2012 U.S. Presidential Polls Thread

[guysmiley]

[Hokahey]

It's gotta be tough to be a republican right now. Directionless, no strong candidates, etc. Anyone wanna pipe in? Smokestack?

you can say the same thing about the democratic party. the current system is broken.

oh, surely! but the democratic party isn't currently on public display as often. the republican race has diverted media time/attention away from Obama, eh?

Obama ftw. Fuck Repub.

In what way is Obama winning?

The Republican field of candidates is pretty terrible. Romney is looking like the best choice for someone that can actually win. Of course Ron is the only guy that understand economics, the military and how the world works. But he's "radical" and that scares people. It's funny how people want change but then get freaked out by someone that actually has ideas that would change things. It's also funny how most people like half of his ideas but hate the others, not realizing how all of his ideas usually follow the same general logic. "Well sure drugs should be legal, but guns? No way!" Or vice versa. Or "Of course we should leave Iraq, but take a non interventionist policy with Iran? No way!"

People just don't get it. They don't get how market intervention has creates economic bubbles that leads us in to these situations. They don't get how entitlements for everyone leads to situations like Greece. They don't get how setting up military bases in foreign countries creates blowback moments like 9/11. And it's just going to get worse and worse for us until we do, or until the world economy collapses and we have more and more people that want us dead for not allowing sovereign nations to be just that.

Liberals are idiots.

Neocons are idiots.

They all want to intervene in other people's lives.

At least liberals want to steal from others in a naive attempt to help.

Neocons want to steal from us to build more bombs and kill people.

Both bankrupt us morally and economically.

Both have an almost child like notion of how the world works.

Barney tells everyone to share! Rambo kills bad guys and bad guys go away!

[Pure Method]

Sure, 9/11 was partially motivated by our foreign policy, but certainly the conditions in those countries has something (more, IMO) with the reason militancy arose in the middle east. What does non-interventionism look like? What about all of our foreign commercial interests? What about the CIA? We don't live in a world where we can just retract. This isn't the 1870s.

[Artemis]

People just don't get it. They don't get how market intervention has creates economic bubbles that leads us in to these situations.

Thus far we have not had a situation where there hasn't been market intervention, so to imply that it would be better without it, is only speculation. It may be better, or it may be worse.None of us can say for sure. Persoanlly, I think it would be way worse. Markets are not independent entities that operate on their own. humans run the show, so anything could happen.

[Hokahey]

Sure, 9/11 was partially motivated by our foreign policy, but certainly the conditions in those countries has something (more, IMO) with the reason militancy arose in the middle east.

Untrue. The fatwa issued by Bin Laden against the US, which proceeded the increased action against America and it's interest and associates, specifically stated the reason for militant action is because we occupy Muslim lands (specifically Saudi Arabaia) with military bases and military action.

What does non-interventionism look like?

Like staying out of other countries affairs. Like reaching out with free trade instead of bombs to countries like Iran.

What about all of our foreign commercial interests?

What about them? What are we protecting militarily right now other than Isreal and other countries resources?

What about the CIA?

We don't live in a world where we can just retract. This isn't the 1870s.

Sure we do. What current military base or entanglement would you argue is necessary and beneficial?

[Pure Method]

WHOA! Hoka!!!! You done goofed.

First of all, I apologize for not being clear. Obviously, Osama declared war on the US. If you are telling me that poverty, exclusion, and inequality throughout the Middle East had NOTHING to do with the ability of privileged elites to mobilize unwashed masses, then, shit, you know nothing.

International commercial interests staring wars? Well, maybe we could look to history. The annexation of Hawaii, the Spanish-American War (1898, ground invasion of Cuba to protect American farms), WWII (inciting Japan to attack us due to their violation of our Open-Door policy in China). Oh, and Afghanistan? Sure, we had to get the bad guys, but why establish a permanent presence? Look at yesterday's announcement about the U.S. and China. Everyone knows Central Asia is resource rich. We want in. Wouldn't you say we've done a nice job of establishing a presence?

I mean really, why would we start/join a war unless we had some sort of calculated material gain coming our way. It makes no sense.

Our oil companies own installations in places like Nigeria. You think we're gonna up and let that shit get nationalized? Don't be so thick.

[Hokahey]

Thus far we have not had a situation where there hasn't been market intervention, so to imply that it would be better without it, is only speculation. It may be better, or it may be worse.None of us can say for sure. Persoanlly, I think it would be way worse. Markets are not independent entities that operate on their own. humans run the show, so anything could happen.

With all due respect, that presents a very naive view of the nature of how an economic system and it's markets behave.

And there was certainly a time before the federal reserve was created and began influencing our markets.

I would suggest researching the federal reserve, why it was created, and alternating view points on it's worth.

Essentially, it's a Keynesian system of economics. The standard opposing system is the Austrian system.

Keyne's believed in the system of creating money out of thin air to inflate a market when needed, thus manipulating it back to health. The problem is, that created money is not backed by anything (see the gold standard - a great idea) and instantly becomes debt. This is opposed to naturally letting the market dictate what aspects survive and which do not based on success or lack there of. This created debt continues to pile up, accompanied by entitlement programs and defense spending deficits, until you wind up in the situation we're in now. Which results in quantitative easing (printing more money out of thin air), to create more debt and a new bubble. Each time that bubble bursts it gets worse and worse, and depending on where that created money goes to we see which industry will be the next to take a fall because they're being propped up by unearned money.

It's a terrible, terrible mess of a system.

The market cannot be manipulated without resulting in the boom-bust system we see now that's ruining the world economy.

[Pure Method]

Re: Bin Laden. Think of all the hatemongerers in this country, asking for the destruction of this or that (say, our government). How come they haven't been able to pull off small-scale attacks? Lack of support. Lack of mobilization. People would rather keep their jobs than join a militant group, in the USA. That's why it's a better place to live than Yemen.

[Hokahey]

First of all, I apologize for not being clear. Obviously, Osama declared war on the US. If you are telling me that poverty, exclusion, and inequality throughout the Middle East had NOTHING to do with the ability of privileged elites to mobilize unwashed masses, then, shit, you know nothing.

What are you even trying to say here? Are you making a counterpoint at all, or adding detail to mine? I can't imagine you're trying to say poverty, exclusion, and inequality resulted in the blowback. Our actions did. The conditions in the areas simply better enabled the recruiting of the soldiers that implemented it. But what's the lesson there? What lit the fuse? I'm not debating the material the fuse is comprised of.

International commercial interests staring wars? Well, maybe we could look to history. The annexation of Hawaii, the Spanish-American War (1898, ground invasion of Cuba to protect American farms), WWII (inciting Japan to attack us due to their violation of our Open-Door policy in China).

What's your point?

Oh, and Afghanistan? Sure, we had to get the bad guys, but why establish a permanent presence? Look at yesterday's announcement about the U.S. and China. Everyone knows Central Asia is resource rich. We want in. Wouldn't you say we've done a nice job of establishing a presence?

This reads very much like you're supporting the idea of non-interventionist policy.

I mean really, why would we start/join a war unless we had some sort of calculated material gain coming our way. It makes no sense.

Um, agreed? I'm not sure where the disagreement is. Are you saying that the ends justify the means? That's a sickening thought.

Our oil companies own installations in places like Nigeria. You think we're gonna up and let that shit get nationalized? Don't be so thick.

Again, not sure what you're arguing. You seem to be telling me what will and what has happened, not what you believe should happen. I don't need the history lesson or assumptions about the future.

Do you have an actual opinion?

[Hokahey]

Re: Bin Laden. Think of all the hatemongerers in this country, asking for the destruction of this or that (say, our government). How come they haven't been able to pull off small-scale attacks? Lack of support. Lack of mobilization. People would rather keep their jobs than join a militant group, in the USA. That's why it's a better place to live than Yemen.

Terrible example. When we have foreign countries setting up military bases in Texas we'll talk about what Americans would do versus Afghanis.

Furthermore, those attacks have happened. See the Oklahoma City bombing.

Come on man...

[Hype]

I don't have time to get into it with Hoka again (if I can help it), but I will respond to one claim: the idea that Ron Paul is somehow "logical", for reasons like supporting deregulation of both guns and drugs. This is not logical. It is, arguably, consistent. Consistency and logic are totally separable concepts. It might seem like starting with a simple principle like "Deregulation is always good." entails that it would be logical to support deregulating anything. This is only partially true. It is a valid logical inference from that premise. However, it is logically unsound, since that premise is false. Furthermore, there are no libertarian arguments for deregulation (or their principles of justice, or their concept of freedom, etc.) that do not beg the question, i.e., argue circularly from their assumptions to the conclusion that their assumptions are true. I can say that having read far too much libertarian philosophy this year, and having been convinced by a fairly well-known liberal egalitarian to think that this is the case.

It simply is not true that it is "logical" (with the NORMATIVE implication that we ought to support this on pain of rendering ourselves illogical or irrational) to believe that deregulating industry X is justifiable because we support deregulating industry Y because we think that deregulation in general is a good thing. It has an apparently valid form, but there has been no defense of the foundation that does not beg the question. The foundation is the libertarian conception of freedom --- an issue Hoka and I have butted heads over many times, and will probably continue to. I really want Hoka, who I think is a fairly smart guy, to have his assumptions questioned, and to take seriously the possibility that his acceptance of anti-Keynesian economics, at the very least, doesn't imply support for deregulation across the board, nor does it imply, necessarily, support for non-interventionalist foreign policy.

[Hokahey]

However, it is logically unsound, since that premise is false.

This is really the crux of just how poorly I may or may not have used the word - and it comes down to your opinion that "all deregulation is good" is a false premise.

But all in all, point taken. I'm not entirely using the term correctly.

I really want Hoka, who I think is a fairly smart guy, to have his assumptions questioned

As do I. I enjoy reading other opinions and debate. I also enjoy changing my opinion. Like most people, once I decide a set opinion it's hard to sway me, but I'd be foolish not to be open to it. And in the case of economics I've been convinced over the past two years that my previous opinions were wrong.

And I LOVE that you said "fairly" smart. I can only imagine you wanted to be complimentary but thought you needed to add that to avoid saying more than you believed.

"Well, he's not a complete idiot. So I'll say 'fairly smart.'"

and to take seriously the possibility that his acceptance of anti-Keynesian economics, at the very least, doesn't imply support for deregulation across the board

You're correct, it does not. But they do go hand in hand with laissez faire capitalism.

nor does it imply, necessarily, support for non-interventionalist foreign policy.

The two generally have nothing to do with one another.

[Artemis]

here's something for you hoka...

http://pinups4ronpaul.com/?page_id=255

[Pure Method]

I'm saying US foreign policy is a red herring as the cause of 9/11. Not in the sense that our foreign policy didn't make it a target, but in the sense that our foreign policy did not foster the growth of militant organizations within the middle east, that was due to internal conditions. The whole anti-US rhetoric is simply marketing - "Why are your lives so shitty? Surely it's not because of the unequal distribution of wealth! It's because of the infidels! Now, go die for your billionaire patron. And no protesting."

My other arguments were more in line with the fact that it is EXACTLY our government's job to secure our commercial interests. That IS why we entered all those wars. That IS why we will continue to do so. I'm not saying it's right, but it has been very effective in some cases (Korea, WWII), although not so much in others (Iraq, Vietnam). Why did we first get a navy? For securing, protecting, enforcing, and demanding international trade. Our very reliance on other polities ensures that we will have some need for a legitimate threat of force.

So I'm asking, what does Ron Paul do when Saddam demands Kuwaits oil? Let's them have it? Lose the support of the wealthy elite in America? Let the market adjust gas prices accordingly?

I don't think we disagree about what is right and wrong, just about what works and what doesn't.

[Pure Method]

hoka, somewhere you mentioned that the gold standard is a great idea? I was hoping you could expand on that a little more. As I recall, the last time it was widely (and forcibly) adopted was in the 1920s-1930s and had a direct hand in creating the financial insolvency that led to World War II. I didn't wanna link you to a drier academic piece, but this doesn't really do a good job of describing the crisis. Still, it's something. More time on google may help.
http://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/IP ... War_Period

[Hype]

it comes down to your opinion that "all deregulation is good" is a false premise.

This is another problem that I often encounter when people think about philosophical positions. They aren't opinions, in the colloquial sense of being "just, like, your opinion, man"... where we can just "agree to disagree" because we have no justification laid out on the table for either side, and we're really just choosing preferences and then yelling at each other about what we like. Proper arguments simply aren't like that. Proper arguments proceed by way of REASONS which count in favour of holding things to be true. This is not the same thing as an opinion precisely because the 'count in favour' relation is a logical relation, and thus, a necessary connection.

So in this case, it's not MERELY my opinion that 'Deregulation is good.' is a false premise. It's my position, with at least some reasons (though perhaps not all of them) given to support it. The reason I gave was that the arguments in support of deregulation as a principle of justice, or as a good, are circular. As a result, no one has to accept any of them. Admittedly, I didn't show, here, how all the arguments in support of deregulation being a good thing are circular, because that would take a lot of time and effort I don't have, but my point here is just to say that it isn't *just* my opinion. It's a view I hold for reasons, and in order to avoid accepting my view, you'd have to show either that I misunderstand the proposition or the terms involved in it, or that my claim that all arguments for it are circular is false (which you could do by constructing a single argument for deregulation, writ large, being a good thing, that isn't circular, that is, that doesn't assert the conclusion as one of the premises, either explicitly or as a hidden assumption.)

[Hokahey]

I'm saying US foreign policy is a red herring as the cause of 9/11.

Not in the sense that our foreign policy didn't make it a target

but in the sense that our foreign policy did not foster the growth of militant organizations within the middle east, that was due to internal conditions. The whole anti-US rhetoric is simply marketing - "Why are your lives so shitty? Surely it's not because of the unequal distribution of wealth! It's because of the infidels! Now, go die for your billionaire patron. And no protesting."

The rest of this is nonsense because you already contradicted yourself and no one is debating that economic conditions in the middle east make recruiting for Al Qaeda easier.

My other arguments were more in line with the fact that it is EXACTLY our government's job to secure our commercial interests. That IS why we entered all those wars. That IS why we will continue to do so. I'm not saying it's right

Then we agree.

So I'm asking, what does Ron Paul do when Saddam demands Kuwaits oil? Let's them have it? Lose the support of the wealthy elite in America? Let the market adjust gas prices accordingly?

Yes.

I don't think we disagree about what is right and wrong, just about what works and what doesn't.

I think it's clear what we've done isn't working.

[Hokahey]

hoka, somewhere you mentioned that the gold standard is a great idea? I was hoping you could expand on that a little more. As I recall, the last time it was widely (and forcibly) adopted was in the 1920s-1930s and had a direct hand in creating the financial insolvency that led to World War II. I didn't wanna link you to a drier academic piece, but this doesn't really do a good job of describing the crisis. Still, it's something. More time on google may help.
http://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/IP ... War_Period

This is a topic of great debate and we can both post links all day long supporting our arguments. At the end of the day, I believe the evidence that supports the federal reserve had a direct hand in the economic woes that immediately followed the creation of it is the most credible.

In fact, it's happened time and time again since, including RIGHT NOW.

[Hokahey]

it comes down to your opinion that "all deregulation is good" is a false premise.

This is another problem that I often encounter when people think about philosophical positions. They aren't opinions, in the colloquial sense of being "just, like, your opinion, man"... where we can just "agree to disagree" because we have no justification laid out on the table for either side, and we're really just choosing preferences and then yelling at each other about what we like. Proper arguments simply aren't like that. Proper arguments proceed by way of REASONS which count in favour of holding things to be true. This is not the same thing as an opinion precisely because the 'count in favour' relation is a logical relation, and thus, a necessary connection.

So in this case, it's not MERELY my opinion that 'Deregulation is good.' is a false premise. It's my position, with at least some reasons (though perhaps not all of them) given to support it. The reason I gave was that the arguments in support of deregulation as a principle of justice, or as a good, are circular. As a result, no one has to accept any of them. Admittedly, I didn't show, here, how all the arguments in support of deregulation being a good thing are circular, because that would take a lot of time and effort I don't have, but my point here is just to say that it isn't *just* my opinion. It's a view I hold for reasons, and in order to avoid accepting my view, you'd have to show either that I misunderstand the proposition or the terms involved in it, or that my claim that all arguments for it are circular is false (which you could do by constructing a single argument for deregulation, writ large, being a good thing, that isn't circular, that is, that doesn't assert the conclusion as one of the premises, either explicitly or as a hidden assumption.)

It's your opinion that your position is not false.

[Pure Method]

isn't the gold standard

A) contrary to capitalism
and
B) a return to mercantilism

???

[Hokahey]

isn't the gold standard

A) contrary to capitalism
and
B) a return to mercantilism

???

A) No. What the fuck?

B) No

[Pure Method]

So a gold standard would not create a finite amount of capital in the world (A) nor lead to countries hoarding gold (B)?

[Hokahey]

So a gold standard would not create a finite amount of capital in the world (A) nor lead to countries hoarding gold (B)?

(A) I'm advocating for what the US should do, not necessarily the world.

(B) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... Depository

Right?

And what does any of that have to do with Mercantilism?