Who for President?

I am Aussie as everyone knows (well almost) and i have no clue what each of the candidates have to offer...

In your opinion who do you think would suit the presidency? Not asking who you would vote on, but based on current views and things, who would make a good president and why?

The problem I see on the Democrat side is the fact that Obama and Clinton are damn near identical in what they want to do. The only real difference is how they want to do health care. I am more in favor of Clintons view on health care and how it should be a mandated thing. [If this topic goes on to talk about it I will shed more light as to why I feel this way.]

I do feel that Obama is full of fluff. I think it is great that he can give a speech and hype everyone up. But I do feel that speeches like his are more suited as a CEO of a company that is trying to rally his employees to look to the future of their company [I am sure many of us have been to those kind of all-hands meetings where you come out thinking "Wow, my job is great!"]

Clinton hit on one area in Ohio that made me like her and that was her talking about the engineers being upset about how all of their jobs are going to other countries [like India] and how she wanted to do something about it. [This hits me harder then most issues that are talked about in debates and such but sadly it is not being brought up].

As for the republican side. The fact of the matter is that I don't see a republican getting into office this next term. Between the war and our economy going to hell in a hand basket it would be hard for a republican to get in. Granted, this is only my opinion and the opinion of some that I talk to about this.

All in all, I feel that Obama will get into office this next term and I hope that he can do the job. No matter who gets in I hope they can get the global opinion of the US up and get our economy back on track.

As much as I loath clinton, Obama will cause this country massive setbacks in internal race relations. I just cannot believe that he's went to a church for twenty years led by a white hating racist preacher on the ideals of Faracan <sp>, and say he didn't know these opinions existed. He put this nutcase on his election committee, and was married by him, his kids baptized by him, etc. Just proves to me Obama Hussan is a political lying hack right out of the gate. I can give you soundtracks from 3 of those sermons, they are full of hate for America and whites.

Obama is nothing short of another liberal opportunist with a corrupted Chicago IL demo machine behind him. I know we don't agree on anything around here, but I don't think there is one person here that has a single defense for that political machine. Anyone connected with Chicago's political machine should no way be considered for anything other than dog catcher.

Hell, one of his best friends is at trial for corruption charges for campaign contributions and other charges. Obama threw his own white grandmother under the bus, even though she raised him and paid his way to an ivy league school. I've lost track of how many gaff's his wife has made already. For someone that says nothing except 'hope and change', there is plenty of underlying hate coming out of their camp. Beware of them.

Clinton, we know is corrupt and power hungry, but she's starting to meltdown. Bill is causing her more problems than they thought. She would no doubt be the best vehicle for the Sierra club to continue their campaign of environmental tinkering. As discussed before, most of this is to make money, not create any wealth for middle class Americans. She certainly will not try to bring PAC groups to any compromise with the working middle class, farmers, loggers, fishermen, etc, anything related to doing business with the earths resources, and this is going to just create further divides in America. Just imagine the court appointments for more liberal judges to legislate from the bench. Thats scary at the least. I've read the union bosses licking their chops for her to sign into law many more ways the unions can infect themselves into business, again, scary as hell.

McCain. Ha. The dems and independents chose him. I think only if hillary runs against him will the conservatives turnout to vote. I'd like to believe his asle hopping the last 10 years could make him more tasteful to moderates and independants, but I see him as a democrat in camouflage. They will backstab and twist him every which way if they lose. I'd say he will be the best of the three, at least ultra radical liberal ideals won't come to bear. I have no idea of his stance on the global warming hoax, but its outta my hands anyway. I didn't have a say in the gop primary whatsoever.


I'd leave the issues out of this for a while. The last universal heath care thread got a fellow grb'er expelled from this group. Again Ephil, you may want mandatory hc, but I don't want to work another 10hrs a week to pay for yours and mine both. I accept the fact that if I want it, I have to pay. End of point. This isn't socialist France or communist China. Mandatory infringes on my rights and its just absolutely anti-american. Clintons first attempt was so socialist in nature it was laughed out of both houses as ludicrous. Its amazing she gets a free pass for that debacle, perhaps not so if she wins the nomination tho.

The best vote is none of the above. Its going to be a miserable next four years anyway it goes. Say goodbye to the tax cuts, which netted me at least 4k a year and double my hc premiums, and limit when and where I can work. Yah, it will just be peachy around here then.

Lexx ever notice that in your mind everyone is Ultra-Liberal?

to quote Jack Handy "Why carpet the world when you can just wear slippers?"

Bubbaspanky wrote:Lexx ever notice that in your mind everyone is Ultra-Liberal?

to quote Jack Handy "Why carpet the world when you can just wear slippers?"

Yah Bubba, I do. I carefully worded that trying no offense, but yah 🙂

Ok I concede, McCain isn't ultra, just plain liberal trying to wear a conservative hat for the upcoming general election. Hillary pretends to be a moderate, while obama is trying to convince everyone he's the next messianic profit. They are all just political hacks. If he wins, it will be only on his race and charisma, like Clinton or JFK.

Hell Bubba, we can't agree on most political topics, how can we set a scale. I'm basically a black/white, right/wrong, type guy.

I wasn't going to put anything into this thread, but since I don't have a horse in this race, and I can't stand obama and/or anything about him, I figured, hell why not 🙂 As I've said, debate here without getting too emotionally charged up makes you a better liberal, makes me a better conservative. I hope you take that as the highest form of flatter. At least I feel compelled to vote for hillary next month, and I voted for J. Jackson for the same reasons.

I was looking forward to this coming election but as you get to know each candidate you start seeing why you don't like them... Due to Clinton's childish lying that she has been up to, I don't think I want that as a president. I already mentioned Obama and how really I don't want a hype preaching CEO as president... McCain, as I said, I don't see a republican getting into office this term.

I lost my excitement over this election...

lexx wrote:Hell Bubba, we can't agree on most political topics, how can we set a scale. I'm basically a black/white, right/wrong, type guy.

And you are talking to the most black/white, right/wrong guy in the world, in fact I went to therapy and walked out on the consellor telling him that it's binary yes or no black or white... he eventually showed me there are almost always shades of grey and I am a much better person for it.

One thing I think we can agree on is that J. Jackson is a douchebag.

Ya know, there is one issue I'd like to see resolved in my lifetime. The primary vote is severely broken. Everytime I like/dislike a candidate, I have to change party affiliation to vote for/against someone. Everyone should be able to declare they are running in Jan, campaign across the country for 5 months, hold a nationwide primary, winner from each side takes the nod for the November election 5 months later.

Anyone should be able to register as an independent and vote for either side too. As it stands, I never see the guy I wanted 6 months later and I have to make a stupid vote for clinton cause I don't like obama vote, while Thompson and Rudy were elimated months ago.

If McCain wants to be associated with campaign laws, this would be one reason I'd back him on. As it stands, its the left leans really left, the right usually leans really right, and the general election comes to to who's pretending to be moderate. No wonder we don't have any interest in most of these elections.

This method might have been fine for John Adams' day where messages took days to get back and forth, but the 21st century could use real time to elect a president from a more diverse pool of candidates. There were several better people out there, just they couldn't afford to kiss Iowa' and NH's arses.

Isnt one reason why they have closed primaries is to make sure that the other side does not go in to screw with the results thus allowing them to run against a complete moron that they voted to go against?

We like it when people kiss our arses 😛

I see both sides of this. NH's (and Iowa's) argument for being the first is that they are small states that the candidates can get out and meet a lot of people. On the other side, two of the least diverse states decide the fate of many candidates which doesn't seem fair.

I agree that the parties should hold national primaries (and these are controlled by the parties, not the states). This campaign essentially started 16 months before the election! I'd much rather see a shorter, less costly primary. With each party paying for equal TV time and exposure for all their candidates (publicly financed of course). I'd much rather have a few months of intense campaigning than the clusterf*ck that we have now. Follow that up with public financing of the general election and we would be much better off already.

As a side benefit, not having NH first would mean that I wouldn't get called every day for two months prior to the primary with questions about whom I intend to vote for 😈

I think you guys really missed the mark. Celestia didn't ask who, but what....

We need someone who understands that government spending is out of control. We need someone who wants to lower spending and taxes because our economy is at a breaking point.

We need someone who can work with both sides, not polarize one side while inciting the other.

We need someone who doesn't make use look weak, because as much as I hate saying this, our enemies do not respect weakness and will feed on it like a crazed dog.

As for mandatory Healthcare.... Does anyone here really believe that government mandated Insurance will actually lower rates? Case in point.... ephil, do you know what happened when Oklahoma mandated that everyone had to have car insurance? The insurance companies said rates would go down because with more people, it wouldn't cost them as much. Instead, Oklahoma has some of the highest rates in the country. Why? Because they have you by the balls.

And guess what, if someone hits you that does not have insurance and you file a claim for the damages against your own insurance, they will drop you and once you've been dropped, your rates go through the roof. Why, again, Vice (test)(icles) Grip.....

Mandatory Healthcare will not lower rates. In fact, I imagine it will raise rates because companies know they have you. And the people who take advantage of the system will continue to take advantage of the system and continue to not pay health care insurance rates.

Atomm, you've said what you don't want to do about healthcare. What do you propose, or do you think healthcare in the US is OK as is?

Atomm, you hit some key points. I didn't miss the mark, I said none of the above. No one left can come close to hitting your ideals. The remaining three are spend happy senators. There will be no lower taxes, less spending cuts, nor anything to do with reconciling with either side. All their egos are way to inflated for that, and none of them have run a state, a key factor for me.

McCain is the only one that may keep our military strong. obama will hold talks with Iran and Korea, or any terrorist group by his own admission. Clinton says what ever the crowd she happens to be addressing at the time. Both promise to cut back without a commitment to doing this in one term however. They are good at condemning the wars, but they know they cannot pull the plug, and I seriously doubt they would want to have their name on a lose.

Healthcare used to be quite affordable. It was included with just about every middle class job. Once clinton stirred the pot with what appeared to be a socialist solution, the insurance and health industry woke up and said, hey, we better raise our prices now. Its been on the rise ever since.

Ay, mandatory car insurance has raped every state I've lived in since the 80's. First, WA, later CO, WV, and PA. These are deals made with state legislatures, voters didn't have much if any say if their insurance would go up by 50% or more. Once, I was a couple of days late paying my premium here in PA, they declared a rule in the law, and I was slapped with a high risk premium for a year, or double the normal amount.

Its no wonder people don't care to vote anymore.

Just let me dispute one point that has been made here. I lived in MA where they had mandatory auto insurance, I moved to NH where no insurance is required. On the same vehicles in the same month my insurance in NH was much higher... why? Because the threat that I get hit by some ass without insurance.

So don't keep spread false generalities please. It may be the case in some places, but not in all

Bubbaspanky wrote:Just let me dispute one point that has been made here. I lived in MA where they had mandatory auto insurance, I moved to NH where no insurance is required. On the same vehicles in the same month my insurance in NH was much higher... why? Because the threat that I get hit by some ass without insurance.

So don't keep spread false generalities please. It may be the case in some places, but not in all

::ephil High Fives Bubba::

Ok, I am able to actually reply a little better now...

The reason I gave Bubba the virtual high five is due to the BS ins crap I have to go through with cars...

In VA I was paying something like $74/month for ins through Geico... When I move back to OK, I now pay $130/month...

WTF!?!

The reason for this is in northern VA you have people driving very expensive cars and the all have insurance. But here in OK, people drive around pos cars that, while they need them, don't see a reason to insure them...

I have never been in an accident that was caused by me, but I do the right thing and cover my car so that if I do run into someone it is taken care of. But because many people here do not have coverage, I have to pay for them every month just in case they run into me...

Total BS!

This is the exact same thing that you see in health insurance... We pay a lot in health insurance due to the fact that many people don't have coverage and end up getting health care that they can't pay for. But you know what, we pay for it out of our paychecks... Why should I have to pay for someone else to go to the hospital, rack up a 15k bill and then not pay it?

With the mandatory health insurance they also speak about how part of it is to lower the cost of the insurance...

It all fits into place... Everyone paying for ins = hospitals getting paid for their services = lowering the cost of the services from the hospitals = lower cost of health ins. PLUS the government forcing the health ins companies to lower their costs.

Hell, Clintons plan is to give people the option to have the SAME plan as congress... Not only that but giving people health tax credits so people are able to afford the plans if they are not making enough money to support coverage.

I have talked with people that say "I don't want to have to ask the government for support!"... I say "Get over it! I am tired of paying for your ass and if I ever get into a position that makes it to where I need support for health ins. I AM FILLING OUT THE DAMN FORMS!"...

I think the biggest issue is that people don't actually look at the plans... Read every word... Really understand what is going on... And look at the big picture...

Ok, I think that is enough for this post 🙂

Just watched the speech from Obama... And it looks like he speaks about the one thing that I care very much about [jobs going overseas]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU&feature=bz302

32:14

So, now, the only difference I see between Obama and Clinton is Health care [and they are pretty close with that as well]

Note: Yes, there are other differences between Obama and Clinton, I am talking about policies. Clinton really erk'ed me with that whole "I landed under sniper fire and had to run to the Humvee's!!!" bs that she pulled this last time...

You've got to know better than to lie about something so public. Pure stupidity

ephil wrote:In VA I was paying something like $74/month for ins through Geico... When I move back to OK, I now pay $130/month...

WTF!?!

The reason for this is in northern VA you have people driving very expensive cars and the all have insurance. But here in OK, people drive around pos cars that, while they need them, don't see a reason to insure them...

ephil, northern virginia is not the only part of virginia. The majority of virginia is rural and i doubt they drive high priced mercedes.

The reason mandatory insurance in virginia is cheaper is because the state government actually did the right thing and keeps the prices under control. They also tightly regulate everyone who has a car. In fact, they regulate it so tightly, I found out first hand just how anal they are about it.

When I moved to Texas from Virginia, I transferred my Car Insurance, but didn't get my tags transfered right away. Shortly there after, I got a letter to verify my insurance. So, I went to their website and filled in the details. Of course, it was Texas details. A few weeks later, I get a letter from virginia that I have been fined $500 (times 2 cars). Then, even though I did not have a Virginia license at the time, they issued me a temporary license which they promptly revoked and finally they said my tags would be revoked in 30 days if I did not clear the matter up. And while I am trying to get this all cleared up, Texas then sends me a notification that because my "fake" license in Virginia has been revoked, I had 2 weeks to get it cleared up or my Texas license would be revoked.

As much as I hate big government and as much as this was a complete pain in the ass, it is the model of effeciency and part of the reason they can control insurance costs. They make sure if you have a license or a tag, you have Insurance. They don't wait until you get pulled over to run your insurance card like they do in Oklahoma.

I have never been in an accident that was caused by me, but I do the right thing and cover my car so that if I do run into someone it is taken care of. But because many people here do not have coverage, I have to pay for them every month just in case they run into me...

Just wait until someone does hit you and you have to use that insurance. Your chances of being dropped increase significantly. And if they drop you, all other insurance will view you as high risk and raise your premiums even higher. This happened to "The Bladerunner", A popular local drive DJ in Oklahoma and because he filed a claim for $2000 worth of damage against his uninsured motorist insurance, his insurance dropped him as high risk. And this was after a spotless record. He even went as far as contacting the Insurance Commision on the air, which got him nowhere. In the end, that $2000 wound up costing him more than $2000 because he paided higher rates for several years.

It all fits into place... Everyone paying for ins = hospitals getting paid for their services = lowering the cost of the services from the hospitals = lower cost of health ins.

Your logic is impecable and I can not refute it. However, history has shown us time and time again that Logic applied via Government works out to something more along the lines of this:

Everyone paying for ins <> hospitals getting paid for their services < lowering the cost of the services from the hospitals != lower cost of health ins + tax increases

PLUS the government forcing the health ins companies to lower their costs.

Now you've hit on the key. They would have to tightly regulate the costs. However, you failed to factor in the 4 Health Insurance Lobbyists per Congressman that are working hard to make sure this does not happen.

I think the biggest issue is that people don't actually look at the plans... Read every word... Really understand what is going on... And look at the big picture...

I thought you just described our Congressman.... I tried reading a 600+ page bill once. Didn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to me.

Someone asked what I think we should do? Here is the real crutch of the issue. Government + Insurance + Medical Providers = One hugely complicated mess. It is not a simple problem such as being proposed by the candidates. For this to work, there needs to be real change and all parties must come to the table and come up with a solution that benefits everyone, not a single group. However, this will never happen. The health industry will crumble before Insurance participates in open, honest talks.

I want there to be a simple answer, but there is not and someone trying to sell that pie in the sky approach is just giving lipservice to something that they think people want to hear.

And along the same lines of why I don't trust the government to come up with a real solution:

The VA Hospitals are the worst in the Country.
Medicare is going broke.
Medicaid, which was created to fix the problems with Medicare does not even work.

That's why my 80 year old grandfather, a WWII veteran had to take out third party Insurance on his limited retirement.

ephil, I'm not trying to be a dick. I just stopped believing the government has anyone's interest in mind other than their own and the lobbyist that support them.

Atomm while I agree with alot of what you said, the one thing I will throw out there is this:

right now it's dozens of hospitals working with dozens of insurers with thousands of plans.

If we were going to do it right, it needs to be

Hospitals working with dozens of insurers with 1 plan

then all the red tape and confusion would be elminated. It sounds pie in the sky, but that is why auto insurance works in states like MA and VA.

FYI VA does it all wrong. You can't get tags in MA without proof of insurance. If you have a good insurance agent, they will get you your tags when you buy the insurance.

Bubba, you misunderstood. I had to show proof of insurance when I got my VA tags. It was when I transfered my insurance before transferring my tags to Texas that Virginia came after me. Keep in mind, this all happened automatically. I transfered my Insurance away from VA and they immediately knew about it.

My bad... I am brain dead today

An interesting 2 to 4-year-old (updated in 2006) article about health-care and prisons. I expect the basic idea is still valid, despite the age of the article.

http://www.rd.com/columnists/michael-crowl...ticle27400.html

Gang-bangers get themselves patched up when they get shot, and inmates get free healthcare, but law-abiding citizens are being marginalized? Nice. Oh, and gender-reassignment? Breast reduction? I won't pass judgment on ppl wanting these things, but unless the breasts are causing spinal deformity, I don't think taxpayers need to pay for that when so many life-threatening issues go without treatment.

Oh I used to just love going to the campus bookstore. In our campus they ran 28 registers and all of them had 35-45 minute wait. then they had one more register for only student athletes on full boat and rehabbing people with felonies. So not only did the felons get free books, but they also didn't have to stand in the 45 min line. Of course you also knew they didn't have the student loans that I did either.

Hence, my mother always suggesting I get caught in a nice felony like wiretapping or hacking a gv't computer.

Doc, you bring up a good point. Let's say we force the 15 million people who don't have healthcare to get healthcare. What about the 11 million people who not only do not have healthcare, but probably won't pay for the services they receive. This would be the 11 Million Illegal immigrants who won't be in the 15 million forced to buy healthcare.

Atomm wrote:Doc, you bring up a good point. Let's say we force the 15 million people who don't have healthcare to get healthcare. What about the 11 million people who not only do not have healthcare, but probably won't pay for the services they receive. This would be the 11 Million Illegal immigrants who won't be in the 15 million forced to buy healthcare.

Atomm, I wouldn't have thought to use the word "force" in relation to ppl getting health coverage. We're really looking at this from different viewpoints.

Here's Wikipedia's related article, for whatever Wikipedia's worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_i...e_United_States

I thought it might have some relevant info.

I don't know what to do about the 11 million immigrants, but how would treating them under a different system be worse than now, when they already get healthcare and don't pay? Immigration's a whole different can of worms. I can see how it has an effect on healthcare, but it requires a solution separate from health care, while also taking healthcare into account.

As Bubba said before, there's a WHOLE LOT of paperwork and bureaucracy we could cut out if we revamped the system. My sister worked in a hospital for years, and the hoops that are necessary to jump through to submit a claim are often ridiculous. She would sometimes spend hours on just one claim, calling and re-calling the insurance company, talking to many different reps/agents, sending out paperwork, then having to do it all over again later, as someone enters the data wrong, or rules incorrectly on a claim. Submit the same claim to a dozen different ppl at the same company, and you never quite know what would come from each.

The insurance issue with prescriptions is somewhat better, but having worked in a pharmacy, I can tell you that gets interesting at times as well.

I should look for a link that details the expense of overhead, paperwork, bureaucracy, and duplication of resources, lobbying, etc, but I would guess it's considerable.

There is a whole additional issue on lobbying and drug pushing. it should be made illegal for drug companies to send reps to drs offices. Reduce the amount of meals, meat and veggie plates, and schwag each dr gets from drug companies, and people might be able to afford drugs again.

Oh... Talking about prescriptions is a whole new ball game and there are a lot of players in it... Sadly, most of them suck! Even the store itself!

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008...onomics-quorum/

Bubba,

You'd change your mind if you knew how many people those doctor's help with free "samples". When I was out of work, my doctor gave me 2 months worth of samples to help me out.

My wife's office helps a lot of people who need it. It's all a form of welfare and in the end the money all comes from the same place, but I'm not sure it would make much difference.

The real problem is the fact that the US pays a higher rate for the same medications they sell at much lower rates in other countries. Heck, I even considered buying meds from Canada when I was looking at not being covered for one of my medications.

Atomm wrote:Bubba,

You'd change your mind if you knew how many people those doctor's help with free "samples". When I was out of work, my doctor gave me 2 months worth of samples to help me out.

My wife's office helps a lot of people who need it. It's all a form of welfare and in the end the money all comes from the same place, but I'm not sure it would make much difference.

The real problem is the fact that the US pays a higher rate for the same medications they sell at much lower rates in other countries. Heck, I even considered buying meds from Canada when I was looking at not being covered for one of my medications.

free samples is one thing... clipboards, meat platters, lunches, eye charts... etc etc etc

We like it when people kiss our arses

I only kiss kenny's... lol! 😉


Okay wow... mandatory health care! That's insane! how does one expect for an economy to get better when health care becomes mandatory o.o!

From what I have seen anyways, I'd chose Obama... seems like the only one with half decent views in some respects.

And Adam it's not about making US look weak or nothing.. what the US needs is a good strong leader who actually gives a crap about the people living in the country.

If you wanna make a the country better, I'd say bring back troops, lessen money on military (cause from what i heard it's insane in some respects to how much goes into it)- put some money into other areas such as education, a bit in health care, lower taxes and make tax brackets more effective so that people can earn a freaking decent salary in their jobs. OOOh and while I am at it, improve social security!

I dunno much okay, so let's not bite my head off, but from living in Australia where things are quite fair, omg.... I'd definitely would like to see better health care and decent pay checks! Minimum wages in the US are horrid.. sorry but comparing it to AUS, it suxs.

I dunno.. in the end I'd really just like to see a decent president for once.