Disregarding whether each candidate actually has a chance to win the election, who do you want to be the next President of the United States and why? Personally, I want Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party to win. He has a good track record from his experience in New Mexico. Economically I agree with his positions and believe that they are the best, for the most part. One of the main reasons why I like Gary Johnson so much more than Mitt Romney is because of Johnson's social views. He is also very big on the personal rights of the people, unlike Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts. Probably my favourite part about Johnson is his foreign policy. In my opinion, we, as a country, need to focus on ourselves and our economical and social security before we worry about unrest in other areas around the world. I look forward to some discussion (hopefully, but who knows). Lets try to keep it civil.
What these type say, and what they actually do are 2 extremely different things. This goes for both sides.
I'm voting for Obama. Nothing the republican party is saying (out of the little they do say) sounds like it is good for the middle class and with the two party system the US has, voting for a third party candidate is just removing a vote from either Romney or Obama in states they need votes.
I know that there is no chance for an independent to win, but there will never be a chance for an independent to win if nobody ever votes for them and they get no press coverage. In all honesty, I think that both Romney and Obama are "bad" choices in the sense that neither will have an overall positive effect on the nation. Pretty much everything said while campaigning either will not happen or was never actually intended to happen. For example, Mitt Romney recently said that his is pro Second Amendment in order to try to get the NRA and pro-gun voters on his side. Yet Romney's voting record in Mass. is clearly pro gun-control. I just try not to listen to anything that the candidates say themselves during a campaign, 90% of it is all crap.
Disregarding the fact that it would never work because today's society is far to reliant on the government and technology, I agree.
That's just politics. Independents do it too but to a lesser extent that isn't nearly as publicized. Sucking up to your constituents is just part of what it means to be a politician. As far a "not having an overall positive effect" I disagree. The health care act was a major piece of legislation much like the Social Security Act was during its time. Also more equality for the LBGT community is a positive thing. No person should have less rights in this country because of who they are. The only negative aspect of Obama being elected a second term that I can see is that the republicans will continue being the "party of no" for another four years, road block any legislation the president wants passed regardless of it's humanitarian impact or necessity to fixing problems. This log jam would then result in a completely lame duck presidency in which no problems get solved and problems just keep piling on. That is my greatest concern with Obama being re-elected. Now that concern is not a reason to not vote for him as I can't just assume if Romney wins government will work just peachy and all of our problems will be fixed by a republican doctrine that hasn't worked since the turn of the century.
I agree that the equality aspects are definitely positive. I don't claim to be an expert in any manner, but I believe that when the "Obamacare" bill was introduced, the lawmakers were given 24 hours to review the ENTIRE piece of legislation and then vote on it. I do not believe that all people in this country should have healthcare, especially to the extent that Obamacare provides. I do agree that this party of no bullshit is just ridiculous and is far more hurtful than anything else. One big issue that I never see come up is the current public education system. While it is run by the states (I believe), that is definitely a matter which has gotten so bad that it needs to be addressed on a national level, rather than healthcare. By the way, if you look at other governments with socialist healthcare, you would see that the waiting time for non life threatening (at that exact moment) surgeries and general appointments are absolutely ridiculous and the doctors become exhausted (mentally and physically).
No I haven't seen the horribly biased Michael Moore film, Sicko. For every extreme example that he presents, one could find an equal amount, if not greater, of examples of people dying waiting to get in to see a doctor. Just based off of sheer numbers!
I dislike it when people call it "Obamacare". Even though the democrats have adopted that name as well now (to cheapen the impact the Republicans wanted out of it). The plan was drafted by republicans over ten years ago and used by Romney himself in Massachusetts while he was governor there. I'm not sure where you heard this "24 hours" claim from, legislation doesn't really work like that...like ever. The only liberal part about it was the public mandate which was necessary or else the whole act would have been pointless with no enforcement. Most other countries in the world have some form of socialized health care where the government is paying for most of it. That's not even what this health care is or ever was. The "single-payer" plan which the democrats wanted initially was voted down immediately. Education is both a State and a national issue already. The "No child left behind act" was one piece of legislation enacted by former president Bush which demanded regular intervals of standardized testing in schools to judge whether those schools were deserving of grants (which caused a butt ton of problems because teachers started teaching to the tests, the students weren't learning jack ****, and were dropping out of college like flies). I don't know every piece of legislation the Obama government has issued in regards to education, I don't believe any landmark bills have been brought up for it and while I agree it should be an issue, I don't think it trumps any other important issue. They can all co-exist because complex issues deserve to be dealt with. False equivalency. Other countries are much more socialized than the US is in numerous areas. The Health Care Act is not that. Why people have it in their heads that it is I just don't get. The plan is a requirement to buy health care insurance from whatever companies already exist and that those companies cannot drop you because you have an illness or for some unspecified reason. Millions of people who couldn't get coverage or who weren't covered by a health insurance plan (meaning they would have to pay full price for broken bones, cancer screenings, check-ups, whatever) now are because of the act. Could the act be made better, sure it was a republican plan with a **** ton of baggage but that doesn't mean strip it whole-sale and let people fend for themselves. If they don't have the money to take care of themselves ****'em, let em die sick.
Well I'm not an expert so I was probably uninformed. I was simply saying what I remembered either reading or hearing from others. The 24 hrs was referring to something I heard, that the bill was introduced close to the beginning of Congress ending session (or something like that). I could be wrong. I'm not saying that it should be a FFA, I'm trying to say that we shouldn't have the government subsidize healthcare to the extent that they are. Sure if somebody cannot afford to pay for their surgery, I agree, the government should intervene. But if you have somebody who can afford to pay it, but spends too much elsewhere and therefore doesn't have the money should not have it paid for, without a debt included. Anyways, imo the best possible form of government is Pure Anarchy, but that would only work in a perfect world where all people are good and care about others.
" Sure if somebody cannot afford to pay for their surgery, I agree, the government should intervene." This part tells me you still aren't understanding what the Health Care Act is. It is not "the government intervening". This is what it comes down to. Without the Health Care Act if you couldn't afford health care insurance or weren't illegible to receive it you weren't covered, for anything. With the health care act you must be covered under a health care plan, the "public mandate". That plan can come from any one of the current insurance companies that exist. This means those companies most also charge reasonable rates if they are to cover more people (part of the Heath Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't raise premiums for no reason, without warning). "But if you have somebody who can afford to pay it, but spends too much elsewhere and therefore doesn't have the money should not have it paid for, without a debt included." This part I don't understand. If you can afford health insurance and already have it than this act does nothing for you, it doesn't apply to you other than the assurances it grants you that your insurance company won't hike up your price without telling you or that they can't drop you because you got a cold and they didn't feel like you were worth the investment. That statement is an oxymoron. An anarchy is the absolute lack of government. That's like saying Atheism is the best form of religion. A lack of government means no one to pay for roads, public transportation, defense of the country, public safety, etc.
Well I'll admit I am definitely losing this argument, but anyways, I'm going to drop the Healthcare part because I'm too tired right now. As for the Anarchy part, I realize that what I said was an oxymoron, but what would you classify Anarchy as? Assuming that pure anarchy would work, in a perfect world, people would all chip in to pay for the roads, set fair prices, there would be no need for defense, except from aliens of course lol, and there would be private transportation for the masses eventually. But that is neigh impossible in the world as we know it.
What it is, the lack of government. That is it's classification. You're thinking of pure communism as imagined by Karl Marx. All wealth is redistributed around equally amongst the population, eliminating the rich or poor, there is no longer a need for a "central" government as everyone takes care of each other, etc. "Private transportation" already exists. That is called a car, motorcycle, boat, all the various vehicles people use to take them places. I assume you mean industry would pay for transportation on a mass scale? In which case, highly doubtful. Why would private industry care about trains, buses, trolleys, etc?