<p>why am I a troll, Im just stating what I think is true.</p>
<p>I don't know yet. Something inside is telling me it's time for someone besides a Bush or Clinton on top. Obama may be the guy. McCain's always there. Although he seems to have drifted from the center that made so many democrats like him. </p>
<p>Hillary doesn't hit the right spark for me. It's not a woman thing, it's an attitude thing. I could be swayed, but not from what I've seen so far. </p>
<p>I would like to learn more about the other new faces on both sides before I committ to anybody.</p>
<p>He was doing his job, big difference. He was representing his CLIENTS to the best of his abilities. His job is to serve his clients not to worry about doctors. And you bring up Giuliani, don't get me started on his morals/character. It says a lot about people how their family life is. Giuliani's second marriage ended in a lengthy/unpleasant divorce (his first marriage was anulled), and he cheated on his wife. So by that logic Giuliani is an immoral individual. Furthermore, he was accused of having a sexual relationship with one of his employees. I also feel his extension of power after 9/11 is questionable. Was he merely trying to take political advantage of the situation? Furthermore, the NYPD had a slew of racial incidents (ie: Diallo) and Giuliani maintained his support. If you are so right-wing what do you think about Giuliani's gay marriage/abortion/gun policies? I don't even dislike Giuliani, but it upsets me to hear people criticize John Edwards for doing his job.</p>
<p>By right wing, I mean right wing. I don't mean statist or whatever Pat Robertson has warped it into. I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. No candidate is perfect - as an extremist, even less so. </p>
<p>Giuliani's morals are questionable, but he didn't make his riches and entire life on immoral activity. </p>
<p>I will criticize John Edwards for doing his job just as I will criticize anyone who makes a living off such activity.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton takes strong stances on the easy issues (i.e. violent videogames) and pussyfoots around the real issues (i.e. war in Iraq).
Plus, she has absolutely no charisma, and it's not very democratic to have the presidency switch off between a Bush and a Clinton every eight years.</p>
<p>Exactly though, every person in a position of power has had to compromise themselves to some degree. There is no other way. It matters that Edwards is doing good now that he is in his position of power. And it is not like all of Edwards' cases were questionable, some of them are perhaps, but ultimately it helps protect the American middle class/working class/poor against being exploited. Obviously Edwards felt he was right and the US legal system agreed with him. If you say that he is immoral, then you are saying the whole legal system is corrupt and immoral (hehe I wouldn't disagree with you 100% after the 2000 election).</p>
<p>Obama is definitely a much better choice. However, I don't know if he'll win because of his ethnicity.</p>
<p>I doubt that our nation could ever get over our racial prejudicies.</p>
<p>I also think Edwards is a socialist weasel, but you know.</p>
<p>Socialism is the ideal form of government. The reason it never has worked is that socialist nations, try to give the people equal shares of everything the country offers, however this is not feasible, because most of these nations (ie: China and Russia) had nothing to divide. Incorporating socialist ideas into our capitalism is the best route. For example, John Edwards recently unveiled a universal health care plan. It will be primarily financed through taxing the rich, why shouldn't they be taxed more? There is no good reason not too.</p>
<p>A lot of people say publicly here that they want to vote for Obama to be the first black (isn't he only 1/2 black?) U.S. President, but come election time, I wonder how many will actually vote for him.</p>
<p>He's not going to make it, and (unfortunately, but realistically) it's because he's black.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Socialism is the ideal form of government. The reason it never has worked is that socialist nations, try to give the people equal shares of everything the country offers, however this is not feasible, because most of these nations (ie: China and Russia) had nothing to divide. Incorporating socialist ideas into our capitalism is the best route. For example, John Edwards recently unveiled a universal health care plan. It will be primarily financed through taxing the rich, why shouldn't they be taxed more? There is no good reason not too.
[/quote]
That's completely wrong. Saying that Russia and China had nothing to divide couldn't be farther from the truth. Although neither nation was too rich at the time of the Communists' takeovers, both had the resources and potential to become world powers, which Russia (the USSR) did already and China is in the process of doing. The reason that socialism doesn't work is because it assumes that fundemental responsibility and honesty is present in all individuals of the participating society, which it never is.
Although I agree generally with taxing the rich more than the poor, I think the idea of raising taxes for the rich to completely fund a universal healthcare system is ludicrous, and I'm no conservative either. The American dream is founded on the idea that hard work yields tangible rewards that can be enjoyed later in life (no matter what you may think, the majority of people who are rich got there through hard work). If we tax the rich so much, then there is no longer incentive for people to try and make it big, and the basis of American society would be destroyed. After all, the reason that America is so powerful economically and politically is because of the rich and powerful. If you take away the basis for the wealthy then America, as a nation, will be confined to mediocrity.</p>
<p>I agree with you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the reason that socialism doesn't work is because it assumes that fundemental responsibility and honesty is present in all individuals of the participating society, which it never is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Socialism does work. See scandinavia and many parts of northern Europe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The American dream is founded on the idea that hard work yields tangible rewards that can be enjoyed later in life (no matter what you may think, the majority of people who are rich got there through hard work).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is accurate enough. The problem is that most people who work hard aren't rich.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the idea of raising taxes for the rich to completely fund a universal healthcare system is ludicrous
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you mean that socialism would be impossible to implement in the U.S. in the near future, you're correct; there is too much wealth to protect high up (and comfort with the relative prosperity in the middle). If you're saying it can't work, once again see many parts of Europe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Socialism does work. See scandinavia and many parts of northern Europe.
[/quote]
Modern Europe is not socialist. True, they have large safety nets, but they're not completely socialist. Scandanavian nations are far more successful with leftist economies because their populations aren't that diverse in terms of wealth anyway. It's a lot harder for larger nations like Germany and Britain to implement and maintain large social safety nets.
Also, last I checked the Scandanavian nations don't have the most powerful economies in the world. Hmm... I wonder why?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is accurate enough. The problem is that most people who work hard aren't rich.
[/quote]
My parents came to the United States from China with just about nothing. My dad worked as a gas station attendant and my mom worked as a supermarket cashier. Two decades later, they both work high-salary jobs as computer engineers and are able to support two kids in a comfortable upper-middle class suburban life.
If dirt-poor immigrants from China who don't even have knowledge of the English language can become successful through hard work in America, then I trust that anybody can.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Modern Europe is not socialist. True, they have large safety nets, but they're not completely socialist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not going to argue semantics with you; as far as I'm concerned some of these European countries are socialist. I don't know exactly what you mean by "completely" socialist, but many of these countries such as Sweden are considered welfare states.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My parents came to the United States from China with just about nothing. My dad worked as a gas station attendant and my mom worked as a supermarket cashier. Two decades later, they both work high-salary jobs as computer engineers and are able to support two kids in a comfortable upper-middle class suburban life.
If dirt-poor immigrants from China who don't even have knowledge of the English language can become successful through hard work in America, then I trust that anybody can.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your trust in the American dream is not unfounded. Still, while your parent's remarkable success does speak to the opportunity in this country, it's not a common outcome, even with hard work. </p>
<p>If you browse through the various "quality of life" indexes, you'll see Sweden, a socialist country, at (or very near) the top of the list, consistantly outranking the U.S. To be fair, there are some countries that aren't socialist that are ahead of the U.S. too. But none of them are as capitalist as the U.S., either.</p>
<p>I think this is a more concrete example than the "american dream," which in reality is pretty elusive. Just look at the gini index in the U.S.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your trust in the American dream is not unfounded. Still, while your parent's remarkable success does speak to the opportunity in this country, it's not a common outcome, even with hard work.</p>
<p>If you browse through the various "quality of life" indexes, you'll see Sweden, a socialist country, at (or very near) the top of the list, consistantly outranking the U.S. To be fair, there are some countries that aren't socialist that are ahead of the U.S. too. But none of them are as capitalist as the U.S., either.</p>
<p>I think this is a more concrete example than the "american dream," which in reality is pretty elusive. Just look at the gini index in the U.S.
[/quote]
First of all, all indexes measuring quality of life are flawed in some way. If you want to use the Gini index, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan right up there with the Scandanavian nations, and I don't think they're known for having a particularly high quality of life. The HDI index, however, actually ranks has the US as one of the top nations in the world in terms of quality of life, outranking Finland, Denmark, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany. </p>
<p>Also, although welfare states are possible in small nations such as Norway and Sweden (populations 4 million and 9 million, respectively) that can remain relatively unconcerned with their role on the world stage, it remains an impossibility for a large nation such as the United States (population: 300 million) to run such an economy. Japan (population: 128 million), for example, has a far more liberalized economy than many of the European nations you are referring to. However, Japanese companies have had trouble staying competitive in recent years due to the government policies of lifetime employment in large corporations and highly unionized blue-collar jobs. If similar policies, which come nowhere near the large safety nets of Europe, were to be implemented in the United States, who knows what would happen to American companies? Also, part of Japan's success in the past can be attributed to the remarkable work ethic of the Japanese, which is just not present in the majority of Americans. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong--I have nothing against the government helping out hard-working Americans. In fact, I think that, by all means, the government should work to provide oppurtunities for Americans by attracting high-tech jobs and providing ample education for hard-working Americans to be able to reach that level. I don't think that the government should attempt to solve these issues by creating a gigantic social safety net and implementing huge restrictions on free trade that help those who are unwilling to work hard for their share. If the job of a lazy American is to be outsourced to a hard-working Chinese or Indian, I say let it be outsourced. Maybe a little taste of poverty will teach that American to work harder, which they should have been doing in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, all indexes measuring quality of life are flawed in some way. If you want to use the Gini index, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan right up there with the Scandanavian nations, and I don't think they're known for having a particularly high quality of life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, my post was unclear on that point. I was referencing the gini index (which as you pointed out is not really a q.o.l. index) to point out the disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S., not to point out the merits of socialism in some of the scandinavian countries. </p>
<p>Honestly, it would be futile for me to debate further. I don't know enough about economics or political theory to know if socialism, or even a modified soical welfare state, would work in the U.S. I do believe that our welfare system, which is incredibley wasteful when compared to the beneifts it gives, in general needs to be reformed. I believe a more socialist policy could work. I'll leave the theory to the more sufficiently educated!</p>
<p>At least you admit your belief in socialism is founded in a lack of education.</p>
<p>Oh ha ha ha.</p>
<p>So witty, sir.</p>
<p>"Edwards?! Never Edwards. He's a bottom feeding trial lawyer who helps drive doctors out of business. **** that sack of ****."</p>
<p>A bottom feeding convict-killing, service skipping, oil tycoon is better? John Edwards job was to represent his clients! Its the American Justice system! </p>
<p>Besides the point, I like Obama. He is very refreshing. We can't ignore Gore though, I and quite a few other people really like his environmental policies.</p>
<p>I'm so psyched I get to vote in this upcoming presidential election!!!</p>