of Hillary is all the more reason why I fear her nomination will rattle the bones of conservatives. Still, one can't underestimate the sentimentality and romanticized notions people have about the Clinton years after going through 8 years of one of the worst Presidents in our history.

Obama strikes me as someone who actually wants to do some good. I can't stand the bulk of his policies, but he's a decent person [or so he would want us to believe, we still have to remember he's a politician so he's probably substantially more prone to pulling dirty **** than a normal person... we wouldn't know, people outside of Illinois first heard of him what, 3 or 4 years ago? When he spoke at the DNC in 04, I believe]

I have to disagree with that decidely cynical take. In the Information Age of today, if there was some picture of Obama hugging Ken Lay, or video of him using dirty politics or taking corporate money, we'd know about it. I've paid close attention thus far, and no one from Illinois has come out as a strong detractor of Obama, let alone with some dirt on him. The BEST endorsement of Obama relative political piousness comes from the fact that Hillary Clinton, your self appointed Queen of Dirty Conniving Politics, could do no better than drag up the Rezco court case (A case that the Illinois newspapers found to have no connection with Obama whatsoever) when she went sifting through Obama's dirty laundry. And even then, as you point out, whatever dirt you may find on Obama, chances are Hillary's got a full scale compost pile going on at the same place.

Further, he has to contend with his own voting record; he was the most liberal senator in 2007. That will get him support from some sects of the Democratic party, but look back to some of the contenders the Democrats have put up against Republicans in the last 40-50 years-- the ultraliberal ones have gotten murdered (Mondale? Carter when he wasn't facing a VP turned President after Nixon resigned).

He may have a liberal record, but 1, I'm sure after explaining his positions people may be more understanding, 2, whatever loss this causes him will be offset by McCain's weak conservative support, and 3, maybe liberal isn't such a dirty word anymore. As I said before, the Baby Boomers are only getting older, and Generation X and below are trending democratic. And you can only expect that trend to continue as growing up in a globalized world will increase communication, community, and social consciousness while decreasing feverent nationalism and individualism *crosses fingers a bit*
And plus, what do you want him to do, abandon his voting record and change his mind on things? That didn't work for John Kerry.

Oh, and on socialized healthcare -- I am sooooooooo against it. Note, I do not think poor people shouldn't have healthcare. I'm against the government running things, pretty much period. If you think about it, single payer healthcare sounds great until you remember that said single payer would be the same people who ****** up the Katrina response, can't balance a budget, and is run by a ridiculous old boys network. They ****** up social security, have an absurd tax code, and is basically the least efficient entity in the country.

The people who f**** up the Katrina response was the Bush Administration AND the conservative small government ideology I think you espouse. I don't understand why some people want the government to stay out of their buisness and stay out of their money, and then when a giant 3 state disaster happens, they're shocked that the government response is awkward, insufficient, and poorly run. I mean, do you want a government that can intervene swiftly and promptly with plenty of humanitarian aid, financial buffers, and sound leadership, or do you want a government that doesn't tax, that doesn't interfere in state matters, and that leaves YOU, the individual to clean up after your house is flooded?
Also, Bill Clinton balanced the budget. AND I think single payer healthcare sounds great when I remember it would be set up by the same people who set up the postal system, the police force, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. etc. Point being, there are PLENTY of examples where government can and does work.

Further, when you look to similar first world countries that have socialized medicine, it's not exactly the great utopia people would like to believe. Wait times are insane, the facilities/technology are not the best, and so many of the best doctors have come to the US -- because competition breeds the best. It's pretty consistently Americans pioneering medical things because the motivator is there to do so. Sure, profit is evil and all, but the desire to maximize profit is supreme for innovation. Oh, and people from other countries who can afford it come to the US for treatment................

It's basically this. America thus far thinks that 5 people having A+ healthcare is better than 50 people have B healthcare, while most of the rest of the world would rather have MORE people have less healthcare than have BADASS healthcare for people who can afford it. AND MV's whole line of reasoning.

On the Republican side, I suppose we're just about locked into McCain. It bothered me before, due to some of his positions, especially on border security/illegal immigration, the retarded McCain/Feingold act, his tax policies, etc -- the latter being the most important, imo. Money is always better spent by the people than the government. It kills me knowing I work 3-4 months out of the year so the government can piss it away on $100m bridges to islands of 25 people in Alaska [seriously, the numbers might be off but it's stupidly real].

The Alaskan politican who proposed that was a Republican. And the government also pisses away your money on things like food for poor families, cheap medicine for the elderly, financial subsidies for veterans, and quarter of a billion dollar jets and missles.

And I heard a story on the radio the other day that pushed me closer to accepting McCain -- when he was a POW during Vietnam, his father was a high ranking military officer. Accordingly, I guess the Viet Cong were willing to deal him out of the camp and they told him this [or some details, but whatever, he had the opportunity to leave]. However, he didn't leave because he couldn't take any of the other American POWs with him.

Well, there was this one time that me and five friends got busted for having a bag of pot, and the cop was like, "Whose is this? Tell me, and only THAT person will be going downtown." But we were like, "It's ALL of ours. Take us ALL downtown." So I most likely will be a good President as well.
Never mind. That analogy makes no sense. It's as if I tried to compare Victoria Beckham playing soccer with Hillary Clinton being President.

Against Clinton, he'll win hands down-- he's pretty centric and Hillary is doing her best to look centric, but McCain is SO much more likable across the board, and voters in this country are never well informed anyway. She's also a Clinton, which in the general election probably makes people outside of her base pretty queasy -- we had enough of Bill (I don't think people will quickly forgive his weak-on-defense policies in light of what has happened as a result of them)

I thouight the Right stopped trying to feed us the "Bill Clinton caused 9/11" Kool-Aid a loooong time ago.

and as someone had mentioned, the prospect of having 2 families run the country for 24-28 years is, uh, nuts. Pretty sure that's the type of deal people died for to get away from.

No one minded when we had Bush for 12 of the past 20 years. I'm sure that if Jeb Bush were running, it would be a different tune coming from conservatives.

McCain against Obama, I'm not sure if enough of the independents and "blue dog" democrats will come out for Obama, especially because I think McCain is a pretty Democrat-friendly Republican, if that makes sense. Further, as sad as it is, I don't know how accepting this country would be of a black man with an funny sounding name. But either way, there's a long time to go and lots of **** to be slung and we're nowhere close to the October surprise!

I think McCain-Obama is the best way to ensure an Obama victory.

As long as Obama runs the race he's running, race will be a minor factor. If McCain brings it up, it will fall under the "He Who Smelt It Dealt It" rule. [/optimism] Honestly, I think there's a better chance of Obama getting shot in the next 5 years because he's a black man then there is of him not getting elected. [/pessimism]

There is one thing I can say for sure about this process -- i am SICK of it. The primaries have, for all intent and purposes, been going on for over a year. And there's still just shy of 9 months left. ****.

And I feel EXACTLY the opposite. Americans interested in politics? Politicans talking about policy differences instead of personal attacks? Primary debates being pored over like they're Monday Night Football? This election is the best thing to happen to the American political system in my lifetime.

[wideload]

I've always been very centrist with a slightly left lean. I drove down from Vancouver to see Obama speak on Friday in Seattle. Unfortunately, Key Arena was full. Close to 30k people showed up. He came out and said a few words. He is an excellent speaker. My only reservation is that he possibly is too good of a speaker and it's possible he is basically an empty suit without substantial views to back himself up with.

Anyway, out of the remaining viable candidates, I would love to see either Hillary or Obama as president. Both have excellent views on education and health care. McCain is alright, but his view on gay marriage and abortion are too strong for me.

[sprunkner]

Hey, most of the people I know drove to that. If you're in Vancouver you're shouting distance from me, wideload. Want to get a beer in Bellingham?

That is weird, 'cause here in Buenos Aires, Americans come here to get their dentistry done for two reasons: A) it's higher standard and B) it's cheaper (including the flights) to get it done in BA than in America, because here they have a welfare state subsidising the health service. I even found a google link to Americans getting their dentistry done in Mexico.

So...the US healthcare system is better...how?

Here next to Canada I know of people who go to Vancouver because it is actually faster and cheaper. I think I agree with Shanti's proposal. As someone who's lived off medicaid, it can be the most terrifying thing in the world to get sick. I don't want to have to put up with that anymore.

[Leatherneck]

Just a quick note to BF-- yeah, it's basically two elections; the first one is within a specific party [i.e., Obama and Clinton both being Democrats, they run against eachother] to see who gets to face the other party. I suppose it works out in the end instead of 8 candidates each getting between 10%-15%, because our democracy is winner take all as opposed to the British system where [as I understand] if party X gets 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the seats, Y gets 54% of votes, they get a corresponding amount of seats, etc.

Two points of clarification: One, I think BF understood our primary/election setup. The two elections he was referring to were the past two presidential elections. Bush, Gore, Bush, and Kerry are the feckless s***bags. Two, in Democratic Primaries, it DOES work under a system of proportional representation, ie when Obama gets 55% and Clinton gets 45%, they each get the requisite amount of Democrats, whereas in the Republican Primaries and the General Election, it is winner take all. Another reason why this race is so close.

Although I don't agree with all of your views on Clinton, Leatherneck, I do agree that she's a cutthroat politican and I do agree that her taste for corporate donations has colored her policies and sullied her reputation. And your obvious distaste of Hillary is all the more reason why I fear her nomination will rattle the bones of conservatives. Still, one can't underestimate the sentimentality and romanticized notions people have about the Clinton years after going through 8 years of one of the worst Presidents in our history.

I think that will fall both ways; whereas Democrats have a very idealized notion of the Clinton years, Republicans spent 8 years doing their best to hope it was a bad dream, so I feel as though that factor would probably be a non-issue in the general election as it would pretty much negate itself. I think it's fairly obvious that that nostalgia is why Hillary is still in the primary race -- if she wasn't a Clinton, would she even have had the money to get her campaign off the ground? A woman named Janet Schleck who's barely into her second senate term from NY who has yet to do anything of merit in the senate (what bills has she written? what programs do we have as a result of her time in the senate?) other than vote to approve the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Oh, and she tends to shriek and change positions when it's convenient and politically expedient for her.. that candidate without the Clinton name lives with Kucinich in the "gets laughed at" category.

Obama strikes me as someone who actually wants to do some good. I can't stand the bulk of his policies, but he's a decent person [or so he would want us to believe, we still have to remember he's a politician so he's probably substantially more prone to pulling dirty **** than a normal person... we wouldn't know, people outside of Illinois first heard of him what, 3 or 4 years ago? When he spoke at the DNC in 04, I believe]

I have to disagree with that decidely cynical take. In the Information Age of today, if there was some picture of Obama hugging Ken Lay, or video of him using dirty politics or taking corporate money, we'd know about it. I've paid close attention thus far, and no one from Illinois has come out as a strong detractor of Obama, let alone with some dirt on him. The BEST endorsement of Obama relative political piousness comes from the fact that Hillary Clinton, your self appointed Queen of Dirty Conniving Politics, could do no better than drag up the Rezco court case (A case that the Illinois newspapers found to have no connection with Obama whatsoever) when she went sifting through Obama's dirty laundry. And even then, as you point out, whatever dirt you may find on Obama, chances are Hillary's got a full scale compost pile going on at the same place.

That's a good point. However, to play devil's advocate, yesterday was the first time that the public learned (not just thought, or heard, or whatever) that in November 2001 Barry Bonds failed a drug test for steroids. I think we're really good at distributing news these days, but I'm not sure about our ability to actually go out and find it.

Further, he has to contend with his own voting record; he was the most liberal senator in 2007. That will get him support from some sects of the Democratic party, but look back to some of the contenders the Democrats have put up against Republicans in the last 40-50 years-- the ultraliberal ones have gotten murdered (Mondale? Carter when he wasn't facing a VP turned President after Nixon resigned).

He may have a liberal record, but 1, I'm sure after explaining his positions people may be more understanding, 2, whatever loss this causes him will be offset by McCain's weak conservative support, and 3, maybe liberal isn't such a dirty word anymore. As I said before, the Baby Boomers are only getting older, and Generation X and below are trending democratic. And you can only expect that trend to continue as growing up in a globalized world will increase communication, community, and social consciousness while decreasing feverent nationalism and individualism *crosses fingers a bit*
And plus, what do you want him to do, abandon his voting record and change his mind on things? That didn't work for John Kerry.

Having to explain his votes is generally not a road a politician wants to go down. McCain will more than likely be able to rally enough conservatives as people realize that it's, as usual, a lesser of two evils battle (as from their viewpoint) and that the other evil would be pretty damned evil for them.

I don't think Obama has done so well because (or in spite of) his voting record -- I quite honestly believe it has to do with the simple fact that he isn't yet a hackneyed politician -- Clinton is obviously a Clinton, so she's been kicking around for 16+ years, Edwards already had his shot and blew it in a race that most people (rightfully so) predicted a Democrat win, and McCain has been a Senator since before Obama was born (ok not really..).

Wouldn't be looking for Obama to abandon his voting record, he doesn't seem like the type. However, that voting record still stands as his voting record so it will surely influence some votes.

Oh, and on socialized healthcare -- I am sooooooooo against it. Note, I do not think poor people shouldn't have healthcare. I'm against the government running things, pretty much period. If you think about it, single payer healthcare sounds great until you remember that said single payer would be the same people who ****** up the Katrina response, can't balance a budget, and is run by a ridiculous old boys network. They ****** up social security, have an absurd tax code, and is basically the least efficient entity in the country.

The people who f**** up the Katrina response was the Bush Administration AND the conservative small government ideology I think you espouse. I don't understand why some people want the government to stay out of their buisness and stay out of their money, and then when a giant 3 state disaster happens, they're shocked that the government response is awkward, insufficient, and poorly run. I mean, do you want a government that can intervene swiftly and promptly with plenty of humanitarian aid, financial buffers, and sound leadership, or do you want a government that doesn't tax, that doesn't interfere in state matters, and that leaves YOU, the individual to clean up after your house is flooded?
Also, Bill Clinton balanced the budget. AND I think single payer healthcare sounds great when I remember it would be set up by the same people who set up the postal system, the police force, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. etc. Point being, there are PLENTY of examples where government can and does work.

On the Katrina thing, I fully believe it should have been a state and local response. To be so woefully unprepared to deal with flooding in an area that lies below sea level is absurd. I was there a few months after, working with Habitat. I was in St. Bernard's Parish, which is right outside of the actual city of New Orleans. There was a road that ran right next to the water, and there were two USN ships moored in the water near the road. The only thing was that they were about 20-30 feet above our heads because that's how high the levees were. I only tell that story because it shows that there never should have been any doubt that one day, the entire area would floor. Further, I learned of built in precautions against massive flooding that were not enacted -- New Orleans has massive pumps capable of (according to a cabbie) pumping 1,000,000 gpm for the exclusive purpose of keeping the ocean out of the streets. These pumps all stood idle during Katrina. The mayor of New Orleans was visibly unable to lead his municipality through the time of crisis and Gov. Blanco was just as worthless. Also, as you may not recall, for the first 4-5 days the local people in the area told everybody that Katrina's effect was minimal, they didn't need help, etc. So pinning the entire response issue on the federal government is completely inane when you know some more facts.

You'd be surprised what we could do with the money we don't pay in taxes. If even the people at the bottom of the income range weren't paying so much in taxes (overall -- assume that it's a person in NJ making 25,000/yr -- doesn't go far in NJ. They're gonna end up paying $3,300 to the federal gov't in taxes, 1300 to NJ, $1900 in Medicare/Social Security taxes, (assume they don't save anything) 1300 in NJ sales tax, plus some smaller NJ taxes. Not to mention tolls, fees to renew driver's licenses, etc. Including simply income, FICA, and sales taxes, this person who is barely making it by is paying the government $7800 over the course of a year. They work almost 4 months JUST TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT. Imagine what type of healthcare said individual could buy with that money. Or imagine how they could invest in their own education to better themselves so they could get a job that provides health benefits.

Also, conservatives generally believe in small, limited government, not no government. We're generally willing to spend whatever is necessary for defense, preservation of life in an emergency (like Katrina..), and uh, not much else. Money is always better spent in the hands of anything but the government. The postal system actually runs like a private business, which is why it's successful. There are police forces across the country that fail all the time.. just go follow Jackson and Sharpton around. Having an uncle on Medicare, I can certainly say that the system is not as nice and pretty as you'd like us to believe.

Further, when you look to similar first world countries that have socialized medicine, it's not exactly the great utopia people would like to believe. Wait times are insane, the facilities/technology are not the best, and so many of the best doctors have come to the US -- because competition breeds the best. It's pretty consistently Americans pioneering medical things because the motivator is there to do so. Sure, profit is evil and all, but the desire to maximize profit is supreme for innovation. Oh, and people from other countries who can afford it come to the US for treatment................

It's basically this. America thus far thinks that 5 people having A+ healthcare is better than 50 people have B healthcare, while most of the rest of the world would rather have MORE people have less healthcare than have BADASS healthcare for people who can afford it. AND MV's whole line of reasoning.

I disagree. In this country, people can not be denied necessary medical treatment despite an inability to pay. (Watch this...) This has led to people using the emergency room as their PCP and being unable to pay for it, which then has to be made up in the fees charged to people who can pay, so my fee to go to the ER is 1.5-2.5x what it costs (including their profit margin). The insurance companies then pay out more money, and accordingly, have to charge more for premiums, and then voila, it's too expensive for people to afford on their own if their employer doesn't cover it. (See how that works?)

As to MV's line, I'd love to know where those doctors were trained. And coincidentally, I haven't heard of that. Further, I'd be willing to bet the reason costs are so (disproportionately) high here is due to the absurd cost of malpractice insurance.

See what happens when you try to make a quick buck?

On the Republican side, I suppose we're just about locked into McCain. It bothered me before, due to some of his positions, especially on border security/illegal immigration, the retarded McCain/Feingold act, his tax policies, etc -- the latter being the most important, imo. Money is always better spent by the people than the government. It kills me knowing I work 3-4 months out of the year so the government can piss it away on $100m bridges to islands of 25 people in Alaska [seriously, the numbers might be off but it's stupidly real].

The Alaskan politican who proposed that was a Republican. And the government also pisses away your money on things like food for poor families, cheap medicine for the elderly, financial subsidies for veterans, and quarter of a billion dollar jets and missles.

I couldn't care less who's doing the earmarking. It is the sole reason that we continue floating bonds to finance government operations. Perhaps ****** patent law is the reason why drugs are expensive in the first place? And perhaps it also has to do with the fact that it costs upwards of $1,000,000,000 to create a new drug? As for feeding poor families: "You give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish..."

And I heard a story on the radio the other day that pushed me closer to accepting McCain -- when he was a POW during Vietnam, his father was a high ranking military officer. Accordingly, I guess the Viet Cong were willing to deal him out of the camp and they told him this [or some details, but whatever, he had the opportunity to leave]. However, he didn't leave because he couldn't take any of the other American POWs with him.

Well, there was this one time that me and five friends got busted for having a bag of pot, and the cop was like, "Whose is this? Tell me, and only THAT person will be going downtown." But we were like, "It's ALL of ours. Take us ALL downtown." So I most likely will be a good President as well.
Never mind. That analogy makes no sense. It's as if I tried to compare Victoria Beckham playing soccer with Hillary Clinton being President.

I think McCain's loyalty to his brothers in arms is actually something admirable. And naturally, the pot analogy is as absurd as my Beckham analogy for the sole reason of absurdity . I was trying to make the point that McCain seems to have like, values, that will probably appeal to the right wing of the Republican party.

Against Clinton, he'll win hands down-- he's pretty centric and Hillary is doing her best to look centric, but McCain is SO much more likable across the board, and voters in this country are never well informed anyway. She's also a Clinton, which in the general election probably makes people outside of her base pretty queasy -- we had enough of Bill (I don't think people will quickly forgive his weak-on-defense policies in light of what has happened as a result of them)

I thouight the Right stopped trying to feed us the "Bill Clinton caused 9/11" Kool-Aid a loooong time ago.

I thought it was so widely accepted as fact that we didn't need to "feed" it anymore. The 9/11 Commission report that the left seems to love because they think it nails GWB to the floor does a phenomenal job lambasting Clinton, btw. Further, if you believe that's the only reason people aren't huge Clinton fans I'd suggest venturing away from cnn.com.

and as someone had mentioned, the prospect of having 2 families run the country for 24-28 years is, uh, nuts. Pretty sure that's the type of deal people died for to get away from.

No one minded when we had Bush for 12 of the past 20 years. I'm sure that if Jeb Bush were running, it would be a different tune coming from conservatives.

I'm sure that if Jeb Bush were running, it would be the same tune coming from liberals.

McCain against Obama, I'm not sure if enough of the independents and "blue dog" democrats will come out for Obama, especially because I think McCain is a pretty Democrat-friendly Republican, if that makes sense. Further, as sad as it is, I don't know how accepting this country would be of a black man with an funny sounding name. But either way, there's a long time to go and lots of **** to be slung and we're nowhere close to the October surprise!

I think McCain-Obama is the best way to ensure an Obama victory.

As long as Obama runs the race he's running, race will be a minor factor. If McCain brings it up, it will fall under the "He Who Smelt It Dealt It" rule. [/optimism] Honestly, I think there's a better chance of Obama getting shot in the next 5 years because he's a black man then there is of him not getting elected. [/pessimism]

As I said, I'm not sure how appealing leftist Obama will be to moderates [who are always the key to winning general elections] to right-moderate McCain. And you and I are more than willing to accept whomever is most qualified to do the job regardless of race, sex, or creed, but do you really think Obama will be able to change southern Red states into Blue states? I unfortunately agree with you about the likelihood of Obama getting shot.

T

here is one thing I can say for sure about this process -- i am SICK of it. The primaries have, for all intent and purposes, been going on for over a year. And there's still just shy of 9 months left. ****.

And I feel EXACTLY the opposite. Americans interested in politics? Politicans talking about policy differences instead of personal attacks? Primary debates being pored over like they're Monday Night Football? This election is the best thing to happen to the American political system in my lifetime.

I don't agree that Americans are interested in politics, the debates still don't get any ratings so they can't be that truly interested. I think that enough of them are anti-Iraq war for valid or invalid reasons so they're ready to come out to be anti-Bush. There have still been plenty of regular old tricks from the Edwards and Clinton camps.

Each primary season keeps getting longer, to the point where I'm not convinced that within my lifetime the primaries won't kick off the day after the presidential vote.

[Best First]

As for feeding poor families: "You give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish..."

do you really believe this is how the world works?

[Guest]

If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you make sure he pays through the nose for the rod, the license, and then you drain all the nearby lakes and take the fish away before he has a chance, making him go a very long way to get a few pitiful morsels, if he's lucky.

That is how the world works. Sadly.

[Professor Smooth]

In light of recent events, I take back what I said. I will, most likely, always be ashamed of being from America. Even if Obama wins the Presidency, it'll be impossible to make something of value from the United States in my lifetime.

Look at the US and I mean really look at it. This is stuff that's actually happening. Not crazy conspiracy theory ********.

First off, if you've had a telephone conversation inside the US any time in the past 7 years, it's probably been recorded. If you've spoken on the phone with an American from outside the US, it's almost definitely been recorded. No, these conversations won't incriminate you, but you can bet your ass that some hacker will get ahold of them and we'll see a flood of embarassing conversations showing up as YouTube videos as well as identity theft. If that happens to you, guess what, the government has voted to give retroactive immunity to the people responsible for illegally taking your calls. So even though they are directly at fault for somebody getting your credit card info and putting the conversation you had after your grandfather died on Google Video, you can't sue and they won't go to jail.

The government is torturing people. They are picking up people off the streets of their country and others, flying them to secret "black sites" and torturing them. The information gained from torture is inapplicable in any court, so these people are all tried by private courts.

The government purposely falsified information that led to an illegal invasion of a country. To date, more than 3,000 Americans have been killed and somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of this invasion. Meanwhile, the same government that's fighting in Iraq in the name of "freedom" has taken away plenty of freedoms themselves. Americans used to have the freedom to visit Canada and Mexico without a passport, for example. The Patriot Act alone takes away plenty of freedoms that US citizens used to enjoy.

Guns. Unbalanced people are buying guns and killing random people with them. Balanced people are buying guns and killing people they don't like with them. People are buying guns and killing other people with them. And what does the majority of America think the answer is? MORE GUNS! They trot out the argument that "If everyone had a gun, people wouldn't go into classrooms and shoot up the places because they'd be afraid of getting shot themselves." This ignores the fact that these people are CRAZY and INTEND TO DIE. If anything they'd be MORE likely to shoot up a place if they knew they have an easier time biting it themselves.

Party politics. Idiots vote for the people in their party instead of the people they think are most qualified. It's all well and good when both the Democrats and the Republicans have good candidates, but when both candidates absolutely SUCK, people will STILL vote for one or the other. Politics should not be like gooddamn football! You should not support a candidate because he's on your team! People elected George Bush TWICE for Christ's sake! Why?

I had hoped that getting out the country would make it better, or at least easier for me, but no. Thanks to the international media, every stupid ******* thing that America does gets broadcast to everybody on the planet.

I was at a bar this weekend and was talking to a few people. Lucky me, I'm an American, a former NIU student, AND available for comment. You should hear the questions thrown at me from people who've never seen a gun, not been majorly involved in a war in their lifetimes, and who don't have a dozen murders a day in their newspapers.

[Leatherneck]

As for feeding poor families: "You give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish..."

do you really believe this is how the world works?

Do you really believe that handouts are anything more than a temporary stopgap? If you get laid off and are without a job for a few months, fine, we'll put food on your table and maybe a lesson about financial planning. But consistently giving the same people money for food [not food mind you, remember this in a second] is asinine. I'd rather see a larger up front investment to both feed them in the short term and do some job training. Hell, the government would even get a return on its investment and they'd make money and get to pay taxes.

I've said it on here before and will end up saying it again a bunch... but social welfare programs are abused sooooooooo much here. I used to work at Starbucks, and on more than one occasion I had customers try to pay me with food stamp cards and WIC. Yeah, people were trying to use government money given to them with the intent to feed them and to put diapers on their babies to buy a $5 latte. Seriously.

[Professor Smooth]

This is just me, and I understand it's an easy position to attack, but I'd rather a bunch of people abuse the system than have people starve to death or resort to crime to be able to eat.

[sprunkner]

Well, I happen to know lots of people (myself included) who use WIC and food stamps, and don't get me started on that system...

Look, you met the idiots. Every system has a few idiots taking advantage of it, but in lots of cases the ONLY ******* WAY to get through graduate school with a baby without shelling out money I don't have for daycare and letting the baby's mom actually spend time with her is WIC and foodstamps. And graduate school, in case you haven't heard, takes five years. Not exactly a short-term solution.

So what were we supposed to do? Abort the baby? No--wait--your party doesn't even want people to have that OPTION.

Not to mention that WIC won't ******* BUY FRESH VEGETABLES. What the ******* ****? Our government thinks we can live off free ******* cheese and milk? So the system is ****** already, because we spend all our money trying to eat healthy--and I'm not even talking organic or local, but just buying some goddamn tomatoes and zucchini

[Professor Smooth]

I wish the American people nothing but the best, but I can't see why you'd want to continue living in conditions like those that exist in the US, especially if you have the means to go elsewhere.

[Shanti418]

Do you really believe that handouts are anything more than a temporary stopgap? If you get laid off and are without a job for a few months, fine, we'll put food on your table and maybe a lesson about financial planning.

Exactly, handout are SUPPOSED to be a temporary stopgap in the case of unemployment.

But consistently giving the same people money for food [not food mind you, remember this in a second] is asinine. I'd rather see a larger up front investment to both feed them in the short term and do some job training. Hell, the government would even get a return on its investment and they'd make money and get to pay taxes.

I totally agree with you on the job training. But when we're talking about unemployment, the program's main target are people who are the main source of income in their houses, people who have rent and car payments and credit cards and electric bills and gas tanks. Unemployment is there to help them wade through the flaming pit of the costs of modern American life until they can find a job again.

There are freeloaders. There will ALWAYS be freeloaders. Of course, if you're a freeloader that's a white corporate executive flying through tax loopholes or even engaging in a bit of white collar crime, that's totally ignored by everyone.

I believe that the vast majority of people want to work, want to do something, want to put something into the world. What we DO is a big part of who we are, IMHO. Some people may want to eek out an existence on a meager gov't handout and not do s***, but not most.

I've said it on here before and will end up saying it again a bunch... but social welfare programs are abused sooooooooo much here. I used to work at Starbucks, and on more than one occasion I had customers try to pay me with food stamp cards and WIC. Yeah, people were trying to use government money given to them with the intent to feed them and to put diapers on their babies to buy a $5 latte. Seriously.

I hope you mean "here" as in your city, not that you're extrapolating your handful of experinces to the national scale and dismissing the millions of people on welfare as freeloaders at the drop of a hat.

Welfare is the same as unemployment: It's there to make sure kids don't starve just because their parents are poor. You have to work 40 hours a week to get welfare (and then after you make a single mom work 40 hours a week, people are shocked when her kids get into drugs and gangs, but that's a whole 'noter ball of wax), so they're working for their benefits.

There are freeloaders. There will ALWAYS be freeloaders. But I'd prefer to have some people abuse the system and have much MORE be able to exist than to see people work full time jobs and be unable to put kids on their clothes backs or food on their tables. I don't want to just sit back and go "Social Darwinism, bitch!"

Because really, even in America but much less so than in most places, who you are and where you're situated in society when you're born is SO crucial in terms of the kinds of advantages and disadvantages you'll have in "advancing" in it, so to speak.

EDIT: Damn, in the time it took me to reply to Leatherneck, everyone and their mom responded. Damn all of you for taking my lines! lol

[Yaya]

In light of recent events, I take back what I said. I will, most likely, always be ashamed of being from America. Even if Obama wins the Presidency, it'll be impossible to make something of value from the United States in my lifetime.

Look at the US and I mean really look at it. This is stuff that's actually happening. Not crazy conspiracy theory ********.

First off, if you've had a telephone conversation inside the US any time in the past 7 years, it's probably been recorded. If you've spoken on the phone with an American from outside the US, it's almost definitely been recorded. No, these conversations won't incriminate you, but you can bet your ass that some hacker will get ahold of them and we'll see a flood of embarassing conversations showing up as YouTube videos as well as identity theft. If that happens to you, guess what, the government has voted to give retroactive immunity to the people responsible for illegally taking your calls. So even though they are directly at fault for somebody getting your credit card info and putting the conversation you had after your grandfather died on Google Video, you can't sue and they won't go to jail.

The government is torturing people. They are picking up people off the streets of their country and others, flying them to secret "black sites" and torturing them. The information gained from torture is inapplicable in any court, so these people are all tried by private courts.

The government purposely falsified information that led to an illegal invasion of a country. To date, more than 3,000 Americans have been killed and somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of this invasion. Meanwhile, the same government that's fighting in Iraq in the name of "freedom" has taken away plenty of freedoms themselves. Americans used to have the freedom to visit Canada and Mexico without a passport, for example. The Patriot Act alone takes away plenty of freedoms that US citizens used to enjoy.

Guns. Unbalanced people are buying guns and killing random people with them. Balanced people are buying guns and killing people they don't like with them. People are buying guns and killing other people with them. And what does the majority of America think the answer is? MORE GUNS! They trot out the argument that "If everyone had a gun, people wouldn't go into classrooms and shoot up the places because they'd be afraid of getting shot themselves." This ignores the fact that these people are CRAZY and INTEND TO DIE. If anything they'd be MORE likely to shoot up a place if they knew they have an easier time biting it themselves.

Party politics. Idiots vote for the people in their party instead of the people they think are most qualified. It's all well and good when both the Democrats and the Republicans have good candidates, but when both candidates absolutely SUCK, people will STILL vote for one or the other. Politics should not be like gooddamn football! You should not support a candidate because he's on your team! People elected George Bush TWICE for Christ's sake! Why?

I had hoped that getting out the country would make it better, or at least easier for me, but no. Thanks to the international media, every stupid ******* thing that America does gets broadcast to everybody on the planet.

I was at a bar this weekend and was talking to a few people. Lucky me, I'm an American, a former NIU student, AND available for comment. You should hear the questions thrown at me from people who've never seen a gun, not been majorly involved in a war in their lifetimes, and who don't have a dozen murders a day in their newspapers.

Damn. That was well said, pinpointing the reasons I too am disappointed with what America has become.

[Best First]

eh, my two ten cents on a couple of things (which gives me how many cents kids?)

1) The notion that there should not be a welfare state (or any kind of benefits system) because some people take this piss does not really stack up does it? I mean surely the answer is to limit as much as possible the p*ss taking, not deny the people who the system it could help any assistence and let them fall to the bottom of the heap. Pk, maybe you can't totally eliminate the p*ss taking, but if a system is helpng the vast majority then then binning it because a small minority abuse it makes no sense. Unless you just hate poor people, in which case i guess it does make sense.

2) Not that i neccessarily disagree with some of what PS listed and Yaya endorsed, but when you say 'what America has become' - what exactly are you really harking back to. I say this in a curious rather than a critical way, but i think if you look back over the decades, be it MaCathrthism, certain assasinations, installing Pinochet, Vietnam, selling weapons to people that the people who sold them the weapons in the first place later denounce as evil incarnate, etc etc, i'm not sure i percieve much of a golden age. And again i don't say that in a ya boo sucks your country is the worst one ever way as i am fully aware that my nations history is peppered with travesty and plenty of others are as well - just the simpel question really, what are you harking back to?

[Professor Smooth]

I'm not pining for the good old days. I don't think that the US has ever been some great and perfect paradise. I do think that it's worse (in just about every way) now than it's ever been in my lifetime.

[Shanti418]

Once again Smooth, you have left me in the unenviable position of defending America.

First off, if you've had a telephone conversation inside the US any time in the past 7 years, it's probably been recorded. If you've spoken on the phone with an American from outside the US, it's almost definitely been recorded. No, these conversations won't incriminate you, but you can bet your ass that some hacker will get ahold of them and we'll see a flood of embarassing conversations showing up as YouTube videos as well as identity theft. If that happens to you, guess what, the government has voted to give retroactive immunity to the people responsible for illegally taking your calls. So even though they are directly at fault for somebody getting your credit card info and putting the conversation you had after your grandfather died on Google Video, you can't sue and they won't go to jail.

First off, Americans have copious amounts of personal freedom here. As we've talked about before, places in the UK have cameras on every corner checking things out, something that most Americans would be aghast at. But that's not because the USA is super badass or anything, it's because we have a fundamental distrust of government that's WAY more pronounced than other democratic countries. Not saying that we should trust the government blindly, just saying that, for example, most English probably assume that the gov't is using the cameras to catch crime and terrorists as opposed to looking down girls' shirts. Whereas here, everyone would quickly assume we'd be under martial law within the year. So yeah, Americans are spoiled when it comes to privacy.

Two: Here's the issue on this thing. In post 9/11 hysteria, the gov't went to the telecoms and said, "there's terrorists everywhere, give us access," and the telecoms, swept up in post 9/11 hysteria, gave them the keys to the car. Now this has stopped long ago, and hopefully it won't happen again, but the issue is whether or not you prosecute the telecoms for doing something the gov't told them to do when the gov't promised them immunity. The viewpoint opposite to yours, which could be paraphrased as "They were doing what the gov't told them, they were being "patriotic," we can't just go back and prosecute them for what we asked for.", is just as valid as "We need to go back and see what happened and if laws were broken," IMHO.

I mean, God knows they probably recorded or heard some crazy things, but I don't think the issue in Congress over immunity has to do with leaking tapes of you crying when you found out your Grandfather died.

The government is torturing people. They are picking up people off the streets of their country and others, flying them to secret "black sites" and torturing them. The information gained from torture is inapplicable in any court, so these people are all tried by private courts.

That's all true, but that is Bush's record, not America's. To be sure, America has done its fair share of atrocities and illegalities over the years, but we can't paint all politicians and all administrations with the Bush Brush. You can't tell me you don't think that won't get better under the administration of A, a Democrat, or B, a former POW.

The government purposely falsified information that led to an illegal invasion of a country. To date, more than 3,000 Americans have been killed and somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of this invasion. Meanwhile, the same government that's fighting in Iraq in the name of "freedom" has taken away plenty of freedoms themselves. Americans used to have the freedom to visit Canada and Mexico without a passport, for example. The Patriot Act alone takes away plenty of freedoms that US citizens used to enjoy.

Again, you're acting like policies set in place by the Bush Administration are in actuality immutable stone tablets handed down from Moses. The whole idea of our form of gov't is, "You don't like it? You can change it." And through the recounts and superdelegates and Bush 2004s, that idea IS still there, and that's why there will be a better tomorrow for America at some point, a tomorrow where we're not ashamed of our foriegn policy. And yeah, it was sweet going to Mexico w/o a passport, but is that REALLY such a raping of your freedoms? I mean, c'mon, that's par for the course for most countries. It's just like Americans complaining about security at the airport. The rest of the world is like, "get over it."

Guns. Unbalanced people are buying guns and killing random people with them. Balanced people are buying guns and killing people they don't like with them. People are buying guns and killing other people with them. And what does the majority of America think the answer is? MORE GUNS! They trot out the argument that "If everyone had a gun, people wouldn't go into classrooms and shoot up the places because they'd be afraid of getting shot themselves." This ignores the fact that these people are CRAZY and INTEND TO DIE. If anything they'd be MORE likely to shoot up a place if they knew they have an easier time biting it themselves.

People ARE buying guns. America likes guns. It also likes big boobs and ketchup on French Fries. Why does it like these things? I don't know. A lot of it has to do with the fact that until the last 100 years or so, guns were an essential item for most families. We have always and will continue to have high rates of gun ownership. That's not the problem. The problem is people shooting each other. Why that happens more often than it used to (at least in a community, not in wars etc.) is up for debate, but I'm not going to castigate America for this problem any more than I would tell my little brother who just shot off his hand to piss off and grow up.

Party politics. Idiots vote for the people in their party instead of the people they think are most qualified. It's all well and good when both the Democrats and the Republicans have good candidates, but when both candidates absolutely SUCK, people will STILL vote for one or the other. Politics should not be like gooddamn football! You should not support a candidate because he's on your team! People elected George Bush TWICE for Christ's sake! Why?

Oh yeah, America's got a TOTAL monopoly on politics and political parties. [/extremeamountsofsarcasm]

I was at a bar this weekend and was talking to a few people. Lucky me, I'm an American, a former NIU student, AND available for comment. You should hear the questions thrown at me from people who've never seen a gun, not been majorly involved in a war in their lifetimes, and who don't have a dozen murders a day in their newspapers.

But see, you're presumably still in Japan right?
In Japan it is about the team. In America it is about the individual.
In Japan the military was outlawed after WW2. In America, our kick ass violence in WW2 capitalized us to a superpower.

What I'm saying is that there are REASONS why the US is the way it is and why Japan is the way it is, and it's not just because the US sux and Japan rools.

And as far as "How sucky is America now compared to times before?" line of thinking, there really IS no Golden Age to look back on. Manifest Destiny. Slavery. 19th Century labor movements brutally crushed by violence. Building railroads on the backs of exploited Asian immigrants. Starting wars with Mexico for territory. As far as in Smooth's lifetime, the 80s are close with the 00s for being the worst in terms of foriegn policy. But at the same time, you think about the amount of discrimination minorities, women, and homosexuals faced in the 80s compared to now, and that's gotten a LOT better.
Basically, as a people, I think we're on a positive linear progression, but as a nation/gov't, we take two steps forward and one step back. Also, people in my age bracket have to understand that we've had 20/28 years with a Republican president.