Election 2008, United States

[Ancien Régime]

Once again, Deck Knight, Obama is not remotely Marxist and you clearly don't know the differences between Stalinism/Maoism and Marxism. Go back to school.

Obama is fairly socialistic though. Deck Knight errs in calling Obama a Marxist, but he's pretty far left; I'd say "center-left" on European terms. He definitely seems to favor "central planning" and "wealth redistribution". I'm also 100% against affirmative action.

Nazis and Marxists kinda hate each other. I should know.

While the 20th century totalitarianisms were not "Marxist", they were "socialist" in that they attempted to control economic activity to a great extent. I can't think of a totalitarian state in history that was capitalistic. (don't say Nazi Germany; when the name of your ideology is "National Socialism", that is definitely not capitalistic)

As for Marxism, its basic premise seems pretty much invalid (wages are lower than profits because the owner has an ongoing investment in the means of production; the employee cannot produce anything without the means of production) and a stateless society would eventually become capitalistic, unless you drastically changed human nature.

 

[God.]

For my examples, I point to the greatest slaughters of the past 100 years: Naziism (National Socialist Workers Party), Communism, Stalinism, and Leninism. They are all simply variations on socialism, as according to Communist theory you must go through socialism before you achieve communism. Nazism just chucked in some jingoism for good measure, the result of which was less dead Germans and more dead everyone else. Stalin and Mao just seemed to enjoy slaughtering their own people by the looks of it.

hehe if its called something that means it definitely is what it is called!!!

also deck knight - imperialism, slavery, etc = capitalism. pretty sure capitalism has socialism beat in terms of human atrocities it has caused.

 

[akuchi]

Without getting too off topic, whilst Hitler's economic policies were broadly Keynesian the Nazis were not socialist - the 25 point charter they drew up was indeed a fairly socialist document but it was completely ignored by the time they got to power. The group to profit most (by a margin of 116% iirc) were the industrialists, not the German Mittelstand as the 'blood and soil' rhetoric went.

Stalin and Mao are complete nutjobs anyway.. I think the world would have been far different if Trotsky hadn't gotten sick :(

 

[Ancien Régime]

also deck knight - imperialism, slavery, etc = mercantilism.

fixed :)

Mercantilism and capitalism are quite different, the former emphasizes invading other countries to get raw materials, etc, and "open markets" (by force) the latter emphasizes mutual free trade.

Mercantilism is pretty far from what anyone would call a "free market".

Keynesianism (which as an Austrian/Misesian I fucking abhor because it gave us the oh so wonderful idea that it is a good idea to be financially in the red) I consider a form of "light socialism", but I admittedly tar a lot with the "socialist brush".

The problem with capitalism (and every other economic system) is that the State feels the need to come in and manipulate the benefits of said system to its own advantage (and that has not changed with "democracy". Thus you get Stalin/Mao with "socialism", you get slavery/colonialism/imperialism with "capitalism", etc, etc.

as for the nazis, still mercantilist; conquest/raw materials/coerced "markets", etc. not capitalist at all.

 

[Deck Knight]

dear deck knight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

please read that.
please. Nazis and Marxists kinda hate each other. I should know.

Also, hasn't a trail of death surrounded Bush? I mean, he's killed a hell of a lot more people than Obama, and I don't see you slagging him off..

Nazis and Marxists hate everyone who isn't one of them. There is only a micrometer of light between them.

Who has Bush killed, specifically?

Oh right, loads of terrorists who were responsible for killing 3000 Americans. These terrorists also had a penchant for killing Iraqis, apparently, and those guys were removed from the gene pool too. He also took out a genocidal maniac with a history of using chemical weapons who was responsible for funding terror worldwide, who was then tried by his own people. Their country is now essentially safe, and details are being drawn up to pull American troops out.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how what Bush has done is remotely imperialist. Imperialists, as a general rule, invade a country and stay in control of their government indefinitely as a matter of policy. Kind of like Nazis, Stalinists, Leninists, etc. The largest examples of imperialism last century came from the left, from socialists and their disciples. People who hold The State as their God. USSR Satellite states? Imperialist. Third Reich? Imperialist. Killing Fields? Imperialist. Imperialism is a hallmark of Communist policy, at least if you read any history.

It takes more faith to belief in Socialism than it does to believe in God. Socialism has an insurmountable evidence of its failure. God does not.

Who has Obama killed? Probably no one directly, but he is friends with an unrepentant terrorists, one of which bombed government buildings and the other which murdered cops. He was also a poor representative of his district, and left the communities he "organized" in shambles. Ask his brother. Obama just finished calling Americans selfish despite out giving to charities at multiple times the rate of the next most prosperous country, and yet his brother lives in squalor in Kenya.

I think the scariest thing I've read all day is that Obama would be center-left in Europe. No wonder those countries are so stingy, have double-digit unemployment, health care that abandons the sick but looks pretty on paper, and no ability to project international power. I certainly want to copy that model here.

Not that the initial question is really valid. President Bush is responsible for commanding the most powerful military force in the world. Obama is political cipher who spends all his time in office running for a higher one. He has never met with the committee he is on (Afghanistan, which he now wants to put more troops in), and claimed to be on a committee he was never on.

As for the Biden Selection? Is Obama deliberately testing the waters on the arrogant ticket? About the only good thing about Biden is that he is such a hot-tempered and trigger-mouthed moron that his own Gaffe's may distract from Obama's perennial gaffes.

For more fun, here is your Barack Obama EZ-Issue Response Generator

PRESS RELEASE:

Why is (opponent) trying to distract Americans? (issue) is a distraction from the things real Americans care about. (Undesirable association/situation) is ancient history. Bringing it up does not help Michelle's kids. Additionally, (issue) is above my pay grade. Also, (opponent) is racist, and thinks I have a funny name and don't look like the other Presidents on the dollar bills.

Example:

Why is John McCain trying to distract Americans? National Security is a distraction from the things real Americans care about. The Georgian-Russian conflict is ancient history. Bringing it up does not help Michelle's kids. Additionally, National Security is above my pay grade. Also, John McCain is racist, and thinks I have a funny name and don't look like the other Presidents on the dollar bills.

Why is John McCain trying to distract Americans? Abortion is a distraction from the things real Americans care about. My active support for infanticide is ancient history. Bringing it up does not help Michelle's kids. Additionally, abortion is above my pay grade. Also, John McCain is racist, and thinks I have a funny name and don't look like the other Presidents on the dollar bills.

Dem Primary edition:

Why is Hillary Clinton trying to distract Americans? Prudent judgment is a distraction from the things real Americans care about. My fatally wrong judgments are ancient history. Bringing it up does not help Michelle's kids. Additionally, prudent judgment is above my pay grade. Also, Hillary Clinton is racist, and thinks I have a funny name and don't look like the other Presidents on the dollar bills.

 

[akuchi]

lol Deck Knight you are actually insane

 

[McGrrr]

I honestly do not understand how this thread sprawls 19 pages. After casually following the election campaign, I conclude that:

1. Obama is the lesser of two evils
2. The electorate is easily manipulated
3. Americans are funny

Keynesianism... I consider a form of "light socialism".

The half of Keynesian economics defined as printing money (a la Greenspan/Bernanke) and fiscal injections (a la Labour Party) is socialism with a different hat. However, the other half characterized by investment in infrastructure, without distortion from the former (a la Nazi Germany), is not.

 

[Ancien Régime]

This massive convention topped off with a speech at a football stadium is not what Obama needs. It's more of the same, more "inspiration", more "lofty speeches", etc, etc.

It's like sugary food; it tastes awesome, but at some point, after eating too much of it for too long, you start getting sick of it - we might be reaching that point electorally.

What Obama probably needed more is a low-key, business-like convention, something to make him seem more like a president and less like a rock star.

Also, um yeah, can someone please explain this Ayers connection? I mean, sure it's not related to the issues but I'd like to think character is important in a president, and hanging out with terrorists (and that's what Ayers is) seems to reflect negatively on that.

 

[Peanut-Lover]

I honestly do not understand how this thread sprawls 19 pages. After casually following the election campaign, I conclude that:

1. Obama is the lesser of two evils
2. The electorate is easily manipulated
3. Americans are funny



The half of Keynesian economics defined as printing money (a la Greenspan/Bernanke) and fiscal injections (a la Labour Party) is socialism with a different hat. However, the other half characterized by investment in infrastructure, without distortion from the former (a la Nazi Germany), is not.

And thats sort of what we expect from those not following the election...

1.) McCain > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obama. At least McCain has a plan, Obama is all talk.
2.) We have an electoral college that is independant of votes - the population elects a group of people who claim to be supportive of the same cause (ie, New York goes democrat), but could vote any way they want (ie, NY has 33 votes, 10 may be for republican).
3.) Americans are not funny - we are sad. Everyone else is funny.

 

[Misty]

People who think Obama is "all talk" have not paid attention. Obama actually has fairly detailed plans (more detailed than McCain's at any rate) - he just never really talks about them. He spent the primaries talking about "hope and change", and since then he's mostly been defending himself.

 

[McGrrr]

And thats sort of what we expect from those not following the election...

And that is the kind of response to be expected from a typical teenage "expert".

Oh please. There is very little to suggest that either candidate would do better than the other, or any number of college educated persons. To state that "McCain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obama" is simply laughable. And yes, Americans are funny, but we are laughing at you, not with you.

America will never have a president that serves the interests of their people. The travelling circus that is the campaign trail is entirely strategic posturing and political rhetoric. The goal of each party is to gain/remain in power. Serving the people is secondary. The fact that you have been suckered into believing McCain is somehow superior, is tragically comic.

Money ultimately dictates who buys the White House. It is no coincidence that historically the successful candidate raised/spent the most. There is nothing to suggest that this trend will cease, and as long as it continues, private interests will hold sway with whoever ends up president. Therefore, the presidency will forever be repaying favours.

Given that both are likely to be as bad as each other, I consider Obama the lesser of two evils because of his general image. After the PR disaster of the Bush era, the last thing America needs is another leader in his mould. Obama is young and charismatic; McCain cannot remember how many houses he owns... which image of America do you want the rest of the world to see?

 

[Ancien Régime]

McCain = status quoish, not that many big changes, except that there's a chance that he'll actually cut spending (which I think is the #1 long-term issue).

Obama = a lot of ideas that sound awesome and appeal to people emotionally (especially on economics) but are actually not viable at all (most of the liberal platform)

If our electorate had any real intelligence as whole they'd elect 536 Ron Pauls, or at least people who would radically cut spending and control the size of the government at all levels

As to "PR", well, why is that relevant? Should any country decide its policies based on what others will think?

 

[Deck Knight]

Being called insane by akuchi is a high honor in my book. As I said before, believing in Socialism requires more faith than believing in God.

This massive convention topped off with a speech at a football stadium is not what Obama needs. It's more of the same, more "inspiration", more "lofty speeches", etc, etc.

It's like sugary food; it tastes awesome, but at some point, after eating too much of it for too long, you start getting sick of it - we might be reaching that point electorally.

What Obama probably needed more is a low-key, business-like convention, something to make him seem more like a president and less like a rock star.

Also, um yeah, can someone please explain this Ayers connection? I mean, sure it's not related to the issues but I'd like to think character is important in a president, and hanging out with terrorists (and that's what Ayers is) seems to reflect negatively on that.

The long and short of the Obama-Ayers connection is this:

Obama's political career started in William Ayers' home. William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who tried to bomb the pentagon. And when I say unrepentant, I mean that he wishes he had done more bombing in his glory days. Ayers was part of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist hard-left organization. Bill Clinton pardoned several "Weathermen" in his massive pardoning fit before he left office.

Obama spent a large portion of his political life working with Ayers on various lefty programs, none of which produced any results aside from what you expect from communist endeavors: poverty and squalor. The communities Obama "organized" were left in slum status after he was done with them. The Annenburg Challenge is one in particular that Obama and Ayers worked on. It Should be in the public record considering it is held at a public university, the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Of course, it isn't available to the public, the primary reason being the name of the library itself: The Richard M. Daly Library. Richard Daly was the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine boss going way back, and now his son (also named Richard Daly) is big in the outfit. The documents were blocked after inquiry by one of Obama's close friends. You don't hide publicly accessible records during an election year regarding a current presidential candidate unless you (or rather, they) have something to hide.

But Ayers is just one of Obama's mentors. Others include die-hard Marxists and Communists like Saul Alinsky, whose penchant for manipulation tactics is legendary. Obama spent his life teaching anyone who would listen the ways of Saul Alinsky, not the least of which being members of ACORN, an election fraud outfit (again, Chicago Democrat machine).

I don't pretend to know all the details myself, a lot of it is too hairy to wade through even for a political junkie like me, but there are books out there that cover the history of the American Left in detail. Basically its an excercise in studying American Communism, which is at its core hateful, manipulative, violent, and anti-American in every way imaginable.

To illustrate:

This is William Ayers. Unrepentant terrorist and English Professor at University of Illinois. This man, pictured stomping on an American flag in a narrow sidestreet, is currently teaching college students with tax money provided by the fine people of Illinois.

 

[Outlaw]

Im still hoping for my Ross Perot and Stephen Colbert dream ticket.

On a more serious note I think we need to change or get rid of the electoral college. Its silly to think that you can have the most votes and still not win.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Every time DK posts I like Obama more.

Have a nice day.

 

[McGrrr]

As to "PR", well, why is that relevant?

Image is crucial in this world... of course it is relevant. Even if you do not judge by face value, many people do.

Should any country decide its policies based on what others will think?

Yes and no. This is a pretty redundant question. As an aside, if Russia is serious about a second Cold War, then this is definitely important.

Agreed regarding the Ron Paul point.

---

My point is that no matter what the candidates say now, by the middle of their term, they will more or less become indistinguishable. Sure, they will make a token effort to satisfy their voters during the first few months (when their approval rating is likely to be highest). However, as soon as said approval rating begins to slide (inevitable over time), they will begin to pander to whatever key demographic that will keep them in power. McCain is unlikely to increase spending because he risks comparison with Bush, not to mention that it would induce further economic turmoil (which would probably cost him a second term). To state at this juncture that he will do so, only proves that you are susceptible to campaign propaganda.

Campaign sponsors will tactfully wait a while before calling on favours too. If you are cynical, you are usually right.

Given the likelihood of the above, image is the only way we can really distinguish between candidates. Therefore, Obama is the superior option.

Edit: btw, it seems like you people think the president runs the country on his own... he has a legion of educated advisors who will ensure that he always does whatever pleases the most potential voters. Unfortunately, this means pandering to key demographics rather than doing what is best for the long term interests of America.

 

[Deck Knight]

Image is crucial in this world... of course it is relevant. Even if you do not judge by face value, many people do.



Yes and no. This is a pretty redundant question. As an aside, if Russia is serious about a second Cold War, then this is definitely important.

Agreed regarding the Ron Paul point.

---

My point is that no matter what the candidates say now, by the middle of their term, they will more or less become indistinguishable. Sure, they will make a token effort to satisfy their voters during the first few months (when their approval rating is likely to be highest). However, as soon as said approval rating begins to slide (inevitable over time), they will begin to pander to whatever key demographic that will keep them in power. McCain is unlikely to increase spending because he risks comparison with Bush, not to mention that it would induce further economic turmoil (which would probably cost him a second term). To state at this juncture that he will do so, only proves that you are susceptible to campaign propaganda.

Campaign sponsors will tactfully wait a while before calling on favours too. If you are cynical, you are usually right.

Given the likelihood of the above, image is the only way we can really distinguish between candidates. Therefore, Obama is the superior option.

Edit: btw, it seems like you people think the president runs the country on his own... he has a legion of educated advisors who will ensure that he always does whatever pleases the most potential voters. Unfortunately, this means pandering to key demographics rather than doing what is best for the long term interests of America.

Unfortunately, Obama's image is that of a high-spending socialist, and the only way he will be able to maintain a second term (assuming unconditional appeasement/surrender to America's enemies doesn't do it) is by pandering to people who want massive entitlement programs.

Not that McCain is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but Obama is about as far away from Ron Paul as you could possibly imagine. All the DNC speeches last night were about what your government can do for you.

As far as advisers, Obama apparently has 300 foreign policy advisers (among which are George Clooney, of all people), and he still got the Russia-Georgia conflict completely wrong. No amount of advisers can fix stupid.

The idea you can take two candidates as strongly divergent on experience, judgment, and good sense as McCain and Obama (or really, any two candidates we have had for the last 100 years) and say they will be about the same during the middle of their term is ridiculous. If people didn't think the candidates would be divergent, you wouldn't still have people screaming about Bush stealing 2000 or 2004.

When you vote for the American President, you are voting for the most powerful man in the free world. Whoever England, or France, or Germany elects does not matter beyond a regional scope, so they can afford to be copies of each other; no one knows the difference anyway. That's the reason they care more about our elections than theirs, because our elections matter to the world while theirs don't unless some really insane Obama-esque socialist gets in.

 

[akuchi]

I don't care about the UK elections because my vote is a wasted vote since I live in such a safe Conservative seat for that awful, awful bastard Liam Fox [he'd like McCain. They could sit and hate women and talk about how cool killing people is]. I care about the US elections because you've got ultrarightwing nutjob McCain who'll fuck about with women's rights and generally be a bit of a warmongering shit then you've got lessrightwingBUTNOTSOCIALIST guy Obama, who seems a bit better.
I also care about the US elections because I want an A* in politics next year [I got one this year with no effort, which either says a lot about my intelligence or more about the examination board].

In fact, that's actually a lie. I do care about the UK elections, a lot. I'd quite like to see the Greens get in [the expression on their faces would be priceless. "Right, comrades, we've got a country.. now what the fuck do we do with it?" Genius.] I would like even more to see the BNP lose ground.
I know it's a toss-up between Brown [or Miliband, the slimy little bastard] and Cameron and I think David Cameron is a complete idiot.
"I'm a bastard. Just call me Dave."

And, erm.. thanks for letting me know that our elections don't matter a shit. You're an arrogant little bastard, aren't you?
FUCK YEAH, AMERICA.

[p.s. I like McGraw itt, even if he is one of those evil capitalists my mother warned me about]
pss sorry for rambling, im new (hungover)

 

[Ancien Régime]

Well, I said there was a "chance" (maybe a 1% chance haha).

And no I don't think that, though the President plays a vital role in whether policies enacted by Congress go through, whether by exercise of the veto, or simply by political pressure.

With the Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, the liberal agenda will be very easy to enact (impose?) on America, whereas with a Republican in control of the White House, there would (I'd like to think) some restraint.

Where you and I differ is that you do not think he will actually enact his very, very leftist agenda (and he is the most leftist politician in the senate by far) and I do.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Man, I wish that he would, but dont worry, he wont. His very, very leftist agenda is all window dressing.

Have a nice day.

 

[Misty]

The National Journal thing is hogwash. Obama is easily to the right of people like Bernie Sanders (who actually DOES call himself a socialist). Obama got a bad rap because he missed so many votes while campaigning for President, that the ones he actually did attend - especially in this highly partisan environment - would make any Democrat look like Mao.

 

[PazzaK]

you cant really know their faults until they become president.
i mean, bush must have seemed pretty cool, seing as you elected him.
personally, i hope that obama wins. admittedly, he wouldnt have caught my attention if he wasnt black, but that aside, he seems pretty respectable. leaders can never please all of the people all of the time, and theres bound to be some people who will hate him, but i say good luck to him.

 

[Misty]

Indeed, about the only surefire way to know if someone will be a good president is if they're a successful general.

 

[tea_and_blues]

Ancien Regime: I think it's hilarious that you even think Obama's faked 'agenda' is particularly 'Leftist', let alone 'very, very' so. Behind his stirring rhetoric and half-hearted commitment to some social progress (as opposed to regress under McCain), Obama has repeatedly offered assurances to big business, the recent Democrat Party convention went to the authoritarian measure of stifling protestors, and he has been making pro-war moves as of late - he's clearly as Right-wing and reactionary as apple pie and old-time lynch mobs.

The problem you seem to have with Obama, forgive me, is not that he is Left-wing - he is not by any stretch of the imagination - it's more that he isn't as dedicated a conservative liberal as you are.

 

[Misty]

But don't you know? Every country on earth except the great USA is a socialist dictatorship run by known commies.