Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US Presidential Election 2: Revenge of the US Presidential Election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The US Presidential Election 2: Revenge of the US Presidential Election

    Well, four years ago we had this thread, and it was an 1104 post journey that was at times heated, usually contentious, and occasionally enlightening. Since clearly people have thoughts on this to vent, and in the hope of keeping them from protruding into other, unrelated topics, I think it's time to bring back the thread.

    It's March 2012, and the main difference for those outside looking in is that we do have an incumbent seeking reelection which we didn't in 2008 (Bush having termed out), so one of the key differences people will see is that, with no primary challenge, the President is basically already able to split his duties between governing and campaigning (or campaigning and governing, if you like), while the GOP nomination is still up for grabs.

    The current candidates are

    1. Mitt Romney (former Governor of Massachusetts, former venture capitalist, former Guy In Charge of Olympics -- not sure what he was called). Typically considered the most moderate of the four candidates, notably oversaw implementing a government healthcare system in Massachusetts, but believes that the same effort at a federal level is both ineffective and unconstitutional.

    2. Rick Santorum (former Senator from Pennsylvania, former member of the House), considered the religious conservative in the field, is a devout Catholic.

    3. Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House, longtime lobbyist/consultant), whose niche in the race is sort of "populist/idea guy".

    4. Ron Paul (current House member, medical doctor), who is a libertarian with a scrupulous sense of limiting the role of government in every area of individuals' lives.

    They are listed in their current order of likely nomination. Both Romney and Santorum poll close to, sometimes ahead or behind, of the President in a head to head vote. Gingrich is mostly in the race to keep Romney from securing the nomination ahead of the convention. The main intrigue with Paul is whether or not he would run as an indepedent, which would almost certainly secure reelection for the President.
    sigpic
    Banner by LRae12

  • #2
    Gingrich will take us to the Moon! Vote Gingrich!

    Ok, I'm not serious but...THE FRICKIN MOON! Awesome!

    This is why geeks should never have gotten the vote

    On a serious note, thanks for the overview, v interesting to get a (non official media) perspective from a gentleman of the right. While I usually write off some of those candidates as utter nutjobs, they do all have their supporters, and it never does to dismiss someone out of hand.

    After all, Boris Johnson became Mayor of London - and he'd been nothing but a political punchline for most of living memory til he was elected.


    -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

    Comment


    • #3
      If memory serves, Gingrich and the moon base were a speech before the Florida primary, and an example of how he reps out as the populist idea guy in the race. Florida has thrived on the space program, but the US essentially has no space program anymore, since the limited and vastly expensive shuttle program has ended and all we can do is pay the Russians to keep letting us have a spot on the space station, which is now more or less theirs even though we paid for most of it. So want to get some "cheap town pop" in Florida, talk big about a revitalized manned space program.

      Glad you posted, Wolfie. It's not a thread until the Wolf is aboard, frankly.
      sigpic
      Banner by LRae12

      Comment


      • #4
        Here in the Netherlands we mostly know Santorum for claiming that we kill our elderly just to save some money. (No but seriously, how is it possible that a candidate for the most important job in the world can get away with such nonsense.)

        From the GOP candidates I like Romney best, he lacks charisma but he looks like a nice guy who knows what he is talking about. (Although he seems a bit disconnected with the middle class.) But I can't say that I prefer one of the GOP candidates over Obama. Not very suprising since our polical spectrum mostly takes place on the left side of Obama/the democrats.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, the foregone conclusion of the GOP nomination is that Mitt Romney will be the nominee in almost every scenario. A primer on the nominating process -- later in the summer, each party will hold its convention. The point of the convention is for delegates to vote on who the nominee will be. In a contested nomination, like the GOP this year or both in 2008, the point of primaries and caucuses are to select who the delegates will be. If someone wins enough delegates in the primaries, they become the de facto nominee since they have enough votes to win at the convention.

          This year, to win the GOP nomination, one of these men will need 1,144 delegates to have the nomination in hand. Romney right now is just under 500, and Santorum is 200 or so behind him. There are only two possible outcomes at this point for the nomination --

          1) Romney reaches 1,144 before the end of the primaries and caucuses in June
          2) None of them reach 1,144 and we go to the convention for a floor fight, or a "brokered convention". Historically, candidates from brokered conventions (where basically deals have to be made for people to agree on a candidate for the delegates to support) don't win elections.

          Gingrich is basically hoping for a brokered convention, which he myopically (IMO) thinks will yield him the nomination even though he is generally 3rd place in popular support. He is basically running as a spoiler for Romney and for no other purpose.

          Santorum, likewise, won't have the popular support to emerge from a floor fight. And he can only win the nomination outright if he wins something like 70% of all remaining delegates, which he just can't do, probably not even if Gingrich and Paul dropped out.

          So we get to the convention and there are, again, two possibilities. Either Romney is nominated, or a brokered convention leads to a compromise candidate who may not even be in the field right now (i.e. Chris Christie from New Jersey, Mitch Daniels from Indiana, Paul Ryan, who knows).

          The bottom line is that Mitt Romney's nomination is a fait accompli in almost every sense and the only thing a floor fight at the convention can yield is a weaker campaign in the general election. In many ways, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are, right now, the best friends the President has.

          I'll be clear, I would vote for any of these men in the general election without equivocation or pause, because the real issues in this election are the economy, economic philosophy and defense of the free market, defense of individualism and the core Enlightenment values of the founding, and things like abortion and marriage and contraception are sideshows being blown up to distract from those far more fundamental issues that touch on every part of all our lives in this country. I view the 2012 as sort of the anti-statist Alamo (unfortunately), and I've never been head over heals for any of these candidates, but it's what we've got.

          I think Santorum and Gingrich are both pretty much beaten at this point and should withdraw, because the math can't get them there, there is no path to victory (I'm surprised how many outside the US seem to think Santorum is... the frontrunner? The flagbearer for conservatives/libertarians/republicans in this race?).
          sigpic
          Banner by LRae12

          Comment


          • #6
            I can't talk for other countries, but our newsstations all report Romney as frontrunner and as the most likely candidate. But there is a lot of attention for Santorum as well, because he still wins in some states and mostly because of his views on things like abortion, euthanasia, anti-conception & gay marriage. It's rather shocking for us how many voters he has despite having such extreme views on these matters... so he gets some attention because of that as well.


            And about your statement; "things like abortion and marriage and contraception are sideshows being blown up to distract". I get that, and I also get that there is rarely a party/candidate who is anyones perfect candidate. But as a woman I'm extremely grossed out (and a bit scared, even if it's not my country) by the idea that a man who wants to take so much freedom away from a woman, gets still so many votes. And you can call it a distraction, but in the end it's something with a major effect for women and other minorities (if the impossible happens and Santorum makes it to the white house). I would never give my vote to somebody who has such views, even when I agree with all the other plans.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nina View Post
              I can't talk for other countries, but our newsstations all report Romney as frontrunner and as the most likely candidate. But there is a lot of attention for Santorum as well, because he still wins in some states and mostly because of his views on things like abortion, euthanasia, anti-conception & gay marriage. It's rather shocking for us how many voters he has despite having such extreme views on these matters... so he gets some attention because of that as well.
              Here's the thing about Santorum winning some states, like this past Tuesday. He actually lost ground in the nomination race on Tuesday, because once all the other smaller primaries were reported, Romney had gained 41 delegates and Santorum only 35. As for his views... well, they aren't that extreme in the areas he's winning, and even in the country as a whole in this part of the world. Since he's Catholic and I'm Catholic I probably share a number of his views -- euthanasia for instance, that's a complete non-starter for me. The second public policy allows for the idea the state can even engage the discussion of whether anyone's life is "worth living", some fundamental element of freedom is lost IMO, and you can't get into legal euthanasia without requiring the government to engage in exactly that kind of analysis.

              And about your statement; "things like abortion and marriage and contraception are sideshows being blown up to distract". I get that, and I also get that there is rarely a party/candidate who is anyones perfect candidate. But as a woman I'm extremely grossed out (and a bit scared, even if it's not my country) by the idea that a man who wants to take so much freedom away from a woman, gets still so many votes. And you can call it a distraction, but in the end it's something with a major effect for women and other minorities (if the impossible happens and Santorum makes it to the white house). I would never give my vote to somebody who has such views, even when I agree with all the other plans.
              Even if Santorum were elected with 300 electoral votes, and even if he actually had policy proposals along the lines of banning contraception for instance (and, again, I don't consider asking people to pay for their own a ban in any way shape or form), he could never actually enact them. The only President I can think of in my lifetime who is big on enacting policy by administrative fiat is, well, the current one. Santorum wouldn't be much of a conservative if he had any intention of abusing the power of his office and try to ban things without going through Congress, and stuff like "contraception bans" could never get through Congress, and wouldn't be upheld by the courts even if they did. If he tried those things, he would be exactly the sort of statist that this year's GOP voters are trying to replace. So in every sense, it's just not an issue, because it's not something that could ever happen, not even with him being a devout Catholic.
              sigpic
              Banner by LRae12

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                Here's the thing about Santorum winning some states, like this past Tuesday. He actually lost ground in the nomination race on Tuesday, because once all the other smaller primaries were reported, Romney had gained 41 delegates and Santorum only 35. As for his views... well, they aren't that extreme in the areas he's winning, and even in the country as a whole in this part of the world. Since he's Catholic and I'm Catholic I probably share a number of his views -- euthanasia for instance, that's a complete non-starter for me. The second public policy allows for the idea the state can even engage the discussion of whether anyone's life is "worth living", some fundamental element of freedom is lost IMO, and you can't get into legal euthanasia without requiring the government to engage in exactly that kind of analysis.
                I'm aware of all that, just explaining why he gets his share of attention over here. We like being amazed about how other western countries view things completely differently I guess.

                And I don't want to hijack this thread with euthanasia, but I don't see how it is a loss of freedom in any way. Like abortus, it's all about having the choice. More than 80% of the euthanasia cases over here are cancer patients, people who are in the last stages of cancer and want to raise a glass of wine with their loved ones, kiss them goodbye and die before cancer takes away the last bits of dignity left. And if they don't want that, our system takes care of them until the bitter end. Sure other people (doctors, ethicists & lawyers) have to judge if somebody's situation is really that hopeless and painful, because it's not a glorified suicide system... but I don't see why that results in loss of freedom. Having a choice > having no choice in my book. But I suspect that this topic deserves it's own thread.

                Even if Santorum were elected with 300 electoral votes, and even if he actually had policy proposals along the lines of banning contraception for instance (and, again, I don't consider asking people to pay for their own a ban in any way shape or form), he could never actually enact them. The only President I can think of in my lifetime who is big on enacting policy by administrative fiat is, well, the current one. Santorum wouldn't be much of a conservative if he had any intention of abusing the power of his office and try to ban things without going through Congress, and stuff like "contraception bans" could never get through Congress, and wouldn't be upheld by the courts even if they did. If he tried those things, he would be exactly the sort of statist that this year's GOP voters are trying to replace. So in every sense, it's just not an issue, because it's not something that could ever happen, not even with him being a devout Catholic.
                Okay so there is no way his ideas will be executed, that's good to know. Still there is the influence, presidents (or prime-ministers) are often blindly followed by a certain group of people who lack the ability to think for themselves or people who will use the view of powerfull people to justify their own points of view on certain matters. The whole anticonception-discussion and the negative views of a powerful man do lead to shaming of women by their environment or make the shaming worse.

                And it's also a principle, voting for a person who believes that others should have less freedom is a big 'no' in my book. Even if it's just a minor topic, it's a breakpoint to me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Nina View Post
                  And I don't want to hijack this thread with euthanasia, but I don't see how it is a loss of freedom in any way. Like abortus, it's all about having the choice. More than 80% of the euthanasia cases over here are cancer patients, people who are in the last stages of cancer and want to raise a glass of wine with their loved ones, kiss them goodbye and die before cancer takes away the last bits of dignity left. And if they don't want that, our system takes care of them until the bitter end. Sure other people (doctors, ethicists & lawyers) have to judge if somebody's situation is really that hopeless and painful, because it's not a glorified suicide system... but I don't see why that results in loss of freedom. Having a choice > having no choice in my book. But I suspect that this topic deserves it's own thread.
                  It's not hijacking as far as I'm concerned; any and all political issues that shape the upcoming election are fair game to me.

                  Why I say it's a loss of freedom is that, to have legal euthanasia, it necessarily means the state has to come up with the conditions and rules and details of when it is allowed and when it isn't. That, by definition, means codifying as law which lives are less worth living than other lives. Once you concede as a matter of first principle that the state is allowed to do that, you're in motion down that old slippery slope.

                  And then there are general public policy interests -- insurance, for instance. Should life insurance companies have to pay out if someone they insure is put down by their family? For that matter, should beneficiaries of life insurance be allowed to participate in a decision to euthanize when they have an obvious conflict of interest?

                  Okay so there is no way his ideas will be executed, that's good to know. Still there is the influence, presidents (or prime-ministers) are often blindly followed by a certain group of people who lack the ability to think for themselves or people who will use the view of powerfull people to justify their own points of view on certain matters. The whole anticonception-discussion and the negative views of a powerful man do lead to shaming of women by their environment or make the shaming worse.
                  I'm not familiar with the nouveau term 'anticonception'. The term at face value is actually something I'd associate more with the political left in my country -- what's more 'anticonception' than a prophylactic, after all? Or the pill?

                  I still don't concede that the things you call "his ideas" are actually "his ideas"; it is perfectly possible to govern against your own better angels, and that the man thinks contraception has a corrosive influence on the culture needn't inform any actual policy he'd put into place.

                  And it's also a principle, voting for a person who believes that others should have less freedom is a big 'no' in my book. Even if it's just a minor topic, it's a breakpoint to me.
                  Well, when I'm looking for the person who believes others should have less freedom, I'm always playing "find the statist". Santorum is probably the most statist of the GOP candidates, which why he's probably my second least preferred of them and wasn't in my top 5 of the original field, but he can't come close to the guy who is already doing the job when it comes to seeking supremacy of government in the lives of individuals.
                  sigpic
                  Banner by LRae12

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It's interesting to see your classifiaction of the candidates King as, as far as I've been led to believe, Romney is the more 'populist' candidate in that he seems to choose his message very much on the situation and audience as seems to be known as a bit of a flip-flopper. This is just from stuff I've read though.

                    Gingrich seems to be the idea guy in that he keeps coming up with ideas that sound kind of neat and a bit out there but have little to do with reality and Paul is just Paul. Same old Randian indidualist who would turn the country over to the corporations. Santorum is the really scary guy for me as he seems to want to set up some kind of theocracy and as a secularist I think we need more seperation of state and religion than that. In fact, and again I could be wrong, isn't that a requirement. that no religion is seen to be given preferential treatment?

                    because the real issues in this election are the economy
                    You should have ended that there. All the idealogical stuff is not really that much of an issue becasue people have it tough and want that to end (besides which not evey one, not even all Amreicans care as much about 'rugged individualism') Defense ofthe free market is a non -issue in particular for me and would be an odd thing to choose to run on after the crash, OWS protests and growth in mistrust over big business.

                    Edited to add: One thing that the Repulicans do need to dfo is to sort their house out as quickly as possible . The longer this race goes on for the more dirty linen is being aired in public and the more bruises the eventual winner is going to go into the big fight with.
                    Last edited by tangent; 16-03-12, 12:45 PM.
                    JUST ENOUGH KILL

                    sigpic
                    Banner by Ciderdrinker

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                      It's not hijacking as far as I'm concerned; any and all political issues that shape the upcoming election are fair game to me.

                      Why I say it's a loss of freedom is that, to have legal euthanasia, it necessarily means the state has to come up with the conditions and rules and details of when it is allowed and when it isn't. That, by definition, means codifying as law which lives are less worth living than other lives. Once you concede as a matter of first principle that the state is allowed to do that, you're in motion down that old slippery slope.
                      But it's not loss of freedom since they don't take away anything with this law, they create a new choice for the people. The only person who can make the real decision if their life is worth living are the patients themselves. All the 'goverment' does is looking at the request and trying to see if the situation can be improved (some old people do a request because they feel like their life is completed, there are better ways to help these people.) or if there is suffering, no dignity and hopeless for any sort of recovery. (Like the last stages of cancer.)

                      And then there are general public policy interests -- insurance, for instance. Should life insurance companies have to pay out if someone they insure is put down by their family? For that matter, should beneficiaries of life insurance be allowed to participate in a decision to euthanize when they have an obvious conflict of interest?
                      Nobody else participates in that decison, the request has to be made by the patient (and only the patient) several times over an amount of time. Their own doctor and an independent doctor are involved and the patient has to defend his choice. It's often not that difficult to notice if somebody is sure or not, in the last case nothing happens of course. It's a very important step in the checklist. The only moments the direct family has a say in the matter is when the patient doesn't wake up anymore after the coma, when the patient is braindead and there is a very strict illegal but tolerated protocol to euthanize a dying and suffering child, in that case the parents are the ones who do the request.

                      And there is another reason to legalize euthanasia, it probably happens in every country. Only when it's illegal it happens off the radar, which can't be checked by anyone. By making it legal, you make it visible. So it's easier to control and check upon.

                      I'm fully aware of the ethical issues and also in the Benelux (where it's pretty normal by now) there are still debates and critics. And there should be, euthanasia will always be a tricky thing. Especially in cases like Alzheimer, where the request has to be made before the Alzheimer kicks in.

                      And it's of course also part of a culture, I suspect that some European countries will follow in the near future (I believe there is a debate in the UK right now because a man with locked-in syndrome wants to die and went to court with his request.) but I think many countries will not. And I understand that and of course respect that. (As long they don't accuse us of genocide on elderly... that's rather insulting.)

                      I'm not familiar with the nouveau term 'anticonception'. The term at face value is actually something I'd associate more with the political left in my country -- what's more 'anticonception' than a prophylactic, after all? Or the pill?
                      It's the only word we use here (well the Dutch 'anticonceptie') for condoms, the pill etc. And I used it because I've seen it used by Americans as well, so I thought it was the regular term for such things.

                      I still don't concede that the things you call "his ideas" are actually "his ideas"; it is perfectly possible to govern against your own better angels, and that the man thinks contraception has a corrosive influence on the culture needn't inform any actual policy he'd put into place.
                      So? He still says it, he shares his views with the people who are in awe. My hobby isn't to see what Santorum says every day, but in that little clip I saw because he was mentioning the Netherlands, the crowd was in shock. He came with incredible lies (elderly wear "do not euthanize me" bracelets, elderly don't dare to go to Dutch hospitals because they are afraid they will be 'euthanized' at the place etc.) and his voters believe every word without wondering if it's even possible. Policy is important, but even politicians who aren't elected have a big influence anyway. People trust politicians, follow them and copy their views sometimes. Santorum's views (even if it are no plans for when he is in the white house) do harm women already, and the more power and attention he gets... the more harm it will do.


                      Well, when I'm looking for the person who believes others should have less freedom, I'm always playing "find the statist". Santorum is probably the most statist of the GOP candidates, which why he's probably my second least preferred of them and wasn't in my top 5 of the original field, but he can't come close to the guy who is already doing the job when it comes to seeking supremacy of government in the lives of individuals.
                      We're just too different in this area, for me freedom is to give everybody the same chances and the same choices despite gender, sexuality, color of the skin, class etc. And the chance for everybody to live a life with a certain amount of quality. And a healthcare system and an education system where everybody gets the same care and the same education is essential for that. Paying more taxes for these systems is not seen as loss of freedom around here.
                      Last edited by Nina; 16-03-12, 01:36 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nina View Post
                        But it's not loss of freedom since they don't take away anything with this law, they create a new choice for the people.
                        Totally agree. I fail to see how it can be MORE of a loss of freedom to create laws that allow euthanasia at least in some cases, in comparison to the way it is right now where nobody is allowed it. I'd take what I can get. People should have a right to choose when and how they end their life and others shouldn’t be able to impose their views onto somebody else. If they disagree with euthanasia? Fine. Don’t ever do it. But don’t try and dictate to somebody else what they can and can’t do with their own life and their own body.

                        The system your country has in place seems like a good one.

                        So? He still says it, he shares his views with the people who are in awe. My hobby isn't to see what Santorum says every day, but in that little clip I saw because he was mentioning the Netherlands, the crowd was in shock. He came with incredible lies (elderly wear "do not euthanize me" bracelets, elderly don't dare to go to Dutch hospitals because they are afraid they will be 'euthanized' at the place etc.) and his voters believe every word without wondering if it's even possible. Policy is important, but even politicians who don't are elected have a big influence anyway. People trust politicians, follow them and copy their views sometimes. Santorum's views (even if it are no plans for when he is in the white house) do harm women already, and the more power and attention he gets... the more harm it will do.
                        Santorum is a total moron. I hadn't heard any of those things but it doesn't surprise me one bit that he would say something so idiotic and deceitful. I had vaguely heard of the guy but it wasn't until yesterday that I read a bunch of statements made by him and saw what a truly vile guy he is. He actually compares homosexuality to such things as bestiality, incest, adultery and paedophilia. He wants to reinstate the disgraceful ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy regarding homosexual men serving in the military. He compares gay marriage to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. He said that Satan is after America because they’re the “only God and decent country.” He said that “radical feminism” is to blame for mothers and father’s leaving their children at day-care so they can go to work. He said that it was “anti-historical” that the Crusades against Islam were an act of aggression from Christendom. He said we were put on this Earth by god to have “domination” over it and to use it “for our benefit, not for the Earth’s benefit” (in regards to environmental issues/climate change). He says he doesn’t believe in global warming etc.

                        I could go on. The guys such a moron and is so offensive in so many ways. I agree with you completely how horrifying it is that he puts these kinds of messages out there and that there are actually people who vote for him. It would be an absolute disaster for America’s global reputation if somebody like that ever got into office.

                        I found the quote you were talking about, by the way;

                        “In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you're elderly and the bracelet is 'do not euthanize me.' Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, but half the people who are euthanized every year, and it's 10 percent of all deaths for the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don't go to the hospital, they go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, that they will not come out of that hospital if they go in with sickness.”

                        I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
                        Last edited by vampmogs; 16-03-12, 01:23 PM.
                        "The earth is doomed!" - Banner by Nina

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The guys such a moron and is so offensive in so many ways.
                          I'm sorry to say that and I hope I don't insult anyone in this forum, but that guy is not as moron. He's a lunatic. Morons are the ones that believe in him and placed him as a candidate. And since he's a candidate it means that there are many people who believe in a lunatic's words. Honestly sometimes I can't believe what's happening in the USA. Things in Europe are different. Yes there are some voices, but a person like that I don't think that it would ever be possible to make it to the candidates.

                          Banner by Moscow Watcher

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's the same here in Australia. Guys like him make all of our politicians look sane in comparison, and that's saying something. Just one of those quotes would probably be enough to put the final nail in a person's political career. I find it astounding he could have ever made it this far spewing the kind of rhetoric that he does.

                            I don't really know a lot about the other candidates. I guess I'll have to read up on them.
                            "The earth is doomed!" - Banner by Nina

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tangent View Post
                              Gingrich seems to be the idea guy in that he keeps coming up with ideas that sound kind of neat and a bit out there but have little to do with reality and Paul is just Paul. Same old Randian indidualist who would turn the country over to the corporations. Santorum is the really scary guy for me as he seems to want to set up some kind of theocracy and as a secularist I think we need more seperation of state and religion than that. In fact, and again I could be wrong, isn't that a requirement. that no religion is seen to be given preferential treatment?
                              Well, the term "separation of church and state" is far too often treated as meaning "the state is atheist", which would actually be an establishment of religion in and of itself. I don't think Santorum is a theocrat. I have yet to meet a Catholic or Christian theocrat in the US, although I'm sure they exist around the world. You've got the real thing in your country, Tangent, like al Masry -- to me the difference between him and a guy like Santorum is night and day even if you don't look at the substance of their beliefs.

                              You should have ended that there. All the idealogical stuff is not really that much of an issue becasue people have it tough and want that to end (besides which not evey one, not even all Amreicans care as much about 'rugged individualism') Defense ofthe free market is a non -issue in particular for me and would be an odd thing to choose to run on after the crash, OWS protests and growth in mistrust over big business.
                              I think individualism is essential to liberty and I think capitalism is essential to prosperity, and that it turned out the current administration actually thinks of both those -isms as intrinsically bad things. That alone is reason enough to want them gone for me and for many Americans.

                              Edited to add: One thing that the Repulicans do need to dfo is to sort their house out as quickly as possible . The longer this race goes on for the more dirty linen is being aired in public and the more bruises the eventual winner is going to go into the big fight with.
                              Taking the race to a convention is an extraordinarily bad idea, no matter how weak they perceive the President being. The last primaries are in June, which is when Obama himself secured his nomination. The convention is months later, and only two months before the election. That's a lot of campaign time to lose.

                              Originally posted by Nina View Post
                              But it's not loss of freedom since they don't take away anything with this law, they create a new choice for the people. The only person who can make the real decision if their life is worth living are the patients themselves. All the 'goverment' does is looking at the request and trying to see if the situation can be improved (some old people do a request because they feel like their life is completed, there are better ways to help these people.) or if there is suffering, no dignity and hopeless for any sort of recovery. (Like the last stages of cancer.)
                              What can I say? If you have an area of law that intrinsically gives state sanction to the idea that one person's life matters less than another's, liberty is necessarily wounded. It doesn't really matter -- the entire issue is unelectable in this country. While it may be a part of European culture, nobody in this country would get elected dogcatcher running on a platform of legalizing Euthanasia. It is what it is.

                              We're just too different in this area, for me freedom is to give everybody the same chances and the same choices despite gender, sexuality, color of the skin, class etc. And the chance for everybody to live a life with a certain amount of quality. And a healthcare system and an education system where everybody gets the same care and the same education is essential for that. Paying more taxes for these systems is not seen as loss of freedom around here.
                              I'm always wary of policy goals set around equal outcomes -- the only place government is ever going to be able to insure everybody gets the same healthcare or the same education or the same quality of housing or the same income or the same anything else is at the LCD of all. Equality in mediocrity is not a worthy goal to me. I read a brilliant and satirical book last year written by one of my favorites, Mark Steyn, called After America wherein he compares a letter written by Mary Ann Nichols, one of Jack the Ripper's victims, who was born in a slum 25 years before the Education Act in England and had no formal education at all, to writings by a state- and college-education sitting member of the Detroit school board. I'll actually check on reproducing that few paragraphs.
                              sigpic
                              Banner by LRae12

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X