The next U.S. President (for non-US members only)

Slartibartfast wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: 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.

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.

Maybe this will help:

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

IVNORD wrote: 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.

ClemofNazareth wrote: IVNORD wrote: 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.   As our admin monitors have pointed out we've veered off-topic it seems, but I will say that I hope that you are (or have in the past) served in uniform in defense of these policies you are so passionately defending.  Your conviction will carry more weight if your actions are consistent with them.

Deathrabbit wrote: I like Ron Paul. His views are a bit more libertarian than mine perhaps, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. Our gov'ts so big it's tripping over itself. OH and as far as the whole capitalism vs socialism thing goes, I am anti-"anything-that-is-an-ideal." I do think ideals work out too well in the economy. It's more something you have to play by ear. It's just too complex to think that one can come up with a plan and just have it work. I am more of an individualist I suppose, but I'm an individualist who realizes there are other individuals in the world :) .

"Ideal" and "economy" is a contradiction of terms. Economy is too pragmatic to have anything to do with wishful thinking

IVNORD wrote: ClemofNazareth wrote: IVNORD wrote: 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.   As our admin monitors have pointed out we've veered off-topic it seems, but I will say that I hope that you are (or have in the past) served in uniform in defense of these policies you are so passionately defending.  Your conviction will carry more weight if your actions are consistent with them.   So far I haven't been defending anything. Just stating the facts. And with very little passion, if any at all. As for my convictions, I am convinced that both you and I are recipients of the benefits provided by capitalism. The only difference is I openly admit to that, and you implicitly deny it. And i see no connection between my observations and my military record. It's like saying that one must be an astronomer because he watches the sun rising in the east every morning.

Let's at least get the facts right then.  Western Europe is in fact a minor trade partner with the U.S.  In fact, Canada and Mexico are our largest trade partners.  46% of our export trade and more than half of our import business is with Canada, Mexico, Japan and China.  The UK accounts for only about 4% of exports and Germany about the same in imports - all of the other European countries have less trade than that with us.  Korea and the Middle East also pale in comparison to our own continent and the Far East in trade, yet the heaviest concentration of our military might, expenditures and international policy attention have been on these areas for years.

And I don't deny that many Americans are beneficiaries of a capitalist economy.  But to put things in perspective even the U.S. government acknowledges that nearly all economic gain in this country over the past 30+ years has almost exclusively benefitted the top 20% of households.  The purchasing power of the remaining 80% of the country has actually decreased in that same period, , and as of 2007 we are approaching a trade deficit of one trillion dollars despite more than 2.5 million jobs being shipped overseas in this decade alone.  

And the international policies of a country are not always an extension of their economic policies.  They are often an extension of ideological policies, which in the case of the U.S. just happens to be largely the same thing.  

You know who's least likely to instate the draft?  RON PAUL.