Printable View
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm voting for McCain. Mostly because he believes Ethanol is a bad idea.
But both Hillary and Obama support continued ethanol subsidies. Ethanol is not only ineffcient, but takes food out of the global marketplace.
People's anger at America for Iraq will be nothing compared to their growing anger at America and Europe for turning food into fuel, while their poor starve due to high grain prices.
Angrier than they are about us dumping (subsidized) surplus foodstuff on their markets, not giving their own producers a fair chance?
What about the billions we pay farmers NOT to grow anything at all. One has to wonder why that program is still going on as well. Anyone who supports continued ethanol subsidies even after the huge rise in food prices should have their head examined.
X
I will be as well which is unfortunate. All of the candidates suck and it's not like you should vote for X person to end the Iraq war; all of them will have to keep troops in Iraq for quite some time so that doesn't even matter.
All of the candidates are the same this time around. It's really depressing. While I didn't agree with all of Ron Paul's policies, at least he told you the truth and he didn't care what the consequences were. All of the candidates currently in the front running seem to sway with the popular opinions. It's just going to be more of the same.
The latest farm bill reduces the subsidy on corn ethanol from 51 cents to 45 cents. Once again our fast acting Congress to the rescue. :rolleyes:
X
That's actually one of the reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
A decade ago, subsidized grain drove many local farmers in poor countries out of business. Now that global grain prices are skyrocketing, there are no local farmers to help with the local demand, and it will take years to redevelope those farmers.
Years? How about NEVER! Out here, in the last five years, we have turned a minimum of several thousand acres of farmland into suburbs. We'll never get that land back into production, but it was the best land out here, and about the only land suitable for farming. There's still lots left, but it is vanishing steadily, while none is being added, nor will it out here. In this desert environment, pretty much all the useable farm land was already in production. What's left is pretty much wilderness for the simple fact that nobody has really wanted it.
Considering the power of the ag lobby, I'm considerably encouraged by even this, meager though it seems. The fact that it moved at all suggests that somebodies knickers are getting scorched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Aren't you in Idaho? I mean that state benefits from subsidies right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Ag subsidies? I have no doubt that large segments of the state does, but not all that farmland that has sprouted McMansions in the last decade.
You have to generally consider these elections your best pick at the lessor of 2 evils. Sometimes that is hard to figure out.
One thing I like about McCain, is he is the only one out of the 3 that has anything about the US space program and NASA on his website under "the issues". Space technology is something I think is very important and underfunded in the US these days, and it is nice to at least see some mention of it on a candidates website among the standard other cookie cutter issues the country has.
This is why I don't vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
Anyone who thinks that Obama will actually be able to change anything is, at best, functionally retarded. Same with McCain and his support of Bush's policies. And as for Hillary, well, I quite suspect she sustains herself by drinking the blood of children. :afrog:
I have never seen a candidate that I've actually wanted to vote for, in either party.
And you never will. Anybody who can win the nomination is a person who is at least not abhorrent to the majority of the voters. This means that the people who take the strongest stands simply won't get elected because there is no position on any subject that won't alienate some segment of the population.
To some extent, this could be improved by changing the voting system to one of the superior rank voting systems, but that would just be a way to codify the averaging of candidates. We'd still end up with the candidates that are least disagreeable rather than most liked.
a 2 party system is just stupid if you ask me... it makes everyone except the farthest left, and the farthest right, have to bend on several issues when deciding who they want to support. The sucky thing is, sometimes I believe candidates feel a different way than the front they put on, but as shaggy said, they have to appeal to voters, and even the backers in the party they represent. So you could have the republican who is pro choice, but its a tough sell since most republicans want abortion to be illegal.
We need at least 3 parties to level the playing field, the problem is, its nearly impossible to win as an independent, so I don't see the 2 party system going anywhere anytime soon.
Meh, a 2 party system isn't that bad. We (Dutch) have a rather plural parliament, with at least 9 parties, a few only have 1 seat.
This means that there isn't and will never be a single party to attain 50%+1 seats. So the larger parties will have to form a coalition, which can lead to what we have now, a 'grand coalition'.
The benefit of coalition governments is that in the next coalition there will almost certainly be 1 party from the previous. A party who is responsible for and has to defend decisions made by the previous coalition. This means no 180° decisions and so a certain level of stability in policy.
But we've got a grand coalition now, Social Democrats and Christian Democrats. One hugs the left bit of the center line, the other the right. They are used to competing rather than cooperating and so there is a huge amount of mistrust. Issues that happen to be a no-go area for one party are basically not allowed to be discussed until the next government. There is a huge list of things of which they agreed not to make any decision on during this tenure.
I used to love the plurality of the Dutch system because I could vote for a smaller party and hear my own opinions reflected better in parliament. But a small party can't do anything without compromising, you end up with the same nothingness. I started to believe in a districted (leads to lesser parties) system when Fortuyn and his new party got a crazy amount of seats (He was the politician who was assassinated, you may have heard). These sudden influxes of inexperienced parliamentarians only lead to poorer decision making.
I suppose it doesn't really matter, I have more yet less choice. More parties to choose from, but no idea what colour government will forthcome.
that's why if a candidate doesn't follow the party lines 100% is accused of bedding with the enemy. Juliani was constantly accused of this because he was nearly middle-ground on some issues. What if someone's both pro-war and pro-choice? What party do they belong in? Sometimes i think Bush is against abortion because he wants children to grow up into soldiers. McCain is a sound choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
Anytime a third party starts to get real purchase in American politics, it generally means that one of the main parties has drifted away from it's base (or the base has drifted away from the party), at which point the leadership of the party that most closely aligns with the core views of the third party begins to shift the stance of the party to absorb the voters for the third party.
We have only seen one "third party" group that got any significant percentage of the vote in the last three decades, and that was the party that nominated Perot, whatever they were called. They did manage to elect at least one governor (Jesse Ventura), but they were already in decline by that time, and are now defunct.
progressive party. and what's the deal with all the stars from running man becoming governors?
I don't know what's more sad, the fact that you know that, or the fact that it's true.
David Letterman just showed a tidbit entitled 'Greatest Moments in Presidential Speeches', and it compared speeches by Reagan and Bush Jr.
Reagan:
'Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem.'
Bush Jr:
'If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about.'
i thought it was common knowledge. That and the odd tidbit that the exact same people starred in predator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker