ABC Debates

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zap2, Jan 5, 2008.

  1. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #1
    So the43 underway, I've been watching the Republicans...and the democrats should start at 9.


    As I watch the Republicans...I'm constantly thinking "Wow...these guys just don't get it"

    Mitt has NO idea how healthcare works, he said that "Healthcare is basicly a game..and the problem is that 47 million people aren't playing the game"

    Aren't playing the game?!?! These people don't have enough money to stay healthy....how can you blame them...idiot!

    Also they all claim our healthcare is the best in the world...where are these people looking?

    The only person who gets the "war on terror" is Ron Paul...he knows that we're doing stuff to piss people off.


    Anyone else watching? Thoughts on what is going on?
     
  2. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    Certainly not WHO reports, or public health statistics. On the other hand, they are in fact only arguing that if you ignore those with no or limited access to healthcare and only count people who are fully insured, our healthcare system is the best in the world. Also not true, but it's a lot closer.

    Ron Paul at least brought up the issue of health tourism--people flying to India to get surgery that's too expensive in the US.

    The thing is, political rhetoric is always cherry picking. There are ways in which health care in the US probably is the best in the world (we're the best at dealing with specific health problem x in circumstances y with service z), but any serious analysis shows that we're in terrible trouble with health care. We pay way too much for way too little.

    As for the debates, I thought these were pretty tame on both the Democrat and Republican sides. Lot's of agreeing. I can't say I was overwhelmed by any of the Democrats, and I thought the Republican candidates did a reasonably good job of hiding how horrifying they are.
     
  3. swingerofbirch macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    The Amalgamated States of Central North America
    #3
    I've been searching for a stream of this online, since I don't have a tv. Couldn't find one on the ABC website, hopefully they'll have a web video of it after the fact.
     
  4. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #4
    You are correct, they do not get it. And, they do not want 'to get it'. The Republican Manifesto is written by the 'funding group'. People like the Swiftboaters. There is a great deal of information currently available about this group. They are lining up for a major smear campaign against the eventual Democratic winner. Their tactic is to fabricate as many lies as they can, then release them throughout the right-wing outlets, close to the election. The target does not have a clue about what they have to defend against, because the allegations are pure fabrication. Look how effective this was against Kerry. They took a highly-decorated American combat veteran and were successful in selling him as cowardly and a traitor to the war effort. One FOX commentator suggested he was personally culpable in America losing the war.

    When the attack dogs are let loose late in the game, and their accusations are completely false, it is difficult to defend against them. The same people who attacked Kerry, are extremely active right now. The major financiers are Texas millionaires. T Bone Pickens is one of the major ones. I am currently doing research to get the entire list, and their contribution history.

    I feel that understanding, and exposing the 'puppet masters' are critical tasks for wining back our Country. These pricks have been on 'cruise control' for decades. They must be eradicated.
     
  5. Badandy macrumors 68040

    Badandy

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #5
    George Soros anyone?

    And by eradicated you mean within the guidelines of free-speech I'm hoping.




    In other news, the Republicans are so underwhelming it's ridiculous. I have to choose between a fear-monger and an insane evangelical? I'd support Ron Paul for his fiscal conservatism, but I think he's a bit to zany to get anything done.


    By the way: I still don't understand how candidates on both sides of the political spectrum can argue for expanding different social services, education, and all these other things that sound good in sound bytes....but that we don't have the money to pay for! People, we can't spend anymore money, we are in debt. It's like politicians don't equate debt with NEGATIVE MONEY. I have more money in the bank than the United States government (well, you get what I mean anyway).
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    BadAndy, how does US government debt compare to the government debt of other countries? And couldn't we fund the expansion of some programs by making cuts in other programs?
     
  7. walangij macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    MI
    #7
    That attack machine sickens me. I for one would be pleased if Hillary did not get the nomination just because the machine has been working on attack ads ever since the possibility of Clinton running for president was brought up. On a CNN investigation special I think they had already spent $4-6 million in smear ads that are ready to go the day she wins and will progressively get worse until election. At least if another candidate wins they would have lost some of their investment.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it the conventional wisdom in 2004 to not respond to personal attack ads because it would imply that they may be true and therefore the candidate under attack has something to hide? I remember reading this about the Swift Boat ads, that that was supposed to dispel the attack but instead just empowered it. I hope that conventional wisdom has changed since then.
     
  8. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #8
    I just switched over to watch, and they had all of them on stage together. Dems and GOP. Seemed very awkward at first. Wish they had hidden mics, would've lover to hear what they all had to say to each other.

    Oops, forgot to hit Submit before going to do something else. Well, I guess I'll weigh in on the rest. Caught a few soundbites on the GOP candidates. I don't see how anything they're saying is going to help them any. They're barely preaching to the converted at this point. I'm not exactly a fan of Paul, but he made some good points and it was surreal watching the other candidates attempt to "correct" him with rhetoric, some of which was completely incorrect.

    On the Dem side, Richardson made some good points (quite a few actually, and he really sold it), from what little I caught. Too bad he has about as much chance as Dodd did. Edwards sure does seem passionate, but I can see where people can see it as disingenuous. It's a little too rehearsed. And is it just me, or is he being a little too buddy-buddy with Obama all the sudden? Speaking of, Obama is doing alright, but I'm still not impressed. Clinton on the other hand is actually making a lot of good points too, but she is being very smug, and is still saying a lot without really saying much at all. I still have no idea what she actually stands for, and she really isn't saying anything more than what most of us already know. Sans details, or passion, or believability for that matter. I'm glad the rest of them are holding her to the fire. Also glad Gibson called them all the change thing, but then watching them all try to talk over one another right afterwards, that was pretty telling. I don't really see them changing anybodies mind either, but the Dems rhetoric sounded better at least.

    I know it hasn't really changed my mind at all. I still don't support any of the Dems. But I still plan on voting for whoever wins simply to vote against the GOP. I know that sounds cynical, but there it is.
     
  9. Badandy macrumors 68040

    Badandy

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #9
    Last I checked our debt was about $5 trillion. Remember, this is how much the government owes to people who hold debt enablers, not the sum total of those individuals and corporations who owe money to investors, among other things. I'm not really sure on other countries, I just know that this debt keeps increasing, because we are deficit spending. Since our budget is not balanced, we keep spending money we don't have every year.

    In response to your question, you theoretically could, I just am not a huge proponent of spending money that we don't have. Furthermore, what programs could we cut that the Republicans and Democrats would actually allow us to? My guess is close to nothing. So, in my view, we have two options. Elect a Republican who will not balance the budget but keep taxes pretty constant or lower, or we could elect a Democrat who will not balance the budget but increase the scope of government funded by taxes on the wealthy.



    As a side note: I'm watching the "debate" on TV right now, and the more I watch it, the more I hate Hillary and like Obama, at least personality wise. What I am bugged about though, is that it seems like all of these candidates believe that the nation would be better off without any corporations at all, as opposed to just curbing their influence.
     
  10. valdore macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #10
    Ron Paul was the only one of the Repubs who made any sense, and he's not even technically a Republican is he?
     
  11. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #11
    Libertarian, by todays standards I believe, but he's been a part of the republican party since forever.
     
  12. wonga1127 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    Wishing for a magic bus.
    #12
    I was just happy too see a well run debate. Raise your hand if you want to talk. It seemed everyone got a decent amount of time to talk.
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    Despite what the right may say, he's got nothing on them.

    I'm assuming he meant getting rid of PACs like this, or at least holding them to the same standards we should be holding our politicians too.

    You're right about that. It's kind of strange most of them want to continue Bush's failed strategies too. It's too bad, I used to be a big fan of McCain, but he's since lost me.

    We can cut spending in some ways, and they've talked about not renewing some of Bush's tax cuts. At least not the ones on the top earners. If you make less than around $250,000 you probably won't feel much of a difference. I suspect a lot of social programs will have to be cut though, but as you alluded to, they sound good when talked about. There are a lot of things that can be cut now that aren't working, like most of NCLB and abstinence programs, plus a lot of corporate welfare, but yeah, they won't be able to do everything they want if they want to balance the budget.

    For all his problems, with the help of Congress Slick Willy somehow did it, so whoever is next up could as well, just a matter of if they will and still get done what they want to do.

    Obama wasn't at his best tonight, but he did stay on message. I don't know, he came of as a little fatigued. As for her though, she is off putting isn't she? Like Guliani, the more I see her, the more I don't like. She made some good points, but as I said above, she didn't really say much.

    That's just talking points. Read their economic plans, they're all for big business. Just not as much as the GOP, and nowhere near as far as Bush has been. They're just trying to distance themselves. Hillary is very pro-business, despite what they right says about her. One of the reasons liberals don't like her as much. She's "moderate" in all the wrong places.

    Actually, he's probably the closest to a real Republican they have right now, just as they only real liberal up there on the Dem side was Kucinich, even Edwards leaning right on some issues.

    There were fewer of them, and the format was a lot less formal. It was kinda nice. Hopefully the rest of them are like that. Still didn't change most people minds though.
     
  14. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #14
    I think the 'guidelines' have been lost in this country. The American people have been lied to so much, they often cannot discern the truth, nor appreciate the consequences of the dishonesty which surrounds them. Damn it, we have to regain at least enough moral focus, where honesty means something again.

    Those who commit the crimes that the Swiftboaters did (and are doing), need to be prosecuted and pull some hard time. That means starting with the finance people. Right now, even when caught, they are just walking away. If we can send a person to prison for an ounce of pot, why are the real criminals walking around with immunity? Their crimes are far more dangerous to society.

    I do not see 'freedom of speech' being relevant to this. We are not attempting to silence a group, or person's right to express their opinion. I see this closer to being sworn to testify in court. You swear to speak honestly, and if you do not, you can be charged with perjury (a felony).
     
  15. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #15

    Isn't it already illegal? Slander, libel, defamation? It's just that no one chooses to do anything about it, so these morons keep doing it. I don't think we need congress to waste time creating new laws regarding this. We just need to enforce the ones we already have.
     
  16. rockthecasbah macrumors 68020

    rockthecasbah

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    Moorestown, NJ
    #16
    The healthcare issue is a problem because I agree with arguments from both sides. The problem many people fail to see when looking at our profit-based healthcare system is that without it, much pharmacudical progress would be severely reduced if not lost altogether. It is largely American research that allows countries using socialized medicine to benefit. We essentially pay the bill in development so the rest of the world can be happy and have universal care for all. Drug research costs millions and millions of dollars and takes sometimes over decade and a half of research and testing before it can even come to market... Then considering the amount of legal costs and limited amount of time before generics come to market, it is very easy to conceive of the collapse of pharmacudical research if socialized medicine came to be.

    Major reform needs to be done so healthcare cannot be denied, like in the case of that girl who died because she didn't get the transplant, and i believe that the amount of paperwork and authorization forms are unnecessary and cause more problems than they solve. But to convert the entire American healthcare system would have to either: make development costs such that it could not exist OR if we chose to have a gov. subsedized program, costs would be so astronomical that it would not be worth it.

    -----------------------------------------

    As for the Ron Paul statements, go Ron Paul! With the exception of a few things like the second ammendment and dumping the abortion argument on the states, he's pretty much got it all right (considering what he would be able to pass/not pass through Congressional support). His most important arguments, foreign policy and monetary policy, he is the only one that understands what really needs to be done for America, despite how much we may not like it :rolleyes:
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    Where is GlaxoSmithKline based (England)? Do they do any research? How about Sanofi-Aventis (France)? Novartis (Switzerland)? Hoffmann–La Roche (Switzerland)? AstraZeneca (UK-Sweden)? Those are, respectively, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th largest pharma companies in the world. They are all based in countries with universal health care.

    Well, maybe they have little R&D.

    http://www.p-d-r.com/ranking/Dec07Top50.pdf

    As of December 2007...

    GSK (UK) is working on 229 drugs
    Merck (US) 190
    AstraZenica (UK-Sweden) 186
    Sanofi-Aventis (France) 183
    Pfizer (US) 182
    Novartis (Switz) 173
    Johnson & Johnson (US) 125
    Hoffman-La Roche (Switz) 123
    Wyeth (US) 119
    Bayer (Germ) 91

    That's the top 10. So let's see, among the top 10, 5 universal care countries that have a combined economy roughly 1/2 the size of the US economy are researching and developing 985 drugs, which US companies are doing 616.

    OK, it's not realistically that bad. Let's continue on:

    Bristol-Myers (US) 85
    Eli Lilly (US) 85
    Abbott (US) 74
    Amgen (US) 74
    Merck KGaA (Germ) 70
    Astellas (Jap) 69
    Akzo Nobel (Neth) 69
    Schering-Plough (US) 67
    Daiichi Sankyo (Japan) 62
    Genentech (US) 59

    OK, US 1001 universal care 1255 (even including Japan, so far these countries combined have a smaller economy than the US).

    Takeda (Jap) 57
    Eisai (Jap) 56
    Genzyme (US) 56
    Mitsubishi Tanabe (Jap) 55
    Cancer Research Technology (US?) 44

    OK. That's top 25. Can I stop now? The score is:

    US 1101 Universal care 1423.
     
  18. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #18
    I missed this one I hope ABC is running it on the net, Last I saw Obama he did look a little tired in fact the top 3 did but I notice when the republican candidates talk its like I have health care therefor everyone must have it? and yet we have this same party denying it to 45 million people,millions of kids and then acting like its their fault. I use to work in the healthcare field and in fact did so for about 15 years. If we remove the middlemen(HMO's and big insurance) we could save billions but instead we have everyone profiting off of Healthcare.
    Then the republicans want to force it on the poor now how the hell you going to force another bill on someone who cant afford it in the 1st place?
    Its like Hucklebee's idea of removing the income tax and have everything on a sales tax. Great for millionaires but the regular Joe is going to be even screwed more if he is paying the same amount on something as say a Donald Trump. The republican party is still the party of the Rich & Famous and the ideas coming out of it favor the Rich & Powerful.
     
  19. walangij macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    MI
    #19
    The fair tax, I see, would do just that. Paying a 22% sales tax is pretty hefty even if you don't have any other taxes to pay. And I'm sure that those with the resources would find a way to take advantage of the system once again.
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
    I didn't see the debates, but I saw Thompson being interviewed on CNN a couple hours ago about healthcare, and that man is a f**king moron. He just doesn't get it at all. He says it's not the government's responsibility and the people should pay for their own healthcare. That's easy for him to say, he made his millions in Hollywood and even more as a politician. I'd like to see him try living on an average income and try to pay for healthcare with all of his other expenses.
     
  21. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #21
    I watched the Democratic portion of the debates and to be honest it seemed more like Charlie Gibson was debating the candidates. I'll never watch that guy again.
     
  22. walangij macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    MI
    #22
    The insurance and pharmaceutical interests are too entrenched in Republican affairs. Its so retarded, the HMOs and ect. These politicians don't seem to understand the plight of normal people, some who are living middle class lives, on the way towards a nice retirement, ect. but then get a disease or cancer and their insurance is dropped, their retirement has to be put towards treatments and all of a sudden life is miserable. So sad to see this happen in America.

    Socialized healthcare seems to be equated to preposterous things to some people in this nation. I just look at them and go :confused: wtf
     
  23. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #23
    Slander, libel and defamation are always handled in civil court, are they not? From what I have heard, these cases are difficult to adjudicate in civil court, so they could be difficult to prosecute in criminal court.

    Based on current laws, a good defense lawyer could present thousands of examples where these acts were committed during a campaign, and no investigation was made, charges filed or prosecution attempted.

    I do not like being lied to, but it is difficult to find anyone in government, corporate America, or the media, who does not take liberties with the truth. Since the time of the Nixon administration, what the republican campaign tacticians have done with truth and honesty is enough to warrant a new set of campaign statutes. We need laws with teeth to stop this.
     
  24. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #24
    Check again. It's about to be $9 trillion.

    Well, he's been elected to congress 10 times as a republican. And he's the most conservative member of the congress. He's the only republican running.

    On health care-
    Since when does more drugs and more people on drugs equate to better health care??
     
  25. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #25
    I wouldn't say they'd equate, but I'd say they're highly correlated. Are you suggesting, for example, that people with HIV are better off without anti-retroviral medication?
     

Share This Page