US elections 2012

I just saw a Russia Today interview with an American guy and of course they were talking about Ron Paul.

The American guy basically stated that while many Americans agree with what he says and his apparent honesty, that he is in a race to get republican votes and most republicans dont agree with him so he will loose.

They see his isolationist rhetoric as being counter to the republican agenda and if he did face Obama that he wouldn't get enough of the vote to win.

Now my opinion on this is that he is the ideal Republican candidate simply because I think a lot of democrats would like his policies more than they like Obama... who has been a massive disappointment for them.

I think if the Republicans elect anyone but Ron Paul they will lose the election because Obama is crap, but those in the running for the Republicans looks like just more of the same crap from Bush that helped get them in the Sht in the first place.

Ron Paul is the only guy on both sides that actually makes sense.

The obvious problem is that even if he got elected he would actually need support to do the things he promised to do and I really don't think politicians give a damn about America... they just want money from lobby groups.

Obama is not really much different from Bush in the things he has done and achieved, so I really wonder why they bother distinguishing between Democrats and Republicans anyway.

What I am really looking forward to is election time in the US because Russia can go over the elections with a fine tooth comb and b1tch about this or that problem with the election.

After all the US felt it was their place to pass judgement on the Russian election... and not only to fund NGOs involved in the elections but to increase their funding... I am sure the US will appreciate the Russians Helping them with their elections too.

Part of the problem is the lack of term limits for Senators and Representatives. Right now, Congress has something like a 15% approval rating. Yet year aftr year, about 80-85% of incumbents get re-elected. Now, if they're doing such a bad job, why the hell are we re-electing these idiots? A lot of it has to do with party identification. If someone identifies themselves as a Democrat or Republican, then they'll overwhelmingly vote to support their party's candidates.

No term limits also plays right into the hands of lobbyists as well. Entrenched officials like Nancy Pelosi provide lobbyists with the opportunity to cultivate a long-term relationship.

All three branches should have term limits. The President already does, so why not Congress or the Supreme Court?

As for Ron Paul, he's gaining ground. Nobody is a clear-cut favorite just yet I'd say. I can agree with a lot of his positions, and his immigration ideas are outstanding, but I don't like his drug policies.

I would have thought the whole idea of checks and balances would require a non partisan Congress.

What is the point of winning the presidency if you lose the congress and then spend your time in office fighting a congress that simply wants to make you look bad because you don't represent the same party that they do.

BTW I agree with Robin Williams... I think Congress should require all senators to wear logos of their "financial supporters" on their jackets like Nascar drivers. It would make their decisions much easier to understand.

GarryB wrote:I would have thought the whole idea of checks and balances would require a non partisan Congress.

What is the point of winning the presidency if you lose the congress and then spend your time in office fighting a congress that simply wants to make you look bad because you don't represent the same party that they do.

BTW I agree with Robin Williams... I think Congress should require all senators to wear logos of their "financial supporters" on their jackets like Nascar drivers. It would make their decisions much easier to understand.

You ask a congressman what the bold part is their answer: I have no idea

I am not a registered voter in the US elections.. and I am not a well funded lobby group, so I rather doubt any US congressman would give me the time of day.

Not that I would bother... they are politicians, so I would hear the answer they think I want to hear but as I would only have one vote and no free lunch to offer them they will pretend to listen and actually do nothing at all.

If I was representing Boeing on the other hand and was deciding whether to close the factory in that senators constituency or to expand it then they would be all ears and will be happy to vote for that new bill that allows defence companies to get away with not paying any tax while the company CEO earns almost 20 million a year in income... which doesn't include the full package of free healthcare for life and a nice company car and a nice company jet and paid vacations and all the other little perks they get.

Social inequality has destroyed many empires in the past...

GarryB wrote:I am not a registered voter in the US elections.. and I am not a well funded lobby group, so I rather doubt any US congressman would give me the time of day.

Not that I would bother... they are politicians, so I would hear the answer they think I want to hear but as I would only have one vote and no free lunch to offer them they will pretend to listen and actually do nothing at all.

If I was representing Boeing on the other hand and was deciding whether to close the factory in that senators constituency or to expand it then they would be all ears and will be happy to vote for that new bill that allows defence companies to get away with not paying any tax while the company CEO earns almost 20 million a year in income... which doesn't include the full package of free healthcare for life and a nice company car and a nice company jet and paid vacations and all the other little perks they get.

Social inequality has destroyed many empires in the past...

Well I am registered but never go because its always the same dirt campaign. This year the Republicans are more concerned about tainting Obama and fighting themselves so all he and my Democratic party has to do is make jobs, and get work done.

Yeah, I get the same impression that it might be a second term for Obama... not because he is any good, but because there is no obvious popular alternative.


It is funny, but if I were Obama I would turn to all those companies that got bailouts and demand they invest all their money into the US economy. I am sure the Republicans would call that Government control of businesses and communism and all that, but when you invest hundreds of billions of dollars saving companies from going bust then you should get a significant amount of control in return... if an individual had used their money to save a company from financial collapse then they would expect some say in how that company does business.

Of course if the Republicans call it communism then obviously the only democratic thing to do would be to allow those bankrupt companies collapse and let market forces sort it all out... even though it was market forces that created the problem in the first place.

@Garry,

well, first of all. Let me say that Obama is far from being a jerk. You must see him in the broader perspective, the circumstances in which he is forced to operate (2 wars to run and some pretty large national debt, for a start). Obama is like Johnson: both couldn't realize much of their agenda because they had their hands tied. Johnson had to deal with Vietnam almost full-time. Obama needs te deal with both Iraq and A'stan. Now that the Iraq situation is in the hands of the private sector -which is being payed for with puvblic money though-, he can focus on A'stan. And this is where the fun starts. He made the mistake of not rapidly pulling out since it really is part of the US's 'Vietnam all over again'. That's nothing new because we all know that.

What we don't know is who will become the next president. I hear people talking about Paul. But remember that the president of the US is the president of the US. He cannot rule alone like the president of Russia can (take a look at the US and Russian constitutions and you'll see who is the most powerful politician on the planet). He has a Senate to deal with (which has a very conservative, right-wing Republican majority at the moment). So whatever bright ideas Paul might have about pulling out of NATO, shutting down all overseas bases ecetera and so forth: unfortunately for the world, it's not going to happen.

For the US, Obama still is the best candidate -unless you happen to be a Redneck gun nut- and I think he should serve a second term to get started with the domestic agenda. Before he can do so, the fooling around in A'stan has to end here and now. Otherwise people will really begin to see him as Bush's third term regarding foreign policy. Lucky for him the US economy is showing some little signs of recovery. And that is what is going to save his behind in these elections. I doubt the next person to take office is going to be a Republican. Obama is going to get his second term, simply because ther is no feasible alternative (same with Putin in Russia, he is the least of all evils).

I agree in many respects...

It is like the card game bullsh!t.

You get dealt a hand of cards and then you bet... so you might start the bidding 1 club, and the next person has to increase the bet... they might say 5 hearts and this continues to the point where your bet no longer reflects what is in your hand but to win you have to keep betting, so you bluff. You lose if your bluff is called.

Obama made a lot of grand promises to get elected and he captured the imagination and hope of a lot of people.

Of course without having done the job before he had no idea what he could or could not deliver so he was not lying, but making promises you can't keep is not a good way to make friends and influence people.

When they assassinated Osama Bin Laden they should have declared victory and left Afghanistan as soon as possible.

Wouldn't be the first time they did that, and wont be the last.

They really don't care about Afghanistan so any problems it might cause is really not their concern.

Heartless and cold, I know, but it is the truth.

So whatever bright ideas Paul might have about pulling out of NATO, shutting down all overseas bases ecetera and so forth: unfortunately for the world, it's not going to happen.

As an aside, I don't think isolationism would be good for the US economy anyway. They made their money from world wars and international trade.

For the US, Obama still is the best candidate -unless you happen to be a Redneck gun nut- and I think he should serve a second term to get started with the domestic agenda. Before he can do so, the fooling around in A'stan has to end here and now. Otherwise people will really begin to see him as Bush's third term regarding foreign policy.

Now, there is no need to label people who disagree with you...

For all we know Clinton might run as an independent against Obama and that would cripple his support base and might lead to either a Clinton win or a Republican win.
I do agree however that obama is the most likely winner... just as in the past Bush was unpopular but won because the alternative was too much of an unknown, and Tony Blair had the same things going for him in the UK.
In fact with the killing of OBL in many ways you could say Obama had a more successful foreign policy than Bush as OBL was a much more difficult target in many ways.

I would think ending the US presence in Afghanistan and also ending the use of Guantanimo as a torture centre would give a huge boost to Obamas ratings INTERNATIONALLY, but in terms of domestic popularity I would think a few measures to force US companies to spend money in the US to create jobs would have much greater effect.

Of course as you mention his hands are tied in many areas by people more interested in bipartisan politics than the good of the American people.

Lucky for him the US economy is showing some little signs of recovery. And that is what is going to save his behind in these elections. I doubt the next person to take office is going to be a Republican. Obama is going to get his second term, simply because ther is no feasible alternative (same with Putin in Russia, he is the least of all evils).

We certainly agree on this.

I would love to see a US president say something along the lines of the US is going to focus on green technology and efficiency to use the resources they already have more efficiently than ever before and the use of renewable resources will also be a focus and a goal.

The aim being to make the US self sufficient and also to create growth without increasing ecological damage or using up limited resources. Reuse materials rather than bury them in landfills. Use human and vegetable waste to generate power and use the byproducts as a resource (human and vegetable waste produces methane, but when the methane is removed the remains makes good fertiliser that is not full of chemicals).

Once they start reaching these sorts of goals they suddenly are no longer dependent on ME oil, they can make money by exporting their technology... better and more efficient management of resources means we can get by with less, so space based colonies become far more viable and efficient, while isolated communities like those in Alaska can have far less impact on their environments.

It is the sort of stuff I think most Americans want to hear from Obama, and in fact most people around the world want to hear from the US. They BS all the time about being world leader and world policeman, ...well father you are leading with a poor examples. Bomb and consume is the current message.

Bthebrave wrote:For the US, Obama still is the best candidate -unless you happen to be a Redneck gun nut

I mean, seriously. I'd love to know how you can label me as a "Redneck gun nut" with absolutely zero knowledge of my person or character.

GarryB wrote:Obama made a lot of grand promises to get elected and he captured the imagination and hope of a lot of people.

That just means he's no different from anyone else in D.C.

GarryB wrote:As an aside, I don't think isolationism would be good for the US economy anyway. They made their money from world wars and international trade.

There's something to be said for fixing what's wrong here before we try to fix what we admittedly perceive as wrong with the world. I for one would welcome a policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs for a short period. No more foreign aid, no more bombing some random 'nation'-of-the-week. The world doesn't want the US as its policeman anyway.

GarryB wrote:I would think a few measures to force US companies to spend money in the US to create jobs would have much greater effect.

That's just asking them to move en-masse to Mexico or China. Which, frankly, would be their right.

GarryB wrote:human and vegetable waste produces methane, but when the methane is removed the remains makes good fertiliser that is not full of chemicals

One issue is that methane gas is a far more dangerous ozone killer than carbon dioxide, making large-scale accidental releases a pretty big problem. There are far better alternative/renewable resource options available if you ask me. What you need to do is go sector by sector, because what might work for transportation, for instance, might not be workable on a large enough scale to generate electricity in the amount required for residential or industrial use. Me, I'd start with expanding solar power use, and funding large-scale electrical storage technology. Think batteries, but hugenormous. That's a big part of why solar technology isn't really catching on a massive scale: we need an effective solution for storing that much electrical power for, you know, when the sun goes down. I've read that if you covered an area the size of Texas with solar panels, you could provide all of the electricity for the entire nation. You can't really expect a solar panel field of that size, but I bet if you looked at buildingtops nationwide you'd find the square footage you need. At the same time, continue research into fusion power.

Or, you know, have the balls to stand up to (gasp) organized labor and force them to comply with something like a 40 mile-per-gallon efficiency rating. You have to get the unions under something remotely resembling control or all of this is moot anyway.

There's something to be said for fixing what's wrong here before we try to fix what we admittedly perceive as wrong with the world. I for one would welcome a policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs for a short period. No more foreign aid, no more bombing some random 'nation'-of-the-week. The world doesn't want the US as its policeman anyway.

Charity begins at home. Perhaps when the US stops kidnapping people and torturing them, and perhaps has zero unemployment and empty jails perhaps people will listen to their sermons... and I think we could all use a break from hearing about this or that evil empire.

That's just asking them to move en-masse to Mexico or China. Which, frankly, would be their right.

I think rather than make demands that the US government should provide incentives for those companies that actually pay tax and employ US workers and put tarrifs and taxes on those companies that don't. They are happy to put tarrifs on NZ beef imports and all we are guilty of is making a quality product cheaper.

The companies that were too big to fail that got subsidies should now be broken up into smaller companies that can fail and will if they screw things up again.

One issue is that methane gas is a far more dangerous ozone killer than carbon dioxide, making large-scale accidental releases a pretty big problem.

First of all neither methane nor carbon dioxide have anything to do with the ozone layer, that was hydroflurocarbons in refridgerators. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is being created by human waste and rotting vegetation... it is being created anyway, but is not being captured and stored and used as an energy source.

The entire area of Siberia is a rotting peat bog and contains an estimated 100 trillion cubic tons of methane just frozen in ice waiting to be released... human excrement and food waste is a tiny problem in comparison.

There are far better alternative/renewable resource options available if you ask me.

Energy production from sewerage might generate enough energy to pay for processing of rubbish... in other words you build a rubbish facility next to your sewerage ponds, except unlike current ponds these are enclosed to capture the methane and the solid material after the rotting process leaves material that can be used as fertiliser, so human waste goes in and material that can be used for growing food comes out. You then pump the methane next door to the rubbish tip. The methane is burned at over 900 degrees Celsius which burns wood and plastics and paper and vegetable matter at a temperature that also burns carbon so the exhaust is carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide.

That extra fertiliser can be spread on crops or simply dropped on open ground like forest areas to promote plant growth. If processed properly it will not smell bad.

What you need to do is go sector by sector, because what might work for transportation, for instance, might not be workable on a large enough scale to generate electricity in the amount required for residential or industrial use.

Agree... the focus is efficiency.

Me, I'd start with expanding solar power use, and funding large-scale electrical storage technology. Think batteries, but hugenormous. That's a big part of why solar technology isn't really catching on a massive scale: we need an effective solution for storing that much electrical power for, you know, when the sun goes down. I've read that if you covered an area the size of Texas with solar panels, you could provide all of the electricity for the entire nation. You can't really expect a solar panel field of that size, but I bet if you looked at buildingtops nationwide you'd find the square footage you need. At the same time, continue research into fusion power.

I think a better idea is to to focus on several things at once... especially things that are independent from each other... for instance solar power is a good one, but you get the least solar power in the winter when you need it most.
Using a range of technologies I think is the solution, so go for Solar power, but also wind generation, and wave power, use roof tops and large tanks to capture rainfall so you have bulk storage of water.

Another option there of course is to apply the electricity generated by solar cells to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water and then store those two elements till you need power and then combining them again to realise that power. It can be through fuel cell technology via a fuel cell car, or it could be a hydrogen powered engine.

Fusion is another option, though a bit further off...

Or, you know, have the balls to stand up to (gasp) organized labor and force them to comply with something like a 40 mile-per-gallon efficiency rating. You have to get the unions under something remotely resembling control or all of this is moot anyway.

An attack on Iran by Israel or the US driving the price of oil to $200 a barrel is another way it might happen too...

GarryB wrote:Charity begins at home. Perhaps when the US stops kidnapping people and torturing them, and perhaps has zero unemployment and empty jails perhaps people will listen to their sermons... and I think we could all use a break from hearing about this or that evil empire.

I've said much the same thing in debates offline before. Well, mostly

I think rather than make demands that the US government should provide incentives for those companies that actually pay tax and employ US workers and put tarrifs and taxes on those companies that don't. They are happy to put tarrifs on NZ beef imports and all we are guilty of is making a quality product cheaper.

That's just it, if they tax companies that rely heavily on foreign sources of labor (which is actually being considered right now), those companies may just decide to pick up in their entirety and go someplace else. The tarrifs on NZ beef imports had less to do with NZ and more to do with the beef lobby pressuring Congress to make the market more favorable to the US product. Although, out of curiosity, would we have imported processed beef, or the cattle?

The companies that were too big to fail that got subsidies should now be broken up into smaller companies that can fail and will if they screw things up again.

Government subsidies should be done away with regardless. If you can't survive on your own clearly you're either 1) following a failed business model or 2) not delivering a product anybody wants or needs at a competitive price.

First of all neither methane nor carbon dioxide have anything to do with the ozone layer, that was hydroflurocarbons in refridgerators. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is being created by human waste and rotting vegetation... it is being created anyway, but is not being captured and stored and used as an energy source.

CRAP, you're right, it was close enough to midnight that the brain switched off. The point is that methane is, from a climate change perspective, a far more dangerous gas than CO2 if released into the atmosphere as itself. This is one of the concerns with methane hydrate exploitation. Screw up an extraction and guess what, you just released a bunch of methane gas into the air.

I think a better idea is to to focus on several things at once... especially things that are independent from each other... for instance solar power is a good one, but you get the least solar power in the winter when you need it most.
Using a range of technologies I think is the solution, so go for Solar power, but also wind generation, and wave power, use roof tops and large tanks to capture rainfall so you have bulk storage of water.

Just don't forget to clean the rainwater. That stuff is suprisingly nasty sometimes. The hygroscopic nuclei required for the Bergeron process are often particulates in the air like pollutants.

An attack on Iran by Israel or the US driving the price of oil to $200 a barrel is another way it might happen too...

And the funny thing right now is that the US appears to be running around going "what...wait...no, don't bomb Iran you idiots".

The tarrifs on NZ beef imports had less to do with NZ and more to do with the beef lobby pressuring Congress to make the market more favorable to the US product.

Which directly violated the WTO agreements on fair trade... an agreement we stick to religiously... we had a car assembly industry and a clothing industry. Now there is no car assembly in New Zealand and we have a fashion industry because the clothing industry couldn't compete with China.

Although, out of curiosity, would we have imported processed beef, or the cattle?

Processed beef I believe.

Government subsidies should be done away with regardless. If you can't survive on your own clearly you're either 1) following a failed business model or 2) not delivering a product anybody wants or needs at a competitive price.

The whole concept behind the WTO. Sometimes even if you can deliver the cheapest product you can prosper through marketing... the cheapest cuts of meat are not always the best buy. Quality can demand a better price and still sell well.

Obviously for some countries like Russia where the ground is frozen for half the year, then making farming competitive can be difficult. In the UK I hear farmers keep their stock in barns, while here in NZ the climate is so mild they stay out all year round.

The point is that methane is, from a climate change perspective, a far more dangerous gas than CO2 if released into the atmosphere as itself.

I believe methane is 20 times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2... and after spending time in the atmosphere it degrades... into CO2.

The point is that in land fills and at sea all this human and vegetable waste is ALREADY turning into methane... that is the natural way it degrades. By capturing it and using it... especially to process other waste and then using the remains as fertiliser... not only to you take human waste out of the sea and landfills, but you end up burning that methane up instead of letting it enter the atmosphere, which is what it is doing right now.
As an added bonus the energy used also deals with a lot of other non organic rubbish, and more importantly you have fertiliser that is no created from a bunch of dangerous chemicals.

[qutoe]Screw up an extraction and guess what, you just released a bunch of methane gas into the air.[/quote]

If you don't capture methane for use as an alternative energy source then it all gets released into the atmosphere...

It is not a case that doing this will risk an oil spill like disaster, it is more a case that oil is coming out of the ground already... lets collect it up and use it...

Just don't forget to clean the rainwater. That stuff is suprisingly nasty sometimes. The hygroscopic nuclei required for the Bergeron process are often particulates in the air like pollutants.

Quite true. There is a product here called gutter witch, and basically it is a huge storage tank you attach to your downpipe from the gutters on your roof that collects rain water.

It started out as a gutter cleaning system where you cut a hole in your downpipe to divert the water so any leaves didn't block your drain, but they later expanded into making large water tanks so that the diverter could direct water into the tanks rather than let it go into the water drain.

You don't drink the water... you use it on your garden or to water your grass or in your greenhouse instead of using water from the tap. It saves a lot of clean water, and the plants don't care that the water is not so pure.

A few months after they started selling the products, they started selling a powder that treats the water with an organic material that kills bacteria but not your plants, so you can store it for long periods with it becoming a small farm for algae.

It is a New Zealand company called Watergain because the water storage side of the company seems to have been more lucrative than the gutter cleaning system... though if you want to collect water this way, you probably also want clean gutters too.

http://gutterwitch.co.nz/index.html

And the funny thing right now is that the US appears to be running around going "what...wait...no, don't bomb Iran you idiots".

Nah... just corner them and impose sanctions and make them do something stupid...

[quote="SOC"]

Bthebrave wrote:For the US, Obama still is the best candidate -unless you happen to be a Redneck gun nut

I mean, seriously. I'd love to know how you can label me as a "Redneck gun nut" with absolutely zero knowledge of my person or character.

Not all of you, but the morons and circus clowns among your fellow countrymen. The ones with an I.Q. that equels to that of your average prawn. I'm not comfortable about them wanting the right to be armed to the teeth. First: Civie gun ownership should be restricted to those with a Bachelors degree and higher. Second: every applicant should mandatorily get it's head thoroughly examined before being even eligable to file for a permit. Third: all privately owned weapons should be registered. Fourth: I am in favour of a nation-wide lift of all restrictions. If people want to own basically anything from handguns to armed Black Hawk helicopters and armoured vehicles that is their business. As long as people who are a social liability have no access to weapons whatsoever. The very first thing the next US president must do is disarm all the white trash Hill Billy's, Afro-American gang members in the big inner cities et cetera and so forth. The National Guard and the FBI could even be deployed for that task, for all I care. Call me a tyrant, a leftee, an ultraliberal, a people's republican whatever. I really give a rat's behind. Because the bottom line is that there are too many US citizens aka pricks who shouldn't be armed in the first place. Only the sane and educated should have the right to bear arms. Agree or disagree with me, just sharing my opinion with you.

The problem with disarming the population is that first of all it is like banning alcohol... it will never work.

Second is what you end up doing is disarming the law abiding responsible citizens, while the criminals are left with all the illegal arms.

Japan has very strict gun laws, yet the gangs seem to be able to get guns easily.

The issue at hand is that police cannot be everywhere all the time, so when a guy breaks into your house you are basically at their mercy till the police arrive.

Personally if he wants to take my TV... I don't care... insurance will get me a newer model... that is what insurance is for. If he tries to attack me or my family however then I will need to act. My firearms are locked away in cabinets and would take 5 minutes to get ready to use, so for me a kitchen knive and a hockey stick... and the fact that I am well over 6 foot tall will likely do the trick most of the time, but some little old lady really doesn't have that option.

BTW I have a degree and post grad diploma, but I don't agree that would have any bearing on how responsible I would be with a firearm.

You get training and testing before you are allowed to drive a car, and I think the same at least should be done for firearm ownership.

As far as I am concerned gun control is about hitting your target with the first shot...

BTW the most dangerous firearm is not an AK-47 or some machine gun, most gun stats show criminals like light portable weapons they can hide like handguns or sawn off shotguns and sawn off rifles.

If banning guns because they are dangerous is OK then I guess the next step should be banning cars with engine powers over a certain level... after all speed kills, so who needs a Porche 911 turbo that can move at more than 100 miles an hour when the speed limit is half that?

Ban mountain climbing... ban swimming... most accident happen in the home so we should ban houses and all live outside and then the world will be safe...

Totaly agree with you