Is there a Republican candidate you like?

[Schneibster]

I've never voted in my life. Politics is rubbish.

If I was to vote it'd be for the Green Party.

They could probably use your vote.

[Svartalf]

Well, vote against what?

Just a suggestion. Sometimes it helps.

I know who'll be there on round 2, boith are perfectly distasteful, and the SoB who'll be facing Sarkoszyt has no legitimity and is essentially responsible for him having been elected in the fist place.

I know who Sarkozy is, but have no idea who the opposition is. I blush to say I haven't kept track.

Surely they propose different policies? Surely, no matter how corrupt, they'll do something they say they're going to and you'll either like it or hate it enough to make a choice. Be honest: can you find nothing between them?

Meanwhile, it sounds like you have an opportunity to express your distaste in round 1 by voting for someone else. I'd use that, too. Have you considered writing to them? Or LTTEing?

Well, the opposition is of course the socialist... who got the primaries this time, but should have been candidate last time instead of leaving to a worthless bitch who alienated so many people szarkrap won the race.

and his program is like "we'll create 60 000 teacher jobs, but we won't actually hire any more civil servants than we currently have"... from a lefty, that tells all, and that guy will have my vote when Jesus has come back and told me to vote for him.

[redunderthebed]

What's sad is that I'm preparing to abstain from voting next May, because all the candidates suck here too.

I never advocate abstaining. When in doubt vote against.

Yah I vote against the liberal party.

I usually vote for the greens they direct my preferences away from the liberal party always.

[Drewish]

- He wants a market-based healthcare system.

I don't. We've been trying this for fifty years and it's been failing.

Untrue statement. Wage limit laws were enacted during World War 2 to make sure that the best and brightest went into the military. Companies used benefits (a big one being health insurance) as a means of getting around this. Later on laws were passed requiring health insurance be provided to full time employees, creating a situation where health costs were hidden from consumers and choices involving coverage were made largely by employers. This has distorted the market in several ways.

- Support tort reform.

"Tort reform" is code for eliminating the right to sue. More deregulation. It worked so well with the banks he wants to do it with medicine.

False analogy. Without even getting into all the issues with banking system, I can safely say that comparing it to tort reform for medicine makes no sense unless one views all laws and regulations as equivalent.

- Wants out of the Middle East.

There is no one else Israel is going to accept as an honest broker. This is a recipe for nuclear war.

Unfounded assertions. So if we withdraw troops from the Middle East, this will definitely lead to nuclear war? That's quite the claim, I'd love to see how you arrived at that one.

- Wants to raise the minimum age for retirement to make Social Security solvent.

Instead of raising taxes on the rich, which the majority of the rich approve of according to recent polls.

There's nothing wrong with your statement here logically. One thing I will point out though is that raising the tax rates on the rich will not actually tax the super wealthy very much. I mean when GE can negotiate a 0% tax rate for itself specifically, it doesn't matter what it's base rate was supposed to be. The thing that allows large corporations and the super wealthy to avoid paying a large amount of their taxes are all the special perks and loopholes set up in the tax code. Raising the tax rate on people making more than 200,000 a year will cut into the income of somebody making 230,000 significantly. but for the multi-billionaire who can afford lobbyists to get special breaks, and accountants and lawyers to find ways to take advantage of all the loopholes that other people have already put in place, it won't do jack. Warren Buffet is selling you a load of crap.

- Opposed the bank bailouts.

Knows no economics. Fail.

Ad hominem. Calling somebody ignorant is not an argument. Please bring forward the macro economic model that you are using to prove that the bank bailouts needed to happen. Then I will then bring forward evidence that said model does not accurately predict economic trends.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

The primary problem with big-L Libertarians is that they don't understand economics. We had three of those in the last five Presidents and every one has fucked up the economy and caused a recession. The last one wasn't satisfied with that, he caused the biggest recession since the Great Depression; they're calling it the Great Recession right now. No more people who don't understand economics.

Corporations and the rich get more out of the US than poor people and the employees of corporations. They therefore should be putting more in. From those to whom much is given, much is expected.

I have real reasons for the things I believe; I don't like propaganda much and tend to react violently to it. I change opinions when presented with evidence.

This guy is the best Libertarian I've ever seen, but that's still not very good. Sorry.

I put that in spoiler tags because it's just a rant.

See, here's how Republicans think it's correct to address their own constituents when they ask inconvenient questions:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... ank-lobby/

With video of this asshole yelling insults at and in front of his constituents and threatening to throw them out of the meeting.

The latest is the video's gone viral and he's trying the twinkie defense.

Teagagger, of course.

Oh, and did I mention he owes a hundred grand in child support, which he's now being sued for by his ex-wife because he lied and gave it all to his campaign and she found out?

Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with the topic at all unless one assumes that all Republicans are the same. Considering how different the candidates listed are on several issues, that's clearly not true.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Schneibster, come on. Citing another Republican (who isn't running for the Presidency) as an argument against all the different candidates?

Nope, but nice try at distracting from the argument with a shiny object.

Or are you simply attempting to slander the party?

It's him in the video. Doesn't look like slander to me. Would you like to see the other fifteen articles about Republicans having fits in, charging an attendance fee for, or ejecting and/or brutalizing old people who ask inconvenient questions in, their town halls over this past summer? I assure you I can bring them on a half hour's notice.

It's not slander. It's the truth. And calling it slander is propaganda.

Discussing issues is the place for valid discussion. Discussing party lines and loyalty to them is appealing to an in-group mentality.

It's not a party line. It's what Republican Teagagger Party politicians are doing, and I challenge you to find similar events at Democratic town hall meetings. In fact, the last time someone did something disruptive at one of those it was a teagagger calling a US Senate candidate, a professor of law at Harvard, a "whore." He left after the rest of the town hall called him a bigot; no one was calling the old man who got pushed down and handcuffed by security thugs who are currently being sued anything, except the piece of shit running the meeting.

Get real. There's a difference. And it's pretty nasty on the right in the US today. My parents are lifelong Democrats; my father voted for Roosevelt (my mother was too young by a year). I rebelled into Libertarianism when I was in my rebelling stage, and had a pretty long hard look at it. I abandoned it in disgust when the propaganda became obvious.

Don't bring a bunch of shit like this to a conversation and then accuse me of propagandizing. Any adult can check these things in a minute on google. Validation of sources requires skill, but anyone can find the sources in the first place that I get my information from, and anyone can debunk it if it's debunkable. No one does; if they did, I'd change my opinion. Just that simple.

Yeah, another rant.

I have not even been trying to argue, merely asking you to refrain from emotional based language and attacks,

See, there's the whole point.

Please point to the "emotional based language and attacks."

Just did.

You're attacking me for telling the truth.

Yes... I'm attacking you...

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

And there we go. Clearly you just won. How can I argue with such a clearly articulated truth as that?

I did get more sarcastic and snarky in my responses as I went didn't I? Well, I'll apologize if you respond with something other than a non sequitur laden rant.

[Schneibster]

First, thanks for your respect. I will endeavor to use similar and you may chide me if I fail to show similar. Should chide me; I want this to remain respectful on both sides.

- He wants a market-based healthcare system.

I don't. We've been trying this for fifty years and it's been failing.

Untrue statement. Wage limit laws were enacted during World War 2 to make sure that the best and brightest went into the military. Companies used benefits (a big one being health insurance) as a means of getting around this.

Irrelevant.WWII was more than fifty years ago.
Irrelevant.Wage limit laws have nothing to do with healthcare.
Irrelevant. What companies did to get around wage limit laws has nothing to do with whether a) we have had market-based healthcare or b) it's been failing.

Later on laws were passed requiring health insurance be provided to full time employees, creating a situation where health costs were hidden from consumers and choices involving coverage were made largely by employers. This has distorted the market in several ways.

Untrue. At every job I have ever had, there was an option to decline the employer health insurance, and that option removed a withholding amount from my paycheck if I chose it. (I never have, but it's always been there and there's always been a careful statement that I'd get more money in my paycheck if I chose it).

Finally, you've completely ignored the fact that market-based healthcare (whether you can find a few exceptions where it worked great or not) has been failing to provide healthcare to US citizens or not; it manifestly has failed, the number of uninsured appeared as a problem in newspaper articles weekly for three decades.

- Support tort reform.

"Tort reform" is code for eliminating the right to sue. More deregulation. It worked so well with the banks he wants to do it with medicine.

False analogy.

Irrelevant. It's still eliminating the right to sue.

Without even getting into all the issues with banking system, I can safely say that comparing it to tort reform for medicine makes no sense unless one views all laws and regulations as equivalent.

Ignoring the point. It's deregulation, and deregulation was what caused the mess with the banks.

- Wants out of the Middle East.

There is no one else Israel is going to accept as an honest broker. This is a recipe for nuclear war.

Unfounded assertions. So if we withdraw troops from the Middle East, this will definitely lead to nuclear war? That's quite the claim, I'd love to see how you arrived at that one.

Changing the subject. "Wants out" doesn't just mean troops. He proposes to disengage diplomatically. This is, as I said, a recipe for nuclear war. This is not conjecture; he has said so in as many words.

- Wants to raise the minimum age for retirement to make Social Security solvent.

Instead of raising taxes on the rich, which the majority of the rich approve of according to recent polls.

There's nothing wrong with your statement here logically. One thing I will point out though is that raising the tax rates on the rich will not actually tax the super wealthy very much.

Irrelevant. They'll be paying their share. The intent is not to punish them. It's to pay the bills, and to do so relatively equitably.

I mean when GE can negotiate a 0% tax rate for itself specifically, it doesn't matter what it's base rate was supposed to be.

Irrelevant. GE is not individuals. We're talking about individuals, not corporations. Corporations don't get Social Security benefits.

Untrue. Whatever offsets they got, GE paid the employer portion of FICA. We are discussing Social Security, not income tax.

Untrue. GE didn't "negotiate" a 0% tax rate. Among other things, they accomplished tasks that the Congress deemed worth giving tax breaks for and got those tax breaks; that's a quid pro quo. Even the stupid and unfair oil company tax breaks weren't just given for no reason at all, with no rationale.

The thing that allows large corporations and the super wealthy to avoid paying a large amount of their taxes are all the special perks and loopholes set up in the tax code.

Untrue. Assumes there is no quid pro quo for the tax breaks. The special perks and loopholes save the government money, and/or accomplish tasks the Congress wants accomplished. For example, doing R&D. Typically, Libertarians don't recognize R&D as having any economic value, which is one of the reasons I say Libertarians don't know anything about economics.

Raising the tax rate on people making more than 200,000 a year will cut into the income of somebody making 230,000 significantly. but for the multi-billionaire who can afford lobbyists to get special breaks, and accountants and lawyers to find ways to take advantage of all the loopholes that other people have already put in place, it won't do jack. Warren Buffet is selling you a load of crap.

Untrue. Assumes facts not in evidence. "Significantly" depends on how much it's raised, and because the tax code is progressive, they'll only pay the higher rate on 30,000, not the entire amount as you imply.

- Opposed the bank bailouts.

Knows no economics. Fail.

Ad hominem. Calling somebody ignorant is not an argument.

Untrue. Calling someone ignorant of economics for opposing the bank bailouts uses prima facie evidence. The bailouts could have been done better; but not to do them at all? Every economist in the US, saltwater AND freshwater, knew perfectly well that they were necessary, and said so at the time, and ever since. We'd be in Great Depression II if we hadn't. It's one of the big mistakes Hoover made.

Please bring forward the macro economic model that you are using to prove that the bank bailouts needed to happen.

All of them except for the fringe.

Then I will then bring forward evidence that said model does not accurately predict economic trends.

This is simply boasting and doesn't deserve an answer.

I might look at the rest later but so far you have no arguments remaining.

[Warren Dew]

And again somebody is voting intentionally to cancel out my vote by evening it out

And here I thought it was me they were cancelling out.

I see three candidates are back down to zero now, though.

[Cormac]

- He wants a market-based healthcare system.
I don't. We've been trying this for fifty years and it's been failing.
- Support tort reform.
"Tort reform" is code for eliminating the right to sue. More deregulation. It worked so well with the banks he wants to do it with medicine.
- Wants out of the Middle East.
There is no one else Israel is going to accept as an honest broker. This is a recipe for nuclear war.
- Wants to raise the minimum age for retirement to make Social Security solvent.
Instead of raising taxes on the rich, which the majority of the rich approve of according to recent polls.
- Opposed the bank bailouts.

Knows no economics. Fail.

The primary problem with big-L Libertarians is that they don't understand economics. We had three of those in the last five Presidents and every one has fucked up the economy and caused a recession. The last one wasn't satisfied with that, he caused the biggest recession since the Great Depression; they're calling it the Great Recession right now. No more people who don't understand economics.

Corporations and the rich get more out of the US than poor people and the employees of corporations. They therefore should be putting more in. From those to whom much is given, much is expected.

I have real reasons for the things I believe; I don't like propaganda much and tend to react violently to it. I change opinions when presented with evidence.

This guy is the best Libertarian I've ever seen, but that's still not very good. Sorry.

As regards Israel, the USA is not an honest broker.

[Cormac]

Sowwee. Dbl post.

[Schneibster]

As regards Israel, the USA is not an honest broker.

I never said we were.

[Cormac]

As regards Israel, the USA is not an honest broker.

I never said we were.

Accepted

Although it must be frustrating foe US politicos to be under the thumb of lying warmongers like Netanyahu.

[Schneibster]

Obama and Sarkozy were recently caught on mike bitching about him, actually.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/09 ... y-20111109

“I can’t stand to see him anymore, he’s a liar,’’ Sarkozy told Obama, according to a French translation of the exchange.

“You are fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day,’’ Obama replied.

[Cormac]

Obama and Sarkozy were recently caught on mike bitching about him, actually.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/09 ... y-20111109

“I can’t stand to see him anymore, he’s a liar,’’ Sarkozy told Obama, according to a French translation of the exchange.

“You are fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day,’’ Obama replied.

Yep. That is what brought it to mind.

But Sarkozy is fairly obnoxious himself.

[Schneibster]

Snicker.

[Drewish]

First, the good:

- You are correct though that I misspoke regarding the health insurance laws. The government simply provides a tax incentive where it is cheaper for the company to provide you health insurance than give you the money it would have spent on your coverage. While this effectively renders not providing health insurance through employment an outlier case for full time employees, it is not specifically mandated (well not until 2014 at least.) I misspoke and listed a strong incentive as a requirement, good call.

- Pointing out that there were significant assumptions I was making in how the tax rate would be increased in my $200,000 or more example. I should have stated those explicitly.

Now the bad:

- You have ignored my explanation as to why we do not have a market based health care system. If explaining how such a system came into being is Irrelevant, then I would like to know what constitutes valid evidence. Related to this is that you then went on to say that the system has failed, restating that it's the failure of the market. If (as I've stated) we don't have a market driven system, then its failure is not a reflection of the failure of market driven health care.

- Your refutation of my false analogy is hilarious as you pull out the part that actually explains why it's a false analogy and respond to it, by asserting that all regulation is logically equivalent.

- In the Middle East example, you're intentionally arguing against a straw man. As if pulling out of the middle East automatically means closing our embassies there. Now I know you're just being dishonest in your debate style.

- Then you take my paragraph dealing with tax loop holes and break it down into so many pieces, that yes they do seem irrelevant when you rip them out of their context. Of course one could keep in mind that I wasn't even stating that there was anything wrong with your previous statement (and said as much) and was voicing my own concerns and thought on the correct solution to the issue. However you've approached it like it was a counter argument and simply call everything you disagree with irrelevant, with no consistency or understanding or what the word actually means. You know, by your standards I could have called your claim that raising taxes on the rich was irrelevant to the discussion of Social Security as Social Security is funded through it's own means, rather than by general taxation. I didn't do that because I'm not a dick and recognized that you might be implying that Social Security could be made solvent by subsidizing it with general taxation funds.

- Are you really claiming that giving millionaires, billionaires, and corporations tax brakes, through loopholes that complicate the tax code, SAVES the government money?! I would love to see your evidence there.

- You make a blatant appeal to authority to avoid bringing forth an actual economic argument for why the bailouts needed to happen, and restate that it's a question only someone ignorant or economics would ask. Circular logic to protect a sacred cow perhaps?

To put it bluntly, it's not "just being super honest" when you don't apply the same standards of evidence and integrity to yourself that you demand from others. It's just called being a dick.

[Feck]

Strange poll ...A bit like asking if you think Fred West is better than Rosemary .