Author Topic: [Split from original Topic] US Election stuff  (Read 5454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reives

  • Dr Platplat
  • Director
  • Tier 7
  • ****
  • Posts: 11332
  • Gender: Male
    • Freebird Games
  • Current Mood: happy happy
[Split from original Topic] US Election stuff
« on: November 04, 2008, 05:00:19 PM »
Edit:
This thread is split from the original topic http://quintessence-tbv.com/forum/index.php?topic=605.0 ; hence the opening post isn't exactly an opening post.



If the world was voting, Obama would win by a landslide; McCain's support is mainly under 20% and often as low as under 10%.

[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2049446/Barack-Obama-beats-John-McCain-in-European-vote-US-election-2008.html ]

( Sorry for getting political; I can't vote so I gotta let out some steam somewhere. :P )

« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 01:33:05 PM by Reives »

Legacyblade

  • 発行所は頑張って下さい!
  • Mod-Suspect
  • Tier 7
  • *
  • Posts: 2952
  • Gender: Male
  • Current Mood: playful playful
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2008, 05:01:45 PM »
But, about that, it's america's president, so the world's preference on that doesn't really have any baring, :P. And are other countries really paying attention to who we elect and all that? Holy crap, that's just weird to me.

Reives

  • Dr Platplat
  • Director
  • Tier 7
  • ****
  • Posts: 11332
  • Gender: Male
    • Freebird Games
  • Current Mood: happy happy
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2008, 05:12:44 PM »
I strongly disagree. D:

The president of a country, especially one like US, is the face of the nation to many. It has a tremendous influence on what people thinks of U.S. - and that is an unarguable fact.

It is also an unarguable fact that the U.S.'s reputation around the world is currently in bad shape, and is in need of much vending - and it is almost unprecedented that one US candidate is preferred to the other with such a gigantic gap as a four-to-one margin - not that it is 100% true and clear, but when such an instance occur, it's safe to say that something is wrong here.

And I would argue that this time around, from both my experience and what I have been gathering, people are indeed paying attention (the polls also have "don't care"/"don't know" options - which took a considerable % of results as well). In fact, here in Canada for example, many care about the US election more than the Canadian one which just happened here. :P


Legacyblade

  • 発行所は頑張って下さい!
  • Mod-Suspect
  • Tier 7
  • *
  • Posts: 2952
  • Gender: Male
  • Current Mood: playful playful
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2008, 05:17:15 PM »
ah, that makes sense. I pay attention to the issues, I juts forgot if Mc Cane or one of the other republican candidates was chosen. I personally don't want Obama in, the U.S. is only a rich country because we don't use socialism. (I don't want to turn this into a debate, just accept that I think that), so that's why I don't want him in. I find that very interesting. I used to think the world pretty much revolved around the U.S. When I was a little kid, but recently I've pretty much forgotten about international opinion between the nations. I thought none of you living outside the U.S. really cared x_x Anyways, I will vote next year, if the US hasn't fallen apart. (there are people called "black panthers" who are standing at the polling stations in quite a few places. They're armed with nightsticks, and won't let white people into the voting areas. Kinda freaky. Start of a civil war, maybe?)

Reives

  • Dr Platplat
  • Director
  • Tier 7
  • ****
  • Posts: 11332
  • Gender: Male
    • Freebird Games
  • Current Mood: happy happy
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2008, 05:22:37 PM »
If this gets off topic too much it can be moved to a separate topic I suppose. c: But sorry to Abi for getting into a debate-esque conversation here; but you better expect it for making a topic involving the issue! :P

Now, about the socialism matter - Wait a minute, are you actually saying that you think Obama = Socialism? o: Before I go on.

Reives

  • Dr Platplat
  • Director
  • Tier 7
  • ****
  • Posts: 11332
  • Gender: Male
    • Freebird Games
  • Current Mood: happy happy
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2008, 05:40:26 PM »
Okay, I'm just going to assume that you did just in case; this needs to be cleared up. :kardiansmile:

I'm guessing you've been hearing that from Palin rallies or whatnot. It is simply a hilariously blatant accusation, but sadly people who are not following the campaigns closely are inclined to believe whatever that is said (both democrats and republicans are guilty of doing these - but just focusing on this case here).

The fact of what happened, and the accusation's origin, was that Obama used the phrase of "spreading the wealth" in a conversation about tax policies. I have to admit that it wasn't wise for him to use such a phrase, but there is a fundamental fact of what his plan consists of, and what the context of such a phrase is.

Basically, his tax plan involved taking away the corporate tax cuts implemented when Bush took over office (which wasn't even there to begin with pre-Bush), and then using that to give tax cuts to the middle-class instead. Is that spreading the wealth? Yes - in a relative sense.

But that is not literally taking money from one to give to another, but rather manipulating what the government is taking away from civilians and corporates - something that will happen no matter who gets elected (except the vast majority of Americans get more tax cuts from Obama than McCain - and "Joe the Plumber" literally benefits more from Obama in a monetary sense as well as a fact). The tax system itself is fundamentally a method of "spreading the wealth" - but Obama really should've chose his phrases more carefully.


Legacyblade

  • 発行所は頑張って下さい!
  • Mod-Suspect
  • Tier 7
  • *
  • Posts: 2952
  • Gender: Male
  • Current Mood: playful playful
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2008, 05:43:37 PM »
Well, if I'm correct, he's for more welfare and stuff. and welfare is a form of socialism. SOME people need welfare, but there are a lot of capable people leaching off the welfare system. I'm to tired to come up with a good argument, I'm too much in the mood for spriting.

Reives

  • Dr Platplat
  • Director
  • Tier 7
  • ****
  • Posts: 11332
  • Gender: Male
    • Freebird Games
  • Current Mood: happy happy
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2008, 05:47:18 PM »
Well, if I'm correct, he's for more welfare and stuff. and welfare is a form of socialism. SOME people need welfare, but there are a lot of capable people leaching off the welfare system.

To the welfare thingy: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_welfare.html

Good luck spriting; I gotta head off as well. Will be back later tonight.

P.S. No hard feelings from political debates-esque discussions! :P

abigailian

  • isn't creeped out by yellow wallpaper
  • Mod-Suspect
  • Tier 7
  • *
  • Posts: 2797
  • Gender: Female
  • Oh emm SNAP!
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2008, 05:51:10 PM »
I don't care that this turned debate-esque, I rather anticipated that. The thing is in any case, Obama isn't really capitalist. And that's not cool. I'm kind of torn on the world opinion thing. I understand that it's important to the world who we elect, but I do still think Americans should still decide for themselves, with little to no influence from other countries.

And Socialism is rarely LITERALLY taking money from one person to give to another, it's just the principal of who ultimately benefits from people working hard to earn their money. Some people argue that when you have tax system where the percentage of income that goes towards taxes increases as your income increases, that in and of itself is mildly socialist, and America's been doing tht for decades.
This might hurt, it's not safe / But I know that I've gotta make a change / I don't care if I break,
At least I'll be feeling something


Valtier

  • Tier 5
  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • Gender: Male
  • Apathy taken to an artform
  • Current Mood: depressed depressed
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2008, 06:20:21 PM »
18 is the legal voting age here.  Not that I'd vote during this election if it were possible.  I don't like either candidate, and the one(s) I do like don't have a snowball's chance.

Reives

  • Dr Platplat
  • Director
  • Tier 7
  • ****
  • Posts: 11332
  • Gender: Male
    • Freebird Games
  • Current Mood: happy happy
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2008, 08:51:56 PM »
^The "perfect candidate" who has a chance of winning is always a fantasy is this: In order to completely satisfy much of the individuals in the population, one needs to take certain specified positions that are likely heavily tilted toward one side or the scale or another - and everyone has different ideals to some extent. So what ends up happening is that every politician ends up step toward the middle heavily in order to make as many voters as possible to simply be "okay" with them so that they might consider vote for them - but under this model it is practically impossible to reach close to the ideals of individuals. In the end, often people vote for one candidate simply to avoid the other for the lesser evil in their eyes.
 
I know that you don't mean you were looking for "absolutely perfect" though Valtier; I just wanted to take the opportunity to say that ^ :P

And @Abi:
(Yeah we should probably move these posts to the debate/discussion board later, hahah. No hurries though. c:)
I agree that Obama is not as far tilted toward the absolute capitalism ideals as W. Bush and co. have been holding up. This reminds me of something you said on another thread that I was going to address but forgot:

You mentioned back then that "economic regulations" will be net-destructive for small businesses. Economics have been a part of my university curriculum through the past couple of years, and I can honestly say that I have no idea how that statement could be the result of an educated assessment on the subject, as the notion is absolutely preposterous. But I don't want to go on if I misunderstood: So again, are you actually saying that a free market is better for American small businesses within the country as opposed to a regulated one?


Legacyblade

  • 発行所は頑張って下さい!
  • Mod-Suspect
  • Tier 7
  • *
  • Posts: 2952
  • Gender: Male
  • Current Mood: playful playful
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2008, 10:28:54 PM »
Well, I take economics in collage too, and I agree with Abi. The more regulations the government makes on an economy, the harder it is to start businesses, and get further up in the economic latter. There are arguments for both sides, but I agree with the "less regulations" side of the argument.

Reives

  • Dr Platplat
  • Director
  • Tier 7
  • ****
  • Posts: 11332
  • Gender: Male
    • Freebird Games
  • Current Mood: happy happy
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2008, 11:22:50 PM »
Negative. Economic regulations come mainly in the forms of devices like quota, price floor and ceiling and the like.
There is absolutely no way small businesses can compete against corporations in a complete free market - an unregulated market means the corporations are able to bully small businesses without restraint. In fact, in many regards, economic regulations are fundamentally created to bring fairness into the playground.

What you guys are talking about is regulatory laws and specifications regarding companies. They aren't "economic regulations".

Obama has just won by a landslide. :reivsmile:

abigailian

  • isn't creeped out by yellow wallpaper
  • Mod-Suspect
  • Tier 7
  • *
  • Posts: 2797
  • Gender: Female
  • Oh emm SNAP!
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2008, 12:18:44 AM »
Yeah, I've decided I'm more interested in this election now. (lol)

(And that's not a landslide, lol)

I'm not saying I'm absolutely NO regulation, but I think its better overall with less regulation.
This might hurt, it's not safe / But I know that I've gotta make a change / I don't care if I break,
At least I'll be feeling something


Reives

  • Dr Platplat
  • Director
  • Tier 7
  • ****
  • Posts: 11332
  • Gender: Male
    • Freebird Games
  • Current Mood: happy happy
[Split from original Topic] Election
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2008, 12:45:38 AM »
I think that's an arbitrary discussion, as it can be argued forever on either side as to what is the magical number of amount/specifications - and what is "less" regulations can be debated over a multitude of aspects, and keeps even the top economic advisors busy. Ultimately though, again, "economic regulations" concern the umbrellaing regulations concerning the economy as a whole, like price floors and quotas and the like. Legal requirements for companies are not the representation of overshadowing economic regulations, and economic regulations are largely established to create platforms for domestic small businesses which would be at major disadvantages if otherwisely left to muscles - which is all corps'.

But c'moooon 338 vs. 155 isn't a landslide? :P That's more than double!

Good call on the new election, I think I'll be tuning in for that as well. After all those months of following elections I don't think I can live without an election going on now.