Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: US Presidential Race 2012
Thread: US Presidential Race 2012 This thread is 59 pages long: 1 10 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 30 40 50 59 · «PREV / NEXT»
RollingWave
RollingWave


Adventuring Hero
posted December 20, 2011 10:45 AM

Quote:
Quote:

To be fair, it isn't just that, if American really pulls all out there are potentially quiet a few places that could go to war very soon, such as Iran invading Iraq again,  Pakistan / India nuking each other, and China's expanding influence, not to meantion North / South Korea, and oh yeah everyone else runs over Israel.

despite the world population continuing to grow rapidly and the world is now ever more connected, we have not come anythign close to a WW2 level war since 45, the American Containment strategy have more or less helped there.



Yes and no. The old adage that Israel will be run over without outside support is just bad information. They have a top-class military that outshines the **** out of its neighbors and, though not openly stated, they also have nuclear capabilities. So really, they're abundantly capable of protecting themselves from emo-ragers. If anything, what outside support does is needlessly embolden many of their officials and makes them less prone to negotiation and compromise. I'd wager that Israel's relations with Palestine and the wider Arab world would be better off without us, because they'd be forced to play their cards more cautiously.

For situations like Pakistan-India, I don't think any amount of US presence would alter the inevitable outcome much. If the threat of nuclear warfare isn't enough to keep them in check, nothing else will, because mutually assured destruction is already the ultimate threat. Trying to keep them at bay would be like the equivalent of a person threatening to slap you on the wrist if you jump off a cliff. It simply isn't effective, but so far they've managed to get along well enough on their own.

But for situations like Iran-Saudi Arabia, or North/South Korea, I think you make a much more convincing argument that having a very powerful outsider on stand-by can help keep them from doing something stupid, but even with that there are several arising concerns. One of them is the unintended consequences that can occur. Osama bin Laden's prime motivations were that he was pissed off that there was US bases on his holy land. Now sure you can present the case that those bases are there at the approval of the Saudi government, but even so it was a danger all-along that being there could rub some people the wrong way. Aside from that, this stuff isn't free. Even if you could argue some advantages that can come with it, it doesn't mean that it's worth the cost. I can explain some advantages to owning a flat screen TV the size of my living room, but that doesn't mean I'm going to put it into my budget.

Even without Ron Paul, it's evident that as the US starts to tighten its belt and downsize its spending, the military is going to end up getting hacked some, but he's the one candidate among them, including Obama, that you can guarantee would vouch to cut it substantially, since he's extremely and openly resentful towards current policy.

But like I said, some of Ron Paul's hardcore libertarian views are going to bury him. He can garner plenty of support by talking about cutting defense spending and lowering taxes, but once you get into how he wants to terminate 5 different federal departments, his base of supporters are going to shrink.


This is a theory, which while I don' neccesarily disagree with completely, the risk of finding out if it's right or not is a bit beyond what most of us would be willing to risk.

Israel's military is purpotionally stronger than it's neighbor, but Israel is a exposed region and massively outnumbered by their neighbors, the  6 day war may have seem to support the claim of Israel being invincible against it's neighbors, but the Yom Kippur war a decade later was a much closer shave. in short, Israel's margin of error is basically 0 militarily speaking, and even with a better military that's not always possible.

Then we have Taiwan, from a military POV China taking Taiwan is difficult, though not impossible and they most certainly can inflict massive damage if they want to . More over, it's a political thing, Taiwan's already very vunerable politically on the international stage, a further retreat of US's political influence would only make that situation worse.

International status is backed up by military strength, if the US decide to withdraw that, they will lose a lot of leverage on international situations, everything is realpolitik on the international stage, if China is confident the US will not intervine, taking Taiwan is only a matter of time, and it won't even need to be military, all they need is further pushing the envelope on the political aspect (such as for example, having everyone embargo Taiwan. ) and Taiwan's screwed.

In short, I view the US's current role in the world as the lesser of two evil, yes they abuse it quite often, but the alternative of going back to a free for all is very unlikely to be better or at least the risk of the bad outcomes is simply too high to risk finding out. the "World Police" can literally be compared to real police, do police often abuse thei power / position ? duhhhhh, would any country in the world be better WITHOUT a police force though ?  


____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted December 20, 2011 11:01 AM
Edited by Zenofex at 11:02, 20 Dec 2011.

I take it that the Chinese are the "bad guys" for you and the "world policeman" attitude does not backfire in your opinion?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted December 20, 2011 04:31 PM

Quote:
But the norm is still more attractive then the policies from the 18th century, so Paul doesn't have the chance of a snowball in hell.
Ron Paul is an absolutist?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted December 20, 2011 04:57 PM

Pretty much. :/ He's at least extreme on all aspects that a person can be, and that just isn't America (Which is mostly moderately-conservative). It was American to be extreme in the 1700s, but Paul hasn't gotten the message that it went out of style a while ago.

Plus, his age and appearance do not help him. As the election is basically a populatity and beauty contest all rolled into one, Paul's asthetics are a negative. He just doesn't Look like a president...
____________
Dat COMPH tho. - Me every morning not wanting to leave bed

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OmegaDestroyer
OmegaDestroyer

Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
posted December 20, 2011 04:58 PM

This is why Ron Paul being in the race is fun.  The Republicans are completely terrified of him.  


____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted December 20, 2011 05:04 PM
Edited by DagothGares at 17:04, 20 Dec 2011.

Quote:
Pretty much. :/ He's at least extreme on all aspects that a person can be, and that just isn't America (Which is mostly moderately-conservative). It was American to be extreme in the 1700s, but Paul hasn't gotten the message that it went out of style a while ago.

Plus, his age and appearance do not help him. As the election is basically a populatity and beauty contest all rolled into one, Paul's asthetics are a negative. He just doesn't Look like a president...


I always thought he was a classical liberal, but I guess I'm just miguided then.
EDIT: I have no idea what you Americans have done with this word, but I don't think it means what you guys think it means.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OmegaDestroyer
OmegaDestroyer

Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
posted December 20, 2011 05:11 PM
Edited by OmegaDestroyer at 17:12, 20 Dec 2011.

Most likely not, Dagoth.  The English language was murdered decades ago and we now employ its twisted remains when attempting communication with others.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 21, 2011 10:04 AM

Two Ron Paul ads:
A good one.
A not-so-good one.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted December 21, 2011 06:28 PM

Quote:
Two Ron Paul ads:
A good one.
A not-so-good one.
OMG, the second one almost sounds like it's gonna call me a sissy, if I don't vote for Ron Paul!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 21, 2011 06:39 PM

First one is to bring in youth, second one is to bring in conservatives.
____________
asdf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis


Promising
Supreme Hero
posted December 21, 2011 10:31 PM

In all realism, how would he if elected President even dismantle all of these agencies? He can't just executive order them away because he's opposed to them. He also wouldn't be able to get Congress to do anything because as much as many of them rail against those institutions, they need them for their own political purposes.

The problem is that even if Paul were elected President, the majority of his power would be curtailed regardless.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted December 21, 2011 10:44 PM

The second one makes me cringe. Cut education? That is global suicide...

The first one actually made sense... to a point. Completely demolishing our military wold be a bad idea, but sending troops on to occupy is about just as bad. We do need to stop that...
____________
Dat COMPH tho. - Me every morning not wanting to leave bed

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted December 21, 2011 11:08 PM

Quote:
The second one makes me cringe. Cut education? That is global suicide...
Well, judging from the fact you thought Belgium was Eastern Europe and that you told me Ron Paul shares the political views of Louis XIV, I'd say education in the US of A is a lost cause anyway.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 21, 2011 11:18 PM

Quote:
The second one makes me cringe. Cut education? That is global suicide...
The Department of Education is responsible for some unfunded mandates and some money that costs more than it's worth.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted December 21, 2011 11:20 PM

Well, yeah. It is. What with every political agenda cutting salary for schools, the education system is getting pretty s****** over already, so I guess it wouldn't make much of a difference... At least for high schools. Higher education is at least only sub-par, with some of the best universities on the world popping up here and there. But even ignoring that, cutting the branch of education is equal to shooting yourself in the foot with an atomic bomb. What we need is an educated population of engineers and scientists, otherwise the US will fall farther behind than it has in the tech race, and I don't see how removing the branch that funds something makes it get better.

Well, we'd better not get too off-topic. Cor might smite us and we will be banished to the VW for eternity and a half. Which isn't actually a problem, but he sends you there via ion cannon...
____________
Dat COMPH tho. - Me every morning not wanting to leave bed

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Brukernavn
Brukernavn

Hero of Order
posted December 21, 2011 11:53 PM

Quote:
The problem is that even if Paul were elected President, the majority of his power would be curtailed regardless.

He is the only one who can negotiate from both sides. The democrats don't want to cut welfare, and the republicans don't want to cut military. He wants to cut both, making a nice compromise.

Quote:
But even ignoring that, cutting the branch of education is equal to shooting yourself in the foot with an atomic bomb. What we need is an educated population of engineers and scientists, otherwise the US will fall farther behind than it has in the tech race, and I don't see how removing the branch that funds something makes it get better.

Your assumption is that government can somehow make education better. Ever since government went in to the education business it's become poorer and more expensive. Funding has nothing to do with the useless bureaucracy and regulation at a national level.  

The bottom line is that you have to cut something. And it would be better to start with the useless departments before you take away peoples social security. Or you could just print money until the currency is worthless and end up like Zimbabwe.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted December 22, 2011 12:11 AM

What you are talking about is the state-government regulating education. Some states are better at it and succeed in the public section where they can actually do something positive (Minnesota is #1, Wisconsin is #2 in public education. We actually drag the US up in total educational ranking...). Then you have the states that are practicing segregation in schools by making all public schools degenerated and using the funding given to them for education elsewhere (Arkansas, Alabama, our greatest failings. My how I loath them...). The government gives money to all states for public education, and that is really the only reason why everyone can get some kind of education. Cutting the funding will just make it impossible for those who are poor to get an education.

Quote:
Ever since government went in to the education business it's become poorer

Wrong. If you are going for a private education, then you can pay for more and get an education that is light-years ahead of the old time education. The only area that is visibly poorer throughout the country is our support of creative ideas. Other than that, what chemistry would your average citizen have learned? What philosophy? Psychology? History? Reading and writing? Higher maths? Biology? These were restricted to the upper-class almost exclusively because no one could afford education in the lower class, and very few could in the middle.

What strikes you as "Poorer" is actually a case of discrimination. (As mentioned above)

Quote:
and more expensive.

In a sense you are right, it costs more dollars to pay for education than it did in the 18-1900's, but then the dollar was worth more back then.

The only education that has become more expensive since creating a government-funded education system is private schooling. Comparatively, if we took the average cost of public education today in the US and added in all the inflation, heightened educational materials cost, etc, etc, it was actually almost equally expensive to get an education in the US before public schools were created (with all the factors of a changing time added in). And do you know what? It is offered to everyone. The rich can go to their fancy private schools and be separated from the "Lower class scum," (humor) but there are actually a good deal of rich families that opt to send their children to public schools (at least, in the cities and mid-west).
____________
Dat COMPH tho. - Me every morning not wanting to leave bed

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Brukernavn
Brukernavn

Hero of Order
posted December 22, 2011 01:04 AM

Eliminating the department of education would not shut down public education. It would just give more power and freedom to the states and schools themselves. The funding wouldn't stop, just the central planning. And increased competition is always good.

Just ask the teachers, they hate all the hoops they have to jump through instead of teaching the way they want.
We could discuss this at length, but let's not derail the thread, so I'll stop myself there

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 22, 2011 01:38 AM
Edited by blizzardboy at 01:52, 22 Dec 2011.

Actually, schools outside of the standard public schooling aren't necessarily more costly. It's pretty selective and agenda-driven to compare a public school vs. a fancy private school. If you look at charter schools, they succeed on average at being more cost-effective than public schools and deliver better results. A lot of them exist in old buildings where the rent is cheap and their idea of gym class is taking a run across the block, and yet they do the job. Catapulting more money at public education isn't going to deliver results, because funding isn't the problem; the structure that discourages healthy rivalry is the problem and the fact that teachers can't be flagged/fired as well as they ought to be.
____________
asdf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted December 22, 2011 01:56 AM
Edited by gnomes2169 at 01:57, 22 Dec 2011.

Quote:
the fact that teachers can't be flagged/fired as well as they ought to be.

Teachers can be fired if they touch a student that's strangling another student. They can be sued, and if the case is too costly, then they can be fired. Teachers can be sued and fired for being biased in a discussion topic. They can be sued and fired for trying to be reasonable and tell the class how evolution actually works. I think that it's pretty easy to get teachers fired...
____________
Dat COMPH tho. - Me every morning not wanting to leave bed

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 59 pages long: 1 10 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 30 40 50 59 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0736 seconds