2016 US Presidental Election

Bloodshade said:
Do you guys really think it matters who's president?

ixsetf said:


Yes if its Bernie Sanders, he will actually try to do something.

Merlee said:
Bernie Sanders ftw

Bloodshade said:
Do you guys really think it matters who's president?

traed said:
Yes, although some other branches in the government it is important who is in them as well. The president does not have full power but they have some.

RyanEnsign said:
Well, that's the point, you don't know that until they are elected and after that, you will see what they are really after.

StopDropAndBowl said:
So how much does a modern society cost?

Bernie Sanders wants "free" college educations for everyone, "free" healthcare for everyone, and "free" god-knows-what-else.

If we're going to laud the man for promising us things, we should at least be willing to ask him how he expects to pay for those things.




TL:DR

Bernie Sanders is promising things he can't deliver and everyone needs to stop celebrating and start questioning.

traed said:
Norway and Denmark has free college tuition. It works fine for them. Places like Finland have cheap healthcare. It works fine for them.

Bloodshade said:


Are you aware of the population difference between those countries and America?

It would never work here.

BVerfG said:


You'd have to be more specific what you mean by "population difference". Btw Germany also has free college tuition, whether the health care is cheap probably depends on what one considers "cheap". I doubt that there is anything in a population that bars it from having a working universal health care system or free education.

OkayCaim said:
Well Germany/Norway/Denmark is smaller, so the education system is much easier to maintain. There's less colleges in Germany/Norway/Denmark than there are in the US as well so again, much easier to fund and distribute.

Honestly, people should stop comparing the US with euro countries, there are too many factors that differentiate them.

Bloodshade said:


Are you aware of the population difference between those countries and America?

It would never work here.

shotz_ said:
the gop is only interesting in a pitiful way. these people are idiots even for republicans and the fact they're apparently the best the country has to offer--let alone that they get taken seriously--shows how fucked the us is. even worse than the 2012 candidates.

shotz_ said:
i somewhat like that his foreign policy compared to his peers. but honestly he's a faux libertarian compared to his dad or gary johnson. even then a lot of the appeal of libertarians is so upper-class millenials can vote for someone with neo-liberal economics and not feel stupid about voting for another social conservative.

RyanEnsign said:
It's true he isn't as good as Ron Paul, but between neoliberal economics and fiscal conservatism, it's still not a bad choice.

FGAU1912 said:

p;us there eduaction system is better tahn yours fact as shown by tthem international tests

aspowefull as the us is your eduaction system sucks

OkayCaim said:

Honestly, people should stop comparing the US with euro countries, there are too many factors that differentiate them.

OkayCaim said:
Hmm... Really?

According to a study assembled by the UN, the U.S. ranks 5th in terms of education.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/education-index

PS: Your nippon oppression education only ranks 17.

MorsPulchra said:
Oh damn! I wish I was as smart as all of you guys here! Talking so intellectually about these policies and candidates! Oh my! I'm not smart enough to formulate my own opinion, so I'm just going to use this article to explain what I think about elections;

Articles

ixsetf said:


I really don't get the people who think that voting has become meaningless. If people collectively decided to stop supporting mainstream political parties then they wouldn't be able to get into office.

Also note that Bernie Sanders is only running as a Democrat because that will get him better recognition, he is not a democrat really, so electing him president will most likely make an actual change.

MeteorBear said:
What happened to free healthcare Obama?

ixsetf said:


Do you know how many times the Republicans have tried to repeal the ACA? Do you really think he could have pulled off free healthcare with that much backlash to Obamacare? The problem isn't that he didn't try, its that congress wasn't going to let him do it. People seem to think that electing a president will change everything, but you need the co-operation of multiple branches of government.

MeteorBear said:
I know, but letting the insurance companies in was not worth getting the bill through imo.
The heart of the bill, and the insurance companies knew it, was that any not-for-profit equivalent of insurance, run by the government, would destroy their business entirely because they would not be able to compete. This by itself would have also brought down the ludicrous prices for prescription drugs and hospital services.
Instead we, a supposedly free people, having to pay a for-profit company for services so we can get care from outrageously priced, for-profit hospitals weather we desire them or not.

I have to mention we did benefit in smaller ways regarding pre existing conditions and more government help for those in need.

I think I got off point, you are right, democrats and more so republicans, are partly to blame, but it was Obamas initiative and he is ultimately responsible in my eyes.

ixsetf said:


Also note that Bernie Sanders is only running as a Democrat because that will get him better recognition, he is not a democrat really, so electing him president will most likely make an actual change.

MorsPulchra said:
Oh damn! I wish I was as smart as all of you guys here! Talking so intellectually about these policies and candidates! Oh my! I'm not smart enough to formulate my own opinion, so I'm just going to use this article to explain what I think about elections;

Articles

MeteorBear said:
I will never vote Democrat again, and maybe not republican,

MeteorBear said:
I think I got off point, you are right, democrats and more so republicans, are partly to blame, but it was Obamas initiative and he is ultimately responsible in my eyes.

StopDropAndBowl said:




If we're going to compare different countries then you need to define the controls your putting in place to account for the differences in those countries. If we were to compare the US and Norway, for example, we would have to assume for the sake of argument that the rates of X in a small population are an accurate measure of X itself across all populations.

We would also have to assume that geography means nothing, that homogeneity of population means nothing, that cultural history/development means nothing, that specific countering laws and social governments mean nothing, that cultural/racial diversity means nothing, that the differences in social desires/needs in Oslo and Bergen are analogous to the differences between Las Angeles and New York.

"Well, X works in this other country, so it should work here!"

is not a good argument. It's statistically flawed (way too many assumptions and controls) and it's morally bankrupt. One-Size-All solutions are rarely good for anyone, because no one person is ever going to be perfectly "average". A solution designed for "everyone" usually means it's not designed for anyone in particular. If the Nordic model "works" (remains to be seen) then they are welcome to establish it. They are even welcome to export those ideas, but I think we, in America, should be somewhat wary of importing ideas from countries that have few similarities and even fewer global responsibilities.

You can argue that the solutions will work if only we just "try them out" but at the end of the day, you need to provide some numbers. Show us the simple mathematics of the plan. Ask Bernie Sanders, or any presidential candidate, to show you the actual data behind his promises, and watch his/her face turn blank. Ask them how many specific dollars their policy will save YOU and they won't have an answer, because there is no true answer. Universal Healthcare could be a Godsend for one person and a terror for a hundred more people.

I don't have any specific problem with Bernie Sanders. I have a problem with this nonsensical idea that any one candidate is "outside the mainstream" or will somehow "change the game".

STOP EXPECTING FLAWED POLITICIANS TO SAVE YOU!

Bernie Sanders might be a great guy. He might be honest and good and happy and upbeat and totally love everyone and everything. That does not mean he has the ability to shit happiness and rainbows, and it definitely doesn't mean that he has some magical power that can somehow ignore mathematics and provide free lunches for everyone. Good healthcare is fucking expensive, whether you live in Norway or the USA. Good educations are expensive.

You can either export the total cost onto the tax-payers (socialism), or you can let the private citizen provide as much of it for themselves as possible (American Capitalism).

What you cannot do is simply will it into being.

Presidents have been inching toward dictators for a long time now, in part because every President, Republican or Democrat, is expected to somehow be able to change people and society in such a way as to eliminate fundamental and uncomfortable realities. We forget sometimes that Presidents are simply people and they are just as flawed and messed up as everyone else. And furthermore, they are the heads of a very large, very broad, government, with huge branches that are completely out of their control; all of which is leading a massive country with a massive population, the vast majority of which are so far removed from the Federal government that it might as well be a myth to them.

Stop looking at Bernie Sanders as if he's some hero for saying things. Anyone can say things. Promising you free healthcare, and free education, and good jobs, and nice houses, and nice cars, and a world where the climate doesn't ever change or get shitty... promising these things is very simple. I can do it right now.

And yet, through the dozens of centuries of human governance, we have yet to see a single King or Emperor, Prime Minister or President, that can deliver on a single one of those promises.

Be wary of every politician, but be especially wary of the politician that tells you everything you want to hear. The first one is a liar, but the second is a thief.


The article seems to be putting forth the position that since their particular interests are not met, that the government itself must be irreparably broken.

A foolish and narcissistic opinion. No government could possibly ever serve the interest of every person, and that has never been their job or function. Governments exist as comprises between the various interest groups of a given society. The fact of a two-party system is unavoidable. Even your socialist European countries are generally divided between leftists and "conservatives". There might be some diversity in party name and function (the hardcore left, the environmental lobby, the pacifistic free-thinkers, etc.) but generally the myriad choices will come together under two opposing banners.

The hardocre leftist might want to build a factory or lay down a road for some specific social good, while the environmentalist might oppose the factory or road because of other social goods and costs; but they will both agree with the general proposition of more social welfare and more regulation. Their opponents, where they are allowed to exist, will follow the same pattern; smaller interests binding together freely to form larger coalitions of interests.

You don't like the system? Stop whining about it and form a PAC or some shit. Actually attempt to explore the avenues of social change available to you before you start complaining about how it's all useless and nothing will ever change.

Casting a vote is the minimum amount of civic activity. Your vote means nothing because all you do is vote. Go out and write some letters, interview some Congressmen or schedule a meeting withyour Mayor, go offer to do some free reporting for your local medias, volunteer on a campaign, organize a protest... there are ten million ways for you to affect real, positive change. If you don't do any of those things, then you can't expect to have any say in how things are done.

Show interest and interest will be shown in you.

FrancisUnderwood said:
You can definitely consider Bernie Sanders a democrat because he has always caucused with the Democratic party and proclaims himself a 'Democratic Socialist'.

ixsetf said:


Democratic Socialism is not what the Democrats do. He caucuses with them because there is no way to get anything done without the help of one of the parties, and the democrats have an ideology more similar to his than the Republicans do.

FGAU1912 said:


why did you quote me when you dd really aswer me

when the arch killer all things left wing thacterwas that in the uk she killed the unions and alot of other things

but she never touched teh UK NHS it was the Psudo left its self that almost kliied it it the blar brown era

the reason that an NHS style idea will nver work in the us is cause the right will never allow it to

StopDropAndBowl said:

I did answer you: the right solutions for one country are not necessarily the right solutions for another country. Even more so when the first country is under the protective military/cultural wing of the other country, has a much smaller, more homogenous population, and is nowhere near the economic powerhouse of the other country.

The right-wing in Europe is so stunted and fractured (through fair and unfair political means) that there is literally no ability to affect the kinds of real change that need to occur. Do not celebrate Thatcher's inability to even attempt fundamental change, rather mourn the state of a country so far gone into leftist fantasy that they would die before giving up their welfare state (I.E. Greece)

Decoys said:


yes.....can you imagine the Palin's in the Whitehouse? it would be a disaster.

OkayCaim said:
Well Germany/Norway/Denmark is smaller, so the education system is much easier to maintain. There's less colleges in Germany/Norway/Denmark than there are in the US as well so again, much easier to fund and distribute.

Honestly, people should stop comparing the US with euro countries, there are too many factors that differentiate them.

shotz_ said:
i somewhat like that his foreign policy compared to his peers. but honestly he's a faux libertarian compared to his dad or gary johnson. even then a lot of the appeal of libertarians is so upper-class millenials can vote for someone with neo-liberal economics and not feel stupid about voting for another social conservative.

Bloodshade said:


Nah it wouldn't be a disaster. I'd find it entertaining. At least we'd have a milf for president.

On other topics discussed.

Canada does not have a better healthcare system than the U.S. If they did then why are there plenty of Canadians going over the border into the U.S. to get treatments for certain diseases and to get certain surgeries done? Universal health care isn't always the answer. I'm sure when it comes to the U.S. the quality of healthcare would be reduced if turned universal, and there would of course be longer weights.

As for education, if this is ranked by standardized tests of course we lose out to other countries. Asian countries make kids grind these tests day in day out of course they are going to do better. It doesn't prove they are smarter all it proves is they know how to take a standardized tests. As always population makes a difference. On top of that American kids take things for granted and become lazy. This can be seen with Americanized Asians who are 2nd generation here.

Another thing to think about when it comes to election. Most Americans vote in federal government elections which includes the presidential elections. The truth is the federal government has less power over you than the state government. People should focus more on voting in local government elections, since those affect you more than the federal government. As for the presidential election I'm good as long as it isn't Hilary Clinton. Anyone but her.

I don't see myself voting in this election, because I don't give a shit. Although, if Hilary ends up being in the final I'll vote for her opponent. Not that it would matter, since my state always ends up being a blue state.

BVerfG said:


For real?^^ Size difference is your point? Of course the US could fund it. It doesn't make any sense that just because the US has 4 times the population of Germany it couldn't fund universal health care or free education. It also has an economy that is 5 times as big. It doesn't want to do these things and you can find a political reason for that, obviously. But the idea that it can't is in no way credible imo.



Someone please tell me what is good about Rand Pauls Foreign Policy nowadays. He explicitly compared himself to Reagan and tried to bridge the gap between himself and the establishment of the GOP on the subject. In effect he has reneged on all his positions. And everyone who believes Foreign Policy under a president Rand Paul would be non-interventionist or anything like it, is kidding themselves. He already did a near 180 before the primary even started (!). What do you think he'll do once he's in the White House? (which ofc, will never happen)

Only thing I believe Paul is sincere about is sentencing reform. Maybe he won't spy as much on Americans as well. On everything else he is a crazy GOPer, anything but a "good candidate". Which ofc doesn't really matter, since he has exactly no chance of winning the primary.

FGAU1912 said:



china beat you in the tests when them have 3 times the population i hate the fact they finshed above my home nation too but there you go

and no i never trust the un cause of its us bais on things exmaple its never called us on war crimes aor human rights abuses witch it has committed or haven backed he reagime that did it

Bloodshade said:

Canada does not have a better healthcare system than the U.S. If they did then why are there plenty of Canadians going over the border into the U.S. to get treatments for certain diseases and to get certain surgeries done? Universal health care isn't always the answer. I'm sure when it comes to the U.S. the quality of healthcare would be reduced if turned universal, and there would of course be longer weights.

Bloodshade said:


Size is one of the reasons, but there are other reasons as well. Our government is set up way too differently. It will never happen. Why should we follow European example? We aren't Europe, nor will we ever be Europe. There is plenty wrong with Europe, so I'm kind of irritated with everyone saying we should follow their example.





I don't really go by what the UN says. Nor do I really care about statistics, as it really proves nothing. America spends too much on education.

Here is an example: Why must we get new text books every year when the old ones are just fine. Its stupid.

We spend shit loads of money on Education way more than other countries. The problem isn't with funding, its with individuals.

Anyhow standardized tests aren't important, and they don't prove which country has a better educational system.

Bloodshade said:


Size is one of the reasons, but there are other reasons as well. Our government is set up way too differently. It will never happen. Why should we follow European example? We aren't Europe, nor will we ever be Europe. There is plenty wrong with Europe, so I'm kind of irritated with everyone saying we should follow their example.

FGAU1912 said:

but i care fir the workers osmtign that th right never will they care more for there fat bonuses of there donors rhater han the people who drive the nation along

but i guess your pro corporate personhood Hence why i think the us poioical system is the most broken in the world personal vote does not matter ie why i think sanders would bea good president sicne hes got no reason ot favor wall street and the big banks and corporate welfare over the 99% of the population

sanders would bea good president sicne hes got no reason ot favor wall street and the big banks and corporate welfare over the 99% of the population