Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The next U.S. President (for non-US members only)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe next U.S. President (for non-US members only)
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 11>
Poll Question: Who do our non-U.S. members think should be the next U.S. president?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
1 [1.64%]
13 [21.31%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [1.64%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [1.64%]
1 [1.64%]
32 [52.46%]
9 [14.75%]
1 [1.64%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [3.28%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2008 at 09:11
Originally posted by Forgotten Son Forgotten Son wrote:

Let's please draw a distinction between Socialism and Social Democracy.
For the purpose of this discussion, it's Social Democracy. Real socialism exists mainly on paper
Originally posted by Forgotten Son Forgotten Son wrote:


And INVORD, who exactly were the US protecting Europe from? I find the idea that the Soviet Union really wanted to invade Western Europe far-fetched. Stalin was an oppurtunist, and the Soviet Union just as badly damaged by World War II as the rest of Europe
I would hate to speculate whether the USSR intended to invade Western Europe right after WWII or not. The Soviets had been exhausted by the war, but as soon as they felt more or less invincible and managed to establish firm control over Eastern Europe, they abandoned the Yalta agreements and partitioned Germany. 
It's hard to assert they had definite plans of aggression in the late 70's either. On the one hand, they had tremendous superiority in conventional forces. On the other hand, they had Europe gradually hooked on cheap energy since the early 60's and ripped huge benefits from the trade. But no matter how you slice it, the potential of aggression was there. If you imply that some sort of peaceful co-existence existed, it may be as far-fetched an idea as the imminent red threat.
Originally posted by Forgotten Son Forgotten Son wrote:


�Most�of�the�massively inflated US�military�budget�went�on�securing�hegemony�in�former�European�colonies.�

The US military has been used to secure hegemony over the entire world not only former colonies as the economy became more and more globalized. US economic interests dictate what the military do, not the other way around. Economy is the driving force.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 19:39
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

 

Taking into account that I spend 3-5 hours a week watching TV (mostly History Ch and PBS) that's particularly funny. I would suggest you to do the same. Watchin major networks produces the same effect as an outright brain castration.



Hey, as long as you stay away from Faux Noise.  I'm kind of partial to History Channel ("Where history comes to die") and PBS myself.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2008 at 07:54
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 19:24
Maybe this will help:
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Atkingani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: October 21 2005
Location: Terra Brasilis
Status: Offline
Points: 12288 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 19:04
We have a say here that states: "they are Greek then they must understand each other".
 
Even so, I had to hide a couple of posts in order not to spoil a thread that has running in a civil manner until now... although some posts here should fit better in the Political Discussion thread, located next door.
 
Let's keep the poll on its proper rails, folks!
 
 
Thanks!
 
 
Guigo

~~~~~~
Back to Top
Forgotten Son View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 18:48
Let's please draw a distinction between Socialism and Social Democracy.

And INVORD, who exactly were the US protecting Europe from? I find the idea that the Soviet Union really wanted to invade Western Europe far-fetched. Stalin was an oppurtunist, and the Soviet Union just as badly damaged by World War II as the rest of Europe. Most of the massively inflated US military budget went on securing hegemony in former European colonies. 

As for the poll question, my favourite candidates (or should I say non-candidates) for the US presidency are Gravel and Kucinich.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 18:37
Originally posted by ClemofNazareth ClemofNazareth wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by ClemofNazareth ClemofNazareth wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


It's just what should be done, and when you have so many people paying taxes for war, why not just replace that "defense" tax with health care tax. It's make our country a whole f**king lot better.
 
You should read up on the history of Costa Rica.  That's exactly what they did nearly 50 years ago.  Their government passed a constitutional amendment basically banning expenditures on a military and allocated the money to public healthcare and education instead.  Wonder what would happen if one of the really big defense-spending countries did something like that?
 
 
It would be a paradise on earth. When Clinton got a slight break in defense spendings after the fall of the Soviet Union, things got significantly better even though he managed to squander most of the windfall.
 
Costa Rica, Japan, western europe, etc, all have miniscule (or non-existant) defense budgets to compare with us. We have provided them with security since the end of WWII. That's why they can pay for their socialist games although at a risk of going bankrupt 
 
Not completely accurate.  Costa Rica has a defense force, and I'm not aware of too many times when we've had to deploy forces to protect their borders.  I'm not sure who would want to invade them anyway.  For the most part our military expenses are incurred as a result of us "promoting" democracy and capitalism to (usually) unwilling recipients. 
 
And to the question of whether "socialist games" can incur the risk of bankruptcy on the part of those nations, I would point out on the flip side that the U.S. has by far the largest federal debt of any country in the world; is currently at risk of losing their AAA bond rating; has a dollar that has fallen against the Euro and is even lower than the Canadian dollar for the first time in nearly a quarter-century; and is being rapidly consumed as foreign nationals are buying up American property, companies and bonds at an all-time high rate.  We have incurred more debt as a nation in the past 7 years than the previous 225 combined.
 
So who's risking bankruptcy?
 
 
 
 
It's costa rica in general. We do protect the entire western hemisphere.
 
Of course, we are promoting capitalism. International policies of any country are an extension of its economic policies. First and foremost, we protect our interests. I realize that anything imperialist is politically incorrect, but I don't even try to be politically correct. Western Europe is our main trading partner. Sure thing we will protect them.
 
You're right, we have a huge debt. It's around 70% of our GDP and that's obscene. The war is ruining the country. I'm afraid if it goes on for 2-3 more years, the inflation will wipe out half of today's middle class.
 
On a positive note, foregn nationals buying American assets is not that bad.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 18:14
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Ghost Rider Ghost Rider wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

[
 
Costa Rica, Japan, western europe, etc, all have miniscule (or non-existant) defense budgets to compare with us. We have provided them with security since the end of WWII. That's why they can pay for their socialist games although at a risk of going bankrupt 


Socialist games? I hope you realise what you are saying. As a European citizen, I find such a statement extremely offensive. And, in the present circumstances, talking of us going bankrupt sounds a bit like the kettle calling the saucepan black.

I know that Italy was helped a lot by the US after the war, but we paid very dearly for that. I don't want to go into detail, but I was born at the end of 1960, and I know what I am talking about.
 

Taking into account that I spend 3-5 hours a week watching TV (mostly History Ch and PBS) that's particularly funny. I would suggest you to do the same. Watchin major networks produces the same effect as an outright brain castration.

Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 18:12
Originally posted by Ghost Rider Ghost Rider wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

[
 
Costa Rica, Japan, western europe, etc, all have miniscule (or non-existant) defense budgets to compare with us. We have provided them with security since the end of WWII. That's why they can pay for their socialist games although at a risk of going bankrupt 


Socialist games? I hope you realise what you are saying. As a European citizen, I find such a statement extremely offensive. And, in the present circumstances, talking of us going bankrupt sounds a bit like the kettle calling the saucepan black.

I know that Italy was helped a lot by the US after the war, but we paid very dearly for that. I don't want to go into detail, but I was born at the end of 1960, and I know what I am talking about.

I surely realize what I'm saying.

 

Socialism is expensive. In 2006, Italy's GDP was $1,880B. It spent only $15.5B on defense, or less than 1%. http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0012.html

 

Which means 99% of its GDP is used productively. Yet Italy consistently runs budget deficits accumulating a public debt of 103% of its GDP. That's a sound fiscal policy alright!

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/10/budget-deficit-italy-markets-equity-cx_vr_1010markets20.html 

 

That's the price of socialism. Having long sold their gold reserves and other assets, Italy looks pretty much like a bankrupt already. Unfortunately, the method of choice of all western governments to fight deficits is thru the money printing press. For the time being they manage to walk the tightrope at the expense of the general population as the money we earn is losing its buying power faster than it's being printed. Ultimately it will lead to a financial disaster. Ever heard of the Weimar Republic?

 

We waste a humongous sum of money on defense. You can imagine how better off we would have been by keeping the $535B; but that allows your government to spend 99% on your social programs as we pay for the defense of Italy and the rest of the world.

Back to Top
ClemofNazareth View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Prog Folk Researcher

Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 15:05
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by ClemofNazareth ClemofNazareth wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


It's just what should be done, and when you have so many people paying taxes for war, why not just replace that "defense" tax with health care tax. It's make our country a whole f**king lot better.
 
You should read up on the history of Costa Rica.  That's exactly what they did nearly 50 years ago.  Their government passed a constitutional amendment basically banning expenditures on a military and allocated the money to public healthcare and education instead.  Wonder what would happen if one of the really big defense-spending countries did something like that?
 
 
It would be a paradise on earth. When Clinton got a slight break in defense spendings after the fall of the Soviet Union, things got significantly better even though he managed to squander most of the windfall.
 
Costa Rica, Japan, western europe, etc, all have miniscule (or non-existant) defense budgets to compare with us. We have provided them with security since the end of WWII. That's why they can pay for their socialist games although at a risk of going bankrupt 
 
Not completely accurate.  Costa Rica has a defense force, and I'm not aware of too many times when we've had to deploy forces to protect their borders.  I'm not sure who would want to invade them anyway.  For the most part our military expenses are incurred as a result of us "promoting" democracy and capitalism to (usually) unwilling recipients. 
 
And to the question of whether "socialist games" can incur the risk of bankruptcy on the part of those nations, I would point out on the flip side that the U.S. has by far the largest federal debt of any country in the world; is currently at risk of losing their AAA bond rating; has a dollar that has fallen against the Euro and is even lower than the Canadian dollar for the first time in nearly a quarter-century; and is being rapidly consumed as foreign nationals are buying up American property, companies and bonds at an all-time high rate.  We have incurred more debt as a nation in the past 7 years than the previous 225 combined.
 
So who's risking bankruptcy?
 
 
 
 
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."

Albert Camus
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 11:41
Originally posted by Ghost Rider Ghost Rider wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

[
 
Costa Rica, Japan, western europe, etc, all have miniscule (or non-existant) defense budgets to compare with us. We have provided them with security since the end of WWII. That's why they can pay for their socialist games although at a risk of going bankrupt 


Socialist games? I hope you realise what you are saying. As a European citizen, I find such a statement extremely offensive. And, in the present circumstances, talking of us going bankrupt sounds a bit like the kettle calling the saucepan black.

I know that Italy was helped a lot by the US after the war, but we paid very dearly for that. I don't want to go into detail, but I was born at the end of 1960, and I know what I am talking about.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 11:26
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

[
 
Costa Rica, Japan, western europe, etc, all have miniscule (or non-existant) defense budgets to compare with us. We have provided them with security since the end of WWII. That's why they can pay for their socialist games although at a risk of going bankrupt 


Socialist games? I hope you realise what you are saying. As a European citizen, I find such a statement extremely offensive. And, in the present circumstances, talking of us going bankrupt sounds a bit like the kettle calling the saucepan black.

I know that Italy was helped a lot by the US after the war, but we paid very dearly for that. I don't want to go into detail, but I was born at the end of 1960, and I know what I am talking about.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 10:36
Originally posted by Bluesaga Bluesaga wrote:

Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

im not saying i like bush but i AM saying Hillary would be worse. she just oozes this sleazeyness that makes me cringe. her politics? borderline socialist. her personality? borderline . . . disgusting. Im not jumping on any sort of band wagon of hillary haters but everything about that woman is so wrong. im just worried that people will vote for her simply because she is a woman and comletely ignore anything she says. not that what she says isnt worth ignoring in the first place. BTW, what do people see in her? not people who would vote for her not to vote for someone else, people who would vote for her because they like her. . . what do you see?

What's wrong with Socialism?  Most people who associate socialism with something bad actually don't understand what it is.  I personally find it a much more appealing ideology than capitalism.  The United States isn't exactly 100% capitalist too, by the way; that is another common assumption.  The closest America got to true capitalism was around the time during and before the Great Depression. Tongue
Do you understand what it is? The Utopian theories are appealing too. Are they realistic?
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2008 at 10:34
Originally posted by ClemofNazareth ClemofNazareth wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


It's just what should be done, and when you have so many people paying taxes for war, why not just replace that "defense" tax with health care tax. It's make our country a whole f**king lot better.
 
You should read up on the history of Costa Rica.  That's exactly what they did nearly 50 years ago.  Their government passed a constitutional amendment basically banning expenditures on a military and allocated the money to public healthcare and education instead.  Wonder what would happen if one of the really big defense-spending countries did something like that?
 
 
It would be a paradise on earth. When Clinton got a slight break in defense spendings after the fall of the Soviet Union, things got significantly better even though he managed to squander most of the windfall.
 
Costa Rica, Japan, western europe, etc, all have miniscule (or non-existant) defense budgets to compare with us. We have provided them with security since the end of WWII. That's why they can pay for their socialist games although at a risk of going bankrupt 
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2008 at 09:18
Originally posted by Bluesaga Bluesaga wrote:

Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

im not saying i like bush but i AM saying Hillary would be worse. she just oozes this sleazeyness that makes me cringe. her politics? borderline socialist. her personality? borderline . . . disgusting. Im not jumping on any sort of band wagon of hillary haters but everything about that woman is so wrong. im just worried that people will vote for her simply because she is a woman and comletely ignore anything she says. not that what she says isnt worth ignoring in the first place. BTW, what do people see in her? not people who would vote for her not to vote for someone else, people who would vote for her because they like her. . . what do you see?

What's wrong with Socialism?  Most people who associate socialism with something bad actually don't understand what it is.  I personally find it a much more appealing ideology than capitalism.  The United States isn't exactly 100% capitalist too, by the way; that is another common assumption.  The closest America got to true capitalism was around the time during and before the Great Depression. Tongue


Don't hear a lot of complaining about the socialized fire departments or the socialized police forces.  Capitalism works best when tempered by some socialism.  Some things work best when there's competition and a profit motive, other things need to be handled collectively for the common good.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Mikerinos View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Planet Gong
Status: Offline
Points: 8890 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2008 at 23:33
Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

im not saying i like bush but i AM saying Hillary would be worse. she just oozes this sleazeyness that makes me cringe. her politics? borderline socialist. her personality? borderline . . . disgusting. Im not jumping on any sort of band wagon of hillary haters but everything about that woman is so wrong. im just worried that people will vote for her simply because she is a woman and comletely ignore anything she says. not that what she says isnt worth ignoring in the first place. BTW, what do people see in her? not people who would vote for her not to vote for someone else, people who would vote for her because they like her. . . what do you see?

What's wrong with Socialism?  Most people who associate socialism with something bad actually don't understand what it is.  I personally find it a much more appealing ideology than capitalism.  The United States isn't exactly 100% capitalist too, by the way; that is another common assumption.  The closest America got to true capitalism was around the time during and before the Great Depression. Tongue
Back to Top
ClemofNazareth View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Prog Folk Researcher

Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2008 at 22:20
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


It's just what should be done, and when you have so many people paying taxes for war, why not just replace that "defense" tax with health care tax. It's make our country a whole f**king lot better.
 
You should read up on the history of Costa Rica.  That's exactly what they did nearly 50 years ago.  Their government passed a constitutional amendment basically banning expenditures on a military and allocated the money to public healthcare and education instead.  Wonder what would happen if one of the really big defense-spending countries did something like that?
 
 
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."

Albert Camus
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2008 at 20:34
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

very well said darling...

it is a human right... getting healthcare is not..well .. SHOULD not be a measure of your social-economic status.. but a basic human right.  Part of the problem with the world today is there are people around that would disagree with that.


I don't think it's a human right to have other people care for you. It's certainly the thing that should happen, because how can you deny someone the right to health care in their time of need and expect yourself to get the same care whenever you need it? It's just what should be done, and when you have so many people paying taxes for war, why not just replace that "defense" tax with health care tax. It's make our country a whole f**king lot better.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
King Crimson776 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2008 at 17:27
Other - I have no idea.
Back to Top
Atkingani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: October 21 2005
Location: Terra Brasilis
Status: Offline
Points: 12288 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2008 at 15:37
Originally posted by ClemofNazareth ClemofNazareth wrote:

Originally posted by Ghost Rider Ghost Rider wrote:


As to Hillary's 'socialist' ideas, I suppose they have to do with her support of universal healthcare. Well, as a European, who has heard and read many horror stories about what can happen to American citizens who are not insured, I firmly believe healthcare is one of the inalienable human rights (same as education), and treating it like just any other commodity is, in my opinion, a crime against mankind. If that makes me a 'socialist', so be it - I'd rather see myself as a humanist, though I've never hidden my leftist leanings.
 
An interesting bit of trivia I learned recently (I'm working on an MBA in Healthcare Management and this came up in one of our classes).  There are only two countries in the world with no form of universal health coverage:  South Africa and the U.S.
 
You would think a nation with our resources could at least ensure nobody lacks for basic health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it, but such is not the case.
 
 
 
It remembers me a movie I saw a couple of years ago, a funny movie btw, with Alan Alda, the late John Candy, etc. where with the end of the Cold War they were searching for a new enemy to bring profits to the weapons industry and they decide to invade Canada. One of the reasons given for the declaration of war was that Canada had a "social healthcare". Big%20smile
 
EDIT: "Canadian Bacon" was the movie... directed by Michael Moore.


Edited by Atkingani - January 19 2008 at 15:41
Guigo

~~~~~~
Back to Top
ClemofNazareth View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Prog Folk Researcher

Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2008 at 15:24
Originally posted by Ghost Rider Ghost Rider wrote:


As to Hillary's 'socialist' ideas, I suppose they have to do with her support of universal healthcare. Well, as a European, who has heard and read many horror stories about what can happen to American citizens who are not insured, I firmly believe healthcare is one of the inalienable human rights (same as education), and treating it like just any other commodity is, in my opinion, a crime against mankind. If that makes me a 'socialist', so be it - I'd rather see myself as a humanist, though I've never hidden my leftist leanings.
 
An interesting bit of trivia I learned recently (I'm working on an MBA in Healthcare Management and this came up in one of our classes).  There are only two countries in the world with no form of universal health coverage:  South Africa and the U.S.
 
You would think a nation with our resources could at least ensure nobody lacks for basic health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it, but such is not the case.
 
 
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."

Albert Camus
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.397 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.