the republican candidacy...

[zERo~Chronic]

well Obama also took the troops out of Iraq, sure they're just being sent to Afghanistan but atleast it is a step foward. He killed Bin Laden and threw that fucker in the sea. A lot more jobs have been created then under Bush and the economy is seeing a general turn around. As for all the trouble in the middle east i see it as something happening no matter what, obama or not. Israel is our ally (kinda) and Iran is a threat to Israel and thus a threat to America, so they're gonna get rained on. electing a republican will probably just speed up the bombing process, from what I've read Obama is actually slowing down and working against an Israeli invasion of Iran

[Mabakhurts123]

Seriously, no offense to anyone, but how the FUCK is Mitt Romney taking the lead still? I mean, If he somehow miraculously gets elected, and Colorado somehow passes their new bill they're pushing for to regulate Marijuana, what would be the outcome of that? Isn't the dude like, completely anti-pot?
If that doesnt scream heartless, and cold, I dont know what does...

I mean, if he truly had any balls, he would have atleast told the dude "yes, I will arrest you", but instead he pussyfoots around the question... That guy doesn't have the courage to lead our country.

[weedguru_animal]

well Obama also took the troops out of Iraq, sure they're just being sent to Afghanistan but atleast it is a step foward. He killed Bin Laden and threw that fucker in the sea. A lot more jobs have been created then under Bush and the economy is seeing a general turn around. As for all the trouble in the middle east i see it as something happening no matter what, obama or not. Israel is our ally (kinda) and Iran is a threat to Israel and thus a threat to America, so they're gonna get rained on. electing a republican will probably just speed up the bombing process, from what I've read Obama is actually slowing down and working against an Israeli invasion of Iran

'well obama also'???? is that to suggest that you agree with the facts i have stated, and yet still wish to support Obama???? Why do you think Iran is a threat to Israel?? and why do you think that Israel is only 'kinda' an ally to the US??? YOU give them billions of $ per year. They decide YOUR foreign policy. You translate that as 'kinda an ally'????

[weedguru_animal]

Animal those are indeed some of my biggest points of contention with the Obama administration, it does indeed seem to be the same shadow government calling the shots on the world stage. While in 2008 I felt certain that Obama was the answer, he proved to be deceitful in many many ways and so now I am just left confused and my faith in the system all but completely destroyed.

A Republican candidate (other than Ron Paul) would be even more gung ho and blatant about warmongering, and would also do a lot of damage within our country. The rich will get richer, the poor poorer, oil dependence worse, social oppression especially for women and minorities, huge step backwards with regards to energy and science. A lot of that will happen with Ron Paul as well, but at least he promises to end the current United States foreign policy.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Obama made that same fucking promise in 2008 and look where we are now. Looking at it that way, I do start to lean more towards Obama because I feel like he's pretty solid except on foreign policy. Ron Paul has some things I like, but I'm not sure I can vote strictly based on foreign policy since it is just way too possible that he would end up in the pockets of the same people and do an about face on his foreign policy promises.

Biggest points of contention??? he has continued every single Bush policy. he has lied consistently to the americans and world. He has presided over nothing more than a slickly presented continuation of what came before him...If Americans have any desire to be seen as anything other than warmongers with a heartfelt superiority complex, then its time to do whatever you can to STOP YOUR SHITE HOUSE INVADING OTHER NATIONS AND SUPPORTING ISRAEL WHATEVER THEY DO...

[Ikku]

I doubt that will ever happen. Think of Israel as America's biggest military base in the Middle East. It's America's leverage against the unstable dictatorships leftover from the Cold War that own all that oil.

Also, as a foreigner, your only concern with American politics is foreign policy. There are other major issues that I might argue are equally important (energy crisis + climate change/environmentalism). Not only is that a threat to mankind's longterm prosperity, but if you work on the issues of alternative energy, you destroy the incentive to muck about in the Middle East.

[zERo~Chronic]

well Obama also took the troops out of Iraq, sure they're just being sent to Afghanistan but atleast it is a step foward. He killed Bin Laden and threw that fucker in the sea. A lot more jobs have been created then under Bush and the economy is seeing a general turn around. As for all the trouble in the middle east i see it as something happening no matter what, obama or not. Israel is our ally (kinda) and Iran is a threat to Israel and thus a threat to America, so they're gonna get rained on. electing a republican will probably just speed up the bombing process, from what I've read Obama is actually slowing down and working against an Israeli invasion of Iran

'well obama also'???? is that to suggest that you agree with the facts i have stated, and yet still wish to support Obama???? Why do you think Iran is a threat to Israel?? and why do you think that Israel is only 'kinda' an ally to the US??? YOU give them billions of $ per year. They decide YOUR foreign policy. You translate that as 'kinda an ally'????

Basically yes, my whole point is that putting in a republican will only send us back to war faster. I call Iran a threat because they've been building underground nuclear sites and have been on the brink of war with Israel, which would be a war with the US. As for the 'kinda' comment i say that because I've read about the Obama administration trying to sway Israeli public opinion against an invasion of Iran, as well as the powers that be in Israel pressing our Republican leaders to pressure Obama into war, so there seems to be some problems and distrust between us, even though we work so closely together

Seriously, no offense to anyone, but how the FUCK is Mitt Romney taking the lead still?

Also, I completely agree with this. It amazes me to see this man talk and then think that he is on the way to be elected the leader of our fucking country. I'm gonna be a pretty sad panda if he wins (not that any of the others are a whole lot better)

[weedguru_animal]

I doubt that will ever happen. Think of Israel as America's biggest military base in the Middle East. It's America's leverage against the unstable dictatorships leftover from the Cold War that own all that oil.

Also, as a foreigner, your only concern with American politics is foreign policy. There are other major issues that I might argue are equally important (energy crisis + climate change/environmentalism). Not only is that a threat to mankind's longterm prosperity, but if you work on the issues of alternative energy, you destroy the incentive to muck about in the Middle East.

I would say I have other concerns with america politics, but what interests me most and what I know most about is indeed, the foreign policy. Which is why I am asking you folks to explain more of the other matters. Energy matters are directly connected to the neo imperalism, so thats part of the same issue...its far from surprising to read of an american looking at the US as in control of Irsael, when to most of the rest of the world, Israel included, its crystal clear that Tel Aviv is in charge of washington, and has been for many decades...they run you, not you run them.

[Ikku]

Energy matters are directly connected to the neo imperialism and are really the prior issue. Solve the energy problems and the imperialism will no longer be an issue. The biggest threat Iran holds over America is that they can basically shut down all oil coming out of the Middle East from the Gulf. Remove that threat and they become a non-issue.

As for the whole "Israel owns America" I find that to be much too simplistic an explanation. I don't deny the existence of the Jewish lobby in the United States govt and foreign policy, but I think it really is in America's financial best interests to keep Israel well armed. I'm not saying I agree with it or support it, but I think just saying "oh the Jews are in control" is missing the bigger picture.

[JokersAce]

Ah, if you want to hear my super idealistic liberal scientific thought pattern, listen up, but you probably won't agree with it. I think the whole system should be torn down and a socialist/communist system put in its place. Now before you get all up in arms about "oh that sounds great on paper but has never worked lols look at history" I just want to say, that was then this is now. Technology is telescoping in its advances, each major step forward coming sooner than the one before. We are almost for all intents and purposes, in a post-scarcity world. We have enough food to feed the entire world. We have enough vaccines and medicine to eradicate polio and smallpox from the planet. The only reasons these things are even problems are economic and political.

There's the argument against communism that "oh if there's no incentive to work, people won't work." Some people won't work. The lazy people. But they won't need to. The lowest skilled jobs are pretty much automated already, the only reason some of them even exist is to give people jobs. So many things are being replaced by computers and robotics (just look at the modern day factory, sweatshops notwithstanding). Even some jobs that would have been high paying years ago are automated. I was in a microbiology lab today and one of the things that makes them have such a high turnover of test results on PCR for instance is because all they really have to do is make sure the parameters are set correctly and run the test. A 96-well PCR reaction will be performed automatically (the temperature cycling of this used to be done manually) and the data fully analyzed and report printed for whoever requested the test. Hours and hours of skilled labor no longer necessary. And that's just an example from my field in particular, similar things are happening in every single industry.

I don't know why you would assume I would automatically get up in arms over your supposed leftists beliefs, I am thoroughly a leftist myself(with some exceptions). However, the people who own the machines aren't just going to give them up or let everyone and anyone benefit from them freely, and it would be foolish to think that you can just create a self sustaining utopia while preserving "freedom", because ultimately you can't have a utopia without properly sustaining it with authority, otherwise it WILL collapse. For example, satisfy everyone's needs and they will keep procreating until you can't satisfy anyone's needs. Social controls are a necessity and throughout history it has often led to the birth of totalitarian governments. Not to mention there is the huge question as to how this could even be achieved, since the machines that put people out of work at this point tend to put them into poverty rather than into utopian happiness or whatever.

I think it's going to get to the point where a human's main function as a worker would be in generating ideas, creative thinking, and management of information. Probably not within our lifetimes but there's no telling how the future will go. I think when our technology has reached this point (I would actually argue that it is almost there, maybe about 80%), our current capitalist economy would only hold us back. I think humanity has to evolve away from competition and toward cooperation.

IDK if I agree or disagree, but this would definitely not be achieved through the policies or ideals of Ron Paul. Unless of course the people without all the money and robots die off leaving the rest of society to enjoy the fruits of their class oppression.

Now this has little to do with Ron Paul and in fact some of his economic policies don't really line up with mine at all, but I'm a nutjob and my opinions don't line up with any politician. So I look for little things I think will help. The things I do like about Ron Paul: wants to allow people under 25 to opt out of Social Security (which is a giant pyramid scheme), voted against all bailouts, drastic change in monetary policy along with reduced government spending. Basically anti-Keynesian by attributing inflation to money supply fluctuations (which is the reality) rather than aggregate demand and approaching the economy from that perspective. And that last point is the biggest. "Oh hey let's fix the economy by throwing money at it." The economy IS money, or rather the economy and money are both illusions propping each other up in a sense.

Social Security is not a pyramid scheme. Social Security and all of its constituents is what prevents millions of seniors, adults, and children from not only sleeping on the streets, but helps millions of people with various diseases and medical afflictions survive. Pyramid schemes are inherently unsustainable, people are only led believe that SS is unsustainable because some on the right refuse to properly take into account and fund its natural growth. With regards to bailouts, yeah it sucks to help corporate swine but the fact is that if all those companies weren't bailed out, we would be in much more economic chaos then we had gone through. If you let those companies fall, companies that depend on it will fall... all of those employees will be taken out of the consumer market. Consumer demand decreases, companies lay off more people... thereby even less people in the consumer market so even more business close down.... GDP is in the negative... the economy contracts. It's a fucking domino effect of chaos.

I am confused as to where you're learning your economics. Keynesian economic theory IS based on aggregate demand. The central bank in a Keynesian economic system buys bonds during a recession or time of poor economic growth in order to increase the money supply among the consumers which in turn increases demand, grows GDP, and lowers unemployment. Inflation is a natural result of spending. Since the economy is fundamentally based on consumer spending, it should not be demonized.There is often even a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve

The only people who truly have to fear inflation are the rich.

I think the main thing to gather from this is that no candidate will really be ideal for me when it comes to economic questions because I am too idealistic. Also a reminder that I have not said I'm voting for Paul, but I haven't written him off. I love love love his foreign policy and domestic social policy. His economic ideas are at least something different. He wants to get rid of the department of Energy which is actually a huge strike against him in my book. Getting rid of Education isn't something I'd like him to do either but it's not as huge for me (I think our education system sucks and needs to be retooled, scrapping the entire federal department is a bit overboard).

Still weighing my options.

You should at least stick with your fundamental beliefs, because praising socialist ideals while even thinking about supporting Ron Paul is utter hypocrisy.

[weedguru_animal]

I am enjoying the exchange joker and ikku...keep up the solid work please.

[Ikku]

I don't know why you would assume I would automatically get up in arms over your supposed leftists beliefs, I am thoroughly a leftist myself(with some exceptions). However, the people who own the machines aren't just going to give them up or let everyone and anyone benefit from them freely, and it would be foolish to think that you can just create a self sustaining utopia while preserving "freedom", because ultimately you can't have a utopia without properly sustaining it with authority, otherwise it WILL collapse. For example, satisfy everyone's needs and they will keep procreating until you can't satisfy anyone's needs. Social controls are a necessity and throughout history it has often led to the birth of totalitarian governments. Not to mention there is the huge question as to how this could even be achieved, since the machines that put people out of work at this point tend to put them into poverty rather than into utopian happiness or whatever.

Yes, the social controls that are necessary are forcing people into poverty and I see a problem with that? Most people are living in absolute shit right now. Especially looking beyond simple regional problems.

IDK if I agree or disagree, but this would definitely not be arrived through the policies or ideals of Ron Paul. Unless of course the people without all the money and robots die off leaving the rest of society to enjoy the fruits of their class oppression.

Yea, I wasn't espousing Ron Paul as some kind of God send, just as something different. I doubt your typical American will see anything different based on who is President. Ron Paul is the only president I foresee even a possibility of change from the status quo. I would foresee some kind of change under him, for good or for worse, but some kind of change, whereas with the two big political parties, I foresee only more of the same.

Social Security is not a pyramid scheme. Social Security and all of its constituents is what prevents millions of seniors, adults, and children from not only sleeping on the streets, but helps millions of people with various diseases and medical afflictions survive. Pyramid schemes are inherently unsustainable, people are only led believe that SS is unsustainable because some on the right refuse to properly take into account and fund its natural growth.

Separating this from bailouts because they are two entirely different issues. Social Security is indeed a pyramid scheme, exactly how is it not? Let's pay people currently out of money that doesn't yet exist because we are collecting money now and assume it will be there for future generations. It's really a stupid system and I really only see its birth making any sense out of great depression economics, I don't see how it is sustainable at all. At its core its a pyramid scheme, explain to me how it is not.

With regards to bailouts, yeah it sucks to help corporate swine but the fact is that if all those companies weren't bailed out, we would be in much more economic chaos then we had gone through. If you let those companies fall, companies that depend on it will fall... all of those employees will be taken out of the consumer market. Consumer demand decreases, companies lay off more people... thereby even less people in the consumer market so even more business close down.... GDP is in the negative... the economy contracts. It's a fucking domino effect of chaos.

Yes, well here is where America needs to get off its high horse and STOP TRYING TO BE IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING. America feels this inherent duty to rule the world, which is only fucking things up worse. The world economy will eventually even itself out if we let it, constant fucking around with the world monetary supply and world market will not help anything. It might create short term benefits for Americans but guess what, the world isn't all about Americans.

I am confused as to where you're learning your economics. Keynesian economic theory IS based on aggregate demand. The central bank in a Keynesian economic system buys bonds during a recession or time of poor economic growth in order to increase the money supply among the consumers which in turn increases demand, grows GDP, and lowers unemployment. Inflation is a natural result of spending. Since the economy is fundamentally based on consumer spending, it should not be demonized.There is often even a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve

The only people who truly have to fear inflation are the rich.

I understand 100% that Keynesian economic theory is based on aggregate demand and I'm calling bollocks on that. That's bullshit. That's my whole point. Money supply fluctuations create inflation, not aggregate demand which is what your Keynesian economist would have you believe. It just makes the most sense intuitively to me as well: the reason you can't afford that new pair of sneakers isn't because the demand for that good has skyrocketed, it's because the money itself is needed for some other good or service (ie making a new pair of sneakers).

As of right now I won't even be voting coming November. It will just be a vote for more of the same no matter what. I really just predict that this is all a waste of energy anyway. I love thinking about and discussing politics but to be real...we are insignificant observers of calamities on the world stage that will impact us and our children without our input. That's the sad reality. Those of you that scoff at any kind of 2012 revolution, well, if we don't see some kind of change, humanity will kill itself sooner rather than later. We should at least try.

[JokersAce]

I don't know why you would assume I would automatically get up in arms over your supposed leftists beliefs, I am thoroughly a leftist myself(with some exceptions). However, the people who own the machines aren't just going to give them up or let everyone and anyone benefit from them freely, and it would be foolish to think that you can just create a self sustaining utopia while preserving "freedom", because ultimately you can't have a utopia without properly sustaining it with authority, otherwise it WILL collapse. For example, satisfy everyone's needs and they will keep procreating until you can't satisfy anyone's needs. Social controls are a necessity and throughout history it has often led to the birth of totalitarian governments. Not to mention there is the huge question as to how this could even be achieved, since the machines that put people out of work at this point tend to put them into poverty rather than into utopian happiness or whatever.

Yes, the social controls that are necessary are forcing people into poverty and I see a problem with that? Most people are living in absolute shit right now. Especially looking beyond simple regional problems.

What? You need to explain more, social controls are forcing people into poverty? Like instating regulations on businesses to not give out faulty loans that well ultimately accumulate into an unfunctional disaster that will destroy the economy?

IDK if I agree or disagree, but this would definitely not be arrived through the policies or ideals of Ron Paul. Unless of course the people without all the money and robots die off leaving the rest of society to enjoy the fruits of their class oppression.

Yea, I wasn't espousing Ron Paul as some kind of God send, just as something different. I doubt your typical American will see anything different based on who is President. Ron Paul is the only president I foresee even a possibility of change from the status quo. I would foresee some kind of change under him, for good or for worse, but some kind of change, whereas with the two big political parties, I foresee only more of the same.

This is what I see with regards to your total argument on voting for someone just for the sake of change: Let's say someone likes cats, and he thinks the president needs to like cats more... but he votes for someone who likes dogs and hates cat because he's tired of what the current status of cat favor is and just wants to see change, even if it really contradicts his ultimate ideology. Simple, but that's the easiest way I can explain it.

Social Security is not a pyramid scheme. Social Security and all of its constituents is what prevents millions of seniors, adults, and children from not only sleeping on the streets, but helps millions of people with various diseases and medical afflictions survive. Pyramid schemes are inherently unsustainable, people are only led believe that SS is unsustainable because some on the right refuse to properly take into account and fund its natural growth.

Separating this from bailouts because they are two entirely different issues. Social Security is indeed a pyramid scheme, exactly how is it not? Let's pay people currently out of money that doesn't yet exist because we are collecting money now and assume it will be there for future generations. It's really a stupid system and I really only see its birth making any sense out of great depression economics, I don't see how it is sustainable at all. At its core its a pyramid scheme, explain to me how it is not.

Calling social security a pyramid/ponzi scheme is right up there with all the beliefs of the dumbest Republic contenders man. I really think you need to sort out your political views because you seem to me to be very Republican, and not the lefty/socialist guy you say you are. Anyways:

Social Security was partly pre-funded in 1983. This raised payroll taxes above immediate program costs in order to create a trust fund that lent money to the U.S. government, which must repay the trust fund as any other creditor would. Social Security will not become a pure pay-as-you-go system until 2036, according to the latest government estimates. Even then, there will be only a modest shortfall in benefits, which can be eliminated in advance by higher payroll taxes, permanent infusions of general revenue or other non-payroll taxes, or benefit reductions — or a combination of these reforms. A Social Security system funded purely by current taxes would no more be a Ponzi scheme than the U.S. military or the public school system.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... d-metaphor

Going from what I said in an earlier post... I don't know a single communist/socialist who would want to dismantle a system that insures sustenance for millions of people who would otherwise be dead or on the streets without it.

With regards to bailouts, yeah it sucks to help corporate swine but the fact is that if all those companies weren't bailed out, we would be in much more economic chaos then we had gone through. If you let those companies fall, companies that depend on it will fall... all of those employees will be taken out of the consumer market. Consumer demand decreases, companies lay off more people... thereby even less people in the consumer market so even more business close down.... GDP is in the negative... the economy contracts. It's a fucking domino effect of chaos.

Yes, well here is where America needs to get off its high horse and STOP TRYING TO BE IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING. America feels this inherent duty to rule the world, which is only fucking things up worse. The world economy will eventually even itself out if we let it, constant fucking around with the world monetary supply and world market will not help anything. It might create short term benefits for Americans but guess what, the world isn't all about Americans.

Yeah that really has nothing to do with what I said at all. America doesn't control some sort of global central bank if that's what you're thinking. Pretty much every nation has a central bank (for a good reason) so in your argument every nation is meddling in every other nation's affairs when their central bank does anything..... that reminds me of a little system based on the Butterfly effect called "market economics". With regards to the economy evening itself out... an economy is like rotting grapes: You can let the rot form unpredictably into whatever it will ultimately turn into, or you can guide the process and ferment it into a fine wine.

I am confused as to where you're learning your economics. Keynesian economic theory IS based on aggregate demand. The central bank in a Keynesian economic system buys bonds during a recession or time of poor economic growth in order to increase the money supply among the consumers which in turn increases demand, grows GDP, and lowers unemployment. Inflation is a natural result of spending. Since the economy is fundamentally based on consumer spending, it should not be demonized.There is often even a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve

The only people who truly have to fear inflation are the rich.

I understand 100% that Keynesian economic theory is based on aggregate demand and I'm calling bollocks on that. That's bullshit. That's my whole point. Money supply fluctuations create inflation, not aggregate demand which is what your Keynesian economist would have you believe. It just makes the most sense intuitively to me as well: the reason you can't afford that new pair of sneakers isn't because the demand for that good has skyrocketed, it's because the money itself is needed for some other good or service (ie making a new pair of sneakers).

You're calling bullshit on Keynesian economics being based on AD? I hope that's not what you mean but if you're saying that a Keynesian bank is the primary driver of inflation then you are dead wrong. Simple laws of market economics: when demand increases, prices increases... inflation= general increases in price level. Therefore more demand=higher inflation. Like I said, inflation is an entirely natural result of economic growth and is only dangerous to the rich who have huge quantities of money saved up doing fucking nothing. And your sneaker example doesn't really make sense by the way, at least within its context.

As of right now I won't even be voting coming November. It will just be a vote for more of the same no matter what. I really just predict that this is all a waste of energy anyway. I love thinking about and discussing politics but to be real...we are insignificant observers of calamities on the world stage that will impact us and our children without our input. That's the sad reality. Those of you that scoff at any kind of 2012 revolution, well, if we don't see some kind of change, humanity will kill itself sooner rather than later. We should at least try.

On an unrelated note, apparently the Mayan calendar didn't take into account Leap years, so if there was a disaster it would have occurred quite a few months ago.

[foschi]

the best candidate for president that i see is matt snyder.
all his info is at http://mattsnyderforpresident.com/
he is one of the common people
he has many great ideas and policies, he even thinks weed should be legal

[Grrrl]

My sentiments on the subject could not be put across better than in the quote below, you can just change america to the name of pretty much any self declared 'civilised' nation and the glove will still fit:

“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'
-Bill Hicks

[cutthecashflow]

I went to a Ron Paul speech on Tuesday, he is a very good public speaker; hopefully my week clears up and I can go into more detail.