Who do you vote for if it's McCain Vs. Obama?

[Straha]

Part two of three of the election series. Who do you vote for if Obama wins the democratic primary?

[Shinova]

Baracka.


IF he wins the primary, which is likely but not certain.

[Gil Hamilton]

Baracka.


IF he wins the primary, which is likely but not certain.

Wait, this fellow?



As for me, I'll vote for Obama well before I'll vote for McCain.

[Guardsman Bass]

Obama.

[Fire Fly]

At this point, almost anyone but McSame. The GOP perceives him as being too liberal and will have an iron grip on his balls: he's not going to be able to undo the shitty Bush legislations that the GOP currently loves. More tax cuts for the rich, more Iraq, no major climate change initiatives, stem cells will continue to be off limits, green technology won't be given a priority and a boat load more. If McCain does win, he's going to have to be even more conservative to maintain party support.

[Glocksman]

Obama.
And the one voter for McCain needs to 'fess up.

[Straha]

Obama.
And the one voter for McCain needs to 'fess up.

That's me. I don't like McCain, I don't want McCain in power and odds are I'd actually vote for a third party. But I despise the Cult of the Obamessiah and the slavish demagoguery that accompanies him. I had a conversation with three zealots which went essentially like this:

Me: Why are you voting for him?
Zealot: I think he's a great speaker, and that he's the only one in the election who can change the economy and bring guidance back to us.
Me: Well, what about his protectionist trade policy and seeming desire to pull out of NAFTA?
Zealot: Have you heard him speak? He's thrilling. Go listen to his speeches on the economy.
Me: I don't care about how he speaks I care about what he says, and I don't like it. And I don't like his demagoguery.
Zealot: Do you think anyone else can bring the change he's going to bring?
Me: I don't like the changes he wants to bring!
Zealot: Go online to his website. His best stuff is there, and he's the only person who can rally the support of the American people.
Me: :: stares::


Really the only thing which I see as a pro-Obama point is that if he wins we can't possibly have Hillary for the next eight years. Which, admittedly, is a delightfully soothing and refreshing thought.

[Fire Fly]

Obama.
And the one voter for McCain needs to 'fess up.

That's me. I don't like McCain, I don't want McCain in power and odds are I'd actually vote for a third party. But I despise the Cult of the Obamessiah and the slavish demagoguery that accompanies him. I had a conversation with three zealots which went essentially like this:

Me: Why are you voting for him?
Zealot: I think he's a great speaker, and that he's the only one in the election who can change the economy and bring guidance back to us.
Me: Well, what about his protectionist trade policy and seeming desire to pull out of NAFTA?
Zealot: Have you heard him speak? He's thrilling. Go listen to his speeches on the economy.
Me: I don't care about how he speaks I care about what he says, and I don't like it. And I don't like his demagoguery.
Zealot: Do you think anyone else can bring the change he's going to bring?
Me: I don't like the changes he wants to bring!
Zealot: Go online to his website. His best stuff is there, and he's the only person who can rally the support of the American people.
Me: :: stares::


Really the only thing which I see as a pro-Obama point is that if he wins we can't possibly have Hillary for the next eight years. Which, admittedly, is a delightfully soothing and refreshing thought.

Why didn't you vote for that option in the poll then, the third party?

[KlavoHunter]

Now somebody else has voted McCain. I imagine they did it for the lulz.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Okay, Straha, so Obama has some inarticulate/dumb supporters. How is he the worse candidate, according to reasonable benchmarks for judging them?

[Havok]

In this scenario, Obama.

[Straha]

Okay, Straha, so Obama has some inarticulate/dumb supporters. How is he the worse candidate, according to reasonable benchmarks for judging them?

I disagree strongly with his standpoint on the economy, pulling out of NAFTA and his fight for, as his website so misleadingly puts it, "Fair Trade" (read: Protectionist policies designed to fuck over foreign countries and "protect" American jobs.) And his Social Security and Healthcare policies stink to high fucking hell to me.

If I thought Obama would be moderately competent otherwise and if his method of campaigning (All hail the Obamessiah!) didn't disgust me to no end I could live with maybe voting for him. But as it stands I'd much rather anyone else in the race to be in the job except for him.

[Havok]

I disagree strongly with his standpoint on the economy, pulling out of NAFTA and his fight for, as his website so misleadingly puts it, "Fair Trade" (read: Protectionist policies designed to fuck over foreign countries and "protect" American jobs.) And his Social Security and Healthcare policies stink to high fucking hell to me.

If I thought Obama would be moderately competent otherwise and if his method of campaigning (All hail the Obamessiah!) didn't disgust me to no end I could live with maybe voting for him. But as it stands I'd much rather anyone else in the race to be in the job except for him.

Wait. You're mad that an AMERICAN presidential candidate wants to protect AMERICAN jobs?

[KlavoHunter]

Wait. You're mad that an AMERICAN presidential candidate wants to protect AMERICAN jobs?

Yeah, Straha. He's running for President of America, not President of the World.

[Straha]

Wait. You're mad that an AMERICAN presidential candidate wants to protect AMERICAN jobs?

He's saying he's going to protect jobs. Except protectionism doesn't fucking work. On top of that it creates unemployment in other countries and drives people into absolute fucking poverty where they don't have the social "safety net" we have in America (and that's very bad.) I, personally, wont vote for that. If you want to, go ahead but it sickens me and that's the long and short of it.

[Havok]

Wait. You're mad that an AMERICAN presidential candidate wants to protect AMERICAN jobs?

He's saying he's going to protect jobs. Except protectionism doesn't fucking work. On top of that it creates unemployment in other countries and drives people into absolute fucking poverty where they don't have the social "safety net" we have in America (and that's very bad.) I, personally, wont vote for that. If you want to, go ahead but it sickens me and that's the long and short of it.

No offense man, but that is dumb. I feel for the rest of the world too, but this is an American election, not a U.N. one. His first priority HAS to be his own population, just as any countries leaders should be.

[Straha]

No offense man, but that is dumb. I feel for the rest of the world too, but this is an American election, not a U.N. one. His first priority HAS to be his own population, just as any countries leaders should be.

What part of you doesn't get it? I'll restate what I've said twice. PROTECTIONISM DOESN'T WORK. And now, because you apparently didn't get it, once more but this time without the contraction PROTECTIONISM DOES NOT WORK.

See, once again, my problem with him is twofold: A. He's going to screw the American economy with his policies and B. He's going to screw other economies with his policies. What makes it even worse is that while his policies would do this he says "I'm the only person who can save the American Economy and America!"

Do you understand my derision for him now, or shall I spell it out phonetically this time?

[K. A. Pital]

PROTECTIONISM DOESN'T WORK

Yea, yea. Sure it doesn't Like it didn't make First world agriculture dominate the world's markets and crush everyone else like a bug

You know, saying it as a universal statement without any proof is not good debate, isn't it. There are instances where it works, and where it doesn't - and it mostly depends on the effect you want to achieve.

[Straha]

PROTECTIONISM DOESN'T WORK

Yea, yea. Sure it doesn't Like it didn't make First world agriculture dominate the world's markets and crush everyone else like a bug

Ahh, yes! Because the world food market works perfectly right now! Ohh... wait a second... Due in no small part to protectionism we're facing sky-rocketing food prices, while American farmers (the very people the tariffs were supposed to protect) bitch their ass off about how they're going out of business. Or maybe we should go and look at the wonderfully efficient farming system in the rest of the First World and the delightful labyrinth that is the EU protection racket shall we? Heck, we could even go look at the friggin Philippines which is having to buy rice from Vietnam now when, ten years ago, it was a major rice exporter.

So, yes, if you want a first rate example of how "PROTECTIONISM DOES NOT WORK" lets go romping through the agriculture business shall we? Only I'd rather do it when it's not 4:51 in the morning.

[Straha]

Ghetto Edit: Forgot to mention the possible famines due, in part, to the rather blatant protectionism. Imagine me as putting mention of that somewhere in that last post.

[K. A. Pital]

Due in no small part to protectionism we're facing sky-rocketing food prices, while American farmers (the very people the tariffs were supposed to protect) bitch their ass off about how they're going out of business.

Tell me how protectionism is the reason for the rise of food prices. Also tell me why a nation should not enact protectionism if it's own citizens can't buy the food and starve. Are you really that dumb?

Also tell me how protectonism harms the First World. It ruins the Third World sure, and crushes their agricultural business, but the First World? Hahahaha.

Forgot to mention the possible famines due, in part, to the rather blatant protectionism.

Possible famines due to "protectionism"? Tell me about it. Which large famines happened due to protectionism, as opposed to selling out food to uncaring fat jackasses, when poorer people starve? I can't think of an example offhand, and I know many famines: the Great Irish Famine, the Bengal famine, Bangladesh Famine, Imperial Russia famines, USSR 1930 famines, and they all share a common mechanism which has NOTHING to do with protectionism and ALL to do with selling food out when it would be better NOT to - i.e. anti-protectionist policy in food trade.

But yes, food importers can get famine in case of protectionism. But that's because the food exporters are under threat of famine themselves, and thus close sales, idiot. So it's either famine here or there.

[The Grim Squeaker]

PROTECTIONISM DOESN'T WORK

Yea, yea. Sure it doesn't Like it didn't make First world agriculture dominate the world's markets and crush everyone else like a bug

Ahh, yes! Because the world food market works perfectly right now! Ohh... wait a second... Due in no small part to protectionism we're facing sky-rocketing food prices, while American farmers (the very people the tariffs were supposed to protect) bitch their ass off about how they're going out of business. Or maybe we should go and look at the wonderfully efficient farming system in the rest of the First World and the delightful labyrinth that is the EU protection racket shall we? Heck, we could even go look at the friggin Philippines which is having to buy rice from Vietnam now when, ten years ago, it was a major rice exporter.

So, yes, if you want a first rate example of how "PROTECTIONISM DOES NOT WORK" lets go romping through the agriculture business shall we? Only I'd rather do it when it's not 4:51 in the morning.

Now, now, protectionism worked fabolously in protecting the US (And UK) Auto industry, keeping it lean, efficient and profitable... .
Protectionism leads to weak, fat, inefficient and bankrupt markets, leading to even ahrsher later adjustments than there would be with sompetition. This is NOT a blanket statement against protectionism, food is one of the few fields which are essential to protect even if they are less efficient than, say, finance (See the UK), due to their importance, but it's a very fine line.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Due in no small part to protectionism we're facing sky-rocketing food prices, while American farmers (the very people the tariffs were supposed to protect) bitch their ass off about how they're going out of business.

Tell me how protectionism is the reason for the rise of food prices. Also tell me why a nation should not enact protectionism if it's own citizens can't buy the food and starve. Are you really that dumb?

Forgot to mention the possible famines due, in part, to the rather blatant protectionism.

Possible famines due to "protectionism"? Tell me about it. Which large famines happened due to protectionism, as opposed to selling out food to uncaring fat jackasses, when poorer people starve? I can't think of an example offhand, and I know many famines: the Great Irish Famine,

Quick example - The Irish famine and extremely high food prices for british workers were bought on by the Corn laws, prohibitive taxes on imported food meant to protect local farmers. They were eventually repealed.

[K. A. Pital]

Protectionism leads to weak, fat, inefficient and bankrupt markets

So does a lack of any protection, actually, as seen many times in teh Third and Second world. Or maybe you forgot that South Korea's economic standup was fuelled by it's leaders autocratically selecting a cabal of loyal oligarchs who would invest into the nation for their loyalty, and loyalty was a prime qualifier for ST tycoons?

Indeed it's a line, and a fine one. But blanket idiotic statements like "it does not work period" are ridiculous.

[K. A. Pital]

The Irish famine and extremely high food prices for british workers were bought on by the Corn laws

When Ireland experienced a famine in 1782-83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests; that export ban did not happen in the 1840s.

How fucking simple is that really? That's basic protectionism, a simple ban, a port closure. It helped.