1. Updated Resource Submission Rules: All model & skin resource submissions must now include an in-game screenshot. This is to help speed up the moderation process and to show how the model and/or texture looks like from the in-game camera.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. DID YOU KNOW - That you can unlock new rank icons by posting on the forums or winning contests? Click here to customize your rank or read our User Rank Policy to see a list of ranks that you can unlock. Have you won a contest and still havn't received your rank award? Then please contact the administration.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Lich King demands your service! We've reached the 19th edition of the Icon Contest. Come along and make some chilling servants for the one true king.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. The 4th SFX Contest has started. Be sure to participate and have a fun factor in it.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. The poll for the 21st Terraining Contest is LIVE. Be sure to check out the entries and vote for one.
    Dismiss Notice
  6. The results are out! Check them out.
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Don’t forget to sign up for the Hive Cup. There’s a 555 EUR prize pool. Sign up now!
    Dismiss Notice
  8. The Hive Workshop Cup contest results have been announced! See the maps that'll be featured in the Hive Workshop Cup tournament!
    Dismiss Notice
  9. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

USA's Presidental Election 2012

Discussion in 'Medivh's Tower' started by Linaze, Nov 3, 2012.

  1. Linaze

    Linaze

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,991
    Resources:
    2
    Models:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    Good evening, Hivers.

    I thought it could be intersting to hear what you believe of the upcoming presidental election in the USA a few days from today.

    Romney or Obama, how will the libertarians do etc.?

    Personally I believe that Barack Obama will remain on the throne for another four years, despite having messed up things rather badly during his first period.

    While I truthfully don't think it matters too much whether Obama or Romney wins (although I'd vote for the latter, given no other option), my one dream would be that Johnson and the libertarian party received 5% of the votes (and major party status with that), even though it seems very unlikely today.

    What do you think and hope for?
     
  2. ManYouAreEvil

    ManYouAreEvil

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I'd only vote for Romney if I was given the choice between him and Hitler. And even then it would be a close call.

    With that being said I'm definitely Pro-Obama.
    Even though I don't reside in USA myself I'm fully confident that Obama has lain a good foundation for what could (possibly, but doubtfully) a future to-be welfare-state. He did run through the Health care reform in the 2010's did he not?

    Romney is a wacko, truth be told and seems to be only interested what's best for the richest. He's pro tax help for Job employers rather than the employees, deep cuts in the budget, personal savings for unemployed rather than money from an unemployment system, of course replace 'Obamacare' with tax cuts (again) and probably the worst of all; illegalize gay marriage.

    Not to mention he doesn't believe that carbondioxide is hurting the enviroment so he doesn't want to regulate carbondioxide emissions from companies and factories.
     
  3. Linaze

    Linaze

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,991
    Resources:
    2
    Models:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    Everything you said is based on one huge assumption; welfare being something positive and desirable. Apparently candidates who oppose this assumed awesomeness are comparable to Hitler (who was pro-welfare, mind you).

    Also, how the hell is illegalizing gay marriage "the worst of all" when there are issues a thousand times larger?
     
  4. ManYouAreEvil

    ManYouAreEvil

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Which I, personally, am pro-welfare.
    If you're on about my comparison between them I didn't compare them politically, but much more of a choice between a rock and a hard place. I wouldn't ever consider Romney as bad as Hitler.



    Because, meanwhile many of his other views are economical hocus pocus - adding a law that forbids marriage between two people of the same sex is against a very basic humanitarian right.

    Of course, I might be a bit old-fashioned but I solemnly believe that it's a human right to be have a constitution that allows marriage between people, regardless of their economical and social status, gender, ethnicity and sexual preferences.
     
  5. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    How did Obama "mess things up rather badly"?
     
  6. ManYouAreEvil

    ManYouAreEvil

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    ^
    From what I've heard from the americans I know things have gotten better, not worse since the Bush administration (even though that doesn't say much lol).

    I am also curious what he messed up so badly.
     
  7. Linaze

    Linaze

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,991
    Resources:
    2
    Models:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    Not only did Obama fail completely to fulfill his promises to close down Guantanamo and bring the US soldiers back from Afganistan, but did you guys take a look at the country's economy and debt recently? What about its relationships with say Iran?
     
  8. ManYouAreEvil

    ManYouAreEvil

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    USA's relations with other countries has been pretty much to the shithole the last years - the previous offensive political agenda did not exactly improve it. But Obama has improved it significantly unlike the previous republican administration.

    I am not that read-up on the debt thing, so I can't say for sure.
    But I am pretty sure closing down a war (that Romney wishes to continue) will at least fix it , if only by a little.
    Wars do cost.
     
  9. Verhalthur

    Verhalthur

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    372
    Resources:
    2
    Tools:
    1
    Template:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    Actually, relationship with Iran is one of the largest reasons I am not voting for Mitt Romney, myself. I disagree with more of his policies, definitely, but his hostile and aggressive attitude towards Iran and its nuclear program could very well start a war. I do not like war.

    I'm actually voting for Jill Stein. After taking this quiz showing which candidate my opinions lined up with, I did more research on her as a candidate and she's surprisingly reasonable, especially on foreign policy.
     
  10. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Not improving 100% of what he said he would improve is not "messing things up". In addition, the economy and debt were already screwed before he took office, and the economy has improved substantially since. Debt is certainly still going up, but I don't see what makes you believe that wouldn't happen anyways (given that it was).
     
  11. ManYouAreEvil

    ManYouAreEvil

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Haha! Just did the same test and I got Jill Stein aswell, "I side 96% with Jill Stein", 77% with Barack Obama and 2% with Romney!
     
  12. Verhalthur

    Verhalthur

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    372
    Resources:
    2
    Tools:
    1
    Template:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    I got 28% Mitt Romney, 95% Jill Stein, 95% Barack Obama and a surprisingly high 34% Gary Johnson.

    I didn't even know who Gary Johnson was before the quiz :x
     
  13. Linaze

    Linaze

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,991
    Resources:
    2
    Models:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    The economy and debt were indeed screwed long before he took office, but I'm not exactly impressed by what he's done to improve (or rather save) the situation. He's increased spending, introduced "obamacare" etc. while what's really needed is for example tax cuts to improve the situation for entrepreneurs.

    Also, the country's status when he took office wouldn't have stopped him from closing Guantanamo, at least if he had any intention of doing so.

    I want to add that I by no means believe Romney has the solutions to saving USA's economy or that he has the best foreign policy (they're both equally bad, though), but I believe he's the least bad of two bad candidates.

    I don't support the previous administrations and can only agree that the US' intervention policy (and with it their bad reputation) started with them. However, while neither Romney nor Obama have any intention of changing this policy, the former at least doesn't lie about it whereas the latter clearly said he'd bring the soldiers home.
     
  14. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    I'm not saying he shouldn't've done what he said he would do, I'm saying inaction is not "messing things up", it's just inaction. That said, it's also worth noting that from 2010 onwards he's been unable to much of what he promised to do even though he wanted to do it simply because the Tea Party has a policy of not allowing the government to get anything done so that they can convince people like you it's Obama's fault.

    Incidentally, you may find this interesting; even though the Tea Party has been the Tea Party and such (and failing to do stuff thanks to the Tea Party is still counted as a broken promise on that site), Obama has a very respectable track record.

    And I'm often amused at the sheer confidence of internet Libertarians that they know better than... well, everyone whose job it is to actually manage this kind of thing on how to address recessions and the economy in general. Let's just cut taxes because THE FREE MARKET.

    --

    Incidentally, I didn't reply to the taxation conversation we had in the other thread since it felt like we were kind of derailing the thread there, but it feels a lot more relevant here given that this thread is basically Ra Ra Libertarianism. When I said "using public services" I didn't just mean free university; who do you think pays for the roads? Water purification? Waste disposal? Public safety? Sure, different people have different values on how much social support the state should provide, and while I don't understand the position of libertarians on that issue (given that it usually saves them money to live in a socialist system, and they seem to get hung up on the fact that they have no choice but to do something they'd do anyways and save money by getting it done through the government) I can respect that they have it, but calling for removal of taxation entirely shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world works.

    Their foreign policy is actually pretty identical (and both have a set date for bringing the troops home), so I don't see how you can criticize one and not the other on this topic.
     
  15. Linaze

    Linaze

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,991
    Resources:
    2
    Models:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    Isn't this the case with all "internet warriors", though? I've read plenty of posts by socialists or anarchists who are just as convinced they're better at whatever than the establishment. Besides, cutting taxes because "THE FREE MARKET" is way simplifiyng things. It's also about giving power and freedom back to the people (if they ever had it, depending on the country in question).

    I doubt I save money with the current system considering that I pay for things that I'll never have use of personally. Now I'll admit I don't know to a hundred procent how much is provided by the government in the US, but here in Sweden there are public libraries, baths, museums etc. that I never have use of. There are also things like the states' inability to spend foreign aid money well (I'd donate less and it would probably help more people directly than sending money to corrupt regimes in central Africa). I do believe the state should provide a basic infrastructure, though (unlike some hardcore libertarians, possibly), such as roads and water purification, as you mention.

    However, saving money aside, I believe it is important to underline the importance of freedom of choice. Even if I obviously won't save as much money as some internet Paultard calculated, the ability to decide were I want to spend the bulk of my money should be my fundamental right, it's my hard-earned money after all, not the state's.

    Hm, I was sure I wrote something about how both their policies were equally bad, but apparently I didn't. I always thought the republicans were more open with their bad policy, though, and at least that makes it more honest. Regardless, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear about believeing both's foreign policies bad.
     
  16. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    I agree that other groups do this too; it's just that there tend to (in my experience anyways) be more vocal libertarians on the internet then hardcore anarchists/communists/etc.

    If you believe the state should provide anything, you are accepting taxes, which kind of goes against the stuff you said in the other thread. I think the main point I disagree with libertarians on is this:

    In any system, adding complexity (such as government oversight) will cause more spending than an identical system without that there. This is kind of obvious, and seems to be the main libertarian argument in favour of privatizing many things. The issue I take with it is they are comparing a very real-world (rather than idealized) picture of how government works and comparing it to a completely idealized version of how a private system would work; for instance, although government oversight costs money, it helps prevent companies or individuals from charging absurd prices because they have a (possibly regional) monopoly, cartel, or the like on some good or service, especially an essential one like health care.

    This debate hits close to home for me, since many left-wing Americans point to Canada's health care system as exemplary for where they should be moving, and right-wing Americans criticize it for having a nontrivial amount of waste and the like. However, it turns out that since there is at least some control on the absurd prices that doctors could otherwise charge for an essential service (and cuts out the insurance companies, which eat up money just like the government would in a public system), Canadians pay less per capita for health care than Americans do. Sure, you don't have a choice to not pay for it (you could, for example, not get health insurance in the US), but why complain about a system which prevents you from making a choice which is both statistically a stupid one, and which helps people who can't otherwise afford it, all in one?

    I can see this for non-essential stuff (and heh, "paultard", they frustrate me too), but for things like education and health care which everyone needs anyways I don't see what the fuss is about. It definitely sounds like Sweden has a lot more public services than I knew about, and more than I would qualify as centric to a social democracy (and thus keep in mind that most moderate socialists you find online may not be arguing from the standpoint of Sweden in that case).

    --

    On the subject of Obama and debt, you may find this article interesting: a huge part of why Obama is seemingly responsible for such a large increase in debt is because he removed loopholes that allowed Bush to hide a lot of the US's debt from the public eye, and that debt is attributed to being caused by him even though he only made it clear that it existed.
     
  17. Linaze

    Linaze

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,991
    Resources:
    2
    Models:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    This most likely comes from libertarianism's current popularity (compared to the other mentioned ideologies, and others) among internet users.

    I'm sceptical against income- and corporate taxes and believe Governor Johnson's consumtion tax sounds like a better idea, as it's theoretically optional but will still provide the state with money to fund what they should.

    Yes, government oversight is one of the major issues. I believe most libertarians would agree to that. But also, what's to say government is equally competent as private entrepreneurs in managing say schools and hospitals?

    Also, price regulating and such would be handled by the free market. Doctors can't charge any price they like as there be competitors who push the prices down. This is my belief as a happy amateur, anyway.

    I realize that you and other social democrats (sorry if I mislabeled you there, it's just a bold assumption) don't always (or ever) argue from the standpoint of Sweden. It is not too rairly given as an example for it's social security systems and such, though. I have a feeling my country has been glorified by social democrats around the world while it's actually quite different from what you imagine.
     
  18. Verhalthur

    Verhalthur

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    372
    Resources:
    2
    Tools:
    1
    Template:
    1
    Resources:
    2

    That much is true. Part of the reason the government is so socialist in Sweden is cultural. The United States, while some (including myself) would like to see it more government-heavy, has a culture of individuality partially associated with anti-government sentiment which prevents that.

    Not a bad thing; we're just different. Much less communal and more individual.
     
  19. Linaze

    Linaze

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,991
    Resources:
    2
    Models:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    I agree with your analysis. The US is most likely more individualistic because it has almost always been more diverse than Sweden (or most other European countries as well) wheras Sweden almost always (until the last few decades anyway) has had a long history of a (more or less) racial, cultural and religious homogenity. Now that this homogenity is steadily becoming less significant, Sweden becomes less communal and more individualistic.
     
  20. PROXY

    PROXY

    3D Modeling Reviewer

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,447
    Resources:
    65
    Models:
    64
    Packs:
    1
    Resources:
    65
    I didn't bother to read all your posts, but IMO, always when I see Obama or his wife speaking, you can really FEEL the honesty, the truth in his words. When I see and hear Romney, he looks like an greedy asshole, with a big fake smile. Same for his wife.