Election Year Debate

[Aurielius]

Since we are in a presidential and congressional election year of some note I thought that instead of having snippets of political dialog within other threads and derailing them in the process, why not have an umbrella thread where anything pertaining to the upcoming election is fair game. Party Positions, Candidates, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Economic Policy are all fair game. I know that vastly divergent views exist on this forum but it would make it so much better if we could maintain a modicum of civility to those that do not share similar perspectives when heatedly refuting what might seem obvious to you but not to them.

[sukeban]

Awesome possum. Thanks for creating this thread Aurielius!

 

I'm not actually sure what else goes in a first reply lol. Maybe pick up where the Limbaugh thread left off? Or not?

[SubjectProphet]

Well, to kick it off, I think for the past few years, the USA's foreign policy has sucked. :confused:

[Aurielius]

Well, to kick it off, I think for the past few years, the USA's foreign policy has sucked. :confused:

It might help if you could clarify exactly which portions or all of our Foreign Policy that you are referring to. Who would fulfill your mindset for changing that if elected?

Edited March 13, 2012 by Aurielius

[sukeban]

Well, to kick it off, I think for the past few years, the USA's foreign policy has sucked. :confused:

I'll bite on that. I have thought this too ;D

 

I don't know how long you meant for a "few years" to be, but I think that many believe our foreign policy really went off the rails with W. Bush and that this state of affairs has more or less persisted into the present.

 

I can *emphatically* state that I think the world would have been a better place had we left the Mideast well alone in 2003. This includes the part where I say that I would prefer an aged Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq in 2012 over the increasingly theocratic Shia bloc that presently governs the country. There are just too many reasons why the Iraq invasion was misguided: lack of WMD, no credible threat to us, creating al-Qaida militants where previously none had existed, strengthening Iran by eliminating their main rival, removing a secular government and paving the way for ballot-box theocracy, sectarian violence ravaging the country and spreading throughout the region, inflaming anti-American sentiment in the Mideast and elsewhere, etc. And then there is that small matter as to the cost of the war, which is far from insignificant (that W. Bush conveniently decided not to pay for).

 

I don't really want to re-litigate it, but I will say that since we expended the effort toward becoming a legitimate colonial power again, we may as well have followed through with it. What I mean is that we should have held those Iraqi oil fields and demanded to be supplied at five dollars per barrel--for all the oil in their country! Forever! (Or until they could credibly tell us otherwise.) Instead, we invaded, broke everything, spent enormous hordes of American treasure, and then... allowed European and Chinese firms to buy the rights to their oil fields? WTF. We literally gained nothing from any of that. I am being somewhat facetious, of course, but I don't necessarily disagree with this. Oil is at 110 USD per barrel. Imagine if we had the entire reserve of Iraq--subsidized through colonization--we could get gas prices > $2.50 in no time. Ditto for Libya. Ditto for Iran (hopefully this never happens). Why should the Chinese be free-riders on the backs of our troops? Why should we provide them with oil while our own soldiers die? The old Pottery Barn Iraq analogy was "You break it, you buy it," but doesn't this also imply that we OWN it? Moot point now, sadly enough.*

 

*Bwahaha, I can't believe I just typed that out. Amazing.

Edited March 13, 2012 by sukeban

[HeyYou]

Externally, there is very little difference between the dems and the repubs as far as foreign policy goes. Obama might just as well be Bush III. His domestic/economic policies have a lot of similarities to the repubbies as well. Tax cuts, free trade agreements, etc. Granted, he is a bit more heavy handed on the regulation side of things. Personally, I don't think EITHER party has the answers. So long as elections are decided by who spends the most money, its the average american that is going to get the stinky end of the stick. Of course, given that the folks that have the power to change that, are the same folks that benefit most by NOT changing it...... I see things going on pretty much as they are, until we reach the crisis point..... (which I believe is rapidly approaching....) At which point, things will either turn around, or, collapse entirely. My guess is the latter alternative.

 

The federal government CANNOT create private sector jobs. They can put in place an environment that ENCOURAGES private sector job growth, but, the current rash of Free Trade agreements are NOT the right direction. Great for creating jobs everywhere else, lousy for the folks right here at home.

 

America simply cannot afford to continue in it's current direction. We are rapidly becoming one of the third world countries we oh so often try to 'help'....

[Nintii]

A few minutes ago I was watching CNN and it seems that the current US President was planning on tackling China on trade, and it seemed to center around rare minerals.

China has cut the mining of such materials citing "environmental issues", the EU, Japan and the US all refute the Chinese claims.

 

Is this a "let's get tough on China" because of the elections and let's show the business sector that we love America or is it genuine in terms of this a just something that's been way overdue ?

Let's face it Mitt Romney has taken a hardline approach to China.

 

I'm approaching this not so much from the US vs China debate but rather from a, "Is this an issue that's important to the American electorate so much so that when you go to the ballot box this could sway your vote".

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM8_tKl22WM&feature=player_embedded#!

Edited March 13, 2012 by Nintii

[Harbringe]

I would say that war with Iran is going to be the most likely issue to dominate this election .As election fever grows there will be those who are pushing for war with Iran (Israeli govt, AIPAC , military industrial complex , etc , etc ) who will make it front and center and as far as it looks its 50/50 you will be at war with Iran by the end of the year. As a political strategy its simple the launching of a major war in bad economic times in an election year for a sitting President is the worst of situations for trying to win an election. That's just too juicy to try and not take advantage of even if the war doesn't happen by election day.

 

Besides economics with China is too complicated as an election platform , currency pegs , dollar devaluation , credit default swaps , trade deficits , debt obligations and on and on and on , Yeah right Americans are gonna make that the issue. No no bomb Iran , don't bomb Iran , we're the good guys , their the bad guys and their out to get us ,fear politics .A much more simple platform for Americans to digest in an election year.

[Aurielius]

@Harbringe

Well now at least I know in what esteem you hold the voting populace adjacent to the Great White North. :whistling:

As for Iran I doubt that it will gain preeminence since the economy is always the uppermost concern to the American voting mind when entering the polls. We are in one of the most severe recessions in decades, a fact that is unlikely not to illicit some response, especially since the proposed solution paths are so divergent in approach and application by the major parties.

[marharth]

I think a lot of people are pushing war with Iran, but the economy is what people want to focus on in the elections.

 

I also don't think enough people care about China at the moment for it to be a huge platform for election.