Who should be the next US President?

[Keiichi]

But seriously, what exactly did GWB do to "screw up the country"?

Pushed the Patriot Act, created the Office of Homeland Security, started one war to catch the REAL mastermind of 9/11 and then completely forgot about him in his haste to start ANOTHER war that at least half of America didn't want based on falsified "evidence" of WMD and ties to terrorism, completely f--ked relations with the rest of the world in his bullheaded rush to begin said war...

Shall I continue?

Actually CATCHING Saddam is about the only thing he's managed to do RIGHT.

Not that I'm saying Clinton wasn't a f--kup either. We haven't had a good President, in my opinion, since Kennedy in '63.

-Keiichi

 

[Doc_EDo]

Dont forget spent money and introduced taxcuts at the same time creating record high deficit.

 

[MetalMickey]

Just give us someone sensible. Are there any centrist candidates? Anyone who isnt an extremist. It would be nice to be friends with the US again.

 

[Doc_EDo]

Im sure Kerry and Clark are centrists.
I think Dennis Kucinich has biggest balls in da house tho.

 

[ecale3]

he's completed 46% of his campaign promises. With another 20% being stonewalled in congress. So he wasn't a total jackass. GW Bush i mean.

anyway, i'm not sure who i would vote for if i was registered. gotta get around to doing that.

 

[Olethros]

Actually CATCHING Saddam is about the only thing he's managed to do RIGHT.

Rumor has it, it was the kurds who actually found the bastard. The G.I.s only got to do the official arresting for the world press. So I won't even give him that.

And supply-side economics work out great... for the supply side. Then again, the other 95% of the population are just whining, welfare-mooching, gun-grabbing, liberal-voting riff-raff that really don't matter in the end, right?

As for who'd get my vote, I really don't know much about any of the canditates listed here. Except dubya, of course. Being a pinko liberal secularist america-hating european, I'd probably vote Nader or some other slightly-more-to-the-left "protest" candidate to voice my really, really tiny "fuck you" to the industrialist plutocracy who'll probably remain in power anyway.

I have no idea what Dean is about and Kerry seems more like a republican in a bad suit than anything else. So i guess former SACEUR Wesley Clark gets my vote in this poll despite my distrust in high-ranking officers-turned-politicians. Mostly because he is the only one of them I've actually got an impression of from the media coverage of the NATO campaign in Kosovo. And - less importantly, though not insignificantly - Michael Moore says he is the real deal, so he's got to have something going for him.

But I'm not an american. And, these last few years, damn proud of it.

 

[Big_Duke_06]

Im sure Kerry and Clark are centrists....

Kerry a centrist? A Massechusetts/Kennedy Democrat a centrist? But seriously, what is it with that guy? I find he makes Al Gore seem interesting. What are any of his positions?

I like Lieberman, actually. He's a good guy, and I think would make a good President. He's a centrist - tough foreign policy, not as liberal on social issues... I could actually see myself voting for him. But I likely won't get the chance. Chances are that the Democrats are going to nominate an ultra-liberal "activist" candidate to match the ultra-conservative Bush. I'm putting my money on Dean or Kerry. And I sure won't vote for either of them.

As far as GWB doing bad things... I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act, either, so I agree with you on that one.

I'm not a big pro-life guy either - I figure it's cheaper for the tax payers to buy someone a $300 abortion than to support her and her child on wellfare for 18 years... Although I do feel that "late term" abortion is pretty much murder - if you're gonna kill it, kill it early. It's the humane thing to do.

I disagree about the War on Terror - I think that going after Al Queda and the Taliban and then Saddam were all good moves. The shockwaves are still being felt... Who would have believed a few years ago that Colonel Kahdaffi would just give up and invite the UN in to destroy his WMD programs? Maybe Iran and N. Korea will take a hint eventually, too.

The US is safer now from terrorists. The Office of Homeland Security wasn't a total waste - but it's not living up to it's potential, either.

As far as increased government spending and tax cuts... Obviously you haven't taken many economics courses. How do you help a slumping economy? Spend money. That simple. When things get rolling again - and all signs point to the fact that they're getting better - we'll be able to trim back some spending and cut the deficit. But right now the government needs to spend that money to spur growth. [Sidenote: I was nearly ready to graduate with an ECON degree before switching majors at the very last moment and going MIS - so I love to have meaningful exchanges on economics]

As far as relations with "Old Europe"... They started it. Does anyone remember the anti-American rhetorict from Schroeder during his reelection campaign? What you shout into the wind comes back at you, my friends. They started this pissin' match, and the fact of the matter is they need us more than we need them. And I like that GWB isn't affraid to remind them of that.

Then I could go on about his achievements in education, but this post is long enough already. And I think that most people that hate Bush are gonna hate him no matter what I say.

I guess my position is that he hasn't done anything bad enough for me to want to dump him now. Now that the big foreign policy stuff is (hopefully) over, I'm looking forward to seeing what he can get done on the domestic front.

Matthew

 

[Big_Duke_06]

And supply-side economics work out great... for the supply side. Then again, the other 95% of the population are just whining, welfare-mooching, gun-grabbing, liberal-voting riff-raff that really don't matter in the end, right?

Wasn't it John F. Kennedy who said that "In a rising tide, all boats rise."? Supply-side economics do work - and do grow the entire economy for the better of all citizens. If you'd like to dispute this, use some facts, not sarcasm.

But I'm not an american. And, these last few years, damn proud of it.

Gotta say that I'm right there with you. I'm damn proud you're not an American, too.

Matthew

 

[TheShiningWizard]

Isn't Lieberman the guy who went stupid over Mortal Kombat some years back?

 

[The_Pikeman]

As far as relations with "Old Europe"... They started it

As that great maturness .... you really do give the decent americans such a good name. Oh and I'm sure it was just "Old Europe" that has been pissed off by his attidtudes take a look at the brilliant reactions he got from aroun dthe world to his "state of the union" speach
'He has already lost his halo'

and the fact of the matter is they need us more than we need them.

Well I'm not too sure on that one. The "steel war" proved that in fact the US can not survive on it's own and dose need places like europe. To be honest I'd say it's more like 50/50, and lets remember GWB broke international law to get the steel workers a break - I'm sure that helped the US's image abroad, and you liked that, you liked that some countrys were threatening trade enbargos?{SP?} I'm sure that will help america

The US is safer now from terrorists.

Give me some evidence to prove it? Just because the security is tightened dosen't mean that you are safer.

Supply-side economics do work - and do grow the entire economy for the better of all citizens. If you'd like to dispute this, use some facts, not sarcasm.

Thats very debatable for instance take a look at this artical
George Bush's big-government conservatism
Sure it works (very) short term but medium to long term its not a good idea to be nearly $400bn in deficit likethe artical says .....

It is clear that holding back the growth in non-entitlement (or “discretionary”) programmes, such as defence and transport, will not be enough to ensure a sustainable budget in the long run. Unless entitlement programmes are cut too, or taxes raised to unprecedented levels, or both, the country is on a financially unsustainable path over the next half-century. “An ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public”, the CBO concludes, “would have a corrosive and potentially contractionary effect on the economy.”

Some observers go further. In a paper presented to the American Economic Association last Monday, Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution, Allen Sinai of Decision Economics and Robert Rubin, one of Bill Clinton's treasury secretaries, say that “substantial deficits projected far into the future can cause a fundamental shift in market expectations and a related loss of confidence both at home and abroad”—in other words, a full-blown, third-world-style financial crisis. Impishly, they quote Greg Mankiw, now Mr Bush's chief economic adviser, in a paper he co-wrote in 1995: “We can only guess what level of debt will trigger a shift in investor confidence, and about the nature and severity of the effects. Despite the vagueness of fears about [these effects], these fears may be the most important reason for seeking to reduce the budget deficits.”

The White House claims that the budget it is preparing for the 2005 fiscal year will be “committed to fiscal restraint”. But this is an election year, after all. A report in the New York Times suggests that the administration will claim to be able to halve the deficit over five years by relying on future economic growth and on cruel cuts in such programmes as housing for the poor and job-training for the unemployed. Certainly, these vulnerable groups do not tend to vote Republican. Also certainly, such cuts will barely dent the budget deficit.

Yea great planning there big W
-How.

 

[Big_Duke_06]

As that great maturness .... you really do give the decent americans such a good name.

Just pointing out the hypocracy. Didn't see all the "Schroeder is a cowboy and the most dangerous person in the world" crap with his very anti-American rhetorict. Guess only Americans can sabotage foreign relations and act like idiots, huh?

Well I'm not too sure on that one. The "steel war" proved that in fact the US can not survive on it's own and dose need places like europe. To be honest I'd say it's more like 50/50, and lets remember GWB broke international law to get the steel workers a break - I'm sure that helped the US's image abroad, and you liked that, you liked that some countrys were threatening trade enbargos?{SP?} I'm sure that will help america

Bad choice of example. Yes, the US likes cheaper steel from abroad, but if we were to get cut off from foreign steel, we could have all our old plants up and running in a matter of weeks. Life would go on, even if things cost a bit more. Remember that steel was one of the biggest industries in the US during the industrial revolution.

And since you want to bring trade into it... The US's trade laws are by far the most liberal. Yes, you can point out all kinds of individual exceptions to that rule - steel, for example - but they're just that, exceptions to the rule. No other country in the world has as liberal import regulations. Look it up. So citing an exception here or there where we have tarrifs doesn't impress me much.

Give me some evidence to prove it? Just because the security is tightened dosen't mean that you are safer.

I guess we could start with the fact that there hasn't been another attack since 9/11/01 in the US... In addition something like two-thirds of the leadership of Al-Queda is dead or captured... It all adds up. Are we 100% safe? Of course not. Can't ever be. Are we better off? I think so.

As far as the economics, I guess for every report written by former Clinton aides, I can find one written by former Bush/Reagan/whatever aide that says the opposite. But look at how governmental spending in the 80s led to the huge boom that the US experienced in the 90s... That's tangible.

Isn't Lieberman the guy who went stupid over Mortal Kombat some years back?

Yeah. And three-wheel ATVs and Twisted Sister... I try not to hold it against him.

Matthew

 

[The_Pikeman]

Just pointing out the hypocracy. Didn't see all the "Schroeder is a cowboy and the most dangerous person in the world" crap with his very anti-American rhetorict. Guess only Americans can sabotage foreign relations and act like idiots, huh?

No I never said that, but I'm not making the case for Schroeder getting re-elected. Saying someone somewhere else has done worse dosen't make bush right.

Bad choice of example. Yes, the US likes cheaper steel from abroad, but if we were to get cut off from foreign steel, we could have all our old plants up and running in a matter of weeks. Life would go on, even if things cost a bit more. Remember that steel was one of the biggest industries in the US during the industrial revolution.

Well it was chosen as it was the latest I can remember hearing about and it wasn't that bad, the threat wasn't to cut off Ameicans from our steel it was to create a simular tariff on the most improted american goods I.E. cars, so yes it would greatly hurt the US ecomemy. To think that the US can isolate it's self is just nieve, the multinationals hold all the cards not the goverments that let them trade within their boarders.

guess we could start with the fact that there hasn't been another attack since 9/11/01 in the US...

Ever see the episode of the simpsons with the bear tax, and Lisa offers Homer a stone that protects against tiger attack?

In addition something like two-thirds of the leadership of Al-Queda is dead or captured...

Ah yes because the US and it's allies haven't created alot more bad feeling and therefore terrorists by their recent actions? Do you really think you haven't created more terroists than you've killed? Oh and lets not forget you haven't got any of the reall big names like bin ladin or his right hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri, and even if they did that dosn't real make the Us more safe.

As far as the economics, I guess for every report written by former Clinton aides, I can find one written by former Bush/Reagan/whatever aide that says the opposite. But look at how governmental spending in the 80s led to the huge boom that the US experienced in the 90s... That's tangible.

Again thats debatable although a part I'd say its a small one when compaired to influences like the other countrys economys ect. If I were to make a list on what makes an economy sucessfull the goverment tax/spending would be low on it.

Yeah. And three-wheel ATVs and Twisted Sister... I try not to hold it against him.

I would, what a polition puts his/her name beind is generaly a good indicator as it is a big gamble and can stain his/her political future.
-How.

 

[Big_Duke_06]

Well it was chosen as it was the latest I can remember hearing about and it wasn't that bad, the threat wasn't to cut off Ameicans from our steel it was to create a simular tariff on the most improted american goods I.E. cars, so yes it would greatly hurt the US ecomemy. To think that the US can isolate it's self is just nieve, the multinationals hold all the cards not the goverments that let them trade within their boarders.

Obviously no nation wants to be cut off completely from the outside world. And never did I say that the US desires that, or that it would even be good - so you can knock off your "naive" talk.

The United States is the biggest importer in the world. We have the most money, and we buy the most goods. Without the US as a market to sell goods, a lot of economies would crumble. So really, threats to cut off the US completely are a lot of hot air. Because ultimately, you do need us more than we need you.

Oh, and the US has the most open trade regulations... I admire how you tried to skip past that one. Can't escape that one, really. So we put a tarriff on a few items here and there. What if we just mirrored the trade regulations the rest of the world use when trading with us? I can hear the howls!!

RE: Terrorism and national security: Are you trying to say that the US hasn't made *any* progress? That capturing or killing 2/3s of the Al-Queda leadership hasn't made *any* dent in their ability to attack the US? Now who's being naive?

As far as making more terrorists than we've killed/captured... Maybe so. But I tell you what: I'd rather have the leaders with the contacts and resources to pull off large-scale attacks on the US gone and replaced with ten 16 year olds smoking a hooka pipe in Afghanistan that now hate the US. Yes, they will eventually become leaders with connections and resources, but for the short term, ten guys in a cave with no contacts and resources are not nearly as menacing as the one leader we got.

So for at least the short term, yes we are safer. Prove me wrong.

Again thats debatable although a part I'd say its a small one when compaired to influences like the other countrys economys ect. If I were to make a list on what makes an economy sucessfull the goverment tax/spending would be low on it.

Yes, the economy is a very complex thing that takes into account many factors. But looking at two factors - taxes and gov't spending - we can see that lowered taxes and increased government spending in the 80s was followed by a period growth in the 90s. We went from a recession to a boom. So who's to say that sticking with what works isn't a good idea? Keep in mind that leading economic indicators are also showing that the US economy is entering a growth period again. Tell me again how this isn't working?

And if you tried to make a list on what makes an economy run and put government taxing and spending low on it, you'd be flat wrong. The government is the largest contributor - by a long shot - to the GDP. That fact alone places government taxing and spending rather high on the list.

I would, what a polition puts his/her name beind is generaly a good indicator as it is a big gamble and can stain his/her political future.

I suppose that I should have said that I know about the actions Liebermann took in the past and I like him anyway. Other than trying to outlaw my favorite video game (not really), most of his views are pretty close to mine. Again, he's not perfect, but he's better than most of the others. Second to Bush in my book, actually.

Matthew

 

[jaunty]

Kerry for president, Clark as his deputy.

The next JFK (who actually fought in a war, instead of standing on a boat while it sank), and the retired NATO leader. Can't get much better in terms of leaders of the free world.

I saw Kerry in action in whichever debate was on Fox News today, and Kerry and Clark both impressed the hell out of me.

 

[The_Pikeman]

Obviously no nation wants to be cut off completely from the outside world. And never did I say that the US desires that, or that it would even be good - so you can knock off your "naive" talk.

That wasn't a comment directly at you, and to be honest I regard that last bit as an insult.

The United States is the biggest importer in the world. We have the most money, and we buy the most goods. Without the US as a market to sell goods, a lot of economies would crumble. So really, threats to cut off the US completely are a lot of hot air. Because ultimately, you do need us more than we need you.

Thats is just a matter of opinion, lets just hope that the situation will never arise.

Oh, and the US has the most open trade regulations... I admire how you tried to skip past that one. Can't escape that one, really. So we put a tarriff on a few items here and there. What if we just mirrored the trade regulations the rest of the world use when trading with us? I can hear the howls!!

No I have no idea on trade laws and the comparison to different countrys, and saw no point in having a sentence like "Ok if you say so", but as you do bring that sentence up, and I've looked at it again, I don't understand what the trade laws have to do with my quote, as my quote was clearly on the subject of the US's image abroad.

RE: Terrorism and national security: Are you trying to say that the US hasn't made *any* progress? That capturing or killing 2/3s of the Al-Queda leadership hasn't made *any* dent in their ability to attack the US? Now who's being naive?

No I'm not trying to say that and you know that. Please atleast try not to twist my words

As far as making more terrorists than we've killed/captured... Maybe so. But I tell you what: I'd rather have the leaders with the contacts and resources to pull off large-scale attacks on the US gone and replaced with ten 16 year olds smoking a hooka pipe in Afghanistan that now hate the US. Yes, they will eventually become leaders with connections and resources, but for the short term, ten guys in a cave with no contacts and resources are not nearly as menacing as the one leader we got.

So for at least the short term, yes we are safer. Prove me wrong.

That really supprises me, you yourself admit that they havent got the main leaders - do you think the lower echelons{SP?} controll things like finances? Bin Laden and his mob are growing rich (in men and money) off the US's actions making an attack more, not less, likely. A operation like the one on september the 11th dosen't require skilled individuals, just money. As for the 16 year old .... well whats more to say on the subject. Oh and the "prove me wrong" - bear - simpsons.

Yes, the economy is a very complex thing that takes into account many factors. But looking at two factors - taxes and gov't spending - we can see that lowered taxes and increased government spending in the 80s was followed by a period growth in the 90s. We went from a recession to a boom. So who's to say that sticking with what works isn't a good idea? Keep in mind that leading economic indicators are also showing that the US economy is entering a growth period again. Tell me again how this isn't working?

And if you tried to make a list on what makes an economy run and put government taxing and spending low on it, you'd be flat wrong. The government is the largest contributor - by a long shot - to the GDP. That fact alone places government taxing and spending rather high on the list.

I really think you should look outside the US, and as "reganomics" has only really been tested once I'd wait till more imperial data has been collected long term I think it's a bad idea. We were not however talking about what makes an econemy run, but what makes it boom/bust the difference is subtle but important.
-How.

 

[Freon]

I disagree about the War on Terror - I think that going after Al Queda and the Taliban and then Saddam were all good moves.

Going after the symptoms is incredibly stupid and utterly useless. This war on terror hasn't solved anything. It just gave more attention to Al Qaeda and allowed them to recruit more fanatics. Of course it looks good on the TV, and you feel safer now... as long as you don't think too much about it.

Who would have believed a few years ago that Colonel Kahdaffi would just give up and invite the UN in to destroy his WMD programs? Maybe Iran and N. Korea will take a hint eventually, too.

Qadhafi has been armless for years now. If he invites the UN to come and destroy his WMD it's because they are gone or obsolete now. It's also nice to see how western countries now deal with him. After all he's just a terrorist and a dictator. But who cares since he's giving us money

As far as relations with "Old Europe"... They started it.

Don't you think Germany has reasons to be anti-american?

I guess my position is that he hasn't done anything bad enough for me to want to dump him now. Now that the big foreign policy stuff is (hopefully) over, I'm looking forward to seeing what he can get done on the domestic front.

You'll never see that. If he gets reelected he'll invade another country (Syria, Iran or France ) and you'll love it for that.
He won't do anything for you (aside from making you think you're secure). He won't do anything (good) for the developing countries. He won't do anything (good again) for environment. In his presidency he has worked very hard at ****ing the later ones in the ass. And I don't think it will change.


*** Note that I don't think the other candidats will do a better job at it, but who knows.

 

[[C22]-Mort]

Before voting, I'd like to see a "Complete" list of each candidates sponsors!

Once I know where their money is coming from it'll give me a better idea of what their "real" agenda is, and what favours will be returned once in office!

Increased expenditure CAN be a good way to improve the economic situation in the future as long as the money is channeled effectively into tangible and realistic reform programmes i.e. if you effectively tackle unemployment now, it saves a lot more money in the future!

 

[Big_Duke_06]

Before voting, I'd like to see a "Complete" list of each candidates sponsors!

Once I know where their money is coming from it'll give me a better idea of what their "real" agenda is, and what favours will be returned once in office!...

Excellent point - and one of the things I don't like about Bush (along with some of his right-wing, bible-thumping social views that he keeps trying to legislate into law). I guess that makes me "little l libertarian" as 5Eleven once put it.

I won't even try to argue with Freon... Not worth anyone's time and effort.

No I have no idea on trade laws and the comparison to different countrys, and saw no point in having a sentence like "Ok if you say so", but as you do bring that sentence up, and I've looked at it again, I don't understand what the trade laws have to do with my quote, as my quote was clearly on the subject of the US's image abroad.

Our liberal trade laws have everything to do with it. Fact is, we do have the most open trade laws. And then we go ahead and place tarriffs on one sector of imports (steel in your example) to protect domestic industry, and the rest of the world howls about fairplay. Yet our laws on pretty much every other sector are more open than those doing the howling. You want it both ways - you want to be able to restrict US imports more than the US restricts imports from other countries, and you want to be able to complain when the US deviates from the otherwise most-open position. That's hypocracy. (And to avoid hurt feelings, by "you" I mean the world in general)

So even though we have the most liberal trade laws, the image of the US regarding trade is that we're the bad guys because we place imports on selected industries for the short term (didn't Bush already drop the steel import tarriffs?) to protect domestic industry... And yet the governments of the people that think the US is a bad guy have far more restrictive trade laws... Go figure.

The US is pretty much the country the rest of the world loves to hate. I guess we're the best target... But logic doesn't bear this hatred out.

No I'm not trying to say that [the US is not at all safer] and you know that. Please atleast try not to twist my words

From a previous post (also shows that you were the one dealing with "proof" first - my reference to proof was just a gentle barb in response to yours):

Give me some evidence to prove it? Just because the security is tightened dosen't mean that you are safer.

I've already told you why I think the US is safer now than two years ago - but it seems you're backtracking on your point. At first you said it wasn't safer and told me to prove it. Now you say you never tried to say the US is no safer and I'm an idiot for my proof remark. Ok, whatever.

Politics are like religeon - maybe even worse. You can't change someone's mind once it's already made up. You've clearly already decided that you don't like Bush. I don't think there's anything I can say or do to change that. Likewise, I've already decided that I do like Bush. And really nothing you can say or do is gonna change that. As wiser men have said - perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

Matthew

 

[JaFO]

Ha ! at the US being safer now ...
You didn't fear the terrorists attacking your country before 11-9 ...
Can you even mention a single terrorist attack on your country before the tiny incident in New York ???

The only change is that your embassies make a bigger fuss about their 'security' now than they did in the cold war.
Or rather ... they do it openly instead of hiding.
All we need is another SPECTRE to trick you into attacking yet another source of terrorists.
And then there's all these american soldiers that keep on dieing in those wars your fighting ... wars which wouldn't even be there had you not insisted on trying to capture a terrorist leader and a certain dictator that had been playing you & the UN the fool.

"Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer still "
Instead of knowing who your enemies are and where they're possibly hiding ... you're in a situation where you either don't know who's in charge or who your real enemies are.

As for Freon not making any sense ... I guess it's rather painful to admit that you're only fighting the symptoms and not the disease.

btw : when can we visit your army bases and 'secret' locations to search for possible WMD's ?
Would you really be willing to bend over for the Russians and other 3rd world countries to inspect every crack where you might be hiding illegal/dangerous weapons ?

Never mind that altough Khadaffi might be licking your boots now. Get rid of old weapons and make friends by appearing to be open it's win/win-situation no matter how you look at it. There's enough time to make new stuff once you've pulled enough wool over the eyes of the westerners ...

You've gotten Korea excited enough to threaten you with nuclear weapons.
I guess your warmachine needs another armsrace to keep in business ?
I definitely wouldn't put it past them to try similar tactics as were used during the cold war and the war against Saddam recently. After all no one can ever verify sources which you need to keep hidden for 'security reasons'.

And China still isn't a big friendly democracy either ... yet you're too afraid to threaten them as you need their consumers more than they need you (or anyone else for that matter).

 

[Vega-don]

that kid has been lucky,compared to others.
thats a collateral damage


warning ; a bit violent but not Very
http://www.teegeeack.com/iraqi-girl-wounded-by-americans.jpg


and no matter how bad the ennemy is , if you have to do that to childrens to hit the ennemy , you shouldnt attack the ennemy