What are Piriform's feelings on the Elections turnout?
I wasn't watching, because I was playing WoW (Raiding > Future?) but I think it ended in like Obama 293 and mccain 147 or something. I wanted Obama to win so I'm happy
Yay net neutrality.
Thoughts?
I don't know about Piriform's feelings on the Elections turnout but mine is that I am very happy to see him win.
Maybe a new episode of Turning Points of History will be made about it.
Two big milestones in just two days, the other milestone is this.
Obama didn't just win, he crushed his opponent in a landslide victory.
Obama can thank Bush for his win. I'm sure many voted "for" Obama but many more voted "against" the Republicans and how can you blame them with a POS like Bush as president for 8 years.
I personally think Obama will be a disaster as president. Socialism doesn't work. This guy "spreading the wealth" sounds pretty Socialist to me. He became the first black president at a very bad time. He has inherited a financial disaster zone. If the reports and experts are correct we are in for a huge global recession and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. These things just have to play themselves out. Fair or not the worse things get he will get the blame because he is in power when it happens. I would not be surprised to see him be a one term president.
I feel McCain was the better man for the job but his choice of a twit like Palin for VP was a huge blunder and he knows it. I think he could have won if not for that. He also had to contend with the huge anti Bush backlash.
I'm glad Obama did win...call me a sell out, but I like change in this instance.
Also, not only did McCain blunder with the whole Palin thing, but I never found him to have truly separated himself from Bush's policies. Voting 90% of the time with what Bush wanted is never good.
AJ
This election is one of the most incredible things we've ever done on multiple levels.
We just elected the first black president, that is incredible.
However we just elected a one term senator who spent 2 years of that time running for president. That was incredibly stupid.
I think obama is a good man overall but his ideas are going to run the country into even greater financial problems than we already have. If you think just because you make less than 250k that your taxes wont be going up than you are in for a rude awakening. On inauguration day I think I may just quit my job and live off the government for the next 4 years seeing as how everything will be "free".
Surely some of you realise that in countries with two major parties where one or the other usually wins it's corporate rule as usual.
Anyways out of interest you could take the below survey to get an idea which candidate would have suited your line of thinking.
We will ask you 75 questions to find the right 2008 presidential candidate for you. You don't have to answer every question.
Selecting Yes or No for a question determines your candidate matches (% agreement). When you select Unsure, the question is not calculated in the result. A candidate?s response that is Unsure (meaning he/she had a Not Clearly Pro or Con response or we could not find a response) is not used in the match. You are matched only on the Yes and No responses that you have in common.
Cynthia McKinley suited my line of thinking by a long shot, followed by Nader, Obama, Baldwin, McCain with Barr last.
This is the best thing for America and the rest of the world. The USA is broken as a country, is mud in the rest of the worlds eyes. Like a bully with cancer the rest of the world waits in fear for its downfall. Maybe Obama can start the healing.
They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well it's broke, time to try something new other then duct tape........
Surely some of you realise that in countries with two major parties where one or the other usually wins it's corporate rule as usual.
Anyways out of interest you could take the below survey to get an idea which candidate would have suited your line of thinking.
Cynthia McKinley suited my line of thinking by a long shot, followed by Nader, Obama, Baldwin, McCain with Barr last.
Do you mean McKinney? If so, she is a nut.
(shes one of those folks who believes 9/11 was an inside job.)
The problems the US faces with the economy were not the fault of the republicans.
Its the banks themselves who engaged in risky behavior that has lead to all of this crap that we are facing right now(and is leaking onto the rest of the worlds economies as well). Obama claims that hes going to spend trillions of dollars when we are in a full blown recession as it is. Where is that money going to come from?
This is the best thing for America and the rest of the world. The USA is broken as a country, is mud in the rest of the worlds eyes. Like a bully with cancer the rest of the world waits in fear for its downfall. Maybe Obama can start the healing.
They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well it's broke, time to try something new other then duct tape........
I can see how outsiders can see the US as a bully but on a lot of levels(I disagree but understand), but what exactly do you think is broken(I assume your referring to domestic issues). I'm not going to pretend to know anything about your or any other countries domestic issues, so I'm interested to see what exactly your talking about if that's what you mean...
There's been an election in America?
Well, they kept that quiet.
Do you mean McKinney? If so, she is a nut.(shes one of those folks who believes 9/11 was an inside job.)
I would not be surprised at all to find out it was in fact an inside job. Your intelligence agencies are out of control. Never under estimate the lengths a government will go to control it's people. Think about it. Your government BS'd about weapons of mass destruction and went to war illegally invading a county without justification causing thousands of deaths.
I agree with you about the financial mess Obama will cause. That's why I said his presidency will be a disaster. Your country is a close to a socialist government as it has ever been. The level of government intervention in the markets is disgraceful and will get worse with Obama. Americans are all for free markets when they are winning but can't handle it when the tide turns. You can't have it both ways and you won't. If things play out as many fear they will your markets will tank another 50 % from were they are.
I can see how outsiders can see the US as a bully but on a lot of levels(I disagree but understand), but what exactly do you think is broken(I assume your referring to domestic issues). I'm not going to pretend to know anything about your or any other countries domestic issues, so I'm interested to see what exactly your talking about if that's what you mean...
I don't personally see the US as a bully (a bit spoiled at times, but all industrial countries are) but much of the world does. As the islamic states believe its "my way or the highway", so does the US as seen by it's use of force globally both economically and financially. I am not saying that it is right or wrong, but the US does have the clout, and uses it (hence the bully label).
As for the banks, that comes from government set rules which regulate the banks (and basically every other industry). When you deregulate, deregulate, deregulate, and take all barriers off of the banks (or anyone else) they do whatever is in their best interest.....usually for the moment only though. Make a quick buck, then get out.
I'm not saying total regulation is the answer, but sometimes regulations are needed to keep us all in check.
I've taken economics, political science, etc. and try to keep an open mind when it comes to these things. I've always tended to lean a bit left politically, but I also like a lot of the more right ways of thinking, depending on the issue.
Contrary what some believe, obama is not socialist by any means. Even in canada, the ndp are far from socialist. A little left, maybe too left in some areas, but then our conservatives being right, maybe too right could never be called fascists (as some people on the left believe them.
Regardless though, sometimes change is needed, as has been happening in canada.
Do you mean McKinney? If so, she is a nut.(shes one of those folks who believes 9/11 was an inside job.)
Yep, I meant McKinney.
Watched a couple of Youtubes with her questioning Rummy.
Man this lady has some balls and she would be my second or third choice after Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Definately ain't no corporate owned and controlled puppet like most of em.
Anyone take that poll yet and willing to post their results as to who suited their selection?
I don't personally see the US as a bully (a bit spoiled at times, but all industrial countries are) but much of the world does. As the islamic states believe its "my way or the highway", so does the US as seen by it's use of force globally both economically and financially. I am not saying that it is right or wrong, but the US does have the clout, and uses it (hence the bully label).
Right now the big problem(and probably will be until we are all dead and gone) is the issue of who can have nuclear weapons. Who's responsibility is it to make sure that people like Kim Jong Ill or the guy from iran(I'm not going to attempt to spell it) doesn't get them? Right now we seem to be taking that responsibility and it seems to be making us look bad, however when anything bad happens in the world who does the affected party want help from? The good ol USA of course. We cant sit back and let them get them because once they do, it will be too late.
The problem with the banks wasn't from deregulation though. It started with social groups pressuring the banks to give loans to "under privileged" individuals who surprise surprise, couldn't pay it back.(I'll have to look up the name of the bill that they had passed for this) Now they did a lot of other stuff like selling them in groups and other stuff that, I've tried to understand and probably never will but the gist of it is that people were living outside their means and it bit them in the ass. Tough luck, I think they should have let them go under.
I'm still a little surprised the Dems were able to say that this was the republican's fault. They had congressional hearings right before all of this started with freddie may/fannie mac and they came to the (wrong) conclusion that everything would be fine. They are more to blame on this issue than anyone.
I would say I'm financially conservative and socially a little bit more liberal. For instance I dont think abortion should be illegal but I do think its wrong.(except in cases where the mothers health is in jeopardy and rape victims) The republicans shot themselves on the foot by trying to talk about the same old things instead of going at what they really should have been(the economy).
-----
McKinney was a representative of my state and we voted her out.
She went around making some pretty crazy speeches about how we were all racist and biggots for a few months after that and then she found her place among the rest of the crazies in the green party.
Right now the big problem(and probably will be until we are all dead and gone) is the issue of who can have nuclear weapons. Who's responsibility is it to make sure that people like Kim Jong Ill or the guy from iran(I'm not going to attempt to spell it) doesn't get them? Right now we seem to be taking that responsibility and it seems to be making us look bad, however when anything bad happens in the world who does the affected party want help from? The good ol USA of course. We cant sit back and let them get them because once they do, it will be too late.
The problem with the banks wasn't from deregulation though. It started with social groups pressuring the banks to give loans to "under privileged" individuals who surprise surprise, couldn't pay it back.(I'll have to look up the name of the bill that they had passed for this) Now they did a lot of other stuff like selling them in groups and other stuff that, I've tried to understand and probably never will but the gist of it is that people were living outside their means and it bit them in the ass. Tough luck, I think they should have let them go under.
I'm still a little surprised the Dems were able to say that this was the republican's fault. They had congressional hearings right before all of this started with freddie may/fannie mac and they came to the (wrong) conclusion that everything would be fine. They are more to blame on this issue than anyone.
I would say I'm financially conservative and socially a little bit more liberal. For instance I dont think abortion should be illegal but I do think its wrong.(except in cases where the mothers health is in jeopardy and rape victims) The republicans shot themselves on the foot by trying to talk about the same old things instead of going at what they really should have been(the economy).
-----
McKinney was a representative of my state and we voted her out.
She went around making some pretty crazy speeches about how we were all racist and biggots for a few months after that and then she found her place among the rest of the crazies in the green party.
I guess the difference that most of the rest of the world thinks is that the US pushes its way into the role of guardian of the worlds nuclear arsenal. Because really, what gives the US the right to determine who does and does not have the right to have nuclear arms? Nobody gives them the right. They take the right by flexing their economic and military might.
As for the rest of the world asking for the US help, the problem is that they only help when their is an economic reason for them too. And I don't believe that anyone asked them to help in iraq or afghanistan (or any of the rest of the countries that are in those places). I think that if all the military effort was spent on humanitarian effort the US would have a better image worldwide. I mean if democracy is so important, why not restore it somalia, the congo, etc. where help is REALLY needed (i know the answer, no oil, or economic benefit for the expenditure-simple math)?
And rridgely, you miss the point. The point of government is to set laws and regulations so that the citizens can live safe and prosperous. If the government deregulated to the point that the social groups pressuring the banks to give loans to "under privileged" individuals who surprise surprise, couldn't pay it back. are able to actually push their agenda, and have these unsecured loans given out, then the government failed in their obligation to secure its citizens. ie. the loosening of laws that allow banks to make a quick buck by giving out cheap mortgages, then getting huge bailouts, etc later/foreclosing on homes, should never have happened in the first place.
I agree that the problem (or a large part of it) is people living outside their means, but everyone does it seems. How many people are only a couple of months without a paycheck from the streets? Lots. But its also to do with the "rules of the game" that allows people to live like this. My wife and I have always been the type to live well below our means, and when things get tighter (like every time she takes a year off after each of our children) we are able to absorb the loss of income without any pain. But then we don't live like rock and roll stars (im joking here) like lots that i know.
As for your comments about the republicans, i think the biggest blunder that mccain made was picking palin as his running mate. Good idea picking a woman for your running mate. Bad idea picking her. She just doesn't seem to have what it takes. Otherwise, i think mccain lost for two other reasons. One, obama being a man of colour got more votes then he lost because of that issue. Two, mccain, for all his great lifelong record of being a decent man and a great american, could not overcome or shake the negative feelings that a lot of the public had about the Bush strategy of dealing with the economy and his strategies abroad. A different time a different place he would have won. Might even have won if hillary had gotten the democratic nomination (she is much smarter then palin, but people were ready for a fresh face, not bills wifes).
I agree with the abortion thing too. I find it personally unpalatable, but then i have never been in that position, so i can't say what i would do. But then morals are very relative to the individual. Good thing for the separation of church from state.
I hope obama does a good job with things. Because there is more then just the american economy at stake.
I guess the difference that most of the rest of the world thinks is that the US pushes its way into the role of guardian of the worlds nuclear arsenal. Because really, what gives the US the right to determine who does and does not have the right to have nuclear arms? Nobody gives them the right. They take the right by flexing their economic and military might.
That is one way to look at it, but I have another.
I think that this job should actually be done by Nato ideally but as an organization, Nato is weak. Right now we are dealing with north Korea and we are imposing really strong economic sanctions in order to persuade them not to continue enriching uranium. This technique has proven to be most effective but it seems we are the ones being tasked with doing it. Why? We are the only ones who currently are in the position to do it. To me it seems like we would love more help in doing it but we are the ones left doing the dirty work. (do you really think your government, the UK's, or any other wants them to have nukes? I dont.)
As for the rest of the world asking for the US help, the problem is that they only help when their is an economic reason for them too. And I don't believe that anyone asked them to help in iraq or afghanistan (or any of the rest of the countries that are in those places). I think that if all the military effort was spent on humanitarian effort the US would have a better image worldwide. I mean if democracy is so important, why not restore it somalia, the congo, etc. where help is REALLY needed (i know the answer, no oil, or economic benefit for the expenditure-simple math)?
Iraq and Afghanistan are a different situation than anything we've ever done before. We went into Afghanistan because that is where the Taliban, led by Osama were at. We went to Iraq the second time because after 9/11 we decided that we were going to deal with terrorist nations in a general "war on terror" in order to prevent any attacks from happening on US soil again. It was believed at the time that Saddam had WMDs, we gave him multiple opportunities to cooperate with NATO, weapons inspectors, ect. When he failed to cooperate that is when we invaded, hind sight is 20/20 but at the time everyone thought he had them. This war with Iraq wasn't for oil but the Gulf War undoubtedly was, but once they started burning kuwait the world didn't seem to mind us intervening much when their oil supplies were burning too.
As for those nations in Africa that you mentioned us not helping. We send billions of dollars there every year to try and help them. The people in those countries are tribal and we learned long ago that there was no hope of installing any one governing body to rule those nations peacefully. Sort of like what we should have known before going into Iraq.(Some did know this of course, I read a fascinating biography of General Scwartzkopf who won the first gulf war. He mentioned this issue specifically and cited it as the reason we didn't overthrow Saddam then)
And rridgely, you miss the point. The point of government is to set laws and regulations so that the citizens can live safe and prosperous. If the government deregulated to the point that the social groups pressuring the banks to give loans to "under privileged" individuals who surprise surprise, couldn't pay it back. are able to actually push their agenda, and have these unsecured loans given out, then the government failed in their obligation to secure its citizens. ie. the loosening of laws that allow banks to make a quick buck by giving out cheap mortgages, then getting huge bailouts, etc later/foreclosing on homes, should never have happened in the first place.
I didn't miss any point. It was the government's intervention in the first place that partially caused this crisis. If they would have stayed out than maybe this whole mess wouldn't have happened. As far as the government not allowing this to happen, the democrats agree with these types of things. They are all for "spreading the wealth" and all that stuff. That's why I'm not optimistic about what Obama is going to do for our economy.
I agree that the problem (or a large part of it) is people living outside their means, but everyone does it seems. How many people are only a couple of months without a paycheck from the streets? Lots. But its also to do with the "rules of the game" that allows people to live like this. My wife and I have always been the type to live well below our means, and when things get tighter (like every time she takes a year off after each of our children) we are able to absorb the loss of income without any pain. But then we don't live like rock and roll stars (im joking here) like lots that i know.
We don't have like a massive gain in homelessness or anything right now, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Most people who cant pay their mortgages didn't put down any sort of down payment so they just walk away and find themselves something cheaper. Now if people start losing their job on massive scales we might have a problem but right now its just no so.
As for your comments about the republicans, i think the biggest blunder that mccain made was picking palin as his running mate. Good idea picking a woman for your running mate. Bad idea picking her. She just doesn't seem to have what it takes. Otherwise, i think mccain lost for two other reasons. One, obama being a man of colour got more votes then he lost because of that issue. Two, mccain, for all his great lifelong record of being a decent man and a great american, could not overcome or shake the negative feelings that a lot of the public had about the Bush strategy of dealing with the economy and his strategies abroad. A different time a different place he would have won. Might even have won if hillary had gotten the democratic nomination (she is much smarter then palin, but people were ready for a fresh face, not bills wifes).
Surprisingly all the polling that's been analyzed so far shows that Palin helped McCain more than it hurt him. Last numbers were that it gained him 4% more votes among core republicans who didn't like him before. McCain isn't the hard core conservative that they made him out to be. He was much more centered than Bush and people seem to forget his campaign against him in 2000. The two men were almost polar opposites on everything except economics and the war. McCain was much more socially liberal.
I agree with the abortion thing too. I find it personally unpalatable, but then i have never been in that position, so i can't say what i would do. But then morals are very relative to the individual. Good thing for the separation of church from state.
That was just an example. I'm so sick of the bickering about abortion, gay marriage, and all that other crap. The two sides are never going to agree and the government shouldn't be involved with any of it.
I hope obama does a good job with things. Because there is more then just the american economy at stake.
I hope he does good too but at this point I'm not optimistic.
This is kinda fun... talking about world politics from someone outside the US.
This is kinda fun... talking about world politics from someone outside the US.
Well US politics do influence world politics quite a lot.
Have a look at our own Aussie PM of around 12 months.
Been over to the US getting his marching orders on several occasions already.
Well US politics do influence world politics quite a lot.
Have a look at our own Aussie PM of around 12 months.
Been over to the US getting his marching orders on several occasions already.
Lol...and so it is with most countries....and the ones that dont? (cuba, venezuala, etc ....) well they seem to get labled "terrorist" or whatever.
I agree with you rridgely that nato is weak. But you have to remember that the US agreed to play by the rules of the UN, and when they didn't get their (Bushs) way, they entered into an illegal war. Attacking Iraq was illegal by world standards. And the only ones that though sadam (madass? lol) had wmd were the US or those that relied on the US intelligence (which appears after the fact to show that there was NO intelligence suggesting such). The current iraq war was a knee jerk reaction and opportunist reaction to 9/11. I think that most of the world agreed with the afghanistan war. In fact, i think that if the us had not gone into iraq, the afghan conflict would be long over and they would got everyone of those crazies by now. (BTW, I have friends serving in both wars overseas-support the troops, not the war ).
I agree with what you said about the first gulf war. It was about oil, and nobody minded the US going in (and totally destroyed the iraq army) and saving world oil supplies. Which is exactly my point. The governments all support the economic (masked with the word terror or war on drugs or whatever) flexing of the us...because as humpty pointed out, thats who our government leaders take their marching orders from (currently, as they did from england once, and rome another).
Keep in mind that north america was a (tribal) land once too, as is/was much of these middle eastern countries (though there is oil in them, so they can be converted by the US and others. ). A good example in somalia. When they started dragging dead troops behind jeeps on camera, the western forces high tailed it out of there (no oil, bad PR, = get out, who cares about democracy, we can send relief financially to look good).
General Scwartzkopf is a very smart man. People should have listened to him the first time. They wouldnt have the problem now.
I am curious why the US doesnt invade Korea? Same situation, and better technology, closer to getting the big bomb. Most believe it is because a) the us is spread too thin now, china, c) korea would be a harder fight then iraq is.
As for the banks, if you let a corporation, any corporation run unfettered by laws or regulations, time and time again it has been shown that they will suck the surrounding area dry, make as much money as they can, regardless of the consequences, and leave everyone else holding the bag. What the government needed to do was apply PROPER regulations....ones that enabled people to purchase homes, credit, etc, but within an acceptable mandate. By loosening the rules too much, banks gave credit to every tom, d*** or harry that couldnt really afford it. Reminds me of a joke I saw one time. A picture of french fries from mcdonalds with the capition "Because not everyone will grow up to be a rocket scientist".....A bit condescending, but true. Some of us will have to learn to live within our means and accept that we cant all drive a Lexus and have a 50 inch plasma in our 3000 square foot house.
And people seem to forget that government regulations enter every single aspect of our lives. I pay school taxes, my kids go to school. Those that don't have kids still pay school taxes. Sucks, but such is life. My taxes subsidize university tuition. If my kids never go to university, i still don't mind paying, because i like to think its good that others will have the opportunity to attend.
Oh, and until recently, the republicans had both the white house and the senate, so they ran pretty much loose in their ability to push the bush agenda. I read a blog the other day that had someone complaining about the dems having both, and i (though i would lean democratic if i was in the us) had to agree. We have in canada right now a "minority" government. Basically we have 4 major parties, with 308 seats in our house of commons. the Prime minister runs the show with his party (the conservatives currently) with the other three parties actually holding more seats then the conservatives, so if they band together over a really important issue (or sometimes frivilous ones) they can affect the laws and how they work. Personally, i love it. It keeps some great checks and balances and forces all involved to "play nice" a bit. We have quite a bit different system then you do in the us, but i dont know if its better or worse. Maybe neither.
I still would have to disagree about palin. I can only speak for myself, but if i had the choice between hillary and mccain, i would choose mccain, but if he had palin with him, id go hillary. But that could just be me. As for mccain and bush, i totally agree, and think that that message got lost in all the hype about both palin and obama. I personally think mccain is very intelligent and honorable. I just dont agree with some of his economic and military strategies, but thats a personal thing. But never throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As for abortion, gay marriage, etc....i think pretty much everyone is sick of that talk. The smartest thing our conservative government did with those hot potatoes is that they pretty much left them alone (except for a single free vote on gay marriage). They appeased their christian right to a degree, and then moved on to the things that most people care about-law and order, financial stability, etc. Our current PM, though he seems to have the personality of a clump of grass, has been pretty good at building coalitions, building his party back up and almost getting the majority (hes 12 seats away) and has made a few very good moves politically. I was never much of a conservative thinker, but i intently watched him every time he spoke, and during our recent leader debates he said some things that were extremely tactful in the face of jibes and such by his political opponents. Hopefully obama is the same kind of leader and will work with the other party in the us to get things done.
Anyone else got thoughts on the us election? I love hearing other points of views, politics have fascinated me for about 15 years now.
This election is one of the most incredible things we've ever done on multiple levels.We just elected the first black president, that is incredible.
However we just elected a one term senator who spent 2 years of that time running for president. That was incredibly stupid.
I think obama is a good man overall but his ideas are going to run the country into even greater financial problems than we already have. If you think just because you make less than 250k that your taxes wont be going up than you are in for a rude awakening. On inauguration day I think I may just quit my job and live off the government for the next 4 years seeing as how everything will be "free".
This is one of the best post-election comments I have seen yet. Thanks!!
