Republikanske motkandidater til Obama, 2012? Hvem?

[Irrasjonell]

Vi får nå se hvordan det går. Amerikanerne burde jo ha lært etter George W. Bush som hadde hørt kallet...

 

Dette viser lite forståelse om amerikanernes forhold til religion og politikk.

 

Du har nok rett. Det virker som at religion har en mye større plass hos amerikanere enn nordmenn, så da er det nok naturlig at deres kanidater i mye større grad er religiøse. I Norge har nesten ikke religion noen plass lenger, med både de positive og negative tingene det medfører. Jeg har aldri vært religiøs, men har likevel respekt for de som er det. Selv om at det ikke er viktig i Norge, er det viktig i mange andre land - de fleste land faktisk. Det er lett for oss å undervurdere og avvise religion.

[After Dark]

Dette viser lite forståelse om amerikanernes forhold til religion og politikk.

 

Jeg har iallefall forståelse om hvordan den amerikanske befolkningen har reagert på Bush`s tid ved makten og deres nåværende bekymringer for økonomien...

[After Dark]

Og ang. økonomien har Obama et enormt problem for tiden...

 

Dramatiske gjeldstall for Obama

 

Obama-administrasjonen har satt en ny, tvilsom milepæl: USAs gjeld har nå vokst mer i Obamas presidentperiode enn under USAs 41 første presidenter - til sammen.

 

Dette melder CNS News, som har gjort utregningen basert på nye tall offentliggjort av det amerikanske finansdepartementet.

 

Da aksjemarkedene stengte 3. oktober, var USAs samlede nasjonalgjeld på svimlende 14,837,099,271,196 dollar, eller fjorten billioner, åtte hundre og trettisju milliarder, nittini millioner, to hundre og syttien tusen, ett hundre og nittiseks dollar.

 

Dette tilsvarer 87,491,406,982,388 kroner. Til sammenligning er Norges statsbudsjett for 2011 på 1,453,302,000,000 kroner.

 

Bare siden 30. september har USAs gjeld økt med 44,8 milliarder dollar.

 

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/okonomi/1.7823427

 

Når det gjelder Mitt Romney har han iallefall en stor visjon når det gjelder å bevare USAs makt og dominanas:

 

Romney: – USA må lede verden

 

Den republikanske presidentkandidaten Mitt Romney vil fredag love at USA skal forbli verdens sterkeste nasjon dersom han velges til president.

 

Deler av en tale Romney skal holde i South Carolina fredag er lekket til amerikanske medier. I talen, som skal vise at Romney har en utenrikspolitikk, vil han love at USA vil lede verden både ved hjelp av militæret og diplomati.

 

– Vil ikke gi fra meg USAs rolle i verden

Romney vil si at dersom han velges i november 2012, vil han i løpet av sine 100 første dager i Det hvite hus gjøre en rekke handlinger som skal bevise USAs makt.

 

– Jeg vil ikke gi fra meg USAs rolle i verden. Dette er enkelt: Dersom du ikke vil at USA skal være den sterkeste nasjonen i verden, så er jeg ikke presidenten for deg.

 

Ville ikke godtatt kutt i forsvaret

I sin tale sier Romney at han vil øke presset mot Iran for å få innsikt i atomprogrammet. Han vil også ha permanente styrker i Middelhavet og i Golfen, samt at han vil begynne samtaler med Israel om å øke og koordinere etterretningen.

 

Romney vil understreke behovet for at USA skal ha en militær overlegenhet, og vil love å unngå store kutt i forsvarsbudsjettet. Han har blant annet gått ut mot avtalen mellom Kongressen og president Obama fra august i år, som tillater kutt i militære utgifter for å håndtere USAs massive gjeld og underskudd.

 

– USA må lede verden, ellers vil noen andre gjøre det, vil Romney si.

 

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.7823753

 

Må si jeg er spent på hvordan han skal klare å bevare USAs possisjon. Det var jo akkurat det samme George W. Bush gikk inn for og det han klarte var å ødelegge økonomien...

[Skatteflyktning]

I disagree that the old west was peaceful and prosperous. I live in what used to be a western outpost of the USA and historians here paint a different picture of lawlessness and arbitrary homicide.

 

Read Frontier Violence, or any other source that have actual DATA on the situation and you'd be surprised:

 

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.

 

Today (ie 2007):

* DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)

* New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)

* Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)

* Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

 

 

I believe this enduring pioneer spirit in american culture that Rick Perry and Sarah Palin try to channel is a prime factor in the USA's very high crime rates relative to our european brethren.

I am not favourably inclined to either.

 

 

Every man for himself philosophy instead of let's help the unfortunate point of view lead to very different behaviors.

The "every man for himself"-philosophy is a misrepresentation of both the historical facts and position anarchists have.

 

Now, the Statist position seems to be:

1. I must steal from you so as to protect your property rights.

2. I must enslave you so as to protect your freedom.

Endret 7. oktober 2011 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

 

Jeg har iallefall forståelse om hvordan den amerikanske befolkningen har reagert på Bush`s tid ved makten og deres nåværende bekymringer for økonomien...

 

Reaksjonen til Bush vAr både mangfoldig og mer pesonlig enn ideologisk Amerikanske politikk beveget seg ikke mot venstre og skylden mot finanskrisen ble splittet. Det finnes bare enighet i manglende tillit i politiker.

[After Dark]

USAs budsjettunderskudd krymper

 

USAs budsjettunderskudd for regnskapsåret 2011 er på 1.300 milliarder dollar, opplyser Kongressens budsjettkontor. Det er en liten nedgang sammenlignet med fjoråret.

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article4249899.ece

 

Dette kan kansje tale litt i Obamas fravør...

[jjkoggan]

or any other source that have actual DATA on the situation and you'd be surprised:

 

No, not all academic criminologists who use "real data" come to your conclusion. My colleagues at Ohio State University reach this conclusion:

 

To appreciate how violent the West was, we need to consider not only the annual homicide rate, but the risk of being murdered over time. For instance, the adult residents of Dodge City faced a homicide rate of at least 165 per 100,000 adults per year, meaning that 0.165 percent of the population was murdered each year—between a fifth and a tenth of a percent. That may sound small, but it is large to a criminologist or epidemiologist, because it means that an adult who lived in Dodge City from 1876 to 1885 faced at least a 1 in 61 chance of being murdered—1.65 percent of the population was murdered in those 10 years. An adult who lived in San Francisco, 1850-1865, faced at least a 1 in 203 chance of being murdered, and in the eight other counties in California that have been studied to date, at least a 1 in 72 chance. Even in Oregon, 1850-1865, which had the lowest minimum rate yet discovered in the American West (30 per 100,000 adults per year), an adult faced at least a 1 in 208 chance of being murdered

 

http://cjrc.osu.edu/researchprojects/hvd/hom%20rates%20west.htm

 

The "every man for himself"-philosophy is a misrepresentation of both the historical facts and position anarchists have.

 

Now, the Statist position seems to be:

1. I must steal from you so as to protect your property rights.

2. I must enslave you so as to protect your freedom.

 

 

The USA is not an anarchy, nor was I referring to it as such. What I was referencing was the Old West attitude of rugged individualism, something that was necessary for pioneers who faced the perils of wilderness in isolation. THis aspect of american culture in which the rights of the individual is valued more than society at large and allowed in several places to carry automatic weapons down main street is hugely influential in the more violent nature of our society relative to our more collectivist european brethren. A society that thinks about how individual actions affect society collectively more than the right of that individual to do dangerous things will treat each other differently.

[Skatteflyktning]

or any other source that have actual DATA on the situation and you'd be surprised:

 

No, not all academic criminologists who use "real data" come to your conclusion. My colleagues at Ohio State University reach this conclusion:

Interesting. We seem to have conflicting data.

 

The USA is not an anarchy, nor was I referring to it as such. What I was referencing was the Old West attitude of rugged individualism, something that was necessary for pioneers who faced the perils of wilderness in isolation.

To a certain extent the Wild/Old West was anarchistic (at determined places/times)

 

THis aspect of american culture in which the rights of the individual is valued more than society at large and allowed in several places to carry automatic weapons down main street is hugely influential in the more violent nature of our society relative to our more collectivist european brethren.

The causes of violence is US society (or any other society) is not merely related to the "right to bear arms". In fact, you will find that indeed the most violent deaths are caused by the State, and not individuals. (Maybe we need to disarm the State?)

 

A society that thinks about how individual actions affect society collectively more than the right of that individual to do dangerous things will treat each other differently.

Society is no more and no less than the collection of individuals that compose it. Furthermore, "society" do not think, only the individual do. Doing "dangerous things" seem to be an euphemism on your part for carrying arms, which entails significantly less danger than driving your car. Furthermore, I believe you have a right to drive your car even if this is "a dangerous thing"!

Endret 8. oktober 2011 av Skatteflyktning

[Stagiriten]

Hvorfor må du forsøple alle de fornuftige innleggene dine med dette anarkitullet?

[jjkoggan]

The causes of violence is US society (or any other society) is not merely related to the "right to bear arms". In fact, you will find that indeed the most violent deaths are caused by the State, and not individuals. (Maybe we need to disarm the State?)

 

Nope, I am not blaming the right to bear arms on criminality in the USA, qutite the opposite, I am not a gun control advocate. I am crediting a significant portion of the blame on the individualistic attitude it represents. It is a cultural attitude that increases criminality, this attitude is embodied in the rugged individualistic attitude we inherited as a nation from our pioneer forefathers and embraced by Texas presidential candidates Ron Paul and Rick Perry.

 

Society is no more and no less than the collection of individuals that compose it. Furthermore, "society" do not think, only the individual do.

Correct, but individuals are influenced by other individuals. These individuals, influenced by each other create a collective culture with distinctive, common traits. In the USA we believe more strongly that each individual bears responsibility for their own behavior, in Norway it is more common to blame influence from collections of other individuals.

 

 

Doing "dangerous things" seem to be an euphemism on your part for carrying arms, which entails significantly less danger than driving your car. Furthermore, I believe you have a right to drive your car even if this is "a dangerous thing"!

 

As said, I am not a gun conrol advocate, I just think societies that focus on the individual tend to be more violent, especially when that society is composed of people from all over the world with many different backgrounds. Homogeneous small nations who tend to think more collectively are not as violent and work with more social cohesion.

 

 

NOw, what was the topic here... Oh yeah- Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate...

[Skatteflyktning]

Hvorfor må du forsøple alle de fornuftige innleggene dine med dette anarkitullet?

Fordi jeg er en anarkist?

 

Hvorfor må du forsøple alle de fornuftige innleggene dine med dette objektivist-tullet?

[Skatteflyktning]

NOw, what was the topic here... Oh yeah- Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate...

 

Ron Paul is extremely unlikely to get anywhere for a couple of reasons:

 

1. GOP and Media is set against him

2. Wall St is set against him

 

Legitimacy is derived from winning the primaries, so if he wins he'd be "legit"

 

Now, could he win the presidential elections?

Well, quite apart from the fact that Obama is set to loose the election no matter who is the opponent unless the unemployment numbers drop I think there are some aspects that potentially make the libertarian position a draw on the liberal side too: Anti-war, Anti-Wall St.,..

 

PS. The cultural diversity within the US provides greater scope for conflict than a more homogeneous nation, in that we probably agree.

[Stagiriten]

I am not blaming the right to bear arms on criminality in the USA, qutite the opposite, I am not a gun control advocate. I am crediting a significant portion of the blame on the individualistic attitude increases criminality

 

...

Endret 9. oktober 2011 av Stagiriten

[jjkoggan]

Ron Paul is extremely unlikely to get anywhere for a couple of reasons:

 

1. GOP and Media is set against him

2. Wall St is set against him

 

Legitimacy is derived from winning the primaries, so if he wins he'd be "legit"

 

Now, could he win the presidential elections?

Well, quite apart from the fact that Obama is set to loose the election no matter who is the opponent unless the unemployment numbers drop I think there are some aspects that potentially make the libertarian position a draw on the liberal side too: Anti-war, Anti-Wall St.,..

 

PS. The cultural diversity within the US provides greater scope for conflict than a more homogeneous nation, in that we probably agree.

 

THe most important reason is not conspiratorial but that his views are too far outside the political center and he doesn't act presidential, but more like a kind, honest but a little kooky uncle. His wider appeal is mostly kick the bums out protest related because it is obvious he means everything he says and is more honest than the other serious candidates who play mind games in an attempt to appeal to everyone. Luckily, being a presidential candidate is so demanding that, it is good preparation for one of the toughest jobs in the world. THe weak never survive very long in this circus.

 

THe interesting thing to me is that you silly norwegians are following the circus even though your main trading partners in Europe, those that will influence your economic status more than the USA are in the middle of a possible collapse and banking collapse.

[Skatteflyktning]

THe most important reason is not conspiratorial but that his views are too far outside the political center and he doesn't act presidential, but more like a kind, honest but a little kooky uncle.

Yes, that is also an impediment. Lying with a straight face seems to be the main qualification required for the position.

 

His wider appeal is mostly kick the bums out protest related because it is obvious he means everything he says and is more honest than the other serious candidates

A sentiment that may get stronger, although I doubt it will do so in time for Mr. Paul.

 

THe interesting thing to me is that you silly norwegians are following the circus even though your main trading partners in Europe, those that will influence your economic status more than the USA are in the middle of a possible collapse and banking collapse.

The US election circus is entertaining, and less scary than the European circus (which anyway is tied back to the US).

 

PS. I no longer consider myself a Norwegian, indeed I have difficulties understanding the concept.

Endret 9. oktober 2011 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

A sentiment that may get stronger, although I doubt it will do so in time for Mr. Paul.

 

 

Hard to say but total dismantling and elimination of government services that people rely on and that he proposes would quickly end his career as a serious candidate if he became more popular and his views were brought to light to the broader public The AARP would shred him in a thousand pieces. Just proposing social security reform has put Perry in hot water, even from his own party. Most americans want competence and modification more than they want destruction of government.

[Skatteflyktning]

Hard to say but total dismantling and elimination of government services that people rely on and that he proposes would quickly end his career as a serious candidate if he became more popular and his views were brought to light to the broader public The AARP would shred him in a thousand pieces. Just proposing social security reform has put Perry in hot water, even from his own party. Most americans want competence and modification more than they want destruction of government.

Indeed there is a strong preference for competence in kicking the can down the street, even if that eventually will lead to a complete and total breakdown of government "services".

[jjkoggan]

Indeed there is a strong preference for competence in kicking the can down the street, even if that eventually will lead to a complete and total breakdown of government "services".

 

THe solution is simple and doesn't require Ron Paul's dissolution of government. Small increases in taxes with small decreases in services right the ship with much less pain than most of struggling european nations. Drastic changes are not necessary, only a willingness to compromise. Eventually the middle will revolt and it will happen. THe USA is still the most dynamic engine in the world, it just needs a little maintenance and upgrade. Yes, there are some toy engines like Norway that work quite well because they have a special situation but as all engineers know, things don't always scale-up well from the little pilot plant to the big factory.

[Skatteflyktning]

Ron Paul doesn't stand for the complete dissolution of the Govt, but I do (which pretty much clarifies the difference between me an Mr Paul).

 

Norway is not a good reference for the US (or anyone else) for a number of reason.

 

WRT to the US it is (for us looking in from the outside) simultaneously the greatest hope and our worst fears.

[jjkoggan]

Ron Paul doesn't stand for the complete dissolution of the Govt, but I do (which pretty much clarifies the difference between me an Mr Paul).

 

Norway is not a good reference for the US (or anyone else) for a number of reason.

 

WRT to the US it is (for us looking in from the outside) simultaneously the greatest hope and our worst fears.

 

Either option destroys the government as we know it today and leads the way for even more irresponsible corporate behavior.