The Answers to Issues

[Sass]

I've seen so much BS rambling in this forum that I dare to post this, but given that things are not clarified perhaps you can help me. I'd like to know what YOU know about each candidate's stance. I'm hesitant to do this because it will end up in a futile argument among people who claim that one candidate's stance is two different things, but here goes:

 

RULES:

------------------------------

1. Be Brief. DO NOT WRITE paragraphs of crap trying to support your view. Keep it short and simple.

2. Do not ATTACK other people's !@#$%^&*essment of a candidate's view. Point out facts to support your understanding. BE BRIEF.

 

Candidate:

------------------------------

1. How will they solve the oil/gas crisis and continuing inflation?

 

2. What is their answer for Iraq?

 

3. How will they affect and strengthen the US Dollar?

 

4. What will they do to lower the cost of healthcare?

 

5. What is the craziest idea you have heard from your candidate?

 

 

 

There are surely more issues than these, but these are a starter. PLEASE BE BRIEF in responding to each question. Thanks.

[Aceflyer]

I'd like to point out that not everyone who has commented on the US presidential candidates in here has a specific candidate they support. Hence the use of the term "your candidate" in your post above may not be fair.

 

For example I personally have no clear preference between Obama and Clinton. While many of my posts may appear to be in support of Clinton and in opposition of Obama, I have simply been trying to analyze both candidates in an objective manner without swooning over Obama just because he's the first strong black US presidential candidate or because he promises "change."

[SeVeR]

I do not agree with the rules of this topic or the offensive superior at!@#$%^&*ude of the thread starter.

[FMBI]

Anyone supporting the SP USA?

 

And as for why your topic rules are misleading :

 

1. How will they solve the oil/gas crisis and continuing inflation?

 

Can't solve the oil/gas crisis without shifting into hydrogen (or methanol), solar power, and transition-phase fission nuclear. As for continuing inflation, I don't see any hope of it ending. The US has !@#$%^&*ed itself up too badly with massive debts which it never had any intention of paying off.

 

2. What is their answer for Iraq?

 

None of the candidates have an "answer", even the ones favoring "gradual withdrawal" take a racist and/or neocolonialist approach to it and assume that nobody will be able to form a government without us there - and that, even if it happens, it has to be controlled by one of our puppets.

 

3. How will they affect and strengthen the US Dollar?

 

Honey, the only way to strengthen your currency is to have something backing it. First the US had strong exports, then we had strong support from Europe, then we had the biggest market in the world, then we had the oil-to-dollar link, and over the last few years we've been backing it with military power - but after military power, there's nothing left. When the military finishes its ignominious collapse, we'll see the dollar crash even further.

 

4. What will they do to lower the cost of healthcare?

 

The US currently has the cost of government healthcare and the quality of corporate health care. Either way would be good, in theory. The problem is that none of the candidates are willing to make a break in one direction or the other. This has been sitting on the "Major issues" list for roughly 3 decades, and it's gone nowhere. If Hillary or Barack get in, they'll find a way to make it universal without lowering cost - if McCain gets in, he'll find a way to reduce healthcare coverage even further without providing meaningful compe!@#$%^&*ion (huge investments + oligopoly = free market? gimme a break).

 

5. What is the craziest idea you have heard from your candidate?

 

None of them have offered crazy ideas, because if they say anything revolutionary the press will go nuts and the 90% of the population who are uneducated but consider themselves educated will panic and demand a "stay-the-course" pattern.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Sass]

What a waste of my time. I guess we can determine that the people engaged in politics on this forum either too young or too ignorant to answer simple inquiries about the candidates they so adamantly defend. Truth revealed: it's all BS here and nothing more. Edited May 8, 2008 by Sass

[FMBI]

I just gave you an in-depth explanation of why it's not worth the effort to answer highly simplistic questions on behalf of people that we aren't personally in contact with.

 

At best, this was an opinion poll, in which case my pessimism pwnt you - at worst, it was a useless trick so you could find a reason to post what you just did.

 

If you really want to know their stance on these issues, go to their sites - they're often [over]informative. Heck, John McCain and Hillary Clinton have virtually hung themselves on their sites.

[»Ducky]

I don't understand this topic. Be brief and answer the question based on your candidates view. The answers to each question were answered by all parties.

 

Since we're not supposed to defend or attack the answers, can't I just write down what they all suggest? If that's the case, why didn't you just make a topic asking what the different viewpoints are. This topic serves absolutely no purpose. One might suggest you're the one posting dribble.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Ducky

[Aileron]

Well, I'm supporting McCain, so I'll admit I don't know much about his policies since he clinched the nomination before I could vote and has been tight lipped since then.

 

1) Probably nothing. The presidency doesn't run the economy, so there isn't much he can do. The one thing I do know about McCain is he'll be pro-nuclear and probably will support funding for hydrogen. He's also not an environmentalist nut, so if a practical solution comes up, he won't p!@#$%^&* it up for hope they can build an efficient solar cell for the 50th time. My guess is coal-to-oil plants.

 

2) I wouldn't quite say 'status quo' here. As a military man, McCain can offer better tactical plans than Bush. For example, McCain will know exactly what air-bombing can do and what it can't do, so he won't hold any delusions about an air-only war.

 

3) Haven't heard a policy on this yet.

 

4) He probably will be careful about making radical changes, but ultimately Congress will hand him a health care plan, and he can either sign it or veto it.

 

5) Nothing. McCain's pretty much been standing back watching the other two debate. The closest thing to crazy was when he did an impersonation of Barbara Streisand on Saturday Night Live. Pretty funny.

 

 

Overall, there's things a president can do and there are things a president can't do but get blamed for anyway. Foreign policy is something the president can fix; economics is something that can be fixed by Congress.

 

 

I think the point S!@#$%^&* is trying to make is that people here are more fueled by emotion, particularly arrogance, hatred, and despair, rather than pragmatism. While it certainly feels good, such emotion will always betray you. The purpose of the exercise is to see who can set those feelings aside.

 

I'll admit, I don't really support McCain as much as oppose the Democrats, who in general are proposing sweeping changes to our whole way of life just because we happen to be in a war right now. Also, I'll also point out that during the six years of Bush in office with a Republican congress, the economy wasn't great but it was mostly fine. All of the current problems have developed in the past two years with a Democratic congress with a lame duck president. My conjecture is that the Democrats have been so polarized that in the past few years they have refused to do anything positive with any Republican, and have created the current crises because they care more about their party than they do this country. For example, while these problems were developing, congress was busy working on a non-binding statement to essentially whine about the troop surge in Iraq.

[FMBI]

2. Do not ATTACK other people's !@#$%^&*essment of a candidate's view. Point out facts to support your understanding. BE BRIEF.

 

Oops.

 

Well, I'm supporting McCain, so I'll admit I don't know much about his policies since he clinched the nomination before I could vote and has been tight lipped since then.

 

1) Probably nothing. The presidency doesn't run the economy, so there isn't much he can do. The one thing I do know about McCain is he'll be pro-nuclear and probably will support funding for hydrogen. He's also not an environmentalist nut, so if a practical solution comes up, he won't p!@#$%^&* it up for hope they can build an efficient solar cell for the 50th time. My guess is coal-to-oil plants.

 

Coal to oil is massively inefficient - you'd be better off burning coal without any pollution safeguards than trying to convert it into oil.. also, like it or not, ultimately solar's going to be our primary source of energy. Coal will run out "within 200 years," fission's dependent on uranium, fusion is dependent on lithium, and hydrogen, while important, won't be able to run everything. It's not a matter of "environmentalism," it's a matter of reality. One reason why I dislike the republican platform so much - they're so closely tied with oil and religion that any attempt to move into the future is attacked as unrealistic.

 

2) I wouldn't quite say 'status quo' here. As a military man, McCain can offer better tactical plans than Bush. For example, McCain will know exactly what air-bombing can do and what it can't do, so he won't hold any delusions about an air-only war.

 

Huh? McCain's the same one who is insisting that the surge is working, even though troops have reduced patrols, we've massively increased air cover, Sadr's still fairly peaceful, and the Sunnis stopped fighting. If those other factors weren't there, then our extra 30,000 troops would be dead meat by now. As it is, the other parts of the big picture are changing, and the surge suddenly doesn't look so brilliant anymore. If he's willing to bet his election on something that flawed, then how can you expect him to make rational choices once in office?

 

3) Haven't heard a policy on this yet.

 

4) He probably will be careful about making radical changes, but ultimately Congress will hand him a health care plan, and he can either sign it or veto it.

 

He already announced his brilliant plan, which will leave the average person with a shortfall of 7,000 dollars. I'm not so sure Congress will be the one suffering under this arrangement.

 

5) Nothing. McCain's pretty much been standing back watching the other two debate. The closest thing to crazy was when he did an impersonation of Barbara Streisand on Saturday Night Live. Pretty funny.

 

 

Overall, there's things a president can do and there are things a president can't do but get blamed for anyway. Foreign policy is something the president can fix; economics is something that can be fixed by Congress.

 

Economics can only be solved by Congress if they're competent and if they have actual control of the economy. When you have such a massive wealth gap, a huge national debt, and multinational corporations, I find it hard to believe that they could do anything even if they wanted to.

 

I think the point S!@#$%^&* is trying to make is that people here are more fueled by emotion, particularly arrogance, hatred, and despair, rather than pragmatism. While it certainly feels good, such emotion will always betray you. The purpose of the exercise is to see who can set those feelings aside.

 

I'll admit, I don't really support McCain as much as oppose the Democrats, who in general are proposing sweeping changes to our whole way of life just because we happen to be in a war right now. Also, I'll also point out that during the six years of Bush in office with a Republican congress, the economy wasn't great but it was mostly fine. All of the current problems have developed in the past two years with a Democratic congress with a lame duck president. My conjecture is that the Democrats have been so polarized that in the past few years they have refused to do anything positive with any Republican, and have created the current crises because they care more about their party than they do this country. For example, while these problems were developing, congress was busy working on a non-binding statement to essentially whine about the troop surge in Iraq.

 

Firstly, they're proposing social changes in part to counteract those which have taken place since Reagan took office and stalled any attempts at permanent reform. Compare the plans to save energy, change the way this country worked, and deal with the Soviets pre-Reagan, and then post-Reagan. We've been essentially "living a lie" all these years - when you have a way of life that doesn't work, you find out eventually. In this case the indicator was the national debt. Saying that our way of life now is logical would be like saying that Saudi Arabia could continue its policies after the oil dries up. It's insane.

 

Secondly, every !@#$%^&*ing "liberal" (along with almost all independent economists) saw this disaster waiting to happen during those perfect six years. I could name about 15 books just from my local library (which is by no means a large one), written between 01 and 05, that explained the housing bubble, the effects of the rising costs of oil, the effects of the Iraq war on the economy (after 03, of course), and the dangers of supply-side economics. Blaming this on the Democratic congress would be like blaming Hoover for the depression. In fact, it's exactly the same thing - stupid hands-off president gets you into a mess while everyone thinks it's great, then leaves office and the next guy gets blamed.

 

Finally, in every single post you find a way to mention that "the democrats have no meaningful policies and have done nothing but attack the republicans" (I'll agree with the last part, as I love attacking republicans, even though I'm not a democrat). I suggest you look at Bill Clinton's term. While he was busy [mortgaging the next few decades to] reduce the national debt and working to advance the globalisation agenda (which Bush, for all his rhetoric, has failed at), the republicans were ripping him to pieces (again, at my local library, I could list you 15 books entirely about Lewinsky) and !@#$%^&* Armey was writing "The Flat Tax" in which he claimed that "everyone wants to know that nobody else is paying more than them in taxes." Comparing Bush and Clinton, at least the democrats have a reason to attack Bush - he's acted with complete incompetence in regard to the economy, the military, and the debt, and he's also expanded the influence of the religious right. Nothing Clinton did even came close to that, and yet he actually took far more pressure than Bush. I'm not saying that we should suddenly double social security or anything, but the democrats are at least relying on the old, logical ways of dealing with things, rather than relying on blind faith that the rich will somehow save us all. As I said in another post, the democrats are by no means liberal compared to other countries - in fact, in Europe they'd probably be considered centrist. No revolutionary ideas (that much is true), but at least a willingness to acknowledge reality. Something Bush has failed at.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Aceflyer]

What a waste of my time. I guess we can determine that the people engaged in politics on this forum either too young or too ignorant to answer simple inquiries about the candidates they so adamantly defend. Truth revealed: it's all BS here and nothing more.

 

Jeez, thanks for the unwarranted, highly negative overgeneralization.

[Aileron]

Finland, do you want to talk about your feelings? Seriously, you are so angry in your political stance that there has to be some latent psychological issues that you have and are transferring to Bush.

[Bak]

I don't think we're going to run out of hydrogen anytime soon... fusion ftw

[Aileron]

Oh, Coal to Oil is cheap and efficient. The problem with it was that it produces oil at about $40 per barrel, which at the time it was being researched was expensive. Here and now, a $45 barrel of oil is an extreme bargain. It shifts from a finite fossil fuel which is scarce to a finite fossil fuel which is abundant.

 

But, chiefly, the biggest benefit of the technology is that it is something that exists now in such a way that it can practically fill the national need for a time. The research is done. The distribution system is there. Cars already run on the byproduct. All we need to do is build the coal to oil refineries, and it would lower gas prices practically instantly.

 

Over the long term, it isn't as nice as hydrogen, but what it can do is buy use some more time. Time which researchers can use to perfect hydrogen technology.

[SeVeR]

Isn't coal one of the most polluting methods of generating electricity imaginable?

[Aileron]

We're talking about running cars here, not producing electricity. You are correct in that currently the technology is used to produce a fuel for a certain type of power plant, but with changes the process can be used to produce something that is chemically identical to diesel and unleaded gasoline. The pollution when the byproduct is burned in a car is the same as gas from the ground.

 

However, the refining process itself will cause pollution too. It is a significant drawback, but it isn't an unmanageable amount of pollution and not a good enough reason to pay $10.00 a gallon for gas. As I said, it won't permanently get us off oil, but it can buy our economy some more time until better technology is developed.

 

Here's some links:

Fischer-Tropsch Process

Bergius Process

Karrick Process

[AstroProdigy]

Yeah Sever why pay a lot for gas and maybe not buy a giant gas guzzler next time so the market for efficiency and alternative fuel sources is actually stimulated when you can accelerate global warming and completely screw us all with a new Hummer.

[Aileron]

Oh, sorry. We should build the refineries and then plant some trees to suck up the extra CO2. Better?

[JDS]

well yea Aileron, just put the refinery in the middle of a forest and all is well

[Aileron]

Alright, I'll explain it in other terms. It is a fair analogy to say that the modern economy is addicted to oil. Their are two ways to break an addiction: cold turkey or gradual withdrawal. The problem is that when we are talking about giving the economy cold turkey, we are talking about causing a depression. However, if we ween the economy off of oil gradually, we can have a much safer process. Coal liquification is to oil as nicotine gum is to cigarettes.

 

As, I said though, McCain isn't necessarily proposing this, but of the three of them, he'd be the least likely to oppose it.

[AstroProdigy]

Why dare cause a depression when you can cause a bigger one for our grandkids? Personally I don't like Florida anyway, so I'm not going to miss it.

 

Coal liquifaction is to oil as smoking 3 inch thick cigarettes is to cigarettes. It'll help you get off cigarettes, but mess you up even worse in the process.

 

Seeing the way McCain panders so desperately to the right I can see him doing a lot of crazy irresponsible stuff.

[candygirl]

There was Electric Car that was discontinued under pressure from the government.

Anyone know the name of this car?

I think it was the EV1?

Edited May 10, 2008 by candygirl

[candygirl]

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

[Aileron]

Astro, that is precisely the at!@#$%^&*ude that is hurting us right now. If it follows the Laws of Thermodynamics, it must be an evil contributor of global warming and thus a destroyer of the world. You want a clean, renewable, and powerful source of energy which only exists in future technologies which haven't been researched enough for us to know what the flaws are.

 

 

Electric cars are fine, except electricity isn't a fuel. A fuel is something that has high potential energy. Electricity is something generated by fuel. If we put electric cars on the road, the next question becomes 'Where do we get the electricity?'. Hydrogen powered cars are pretty much the same. It will always take more energy to create the hydrogen than you will get out of the car. According to the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Carnot Heat Cycle, a hydrogen powered engine will at most output 40% of the power which was consumed in order to make the hydrogen, and that's !@#$%^&*uming the car doesn't encounter deconstructive forces such as friction.

 

Granted, such things are still probably part of the long-term solution. Having a car which runs on electricity widens the fuel possibilities. You could then use Nuclear or Hydroelectric power for the cars, but keep in mind those methods won't come without their respective consequences.

 

The problem isn't the lack of solutions. The problem is that there are enough idiots with no comprehension of physics who think they have all the answers. Entropy happens. Eventually, the entire universe is going to experience heat death and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Get over it.

[ThunderJam]

Seeing the way McCain panders so desperately to the right I can see him doing a lot of crazy irresponsible stuff.

I've seen this a lot since the election started, funny thign is that prior to the election, most rightwing conservatives disliked McCain.

 

8 months ago McCains reputation was that of a very liberal republican. Only recently has he had to appeal to the far right-wingers in order to gain their support. But once he has the presidency, do you think he would remain that way? The whole right wing thing is just a temporary act he has been putting on to get the nomination. If you wanna see how he will act in a presidency, look at his long term track record, which is NOT far right-wing.

[AstroProdigy]

Astro, that is precisely the at!@#$%^&*ude that is hurting us right now. If it follows the Laws of Thermodynamics, it must be an evil contributor of global warming and thus a destroyer of the world. You want a clean, renewable, and powerful source of energy which only exists in future technologies which haven't been researched enough for us to know what the flaws are.

 

 

Electric cars are fine, except electricity isn't a fuel. A fuel is something that has high potential energy. Electricity is something generated by fuel. If we put electric cars on the road, the next question becomes 'Where do we get the electricity?'. Hydrogen powered cars are pretty much the same. It will always take more energy to create the hydrogen than you will get out of the car. According to the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Carnot Heat Cycle, a hydrogen powered engine will at most output 40% of the power which was consumed in order to make the hydrogen, and that's !@#$%^&*uming the car doesn't encounter deconstructive forces such as friction.

 

Granted, such things are still probably part of the long-term solution. Having a car which runs on electricity widens the fuel possibilities. You could then use Nuclear or Hydroelectric power for the cars, but keep in mind those methods won't come without their respective consequences.

 

The problem isn't the lack of solutions. The problem is that there are enough idiots with no comprehension of physics who think they have all the answers. Entropy happens. Eventually, the entire universe is going to experience heat death and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Get over it.

 

The problem is there are idiots who actually buy into the bull!@#$%^&* that diverting our time and resources to things like carbon sequestering which is unproven and will take a lot of time and money out of alternative energy research. There's also the idiots who think switching to something even more polluting to give us a false sense of security will in any way encourage us to develop alternative energy sources in the long term. All your plan does is accelerate global warming and at the same time slow alternative energy research. It's about the most irresponsible thing we could ever do beyond nuking the planet. The problem is certain groups in the US will run to anything other than what they see as "hippy" clean fuels and will even look to reverse the progress made on avoiding coal because it's even worse than oil just to avoid disagreeing with their leadership in the White House.

 

ThunderJam: On social issues McCain will nominate the same types of ultra conservative Supreme Court justices as Bush. On foreign policy he'll push again the same war mongering as Bush. On the economy he's pretty much forced himself to be a hands off do nothing neo liberal. What is there for him to be different on? He probably won't be as corrupt as Bush, but other than that it's 4 more years of Bush as the Democrats would say.

Edited May 11, 2008 by AstroProdigy