Select a Candidate 2008

[magerette]

I was sent this questionnaire from a Midwest TV station's website which attempts to provide a list of candidates in the United States 2008 presidential race that reflects your own individual positions on various issues. It's pretty self explanatory, and short (only 11 questions) but it may surprise you to see your results. It states the questionnaire was developed using a tool from Minnesota Public Radio.

Anyway, for those interested, here's the link:

Select a Candidate 2008 (http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460)

[Asbjoern]

Marriage: Do you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?

Is this really an issue in USA?

It seems Chris Dodd is my man. I only disagreed with him on the Iraq issue. And ironically the candidate I got the lowest score with was also the only candidate I agreed with on the Iraq issue. Though that was the only thing we agreed on.

Oh, and by the way Magerette, you didn't mention anywhere that this thread is about the American election and I would just like to add as an European that the whole world doesn't revolve around America, so would you please slip the word "America" or "USA" in your post somewhere. :)

[curiously undead]

although i scored highest with Kucinich and zero with Fred Thompson, no one agreed with me on iraq, though i'm not sure i know what the right thing to do there is. also apparently Mc Cain is the only one i agree with on the energy policy. Biodiesel is not green people! and corn is not your friend;)

[txa1265]

Apparently I'm pretty scattershot since I had 5 people within 3 points at the top across both parties and all candidates were between 10 and 33%.

[Jaz]

If I was U.S. American, it would be a tie between donkeys Dennis Kucinich (never heard of the guy before) and Chris Dodd, with a score of 30 each; the first elephant on my list is Ron Paul (No. 6 with a score of 22), the next is Giuliani (No. 9). Elephant Thompson comes in last.

[Squeek]

Joe Biden on the left and Duncan Hunter on the right.

[VPeric]

I got some guy called Rudy Giuliani as my first pick, with a score of 40 (only disagreed on immigration), with Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton sharing second with 30.

Of course, not actually being an American, most of the issues were unimportant to me, which might've figured in the calculations somehow. :P

[Prime Junta]

Can't be all wrong, I hated both of Squeek's candidates.

Scores between 7 and 68; no surprises.

[magerette]

First I apologize for not indicating that this post concerned the U.S. 2008 presidential election. This was not because I felt the whole world revolves around America, but because I figured most Europeans and non-Americans were well enough informed on world issues to make the connection. So, no insult intended, rather a compliment if anything.:)

Also, I'm glad to see that Europeans are also taking the survey, just so they perhaps can get a little exposure to who's who on what, and also so those in the U.S. can see their positions and hear their thoughts. Thanks for that, all who've contributed so far.

That said, I agree that some of these issues are astonishingly petty to be used as part of an election platform for the highest office in this or any land. A lot of them got a check in the "this is unimportant" box from me.

My end results showed that the people I thought I agreed with scored the lowest(Ron Paul got a 6 and McCain a 13) and I also ended up with Guiliani (the mayor of New York during the 9-11 attack) on the top--a man with whom I thought I shared absolutely nothing politically. And like some of the rest here, the Iraq positions were quite a surprise to me, with NONE of the candidates appearing to favor an instant withdrawal from Iraq--which may be a good thing, but having heard Hillary proclaiming this from the podium I was somewhat surprised to find it isn't her actual policy.

While this is obviously no substitute for real research, it's a quick and dirty way to get a very general feeling for who stands where. I took the thing about a dozen times with different slants out of curiosity, and each time Obama, Clinton and Edwards, the 3 top Democrats or as Jaz so eloquently phrased it, donkeys ;) --were identical in score and policies plus or minus one item they each had a slightly different take on. Whereas the Republicans(elephants) are split in a dozen different directions.

What this means is anybody's guess, but it's interesting to play around with. :)

[Prime Junta]

My end results showed that the people I thought I agreed with scored the lowest(Ron Paul got a 6 and McCain a 13) and I also ended up with Guiliani (the mayor of New York during the 9-11 attack) on the top--a man with whom I thought I shared absolutely nothing politically.

Hee hee, that's what you get for judging them by appearances. ;)

Where I'm from, these types of questionnaires (only much more complex) are set up for every election, parliamentary, municipal, and presidential. There are about three or four of national importance; going through each of them with thought does give a good idea of who stands where. Also helps keep the focus on the issues rather than the personalities, which IMO is a Good Thing.

What I'd really like to see is a followup, though: a similar machine that tracked how each representative voted, and compared that to the profile they ran on. I suspect that pretty clear patterns would emerge, with some talking the talk but not walking the walk, some making compromises left and right but trying to maintain some kind of balance between what they want and what's possible, and some stubbornly voting according to their principles, never mind if it makes any difference or not.

I know which ones I'd support -- and that I'd be willing to give away a fair bit of agreement on policy for consistency in supporting it.

[dteowner]

Looks like Mitt (42) is my man, but I've got 5 more Republicans in the upper 30's. Joe Biden was the highest mule at 26. Barack and the Ice Queen are near the bottom of the list with 14's, which is probably pretty accurate.

[magerette]

I had some hits on Mitt as well. It was seeing That Woman come in at # 5 that scared me. :)


Hee hee, that's what you get for judging them by appearances. ;)

Oh definitely guilty as charged on that one. :blush:


What I'd really like to see is a followup, though: a similar machine that tracked how each representative voted, and compared that to the profile they ran on....

There's this site (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/) put together by the Washington Post which is almost too comprehensive, but it's useful for tracking purposes if you know what you're looking for.

[Lucky Day]

Ron Paul surprisingly was my top followed by Brownback and Fred Thompson. Guiliani was last on my list.

I was hoping I'd get Alan Keyes but he wasn't an option. ;)

[mudsling3]

Just my two cents
"Do you favor the concept of privatization of Social Security to any degree?"
Ron Paul's postion is to allow young people to get off Social Security(privatization), and cut oversea military spendings to cover people are or soon be on SS. However, that site wrongly indicated he is against privatization to any degree.

"Immigration: What is your position on immigration in the United States?"
Should have been stated as Illegal Immigration... IMO, The error is intentional as it appears on other publications to stir up all legal immigrants.

"Do you believe the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be made permanent?" This is the most tricky question.
A better statement would be "Do you think government has a right to collect income tax?"

Ron Paul is my top choice, no surprise. But I don't like those Republicans trailling so closely behind. Rudy got 35? NOT chance in HELL! Took two minutes to choose my President while took 5 to decide which Mc combo? I will pass on this one.

[txa1265]

Hee hee, that's what you get for judging them by appearances. ;)
I found that the questions were too generic to be particularly useful - asking vague questions on hotbutton issues doesn't really tell much.

[Corwin]

I got some dude called Duncan Hunter with a score of 28, but he had only one more agree than disagree. There were several at 26 and my lowest was 14. I wouldn't vote for any of them!! :)

[Jaz]

Where I'm from, these types of questionnaires (only much more complex) are set up for every election, parliamentary, municipal, and presidential. It started here a few years ago, too, and I always took the Wahl-o-mat surveys to know who I should vote for.

[Dez]

If I was an U.S citizen my top candiates would be Chriss Dodd and Dennis Kucinich (never heard of this guy btw).

[Prime Junta]

I found that the questions were too generic to be particularly useful - asking vague questions on hotbutton issues doesn't really tell much.

Well, they're a lot better than nothing. I thought the questions were actually pretty good, assuming your attention span only covers a dozen items. They did address a quite a few areas -- the role of the state in the economy, social services, social policy, foreign policy, and so on.

The American polity is very fractured -- there's no deep, wide consensus about even the basic rules of the playing field: how powerful should the central government be, what things fall under its competence, and so on. Musling's point is highly illustrative -- the US is the only country I know of where the very concept of income tax is considered a legitimate topic for debate rather than something that's been settled for generations.

[txa1265]

Well, they're a lot better than nothing.
Absolutely - but like many surveys there is a limited scope and as soon as you aren't a straight liberal/conservative you find the cracks in the questions - and just as often the bias of the questioner. (not saying that is the case here)
the US is the only country I know of where the very concept of income tax is considered a legitimate topic for debate rather than something that's been settled for generations.
I think that is a good thing, and probably derives from the way that funding government started here - and the fundamental 'we don't trust government' foundation.

[aries100]

I took the test and found that I agreed most with Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. (hardly a surprise, I would say ;) ). I disagreed most with Mike Huckabee (thought the huckabee's were some sort of children toys??) and Rudi Guiliani (hardly a surprise either, I would say...)

I agree with Dennis Kucinich about everything, except Iraq and with Barack and Hillary I only disagree about immigration and the abolishing of the death penalty.

I do however favort a timetable for the removal of the US troops, or alternatively that the US is over there as long as necessesary. I mean we started to war - now we need to help clean up our own mess...

In Denmark, we just had some tax cuts as well, and of course they'll be permanent although the oppostion of course is saying otherwise right now... As for immigration, (in the US), the illegal immigrants should be allowed to apply for US citizenship....

As I come from a a country with a universal health system, of course, I'm in favor of this. But don't kid yourself, having a uhs system do not make everything all right. What it should do is basically give everyone the right to free medical examinations and operations on public or state funded hospitals.

/aries100

[Dyne]

Dennis Kucinich first, with Chris Dodd second.
Interesting to note that they both disagree with me on Iraq. In fact the only ones who agree with me are Republicans.

I didn't know Barack Obama was for the death penalty. Between our political news over here and the odd watch of The Daily Show I thought he was a bit more of a fluffy nice guy.

[Dez]

Yup it suprised me too how many of the canditates support the death penalty

[curiously undead]

its to bad the poll didn't address this (see link) topic as clinton and obama are not the same on many things as the poll would have you believe. nuclear weapons--the biggest death penalty of them all!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071002/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc_4;_ylt=AvLjDhZiDlxlFDXVdlU16 e9kM3wV

dispite me not sharing many of obama's views hes still the best one of the job in my view.

[mudsling3]

an USA Daily article on Republican candidates, "Four Titanics and One Iceberg" :)
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=108345

[magerette]

its to bad the poll didn't address this (see link) topic as clinton and obama are not the same on many things as the poll would have you believe. nuclear weapons--the biggest death penalty of them all!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071002/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc_4;_ylt=AvLjDhZiDlxlFDXVdlU16 e9kM3wV

dispite me not sharing many of obama's views hes still the best one of the job in my view.

That's an interesting clip, c.u. It sounds like Obama is trying to get more specific and detailed about his goals and that's good. I like a great deal of what he has to say. Disarmament seems to have become less and less of a high profile issue since the end of the Cold War here, and I agree with you, it would make more sense and be a lot more relevant to find out about where the candidates are on this issue than how they feel about gay marriage. To me that's a media-made issue, while disarmament is unavoidably real.

Maybe you (or anyone) could clarify this one:

...Obama also said he would depoliticize U.S. intelligence services by making the head of intelligence a four-year appointment.

I would think that would make it more political, (i.e., in and out with the appointer and his party) not less. I must be missing something.


@mudsling3--Ron Paul was in the news with a "surprise" type story last night for raising more money than most of the other Republicans including several of the front runners.

[mudsling3]

5mils!!! with my little bit at the last minute :) 114% up from last quarter while Romney, Rudy and Mccain down significantly. hope this fits an exponential curve. I do feel the momentum shifting...my Meetup has double the number. Anyone drive on I15 between LA and Vegas? There will be a huge billboard 40 miles northeast of Bastow...just to let you know I will be painting a few square feet of that over the weekend.

[Squeek]

What a great spot to put it! It had better be big, though. People tend to drive pretty fast there!

[curiously undead]

here's another reason why he's my man.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21138728/?GT1=10450

[mudsling3]

Here is another definition of patriotism
"The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state."

watch the entire speech here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048&hl=en

[curiously undead]

good speech. i like a lot of what ron paul says and would probably vote for him over any one else. however i think its unrealistic to think that he would ever be elected and if there was an election between him and nader, he will still probably lose. unfortunately despite a persons views, beliefs, and goals you have to be a powerful speaker and leader to be president, even of something as simple as a occupational orginization. ron paul doesn't fit that bill, but its people like him that i think are destined to be vice president. honestly i almost wish there were vice president elections as it would be very interesting and possibly a boon to the country to have a democratic president and a republican vice-president.

[Zaleukos]

Giuliani (expected) first with a whooping 25, followed by Kucinich (who I know and dislike) at 21. I think the low scores come from me giving a lot of issues low weight.

Using more binary weights to the issues I got Giuliani 35, McCain 28, Biden and Kucinich 27. Funnily enough I only agree with McCain on four issues, but those were 4 out of the 5 ones that I gave max weight (taxes, gay marriage, not sponsoring the waste of corn that is bio-diesel, and privatising social security).

As a Liberal (Libertarian to Americans) I found that there was no agreeable option on some of the issues (Iraq and Immigration). Is it so suicidal for a politician to be against wasting money on border security today?

And what's the line-item thingamajing? A partial veto sounds like a bad idea, but there must be more to the issue than that...

[txa1265]

Is it so suicidal for a politician to be against wasting money on border security today?

Are you saying you disagree with the fundamental concept of a 'nation'?

[Zaleukos]

Are you saying you disagree with the fundamental concept of a 'nation'?

Nope, just that I dont believe that building a fence on the Mexican border is going to accomplish anything. EDIT: And that I dont think America became the richest and arguably most successful country on the planet by keeping people out:)

[txa1265]

Nope, just that I dont believe that building a fence on the Mexican border is going to accomplish anything. EDIT: And that I dont think America became the richest and arguably most successful country on the planet by keeping people out:)
But neither did it happen by rewarding law-breaking freeloaders ...

[Zaleukos]

Now you lost me. How are they they rewarded for law-breaking freeloading??? If entry into the country is the crime and the reward is a pardon to someone who does a menial job for peanuts then I have a hard time seeing how that is a problem, and rather contributing to the wealth of the nation than anything else.

But this is a bit off topic for the thread.

[dteowner]

The USA has a mechanism for legal immigration. It's a long, pain-in-the-butt process, but lots of folks go thru it every day. It's a slap in the face to the people that "do it by the book" to not address the millions of cheaters.

[Prime Junta]

Are you saying you disagree with the fundamental concept of a 'nation'?

What would be so weird about that? It's an invented concept. The nation-state as a concept is barely 200 years old. I believe it's on the way out, too.

[txa1265]

What would be so weird about that? It's an invented concept. The nation-state as a concept is barely 200 years old. I believe it's on the way out, too.

I asked it as an honest question because it would send the discussion in different directions. I don't view it as a weird notion, I find it much weirder to believe in a nation but not in defending borders. And I think we agree on the 'usefulness' of nation states ...

[Prime Junta]

When I first took the survey, I answered it as if I was an American -- that is, I picked the answers that I thought would be the best for America.

For kicks, I tried the opposite -- I picked the answers that I believe would be bad for America: how I would vote if I wanted to screw up the place.

It was interesting to notice that my anti-American least favorites were not my pro-American most favorites.

So, here's my take on Osama's favorite candidates:

(1) Duncan Hunter (score: 42)
(2) Fred Thompson (score: 42)
(3) Jim Gilmore (score: 41)

Bottom four (tied at 3 points each)
* Dennis Kucinich
* Chris Dodd
* John Edwards
* Bill Richardson

The major-headliners scored thus:
* Fred Thompson: 42
* John McCain: 35
* Ron Paul: 35
* Mitt Romney: 27
* Rudy Giuliani: 27
* Joe Biden: 10
* Barack Obama: 6
* Hillary Clinton: 6
* John Edwards: 3
* Dennis Kucinich: 3

So, the whimsical conclusion is that Osama endorses Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Ron Paul, and hates Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich.

That would make him a Republican. :)

[magerette]

And what's the line-item thingamajing? A partial veto sounds like a bad idea, but there must be more to the issue than that...


AFA the line item veto--and more informed persons, feel free to jump in--I think it represents a way to control "pork" spending. Here in the U.S., many bills are written to address one issue (say health care for children) that may be popular and seen as a "sure thing" to pass, then various individual legislative factions tack their their own little programs to it that may have nothing to do with the original purpose of the bill (much like hijacking a forum thread. ;) )but benefit them or their constituents in some way. To the best of my knowledge, a line item veto would allow the president to pick and choose which riders were allowed to pass with the bill.

It sounds like a good thing, but then again it could easily be misused by a president, and give the executive branch even more power.

@Prime Junta: I hope you're right, since I think one or another of Obama's hates will be our next president. :)

[Prime Junta]

It sounds like a good thing, but then again it could easily be misused by a president, and give the executive branch even more power.

That's it, exactly. For example, suppose a tax cut was tied to a reduction in corporate subsidies. The line-item veto could allow the Prez to approve the tax cut but veto the reduction. Not good.

[Prime Junta]

@Prime Junta: I hope you're right, since I think one or another of Obama's hates will be our next president. :)

Freudian slip, I wonder?

[magerette]

God I'm getting old!!!:blush:
OSAMA, that is. Course, for all we know, Obama could hate them, too.

[curiously undead]

our current president has already overstepped his authority in executive powers, giving a line-item veto would make the matters worse for any president. just because bush has only vetoed 4 items (including the horrid recent one) takes away from the fact that he has more "signing statements" than all prior presidents put together!

[Corwin]

What would happen if everyone decided to stay home and NOT vote??

[curiously undead]

lots of people do its called absentee ballots;)

it would never happen as it would end up being a pure setup to dissenfrance certain voters, much like in the last presidential election where african american heavy neighborhoods where sent mailings that said the election was on a different day. i think asking a question like that is useful only in the fact that if you got everyone to agree on doing one thing, it in itself would be a feat of humankind, but highly unlikely anytime soon.

[dteowner]

much like in the last presidential election where african american heavy neighborhoods where sent mailings that said the election was on a different day.Do you have any facts to back that up?

[curiously undead]

i pulled up a vast number of voter fraud and disinfrachment case, you should look up the term vote caging for some disturbing examples. but if you want a pretty solid factual case, read this read this opening statement by a mayland senator.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=2798&wit_id=6059

and if you feel like having your mind blown you could take a look at this site i found
http://vote2004.eriposte.com/

[dteowner]

Interesting. Certainly foul, but on the other hand if you're stupid enough to fall for that sort of thing I'm not sure you've got any business determining who's best to run our government anyway. Don't cry to me about the Constitution not requiring an IQ test to vote--I know that, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't.

[JemyM]

Equal between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton for me. I disagreed with them on Taxes and Line-Item Veto but I did not know what thoose questions were about so do not blame me for that.

Ron Paul 3rd last with 11 points.

[wynams]

Just as I would have guessed before I hit submit ... John Edwards

[mudsling3]

you have to be a powerful speaker and leader to be president, even of something as simple as a occupational orginization. ron paul doesn't fit that bill,.

I don't know how you get that impression. Ron Paul is the debater I've seen... honest and straight to the point. US President is only a commender-in-chief of armed forces by the Constitution - a very limited role. RP lives an examply life that speaks louder than any empty speech. He will protect personal liberty, doesn't want to run your life, the economic or the world. Anyone else telling you otherwise is either a madman or an idiot.

[curiously undead]

initials aren't the only thing ron paul and ross perot share in common. ross perot wasn't electable for many reasons one was his 'mousiness'. ron paul shares that same characteristic. its a not a written requirement, but some things just are no matter how shallow they are. people don't discuss them because they don't want to sound predujice but that's simply the way it is. with all the reality tv, etc. peoples important on everything shallow has only risen. it jesus was reborn as ron paul people wouldn't except him either, his voice, the way he looks, he doesn't have the right aura around him...humankind expects something out of their leaders despite how judgemental that is. if and when he becomes a contender i'm sure the media will find the equivalent of ross perots "can i finish" to make him seem even weaker.

[mudsling3]

Do I give a dime what others "think" of his appearance this second or the next? There are always sheeple looking for a german shepherd. It only matters what YOU as a free individual think of him...and decide on that.

[curiously undead]

its fine to believe in whoever you want, but you must be realistic when you're addressing the issues of electablity. its akin to the fact that there aren't to many overweight and acne covered models now or probably ever modeling for victoria secret of playboy. part of the job of a leader is appearance and oratory skills. i'm not making this up, and you should fight to get in office for who you believe in, but i wouldn't be putting your money or career on the hopes of ron paul. its nice to see different canadates getting attention as i'm all for the toppeling of the 2 party system. but ron paul is still a republican so his interest for me in him is nil. voting for him to me makes no statement at all, other than that there are good republicans out there. but i'm already aware of that. at least with nader or perot, you had the idea of trying to give other parties some power. also i'm fond of the colour green:)

[mudsling3]

You are funny, on the hand you are saying I am unrealistic about RP chance of getting elected, on the other you believe a third-party candidate would be able to generate enough buzz...or even toppeling the two party system. You can come straight out as a Demo without dancing around or to state all you had written so far is of your own personal opinions without ascribing them to "other people". I vote on issues, not on colors.

[curiously undead]

i can't really follow your last comment. how is it funny? what does electing ron paul have to with toppling a 2 party system. eventually if enough 3rd party canidates get attention over a long period of time then yes i see it changing, but thats not going to happen with any amount of buzz, or even a 'grass roots' effort. it takes a complete mind change of the country. the media however is the biggest obstacle for this and i can't see them letting up as they have to much to profit from it the way things are. a solid canidate who is electable is what i'm referring to. the matter of issues is a completely different subject. those matter to me as well which is why i'm with obama because more than anyone else i agree with his views an plans. i've never been registered democrat, and i was registered republican for a decade so you can think what you want. personally i dislike republicans more that democrats, but i don't ally with either. the green comment was a joke, but colour still has something of an emotion validity to whatever it represents. if there was a purple party it would be associated with the rich, and pink if was a gay party. i like green and the party because the environment is of high importance to me. this is one topic where republicans consistentaly scoff at so they get no love for me there. and obviously what i write is my own opinion but you not aknowledging that people expect certain standards and ron paul's demeanour is "physically" weak though he is a sharp, kind guy just as much as someone like cheney is "scary". a timid or scary person will never be elected. even names sometimes are simple enough to sway people. this is all psychology and its effect isn't disputable, only its magnitude. a neutral name is less likely to matter but in the case of gore and bush for example, a name like gore resonates much worsely in someones mind and president gore just has an unpleasant sound to it. whether or not anyone actually didn't vote for gore isn't the point. his name did help build a bad aura for him which when associated with his 'robot'ness made him all the more unappealing dispite his qualifications. obama might face some similar problems especially with all the efforts/slips calling him osama and the false statements that he trained at a muslim school. plenty of people know how to, and are working the psychological system, so its really up to you if you want to be aware of it or not.

[Corwin]

CU, could I make a simple suggestion. Please break a long post into smaller sections; it's MUCH easier to read. :)

[Ubereil]

And start sentences with capital letters! ;)

Übereil

[mudsling3]

I heard Eskimo people have 50 different expressions for snow. CU, if issues are most important to you, Why would you spend tons of words on those superficial stuff to the extand of dwelling on it. MSM might have an illusion of total contral, internet serves as a counter balance exposing their lies and prejudices. Without internet, RP would never have made it so far.

"eventually if enough 3rd party canidates get attention over a long period of time then yes i see it changing. but thats not going to happen with any amount of buzz, or even a 'grass roots' effort"

How do you achieve that quantum leap change without small incremental progress brought about by "grass roots" movement? Here is the fundamental - individual vs. collective. Things always happen on an individual level, this is what I share the common belief with RP. It is from this principle that RP's issues derive to maximize individual freedom, and limit state/collective control.

[curiously undead]

were in agreeance more than you think. i'm not saying that voting for ron paul isn't won't help the cause. but as you keep dodging he's not a 3rd party canidate. i'm saying that these individual efforts are important. but you also have to gamble well as enough lackluster 3rd party campaigns don't exactly help the cause either. the limiting state control however is one of conservatives oldest cards. sure cutting out the waste in bureacracy is good but it usally entails providing less services for those less well off, while at the same time cutting the riches taxes, and their companies. so the only way you are going to enlighten me about ron paul is by giving me quotes, links etc to show how those aren't characteristics of ron paul. i already know he is and advocate for individual liberties, but that's more a defensive stance, what i would like to see is what his gameplans are as i've yet to meet any one in person who is actually speaking about him with your or any level of excitment. i did see a banner above the freeway overpass yesterday with a 'google ron paul' sign. i'm glad the interent has helped ron paul. but i trust the internet far less than something from an actual person, as motives and instigators are easily concealed over the web. there has to be an average makeup of a ron paul supporter, do you know what that would be? obviously its going to be highly in accurate but something to go on is better than nothing, because anyone saying my canidate appeals to everyone, is a salesman, and not an honest one at that.

[mudsling3]

Here you are at it again. If a Democrate or a Republican can flip flop between the two parties, why is it so hard to accept a Libertarian to become a Republican? A tin foil hat is a tin foil hat, it is the issues that count! At this point in time, it is impossible for a third party candidate to breakthrough without having tons of cash. RP learned that lesson in 1988. His stand of limited constitutional federal government, non-interventionist foreign policy, no nation building...is in-line with the old right - Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, which was also promised by Dubya when he was running for first term. There are RP meetup groups everywhere, mine got 300+ members. Just search meetup.com. This just came in, may answer some question by the man himself
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx/?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=a497190c-7321-4562-9f85-41b16e955482&wa=wsignin1.0
and a good reference site
http://dailypaul.com/

check out the signs of I15 between La and Vegas
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/121/photos/

[The Hulk]

People may not believe it, but when I took the survey, Ron Paul came up as my top choice. McCain came in second(would never vote for him due to him being weak on illegal immigration and supporting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens), Giuliani was the 3rd on the list(would never vote for him either for the same reasons I wouldn't vote for McCain).

[skavenhorde]

My two top choices were Obama and Hillary with Dodd coming in a close third. My favorite canadite is Ron Paul though and according to this I don't agree with any of his positions except for Iraq, Social Security, Marriage and Line Item Veto.

My biggest position is Socialized Medicine. I've seen it work in Taiwan and talked to Canadians who say they never have to worry about Health Care because their government takes care of everything. So any canadite who takes that position I'm willing to vote for whether it's Republican or Democrat.

[mudsling3]

a good story, http://www.newsli.com/2007/12/06/presidential-candidate-ron-paul-bears-an-empty-pot-for-americans/

[Eliaures]

The "survey" was close to my real pick for a candidate. It chose Mike Gravel with Dennis Kucinich a close second for the Dems, while I really support Kucinich. For the "R's" which you'd have to drag me to the poles kicking and screaming to place my vote, it chose Ron Paul. I would actually support Paul if he weren't a little kooky like that other Texan I used to think I would support, Ross Perot. Ron Paul, Ross Perot, RP? Hmm, conspiracy theories abound. ;)

Ron Paul talks a good talk, but for those that have only seen him on Bill Maher and shows like that, he's a libertarian and is very much for a laissez faire economy. In my humble opinion, corporatocracy and privatization have been disasters for this economy, we don't need more of it.

[mudsling3]

The most convincing factor about RP for me is that he walks a good walk :) Eiliaures, so you like non-CFR canditates? You will find a lot of different opinions regarding laissez faire/free market econonmy results in corporatism, sorta like the Fed suppose to maintain the value of the dollar...couldn't be further from the truth. and check out "emergence". I just don't see where government got the right to run my life.

couple articles relating Pavlov with population control...conspiracy? maybe...But I do see these patterns in common interaction, interesting read
http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/241/214/

[Eliaures]

Well, unless you live in a cave, you are always going to have some one or some thing run your life. Even in a cave you're going to have to live at the whim of nature and what if some bear comes by and wants your cave? :)

That article sounds like it might be taking the line given by Naomi Klein in her book, The Shock Doctrine (http://www.naomiklein.org/main).

[Squeek]

This is a good example of the stuff that turns me off about Ron Paul. I don't know who the author is (the link says I'm unauthorized to find out, which is bizarre), but he's obviously paranoid.

[magerette]

You probably have to be a registered user to get off the main page, Squeek. Many sites do that to get their user count up. I didn't find the article excessively paranoid, but then I am open to the idea that government and media and persons of power in general have their own agendas which seldom involve showing the public their hands.

@Eliaures: Looks like a very interesting book. Thanks. *extracts booklist and adds title*

[mudsling3]

Squeek, RP has not touched that article or that site. but you want to turn off...understandable. best quote from RP," I endorse freedom, but not necessary what you do with your freedom".
Eli, it's one thing to follow one's principle, another thing to follow someone else's dictate. And don't pretend government is benevolent, if it's big enought to provide you with everything, it's powerful enough to take away everything. In addition, it's not econmically feasible in the long run. old USSRussia and China? or just look at our own SS or Medicare.

[curiously undead]

i agree but at least the goverments goal is suppose to be helping the people even if it fails miserabley. but what's worse than a large and bloated beuracracy is a large company/corporation. a corporation has none of the incentives to help people but are primarly profit driven and have none of the accountabilities/ that government agencies have. this is the main reason why i will most always never favour republicans over democrats.
goverment=bacteria
corporation=virus
plenty of unhealty bactierias out there but many are good for you.
the question to ask though is a virus ever good for you?

[mudsling3]

Somewhat agree, Virus=corporation+government=monopoly=corporatism= facism. Look at Department of Energy. In a true Free market economic, there can be consumer advocates not of government agency, Charity, Church hospitals(now replaced by County ones). Govenment can play an important role to ensure and protect Free Press/Speech to provide accurate feedback.
A bit off topic, always amazed by this Utube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dqibvh96Og So surreal yet REAL.

[Eliaures]

Maybe I misunderstand what a "true" Free Market is, but it's my understanding that basically everything that can be privatized, is privatized. The Chicago school of economics folks got to try this in the South American governments we managed to overthrow and it was a disaster for those economies.

The problem with letting private industry run the organizations that are needed for infrastructure and the general well being, is that the bottom line is their religion. As we see in the HMO fiasco, not only are costs to the consumer high but service is poor and many people are just flat left out.

I just don't understand this grab for everything by corporate America. I grasp it from a pure greed standpoint, but if they'd just look at the long term, how can it be in their best interest? If they have all the money, the CEO's and board members with those huge bonuses and stock options, and the middle class is wiped out, who is going to be buying whatever product they have to sell?

[Prime Junta]

Libertarianism (in any of its guises) is just as whacked-out as Marxism. Both have enormous flaws in their theories, and both have been demonstrated empirically to be disastrous.

There are very good reasons why all successful and stable economies and states, without exception, have a system of politically regulated market economies and publicly maintained basic infrastructure.

[mudsling3]

Before I saw the utube, I can never imagin that traffic can flow such as that without traffic lights or cops directing. Libertarianism, Marxism is a bit too broad/abstract topic. I would like to raise the topic of monetary system here in the states. The Fed, a private multi-national banking cartel has the monopoly on printing paper currency. This would never come into existance without co-op within the US government. It can lower or raise interest rates at its will, which has proven to be the cause of current collapse of subprime housing market. Money is the building block of every conceivable economic activity, and there is nothing more basic or more important. Yet gold emerges as a basic unit of currency in various regions/cultrues throughout the world WITHOUT any political/willful interference. My point is, beside the obvious political power, there are other forces at play...suck as supply and demand of the market. Next year, minimum wage is going up to $8/hr here thanks to some "generous" politicians thinking that they can just add value like passing a law.

a good book on Fed, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin

[Prime Junta]

No offense, mudsling, but a lot of that was pure nonsense.

(1) Traffic: it certainly can flow without cops or traffic lights. I've driven in Lebanon a fair bit, and it's entirely possible. It's also much less efficient and much more dangerous than in a system that has traffic regulations, traffic lights, and cops enforcing them.

(2) If interest rates played into the sub-prime crisis, they were at most a peripheral factor. The real causes lay elsewhere.

(3) The gold standard looks good on paper at least if you're not at all clued in about economics, but there are very, very good reasons why it's no longer in use in *any* developed economy. It's like putting concrete tires on a car to prevent speeding -- yeah, it works, but there are other ways to prevent or discourage speeding that work far better; they're just slightly more complicated.

IOW, any economy that would adopt the gold standard today would be severely handicapped when competing with economies that (a) don't and (b) do practice a responsible fiscal policy. Sort of like any driver in a car with concrete tires will be at a severe disadvantage compared to drivers with regular tires that also drive responsibly.

Demanding a gold standard is admitting defeat -- that your country is no longer capable of driving responsibly and needs the concrete tires to prevent it from getting killed in a crash.

[txa1265]

(1) Traffic: it certainly can flow without cops or traffic lights. I've driven in Lebanon a fair bit, and it's entirely possible. It's also much less efficient and much more dangerous than in a system that has traffic regulations, traffic lights, and cops enforcing them.

I have always loved that analogy ... and think that it can be extended. A traffic system that is regulated by a highly researched automated flow system is much more efficient on a large scale than one regulated by a cop at an intersection who can only see a short distance. But that system needs the knowledge of having cops who regulate it to maintain compliance and honesty.

[Prime Junta]

And even that can be automated. I got my first ever speeding ticket last summer. It was in France, and the entire process was completely automated. I got a ticket in the mail stating that I had been clocked driving 110 km/h (103 km/h after "technical margin") in a 100 km/h zone. I then surfed to the website in the ticket and paid the 47 euro fine with my credit card. No human interaction whatsoever.

It also worked. I am now super-careful at not exceeding the speed limit in France wherever there's a "Controle automatique" or "Controles de radar frequents" sign. Speed limits are a bit flexible there, but it seems those tags are the equivalent of [(we mean it!)]

[txa1265]

And even that can be automated.
Absolutely - there are traffic-signal cameras here that tag people going through red-lights and automated speeding tracking cameras and so on.

The great thing about those is that they are naturally unbiased ... you don't get an extra fine for being the wrong color or get out of all offenses by being blond ;)

[mudsling3]

My whole point is that: without political central planning, things would not turn into chaos as your leaders claim. There are more fundamental laws at play. You are right that I don't have the indepth knowledge...but something have to make sense to me. I am talking about the situation here in the US, where collapse of Saving and Loans, Enron, Subprime housing... happen chronically, and they were the brightest, fastest running cars before slamming into a dead end. It never make sense to print money on demand or increase car speed indefinitely. I think it's a time to put a collar to restrait the beast until it become like what you said "responsible".

RP would end the monopoly of the Federal Reserve by legalizing competting currencies back by gold or silver. Let the market/consumers decide.

I will dread the day when a security camera on every 10 yards to ensure ourt security.

[Prime Junta]

My whole point is that: without political central planning, things would not turn into chaos as your leaders claim.

And you know this because... Ron Paul says so?

Then how come there are no successful anarcho-capitalist/libertarian societies in existence today? There were, you know, but they all lost out to other social models.

There are more fundamental laws at play.

Are there? If so, what would these laws be, and what evidence can you present for them?

You are right that I don't have the indepth knowledge...

...so you parrot what your leader -- Ron Paul -- tells you instead.

but something have to make sense to me. I am talking about the situation here in the US, where collapse of Saving and Loans, Enron, Subprime housing... happen chronically, and they were the brightest, fastest running cars before slamming into a dead end.

Indeed. And there are very good reasons *why* this rash of economic chaos hit just now, and not 10, 20, 30, or 50 years ago. Just like there were good reasons for the economic chaos following the 1929 stock market crash. In fact, many of the reasons are *the same*.

And just like there are good and perfectly understandable reasons for the spectacular American economic success story that started with the New Deal and ended with George W. Bush -- the 1970's hiccup notwithstanding.

And they're nothing like what the libertarians would have you believe.

It never make sense to print money on demand or increase car speed indefinitely. I think it's a time to put a collar to restrait the beast until it become like what you said "responsible".

Of course not. That's what a rational fiscal policy and traffic regulations are for.

RP would end the monopoly of the Federal Reserve by legalizing competting currencies back by gold or silver. Let the market/consumers decide.

Which is a completely bone-headed non-solution.

I will dread the day when a security camera on every 10 yards to ensure ourt security.

That day has already arrived in lots of places. And, of course, it has nothing to do with fiscal policy, the gold standard, or fiat currencies.

[curiously undead]

actually those red light meters are flawed as well. and when you try to fight it in court you get a robotic response from the 'technician' and you're screwed. it doesn't matter if its right off a freeway onramp where your speed is much higher and the need to have more time to stop is greater. also when the right lane has two car lengths of space less to stop than the 3rd lane on the left i'd call that descrimination to people who drive in the slow lane when they get the same amount of yellow light.

yet i can hardly complain dispite the unfairness if its saved even one life...

[Prime Junta]

Frankly, I don't think it can be *that* unfair. I do drive a fair bit, I know lots of people who drive way more, and I do not know *anyone* who got an automated speeding ticket without actually, y'know, speeding.

(Of course, there are plenty of people who got tickets for what feels like a really insignificant infraction -- 3 km/h in my case, ferchrissake -- but I have little doubt that I *was* in fact speeding, even if I may not have been aware of it at the time. I know I would've been seriously pissed off if I had been ticketed by a cop; the fact that it was a machine sort of made it better: the rules are strict but they're the same for everyone.)

[mudsling3]

How about it has to do with "big brother" watching, planning, deciding what better for average people. Beside using "whacked-out","bonehead", "concrete tire", I have yet seen any real substance in your argument. The closest example of anacho-capitalist is Switzerland, yep RP mentioned that name as well.

[Prime Junta]

How about it has to do with "big brother" watching, planning, deciding what better for average people. Beside using "whacked-out","bonehead", "concrete tire", I have yet seen any real substance in your argument.

I wonder, is that because there is no substance there, or that you're so blinded by your faith in Pope Ron Paul I that you're not able to see it?

The closest example of anacho-capitalist is Switzerland, yep RP mentioned that name as well.

If you actually knew anything about how Switzerland works, you would realize how absolutely laughable that statement is.

For example, the income tax rate caps at 45.5% for a tax revenue of 30% of GDP, the country has the world's most highly subsidized agriculture (for 14 bn SF this year), and it has universal, socially paid health care (and is #2 in health care spending per capita in the world, after the USA). The fact that they take a plebiscite to name every St. Bernhard in the country doesn't make it anarcho-capitalist. Hell, "anarcho-syndicalist" would even describe it better, except that it's probably the least anarchistic place on this green planet.

Oh, and their system works, rather well as political/social systems go. But by American standards, it's stark staring socialism.

[magerette]

Not to derail the Ron Paul discussion, but I saw this yesterday and rather than start a thread for it, thought it might wedge itself in here amidst the political wrangling. It's a little article about a new video game based on the 2008 candidate conflicts called DC Smackdown (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_hi_te/techbit_dc_smackdown). It features some novel gameplay:

The game has eight levels — the first six randomly generated from the list of characters and the last two involving combat between former Vice President Al Gore and President George W. Bush.

Bush's special attack is "nuclear" — with his signature pronunciation — while Gore's is global warming. Gore has a "CO2 fart attack," while Bush has a Karl Rove attack. Dressed like the grim reaper, Rove passes through and steals the opponent's soul

Really, as I've said before, you just can't make this stuff up.

[curiously undead]

that's so worth five bucks!
thanks magerette.

edit: it was worth the five bucks.

played as jon stewart though i don't understand why buddha is his special weapon/finishing move? made it through to the next to last round and lost to gore (global warming is just to powerful;)) but apparently you can continue so i won the next time and then finished the last round against bush. i think it was about 8 matches each which is won by winning 2 rounds. each of the players has there own 'home field' which is really hilarious at times. there were a bunch of really good quotes that scrolled at the end of the game. i highly recommend it.

here's an image of guiliani's 'home field'
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o44/mjfossum/giuliani.jpg

[Eliaures]

I was kinda partial to the "glow in the dark" cats. I saw that on Countdown and thought it was hilarious.

I suppose Hillary's special attack is Bill charming the pants off some intern?

[magerette]

Glad to see you guys enjoyed it. I watched a bit of the demo footage--I can't exactly tell what Hillary was throwing-(-it looked like a cross between a giant roll-on deodorant and a trash can)but Guiliani summoning the foot of the statue of liberty to step on her was cosmic. :)

Also cool the site has a 'register to vote' link. It can be confusing to find a way to do that sometimes.

[curiously undead]

actually she hurls a bottle of prescription drugs and says in a male doing a female voice "prescription for destruction" wheras guilinain "tosses a ho"
her 'super move' is an 'intern trample' where a herd of monica lewinskys mows down the opponent followed by bill with his pants down around his ankles chasing them.

[Zaleukos]

Ron Paul would make a disastrous president due to his foreign policy alone. He wants to go back to some sort unilateralism/isolationism that reactionaries think were reality prior to FDR.

That is a recipe for disaster even discounting the fact that much more can be accomplished in the rest of the world with the US on board as a constructive player. As soon as a crisis hits we'll get another case of a president without a clear idea of, or any proper plan for, international policy. A bit like Bush at 9/11, but many times worse since RPs isolationism is a lot more extreme.

Not a recipe for success. As much as I dislike social democrats and like classical liberals the world would be better off with an Obama or even a Kucinich presidency...

[Zaleukos]

How about it has to do with "big brother" watching, planning, deciding what better for average people. Beside using "whacked-out","bonehead", "concrete tire", I have yet seen any real substance in your argument. The closest example of anacho-capitalist is Switzerland, yep RP mentioned that name as well.

Big Brother tendencies are in deed problematic, but is there no other option than Ron Paul for those who dislike such measures?

[mudsling3]

PJ, here are a few utube videos in which RP expresses his liking of Switzerland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MB_rmUgH5o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYUvqJ1Od_k

No need to go out of the States to find laissez-fair capitalism, just be one of the small/medium size business...live and die on your own. I just don't see where government got the right to steal money from one group and give it to another.
a simple math in Freemarket vs. subsidy
Freemarket: Price paid by consumer = Actual price
Statist: Price paid by consumer = Actual price - subsidy,
where there is a hidden cost of Tax = subsidy + cost of bureaucracy. It shows that consumers have to shoulder the addition cost of bureaucrazy.

PJ, if you are such believer of cental planning, where do you stop? EU? How about globalism planning?

Zal, are seriously can't disdingrish the difference between Non-intervention and isolation? Classic liberal such as Thomas Jefferson said,"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none", Ron Paul express the same desire in his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship Robert Taft is the name RP mention often. I think you miss the mark. RP just want to bring the guns home and stated that the true isolationists are those who employ military interventionism since Truman or Wilson. Are those classic democrates :)

I heard no one else mentioning limited constitutional government, states' right. Kucinich is a guy with integrity, but want to set up a cabinet level federal agency for peace? Why do we have to spend tax payers money for this? RP would pull money out of his own pocket to cover the cost that peace medal to Mother Teresa. Why can't Dennis and his wife set up a .ORG?

[Prime Junta]

PJ, here are a few utube videos in which RP expresses his liking of Switzerland.

Which is rather ironic, considering that other than the bit about the plebiscites, Switzerland is a typical high-tax, high-social-services European welfare state -- just about as far as you can get from the libertarian ideal without going Communist.

Incidentally, it also has the world's highest cost of living.

No need to go out of the States to find laissez-fair capitalism,

The US doesn't have laissez-faire capitalism. The US hasn't had it in a hundred years or so. Neither has any other developed economy. It proved not to be a viable social/economic model and evolved into what we have now -- politically regulated market economies.


just be one of the small/medium size business...live and die on your own. I just don't see where government got the right to steal money from one group and give it to another.

The government got the right from us -- the people who elected them. Given a choice between no taxes and no services and some taxes and pretty good services, the vast majority of people picked some taxes and pretty good services.

a simple math in Freemarket vs. subsidy
Freemarket: Price paid by consumer = Actual price
Statist: Price paid by consumer = Actual price - subsidy,
where there is a hidden cost of Tax = subsidy + cost of bureaucracy. It shows that consumers have to shoulder the addition cost of bureaucrazy.

That's right. Perhaps you should go discuss it with the Swiss? After all, they have the world's most heavily subsidized agriculture -- and the highest cost of living.

The funny thing is, they *like* it that way.

PJ, if you are such believer of cental planning, where do you stop? EU? How about globalism planning?

@mudsling, I'm not "such a believer of central planning." I'm the strange creature called a "moderate." That means that I believe the best-functioning economies and societies are neither purely laissez-faire nor purely centrally planned; that they're found somewhere in the vast middle ground between the two.

Thing is, I have evidence for this belief. Namely, the incontrovertible fact that all of the world's successful, stable economies, without exception, are such mixes. I can also give theoretical reasons why this is the case, but I happen to believe that observed facts should go first -- not abstract theories of how the facts "should" be.

[Zaleukos]

Zal, are seriously can't disdingrish the difference between Non-intervention and isolation? Classic liberal such as Thomas Jefferson said,"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none", Ron Paul express the same desire in his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship Robert Taft is the name RP mention often. I think you miss the mark. RP just want to bring the guns home and stated that the true isolationists are those who employ military interventionism since Truman or Wilson. Are those classic democrates :)

I might read you wrong, but this does sound like nostalgia for pre-WW2 "isolationism".

Obviously non-interventionism and isolationism arent equivalent terms (and on Iraq I definitely think RP talks the talk, but that pointless war is NOT a typical foreign policy issue and would not have happened under any other president), but that's not the issue. The US needs to have the mechanisms in place to act if something happens that threatens it's interests (who I happen to think largely coincide with those of the rest of the western world). And even though the US got huge resources it will get much more than if bringing others on board. Thus I think that "entangling alliances" are necessary, both to better project soft power and prevent shit from happening, and so that one has the framework to work with when the shit hits the fan. And the shit will hit the fan, in some way or another.

But most importantly you need a framework for getting all the everyday stuffs that make us rich (such as international trade) work. The US economy doesnt stop at the borders today.

Unfortunately I dont have Paul's book, and his website is sparse in facts on foreign policy. Could you outline his ideas regarding NATO and NAFTA as a basis for further discussion? :) I somehow got the idea that Paul wanted to pull out of the latter.

[Squeek]

For one reason or another Ron Paul's supporters sometimes do a poor job explaining his views. So it's best to go directly to the source (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/government-think-people-1946527-don-war). He's probably going to get my vote.

This column isn't on Stossel's Web page yet but will surely make it there eventually. This local link probably won't work after a few days.

[mudsling3]

Zal, check out this critic on Nafta by none other than Hillary :) on Utube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRvJ-o30Sk8

RP want to get out of WTO, IMF, Nafta, Cafta, which he consider as managed trade control by special corporate interest.

Like squeek said, the finger that points to the Moon can't be mistaken for the Moon itself :) You can watch that entire interview here, it's unfortunate that it won't be shown on ABC 20/20
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970818&page=1

And this Sunday RP will be on Meet the Press with Tim Russet
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/

[Zaleukos]

How did you get the idea that I care much for Hillary?:) I'm a European liberal (eg pro civil liberties and against economic regulation, making RP a somewhat interesting fellow to follow).

Youtube clips wont do much for me given that I dont have sound on this PC:( Is Hillary using a traditional leftist/protectionist criticism of free trade a la "they are taking our jobs", "social dumping", etc? If so then then that is another reason to be sceptical of her, albeit an unsurprising one. "Unionists" and big government conservatives both tend to fall into that trap.

RP want to get out of WTO, IMF, Nafta, Cafta, which he consider as managed trade control by special corporate interest.

This is my issue with RP. I sympathise with his goals, but my interpretation of bodies such as these is completely different in that I see them as a tool to create a transparent, large, and even playing field for both companies and individuals, albeit imperfect ones. Without an international agreement upon the rules countries would be free to arbitrarily raise barriers to trade. In practice that leads to a situation where the big, "special corporate interests", have a much bigger leverage due to their resources, which would be detrimental to both individuals, small businesses, and the dynamism of the economy as a whole.

I'm off to xmas holidays in the deep forests now, any further comments will have to wait for two weeks:)

[Prime Junta]

There's the rub: the libertarian ideal of minimal government ends up with political power abdicating, which leaves power up for grabs -- meaning, economic (corporate) power will step up to fill the vacuum.

The function of political power is to counterbalance economic power, and the function of democracy is to keep political power clean. The answer to a corrupt and dysfunctional democracy is not to abolish the state; it's to clean up the democracy. Reasonably non-corrupt, stable, and well-functioning democracies do exist -- Switzerland, for example. That's what you should be working on, not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[skavenhorde]

Chris Dodd is the only one out of all of them that would have my vote just for the simple fact that he actually left the "campaign trail" to do his job. He helped stall the FISA bill with Teleco immunity. The fight isn't over but Obama, Hillary and Edwards were too busy pressing the flesh to come back and do something real instead of just talking about how they want to change the government.

I have no opinion on the Republican side other than I hope they nominate Guilani. It will make electing a Democrat president much easier.

[magerette]

Stumbled across this little article (http://www.atomicgamer.com/newsFeed.php?id=181822) about Hillary Clinton's position on the evils of videogames, and while there are some arguments in there I don't totally disagree with, the methods she proposes seem a bit draconian.

If anyone isn't aware that she is very much into legislative control of the media, this provides some quotes:

Here is CSM’s[CommonSenseMedia's] question on the topic of video game legislation, posed to Clinton and other responding candidates:

To date, nearly 10 states have considered legislation to keep violent video games out of kids’ hands. Would you support this type of legislation at the federal level? What other strategies would you support to keep the video game industry and other media companies from marketing and selling inappropriate content to children?

Here is Sen. Clinton’s response:

When I introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act [FEPA] two years ago, I did so because I felt that video game content was getting increasingly violent and sexually explicit, yet young people were able to purchase these games with relative ease while their parents were struggling to keep up with being informed about the content.

Sen. Clinton describes what FEPA would have mandated, had it passed:

On-site store managers would be subject to a fine of $1,000 or 100 hours of community service for the first offense and $5,000 or 500 hours of community service for each subsequent offense.

The bill would also require an annual, independent analysis of game ratings and require the FTC to conduct an investigation to determine whether hidden sexual content like what was in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a pervasive problem and to take appropriate action…

Finally, the bill would authorize the FTC to conduct an annual, random audit of retailers to monitor enforcement and report the findings to Congress.

FEPA was prompted by the Hot Coffee scandal, said Clinton:

I was motivated to take action when I found out that there was embedded illicit sexual content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The [ESRB] was unaware of the embedded content. I called on the FTC to investigate the source of the content and, as a result, the company issued a recall of the game.

When I am president, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content.

Sen. Clinton described for CSM her biggest concern about media as a parent:

Research has shown that violent and sexually explicit media contribute to aggressive behavior, early sexual experimentation, obesity, and depression.

Whenever I meet young parents… they tell me that they are worried about losing control over the raising of their own children and about ceding the responsibility of implicating values and behaviors to a multi-dimensional media marketplace over which they have no control…

Studies have found that exposure to TV violence can increase the risk of aggressive behavior in children and may be related to attention problems later in life. And some experts say that time spent watching too much TV or surfing the Internet or playing video games may detract from the time children spend interacting with their parents, participating in physical activity, or using their imaginations.

[Zaleukos]

One last post before boarding the train:)

I really despise feel good censorship, regardless of it is of games, movies, or music. But I get the feeling that politicians on both sides feel that it is a harmless way to attract both conservative moralists and soccer moms in one go. We've largely gotten rid of the old nanny statist censorship enthusiasts, and I hope that the US also one day will have politicians who say that "the parents know more about what's good for the kids than we do". Acknowledge that the voters have grown up...

And PJ: Yeah, finding a workable system is about striking a balance where the government interference that does exist cause as little damage as possible. I think that almost all electable parties in developed democracies have realised this, and that the difference of opinion rather is over just where the sweet spot is. But since the entire mainstream accept the same paradigm voters are bound to find outsiders "refreshing"...

[magerette]

One last post before boarding the train:)

I really despise feel good censorship, regardless of it is of games, movies, or music. But I get the feeling that politicians on both sides feel that it is a harmless way to attract both conservative moralists and soccer moms in one go. We've largely gotten rid of the old nanny statist censorship enthusiasts, and I hope that the US also one day will have politicians who say that "the parents know more about what's good for the kids than we do". Acknowledge that the voters have grown up...


Well said. I find the attitude very patronizing actually "We know you don't have time (due to your really busy and important life) to interact with your kids, so we'll just take all the nasty games off the shelf for you. "--and in the process fund another huge bureaucracy and provide income for litigators in every state court system....but then we know how I feel about the Hill. :)

Have a great holiday in the woods, Zaleukos. :)

[skavenhorde]

Ok Magerette, You just scared the crap out of this little rat. I had no idea she was into a "big sister" approach to video games. The government defintaly does not always know what is best for me or for my kids (if I had any :)) Whatever happened to smaller government? Didn't Regean prove that it can work or am I missing something? I still like Dodd because at least he does what he says he'll do.

Well, I think I'll just keep my little rat butt as far away from the US until it figures out what it wants to be. Does it want to be The Home of the Free and the Brave or does it want Orwell's darkest nightmare?

[skavenhorde]

There seemed to be a lot of talk about Ron Paul. For those interested he was on Meet the press and defends himself when asking for special projects even though he hates federal spending and "earmarks."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22379734/

[mudsling3]

@Zal, I made no assumption of the sort... Hillary just admit that Nafta was a failure, that all...since her hub and Al Gore were gungho for it. The irony :) Have a good one, everyone. till Wednesday.

[curiously undead]

nafta was a wetdream of the republican party (bush sr. and company).
most of the 'left' central/south american governments and their peoples don't like nafta either.

and i'm with prime junta.
any liberatarion is either nieve or lying to someone because the myth of 'small government' being effective is just an open hole that will be filled by the corporations of the rich. a small government can be effective as long as it is efficient, but if it is stripped of the power it needs than it might as well not be there at all.

when there is lots of 'war' spending it is inevitable that other social programs get cut. programs that have spent years building up their effectiveness and instead of being pruned with care along comes a huge cut that cleaves off half the tree and that program will probably struggle years before it can be effective again and that is only if it is not continually subjected to 'cuts' each year.

the state of the economy isn't entirely bush's fault and some recession was probably inevitable, but another republican president now would most likely doom this country to a 2nd great depression which probably wouldn't bother the rich at all as they would profit quite nicely. though their greed would eventually come back to haunt them as within a decade or so a fresh wave of new deals would arrive and maybe future generations would finally start to have a chance again.

a world with so much talent.
its people with so few fruits
of their labours.

[Prime Junta]

the state of the economy isn't entirely bush's fault and some recession was probably inevitable, but another republican president now would most likely doom this country to a 2nd great depression which probably wouldn't bother the rich at all as they would profit quite nicely.

There's not much anyone can do about the trade cycle, that's for sure. However, the housing bubble was very much a political invention. It would not have been difficult for Greenspan & co to stop it from inflating; in fact, a quite a few economists were screaming bloody murder as the ratio between real estate prices and rents diverged (i.e., the bubble inflated).

The single greatest cause was the Fed's refusal to regulate sub-prime lending, encouraging "financial innovation" instead. This, in an environment that rewards bankers and CEO's short-terms success with huge bonuses, while having virtually no punishments for failure (witness the "golden parachutes" amounting to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars for CEO's getting fired from companies in flames). The consequence was out-of-control "predatory lending" -- bankers selling money to people who (a) couldn't afford it and (b) weren't sophisticated enough to understand the terms of the loans.

With so much money on the real estate market, prices inflated just as certainly as a balloon inflates when you pump air into it. Works great until... it pops.

Why did the Fed refuse to regulate? For ideological reasons. Greenspan is an Objectivist -- a libertarian -- who believes that all regulation is bad. (Well, believed -- he is calling for a government bailout now.)

What's the Bush administration's role in this? At least as big as the Fed's. The Fed regulates, but the administration and Congress determines what it regulates. And the White House did all it could to stop anyone from trying to keep corporate power in control, let alone even give a peep about regulating anything.

Lessons learned?

(1) Market outcomes are optimal only when all the costs are factored in. (In this case, long-term costs did not figure into the market outcomes, due to the huge-reward/no-risk system in place for executives.)

(2) Market outcomes are optimal only when information asymmetry is minimized. (In this case, the opposite was true: the banker knew what he was selling to the lender, but the lender often didn't and was, essentially, cheated.)

So there you go: 2008 will suck real hard for America -- and the rest of the world will see exactly how important the US economy still is globally. (My guess is... not as important as many people fear. But I could well be wrong.)

[mudsling3]

The only thing Greenspan refuses to control is the money press and keep it from running rampant...just look at the dollar value decline under his reign. There are so called "pro-war Liberitarian"...So, I don't think PJ is doing a smear on RP connection with the Libertarians:) The whole central banking system is a scam...FDIC etc... Subprime, These blood suckers know the Fed and Federal Government would step in and bail them out and pass the cost to the taxpayers. PJ, check out this article, something sounds familiar? http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson205.html Let live and die just like the rest of small business. NO ONE but RP challenges the FED on capital hill.

The day Greenspan stepped on to become the FED chair...he already betrayed whatever he believed in and became a growing part of statism. Can you believe he was a gold advocate and against Statism/inflation. http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

@PJ, I hope you see this contradition, on the one hand wants a more elastic currency to accomemdate rapid economic growth, on the other favors high taxes. Just more paper money. Anyone know that we as the tax payers have to pay interest to the FED for every single dollar that is printed?

@CD, I don't think you are so naive as to believe that government grows in a vacuum. Money is power, and power is money when the Fed Government is deeply involved in every facet of our daily living. DC is virtually under control of lobbyists. Reducing the current Government size is actually would reduce corporatism control...I hope you would at the least see that as a possiblity. Bill Gates donates billions to charity not because he was forced by IRS agents with guns. Market is a sort of living organism... Feedback is a force to reckon with when Corporatism mask is peeled off.

[Prime Junta]

The only thing Greenspan refuses to control is the money press and keep it from running rampant...just look at the dollar value decline under his reign.

If you believe that "the money press" is the only (or even the main) cause of the drop in the value of the dollar, you're mistaken. Again.

There are so called "pro-war Liberitarian"...So, I don't think PJ is doing a smear on RP connection with the Libertarians:) The whole central banking system is a scam...FDIC etc... Subprime, These blood suckers know the Fed and Federal Government would step in and bail them out and pass the cost to the taxpayers. Let live and die just like the rest of small business. NO ONE but RP challenges the FED on capital hill.

No, mudsling, that's not it either. The "blood suckers" knew that they, personally, would be fine no matter what happened to their banks... *and* I'm pretty sure most of them genuinely believed the "there is no bubble" Jedi mind trick pulled by Greenspan and others. People are really good at believing what they want to believe. You yourself have managed to demonstrate this marvelously with most of your postings.

The day Greenspan stepped on to become the FED chair...he already betrayed whatever he believed in and became a growing part of statism. Can you believe he was a gold advocate and against Statism/inflation. http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

@PJ, I hope you see this contradition, on the one hand wants a more elastic currency to accomemdate rapid economic growth, on the other favors high taxes. Just more paper money. Anyone know that we as the tax payers have to pay interest to the FED for every single dollar that is printed?

You know, mudsling... I used to know, and still know, a quite a few deeply committed Marxist-Leninists. You sound exactly like them, with the trivial difference that your party line is a bit different.

@CD, I don't think you are so naive as to believe that government grows in a vacuum. Money is power, and power is money when the Fed Government is deeply involved in every facet of our daily living. DC is virtually under control of lobbyists. Reducing the current Government size is actually would reduce corporatism control...I hope you would at the least see that as a possiblity. Bill Gates donates billions to charity not because he was forced by IRS agents with guns. Market is a sort of living organism... Feedback is a force to reckon with when Corporatism mask is peeled off.

Do you know what's the central problem with the libertarian screed that "market forces will solve everything?" Other than that it fails empirically, that is.

I'll give you a hint: a guy called Karl Marx pointed it out a quite a while ago.

You still don't know?

OK, it's this: left to itself, the free market will tend to concentrate wealth.

Concentrated wealth equals concentrated power, which will then use this power to entrench itself in social/political structures. Any system based on pure free-market capitalism will lead to a seizure of the political apparatus by concentrated, corporate wealth.

Marx's proposed cure (socializing the means of production by means of a revolution by the proletariat) was arguably worse than the disease. (I say "arguably," because I have some idea of the living hell that was the lot of the factory laborer in 19th century laissez-faire capitalism; as bad as life was in Stalin's Russia in the 1930's, you can make the case that for most people on average it wasn't quite as bad.)

However, his diagnosis of the disease was perceptive, and still stands. The interesting thing is that since Marx, we have discovered ways of counteracting this effect of the market. Namely, democracy, which empowers citizens equally regardless of their wealth, yielding a political system that redistributes wealth down the ladder, through taxation and social services.

America pioneered this with the New Deal -- which led to an unprecedented explosion of productivity, wealth, prosperity, and power, that lasted until the late 1960's at least. America was also the first to start dismantling it somewhere around the 1970's -- and sure enough, we're again seeing corporate control of government, robber barons, predatory lending, concentration of wealth, shrinking of the middle class, and a general drying-up of the American dream of having your children do better than yourself. Just like in the Roaring Twenties, that is.

Anyone who believes that the solution to problems caused by dismantling the New Deal is further dismantling of the New Deal is either a hopeless fool, someone completely blinded by ideology, or a sheep following a charismatic snake-oil salesman who may or may not be buying his own snake-oil. And if you believe that America's ills are best solved by dissolving the IRS, the Fed, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, and most of the other Departments, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water, in a big way.

IOW, if Ron Paul does get elected, and if his policies won't run into a brick wall in Congress (both of which are pretty big ifs), times will get really, *really* interesting. For Americans, I mean -- his foreign policy would make him relatively harmless as a global player.

(As a matter of fact, the reason I'm only speaking out against Ron Paul now is that his foreign policy is exactly what I'd like to see, and being a foreigner, my self-interest is mostly about it. However, I didn't have the strength of character to stick to it: I have a really hard time letting complete bullshit go unchallenged.)

[Prime Junta]

PS. The crux of my argument is this:

Premise: America's political system, as it currently stands, is dysfunctional. For example, corporate power in government is much too strong.

Proposed solution: America's challenge is to reform the political system, so that the political power seized by corporate interests is returned where it belongs -- to representatives that answer to the voters.

This wouldn't be easy to do. You would need to fundamentally reform all kinds of things, from campaign finance to earmarks, the lobby system, health care, social security, and so on. What Ron Paul is proposing is at least as big a job, however -- but with the downside that his system has never been shown to work in practice, anywhere, ever. And it surprises me somewhat that you "RP" supporters appear to care about this detail so little.

[Corwin]

Simple solution:- America should determine that the 1776 revolution was a BIG mistake and place itself back in the British Empire under Queen Elizabeth, so she can sort it all out!! :biggrin: